Posted on 06/22/2002 3:03:11 PM PDT by The Game Hen
Here we go again. The same geniuses who ran George W. Bush’s South Carolina campaign in 2000 are on the march against Mark Sanford. If they remain true to form, it is only a matter of time before we see anonymous campaign literature claiming Sanford once paid for an abortion for his homosexual lover out of campaign funds the former congressman received while smuggling heroin for the Communist Chinese.
The attacks launched against Sanford thus far are stupid, dishonest, and — in the case of the “independent” attack mailing sent out by Bob Peeler’s mail house — potentially illegal. (Note to the so-called State Ethics Commission: Could you at least pick up the phone and ask a few questions? You guys make the boneheaded Chandra Levy investigators look like Sherlock Holmes.)
The attacks will continue, and they will continue to get stupider and stupider because South Carolina voters never met a campaign attack too stupid to be believed. Our state’s Republican voters simply have no “gag reflex” when it comes to one of their own.
And that’s what Peeler’s handlers are counting on. Bob Peeler is the last, best hope of Warren Tompkins & Co. — that beleaguered band of leftover flaks from the Carroll Campbell years. Tompkins, a man whose IQ drops by 50 percent when he can’t get Campbell on the phone, is responsible for simultaneously inflicting both David Beasley and video poker on the state of South Carolina, a uniquely disastrous record.
The Tompkins strategy for beating Mark Sanford is simple: Spend money and say anything you want about your opponent, no matter how stupid, because the voters will believe it.
And so Mark Sanford is regularly denounced for being pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-drugs, and, who knows, probably pro-Osama bin Laden by the time Peeler’s handlers get finished. It simply doesn’t matter to them what the truth is because they’re betting that you, the people of South Carolina, don’t care too much, either.
And so the Peelerites attack Mark Sanford (NRA Rating: “A”) for being weak on the Second Amendment because he voted against a plan to require gunlocks. Being against mandatory gunlocks is anti-gun rights? Apparently in South Carolina it is.
Mark Sanford has a lifetime rating of 92 percent from the National Right to Life Committee and a 0 percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League, but the Peeler team says he’s pro-abortion? Sanford’s voting record is nearly identical to that of notorious abortion-rights liberal Strom Thurmond, but in South Carolina, he’s “soft” on the issue.
And, as you all know by now, Mark Sanford is a “liberal” on military issues because he sometimes voted against giving the government more money for some defense programs because they’re wasteful or outdated. In other words, he agrees with Donald Rumsfeld.
These and dozens of other irrational attacks go out by e-mail, fax, and phone nearly every day. The Upstate rumor mill is running overtime as idiot tales of Sanford heresy pass from church to church. By the time it’s over, Bob Peeler will have made it possible for South Carolina Republicans to believe the worst nonsense about Mark Sanford — and for everyone else to see the most painful truth about the SC GOP.
The attacks fall on fertile ground in part because there is an element of the South Carolina Republican electorate that wants to believe the worst about Mark Sanford. He’s handsome, he’s tan, he apparently knows what fork to use at formal gatherings and — worst of all — he seems to believe that ideas matter.
Many of the attacks on his record come from Sanford’s willingness to stand by principle even when it’s not popular. For example, he voted against taking federal money from the city of San Francisco over their pro-homosexual policies because he believes local people should have the right to run their local communities as they see fit. For true conservatives (and Confederistas, for that matter), Sanford is right and Peeler is wrong on this issue. But for the “GodHatesFags.Com” crowd, it’s proof that Sanford goes to art museums and wears matching socks.
The Tompkins/Peeler team understands this sense of indignant inferiority very well, and they will play upon it right up to Election Day. But — and this is almost impossible for me to believe — it might not work this time. It appears imaginable, perhaps even possible, that Mark Sanford could survive the onslaught and become the Republican nominee for governor. If he does, it will be due entirely to the efforts of Bob Peeler.
When a mild-mannered milkman transforms himself into a foamy-mouthed mad dog, it causes folks to ask why. What’s the point? The impassioned attacks against his fellow Republican make one wonder what is it that Bob Peeler wants so badly that he’s willing to engage in the wholesale trashing of Mark Sanford?
Well, comes the obvious answer, he wants to be governor. But why? Is there some pressing issue so vital to our state that Peeler must champion? Is he a Churchill, who sees the crisis ahead and simply cannot allow defeat?
To ask the question is to answer it. Bob Peeler as governor would be Bob Peeler as Lt. Governor: inconsequential, irrelevant, and soon forgotten. In other words: Jim Hodges.
Jim Hodges was willing to sell out on issues like gambling and the Confederate Flag to become South Carolina’s most pointless, irrelevant governor since the Civil Rights movement. All that video poker money, Jimmy, and what was the point?
Likewise, it is very possible — from a demographics standpoint, perhaps even likely — that Bob Peeler will win the runoff. Then you will be left with two men willing to say or do anything, no matter how shameful, in order to become governor — and
neither will be able to tell you why.
It's Michael Graham: Live, Loud and Local. 3-7pm weeknights on NewsRadio 730 WSC.
Didn't Dubya win that primary? *g*
Yeah...I was wondering the same thing.
One thing that wasn't mentioned though was the ridiculous claim that Mark is for breast cancer. Those ads really chap my hide.
Mark voted for over $832 million in breast cancer research during his time in congress, Mark also voted for $51 million in ovarian cancer research in congress.
Mark's wife and mother have both had cancer and four of his wife's blood relatives have died of cancer in the past ten years.
Every year Mark was in congress his wife Jenny taped commercials for breast cancer awareness, and both Mark and Jenny have been active in the race for the cure for breast cancer, held every October in Charleston. Mark's wife Jenny has also written numerous letters to the editor to promoting the event and early detection awareness.
Additionally, Mark voted for the quality care for the Uninsured Act (HR 2990), which included the women's health and cancer rights act (ensuring health coverage regarding breast cancer procedures and consultation).
Mark voted against the breast cancer stamp because the U.S. post office itself said the bill would mostly go to administrative costs and not breast cancer research. in fact Mark Sanford helped write the legislation that ensured these 'semi-postal' stamps actually delivered on their promise to support causes like breast cancer research instead of going to waste in Washington, DC.
Also, If any one is interested about his stand on abortion, please go to his website (www.sanfordforgovernor.com) and go to "Issues" and read his "Statement on Abortion"
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.