"Affairs of State must take precendence over the uhhhh, Affairs of State."
Posted on 04/02/2013 9:44:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
‘Mark Sanford Gets Resurrected” — it’s the perfect headline for Easter Week. Sanford, the South Carolina congressman-turned-governor who fell from grace (and from office) when he surreptitiously slipped off to Argentina to meet a lover, is back. Polls seem to indicate that he’ll coast to victory in a runoff against Curtis Bostic to fill the House seat Tim Scott vacated when he was appointed to the Senate.
Though Bostic has positioned himself as far to the right as possible — the URL for his campaign website is StopSpending.com, and Rick Santorum recently stumped for him — Sanford has touted his experience in the capitol and the statehouse to no small effect. He won the primary with 37 percent of the vote, almost three times the support Bostic garnered. Things are good in Sanford World, and they seem to be getting better. Public Policy Polling recently gave Sanford 53 percent of the vote to Bostic’s 40.
Not everyone is surprised. “He’s a professional politician,” says Katon Dawson, a national Republican consultant and former chairman of the state’s party. “He’s good at this.”
To be sure, it’s still premature to say Sanford has the victory locked up. Insiders estimate that only 25,000 to 35,000 people will vote, which makes predictions little more than an educated guessing game. Plus, Bostic’s supporters are devoted — in particular homeschoolers, seeing as Bostic is himself a homeschooling father of five. At least one homeschool-activism group, Generation Joshua, is coordinating a small last-minute get-out-the-vote push.
But Sanford probably woke up this morning feeling more confident than Bostic. Sanford’s main advantage seems to be that he’s a proven quantity with a long record to run on. And although Bostic has drawn endorsements from many out-of-state conservative leaders, six of the beaten primary contenders have endorsed the former governor.
One of those contenders, Jonathan Rath Hoffman, says that Sanford’s past might not be the Achilles’s heel that Democrats are hoping for. “The good thing about Mark Sanford is, right now, you know what you’re getting,” he says. “And I think that’s really helped him, because people know who he is, they know every detail of his past and where he’s been and what he’s been through and what he stands for. And for the most part, people are willing to forgive.”
And former Sanford insiders think that confidence is warranted. I spoke with a number of his former congressional staffers — he served three terms, from 1995 to 2001 — and they all seemed devoted and loyal to their former boss. True, not everyone who worked for him is a fan, and not everyone I contacted called me back, but the people I spoke with painted a fairly consistent picture of Representative Sanford: a serious, no-nonsense, hard-working politician who was more interested in voting his principles than in kowtowing to leadership.
His staffers say they were surprised by his Argentinian dalliance, since his time in D.C. was characterized by a near-monastic lifestyle; Sanford followed a rigid schedule dominated by work and exercise, and spent the rest of his little free time with male friends (especially then-representative Lindsey Graham and Steve Largent). “He slept in his office, showered in the members’ gym,” says one former staffer. “He went to some receptions — I mean it was probably a lot for the free food, because he was so cheap.”
Staffers say that living out of his Hill office would have made it particularly difficult (though not impossible) to keep extracurricular activities under wraps — especially since many of his staffers worked late. “I certainly wouldn’t call Mark a lighthearted guy,” says one former staffer. “When you were at work, you were there to work. It was serious.”
But that didn’t curtail many staffers’ dedication. “He is a personality that inspires loyalty,” one says. “I mean, it was kind of an us-against-the-world thing then. He was the guy along with Ron Paul voting no.”
A few former staffers say that he expected his aides to scrutinize every vote and debate whether or not policies fit his governing philosophy. One staffer took that method to its logical conclusion, inviting lobbyists from opposite sides of an issue to come to the same meetings — unbeknownst to them — and have impromptu debates about how the congressman should vote. Once, for example, the staffer invited the congressman to catch the end of a debate between two lobbyists over telecommunications policy. Sanford thought the unconventional approach was clever, the staffer says.
If most observers’ predictions are borne out today, Sanford will be within spitting distance of his old digs on Capitol Hill. Regardless of tomorrow’s outcome, the race for Tim Scott’s old seat should make for great political theater. “It’ll be fun,” Dawson says. “Painful, but fun.”
— Betsy Woodruff is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.
Just like d.c.’s mary-ann berry? Don’t these asshats have ANY brains? Sheesh!
Nope. People seem to absolutely celebrate corruption and evil these days. Maybe they figure that other people’s corruptness somehow exonerates their own.
You’ve got to ask, what is wrong with voters? And the jerks that will put this proven jerk into office are my neighbors. Makes you want to give up in the whole system. How will I be able to proudly say,” my representative is Mark Sandford, you know, the one who left up his wife and ran off with a Brazillian bimbo on our tax dollars?”
Most people are followers, easily fooled. It's always been that way throughout human history, and it will never change. Sanford is a slimeball, but he's a skilled politician and that makes a great deal of difference. In the end if he winds up as our nominee (which is likely), I would vote for him over the Democrat - and I think most conservatives will make the same choice when that time comes.
We have a choice between Sanford and Steve Colbert’s sister. Since I take tremendous pride in the fact that I vote in every election, this is a no brainier to figure who I will vote for.
Like it or not, we know this scum bag and he is consistent. We have made our contribution to the US Senate by electing Tim Scott to this seat two years ago. (We love Tim Scott back home. He’s the real thing) Maybe trusting us with Sanford would be nice. Or else it’s Colbert’s liberal sister.
OK, his adultery aside, what were Sanford’s policies when he was governor of South Carolina?
I’d like to know where he stands on the following issues -— taxes, debt, Obamacare, balanced budget, abortion, gay marriage...
Lindsey Graham is one of his friends? That’s much more offensive than the affair with the Argentinian bimbo.
“what were Sanford’s policies when he was governor of South Carolina?”
He leans libertarian. I thought it was a good thing that he was running for congress until I read about the Lindsey Graham connection.
Not to mention his experience in international affairs.
In my opinion, Sanford talked the conservative talk but was not effective in walking the walk. He accomplished little and spent most of the time fighting with his own party that was in control of the legislature.
Assuming Sanford is the GOP nominee, the race is not an automatic win for Republicans. Charleston and Horry county are no longer rock ribbed conservative bastions and the adultery issue will hurt Sanford. Colbert will make it interesting.
"Affairs of State must take precendence over the uhhhh, Affairs of State."
"Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"
LOL, no kidding.
Sanford's problem is between God, his wife and his family.
Maybe some here cannot forgive him, but before his personal failing, he was a pretty good conservate...even touted as a "rising star in the Republican party".
The problem here is that the R's get on their moral high horse and destroy candidates who otherwise would do a better "political" job than their D opponent.
Todd Aiken was destroyed for a dumb ass statement he made, apologized, but it was too late...and now we are stuck with Claire McCaskill for at least 6 more years.
Government these days is not church. It is populated with reprobates, all kinds of crooks, adulterers, womanizers, embezzlers, liers, and maybe worse.
I have given up on the majority of members of Congress being honorable, dignified people. I will take their personal failures if they will support maximum freedom for the rest of us.
I see that Sanford's D opponent is Steven Colberts sister, a liberal...She may be as pure as the driven snow...
...but she absolutely is not in favor of max freedom for the rest of us.
So I would have to go with Sanford with all his warts....but that's just me...
It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the ONLY three leading candidates.
Candidate A - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He’s had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
Candidate B - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
Candidate C - He is a decorated war hero. He’s a vegetarian, doesn’t smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
A = Reagan
B = Churchill
C = Hitler
Am I right?
You are right except for A.
A=Franklin D. Roosevelt
I realized that after I answered.
But be fair, Hitler wasn’t married. And Churchill was very devoted to Clementine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.