Would I like someone who more closely aligns with my own moral values?  Sure. 

Of course, the likelihood of that in anyone willing to seek high office is pretty slim in the first place.

 McCain or Obama?   Sanford or the comedian's sister? 

It's not a difficult choice in these cases.

Dude, the problem is that not that politicians "don't represent us," but that they do wrong things and are not punished for it, thereby normalizing bad behavior or at least signallingthat said bad behavior is now acceptable to society.

I'm mostly willing to accept that, but what Sanford did actually already *was* "normalized."  He left his wife for another woman. 

At that, at least he married the other woman.

So this is morally bad, but it's also not new.  This kind of thing was happening (and accepted, after a fashion) 2000+ years ago.

In fact, where this goes beyond that, it does so specifically "politically" in that he left SC in a lurch (if he'd been needed urgently) since no one knew where he'd gone.

>>>Yeah, but I'd like my governor to not run off to South America to get laid. I have high standards I know.

But if you do, we got you covered.

Posted by: toby928 at May 08, 2013 04:12 PM (evdj2)"

"6 You fight with the army you have.

Posted by: Tex Lovera at May 08, 2013 04:13 PM (wtvvX)"

If he had lost the seat.. what would we have lost? 

ONE House seat from now until... 2014.

When we'd have had a good chance of winning it back without Sanford being part of it.

What would ONE vote in the House change between now and 2014?  What "war" is going to hinge on that single vote?

If there's something sitting 218/217 when we've got 232 Republicans in the House... let me know what that topic is... and if Sanford is the single vote that will save us from it in the next year.

Otherwise, it wasn't that valuable a win; all it did was give Sanford incumbency defense against a primary attempt in 2014... and make certain he'd be around likely for many years.

I'd call that not a good win... and Busch losing wouldn't have been a bad loss in my book.   YMMV.

Just about everyone holding positions of power in this country is a scumbag. That's the problem.

Not that I have a solution.

I do think that a man or woman who can lie and screw over someone he professes to love can very easily do it to anonymous voters.  That being said, a Sanford on  a bad day is better than a Colbert-Busch on a good day.  With Colbert-Busch, I am guaranteed to get screwed over, at least with Sanford- I might have a chance.

Notwithstanding the fact that local politics and the electorate are in the best position to pick their representatives, I certainly understand the national angle and perhaps larger party reputation issues. WeÂ’ve been beat over the head with numerous political failures to our detriment. But then, we allow it. We allow malicious political forces to hide behind moral arguments with which they donÂ’t agree, who then use them as a cudgel to gain electoral success. Whose suffered? Do you have to ask?

Sanford is perhaps a different case. Is he truly looking for redemption? Only time will tell. But the citizens of SC have seen fit to have him represent them. And as a national party, we should be more than happy to have his support.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 08, 2013 04:21 PM (x8U/s)

Friends don't give me dumbass advice.

Its just sad that there wasnt a candidate without the baggage that could have been elected.  The GOP doesn't really have a deep bench do they? 

And its not just having an affair.  Slick Willy did that, but at least he was in his office.  Sanford was lying about his wherabouts and AWOL.   

 the Senator that I actually LIKE from my state cheated on his wife with hookers.

***

So you support small business.

how was Sanford not punished? he sure was. lost his Governorship and probably sees his kids a lot less.

by the way, cheating is not a new thing, and it's not just for politicians. jeez.

Well, of course it isn't a new thing. It just that people are not inclined to see it as as much of a problem as they used to.

 

I think we're more "puritanical" (the very general American people type of "we") than humans have EVER been, honestly.

Nuts. Why do you think that Jefferson supposedly sleeping with his slaves, or Jackson's wife accidentally committing bigamy, or Cleveland's illigitimate child were such friggin' big deals in their own day? Why were JFK's infidelities kept so secret if they weren't politically damaging?

When in the heat of battle for survival, I don't care if the person next to me  belongs to a  satanic cult.  All I care about is that he's pulling the trigger and killing the enemy.

We're fighting for the survival of this nation, not voting  on Miss  America.

also sucking balls is the media's double standard.  When it was Bill Clinton or JFK getting a little strange on the side, then the personal life of the man doesnt matter.  When it is a GOP'er, skeletons in the closet are of utmost import.   

If you're ok with Sanford winning, you might want to avoid go after corrupt Democrats for awhile.

One of these is not like the others...

Sanford was punished (legally) for his corruption.  Democrats largely aren't.

Find someone here saying that Sanford being forced out of the Governor's mansion, receiving the largest fine in SC history, and (effectively) losing his family were unwarranted or unjust.  Find.  Me.  One.

No one says we have to defend his past behavior- he doesn't even do that.  He didn't do anything that would land him in jail (that I know of).  If he had, then he should be in jail.

To say favoring Sanford over an Obama Democrat means we can't care about current, active corruption in politicians is beyond absurd.

A corrupt dem is the same as a GOP rep who is an adulterer?

I don't understand the head scratching and hand wringing on either side.

The  guy is a scumbag, not necessarily for cheating on his wife.  People make mistakes.  His problem seems to be that he keeps making them, and rather than sorting out his life in private, he seems to feel he's entitled to occupy elective office.

What, there wasn't anybody else in S. Carolina who could have won the seat?  It's the arrogance and the blindness to one's own faults that tends to make us commit grevious errors. 

Still, I'll take this scumbag over any Democrat, any day, for any elective office.

>>Only if you have big hooters

LOL-- With the number of Republicans screwing US all over lately; I don't think that is a prerequisite any more.

This is what I always thought about Bill Clinton, and I think it about Mark Sanford.

Politicians who cheat on their wives believe the rules don't apply to them.  Which means it is much more likely they will break actual laws, cheat the taxpayers, and do all sorts of stuff we don't want them to do. They can rationalize the cheating all they want, but the ease with which they do so makes it all the easier for them to rationalize steering that contract to their friend or big contributor back home, lying to that reporter, doing that favor for the important Congressman to get his vote on that bill you really want. etc. etc. etc. 

Marriage vows are vows taken before God.  A man who will break that vow will do anything.  I don't want men like that running my government. 

I might be too libertarian on this point but I believe it's strange and harmful thing to believe politicians represent your personal values as if they were you spouse.

Your spouse does represent you. And your kids represent your values, ideally. And even, if you're lucky, your place of employment might represent your values.

And that's about it. The rest of the world are strangers to you.

We are talking about the cornerstone to civilization known as "marriage" here. If it's too far a reach for me to expect my politicians to believe in monogamy and fidelity to family *THEN EVERYTHING IS TOO FAR* and we should just quit, save our time, and start enjoying that brave new world of F*king anyone that looks hot this second and not caring about anything other than short term gratification.

Not that I'm unhappy he won. I think it is better for us in the long run, probably. But no, I fully expect *some* of my most important values to be represented by *my* representatives. Not all mind you. Not even most. Just some big ones.

We're a hereditary dipshit-archy. Sure, Rand Paul seems OK, but in a decent country, he'd have to get a fucking job. And so would Sanford.

On a dude level, the thing that bothers me about him is that he didn't learn his lesson. He married a politician's wife again.

Politicians who cheat on their wives believe the rules don't apply to them. Which means it is much more likely they will break actual laws, cheat the taxpayers, and do all sorts of stuff we don't want them to do.

Fixed.

Just for clarification on the Mike Castle affair...

Supporting Castle over the conservative purity of COD in the republican primary was a rational, logical, politically savvy position that no sane person could argue with, considering the makeup of the electorate in Delaware.

What was incomprehensible was the continued attacks on COD after the primary declared her the winner.  At that point, the only reason for the anti-COD articles was an "I told you so" attitude that certainly didn't help matters.

>>Only if you have big hooters
LOL-- With the number of Republicans screwing US all over lately; I don't think that is a prerequisite any more.

***

So now it's the Bill Clinton standard, fat chicks, skinny chicks, and knot holes in trees.

Posted by: bad cat robot at May 08, 2013 04:30 PM (C64dA)

Your dentist banging the hygienist doesn't make him more likely to give you bad dental work.  That's the difference.  Being a good dentist doesn't require ethics, it requires skill.  Holding public office and doing so honestly requires ethics and personal probity, in my opinion.  You cannot separate the personal and the professional in that profession. 

Posted by: Dr Spank

***

Slam dunk and touchdown all in one.

All I have left is hope.

I hope the politician I vote for will do what I'd do, were I in Washington. I hope he or she has his or her head screwed on right: he/she understands the Constitution as written, is doing everything   he/she can to cut the size,   scope,  and intrusiveness of the federal  beast,  that he/she supports and defends capitalism.   I'd  like to hear the truth occasionally.

I also have no real way of knowing  whether or not anyone I vote for will do anything I want,  pols being as full of shit as they are. The best I can hope for is to only get screwed a little.

Cynical? Well, yeah. I haven't gotten   one thing I've voted   for in a long, long time.

The only real Our Culture Is Fucked thing here is that our political class is apparently so tiny and tightly closed that they had to run this dipshit. Almost anybody could have won,

Wrong.  Sanford ran on his own in a tightly contested primary.  When he won that primary, the RNCC refused to fund his campaign- he was outspent 5 : 1.

This is not about "our political class" in any meaningful sense.  This is about the voters of that district in South Carolina deciding that Mark Sanford was the best choice to represent them out of at least four options.  Despite national pressure (from both sides) brought to prevent him from winning.

His win made the Democrats gnash their teeth and rend their garments. A few probably soaked their Depends.

Plus it probably got Stephen Colbert into a snit.

Why is this NOT a Good Thing (TM)?

They are good things. It just would have been better if another Republican had been the winner instead of Sanford.

Posted by: Brandon in Baton Rouge at May 08, 2013 04:26 PM (+x8q5)

I like his positions but he didn't just sleep with hookers.   He slandered fellow Republicans with intent to do harm who raised that issue.    I'd rather he not be in the Senate.  But if its between him and a politician who is going to vote against most of my positions, then  I can justify his seat but I don't have to like it. 

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at May 08, 2013 04:36 PM (/PCJa)

I think that is what the Democrats said about Marion Barry. 

Forget getting the right people to do the right thing.  You'll never find "the right people" in the first place.

No, more realistic is to find the incentive to encourage the wrong people to do the right thing.

Seems I've heard that before somewhere...

No one in the state Republican party was going to run against him, so it was either re-elect him or the gelded Rep. Charlie Melancon, who was press-ganged into running against Vitter by Pelosi.

I was talking about his first election , not the reelection.  The hooker story was out in Louisiana long before it became national news. 

I have some personal experience in this area.  I was a junior staffer in a federal agency during the Reagan Adminstration.  I was hit on numerous times by married men who were appointees (i.e. supposedly conservative Reaganites), and told point blank by one of them that I was not being promoted as quickly as I had hoped to be because "you aren't lifting your skirts enough."  Years later, I found out that the guy who hired me had intended to make me his mistress, and his boss knew it and put me to work for another man that he knew was honest.  Every one of those bastards ended up either in jail or resigning after being caught doing something unethical.  I realized right then that men who cheat are usually sleazebags in all facets of their lives. 

Posted by: Lincolntf at May 08, 2013 04:40 PM (ZshNr)

Bwahahahahaha!

Posted by: Oldsailors Poet Palin/Bolton 2016 at May 08, 2013 04:37 PM (XIxXP)

it's not about holding them in high regard, I don't, not any of them.

it's about demanding a level of honesty and integrity above the norm, not so that I can point to this guy or that gal and say "My People are better than your people" but so I can have some reasonable assurance they will conduct the people's business in a forthright and honest manner.

can't trust Sanford do to that considering his past behavior.

Posted by: wooga at May 08, 2013 04:15 PM (vMJh9)

Early winner

I think that is what the Democrats said about Marion Barry.

I don't recall the Democrats refusing to support Marion Barry.  The NRCC totally cut off funding for the SC-1 campaign once Sanford won the primary.

Why do we demand GOP candidates also be candidates for sainthood? Its unrealistic. It keeps really well qualified conservatives from ever running. Who wants the MSM colonoscope shoved up their ass?

Would I have preferred another candidate? Sure. But Sanford is the one we had. I'm happy he won. We need all the help we can get to derail the left's crazy train to utter desolation.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at May 08, 2013 04:42 PM (jE38p)

It's not and Issa pointed that out.

Sanford === Clinton on pretty much every meaningful category in screwing around for personal benefit while ignoring the repercussions and lying to and betraying those who trust you.

I'm sorry.  I must have missed the part where Sanford committed perjury and obstructed justice by intimidating witnesses.

Maybe you can direct me to a relevant article.

I'm remembering the Koons thing differently. Maybe I'm misreading the context, but Koons hardly factored into the argument..it was (IIRC) that COD was the more conservative candidate, and there was really no difference between Koons and Castle. (The fact that Castle commisserated with Obama immediately after the election tells me that the idea isn't that wrong) . If Castle had beaten COD in the primary, I'm sure most of us would have taken it.

I enjoyed the Sanford victory yesterday simply because it was a chance to get back at the leftards in a very small way, after the dispiriting election result of last November. Their unhinged freakouts over the election gave me some good laughs, especially the epic Meggie freakout and Iowahawk response.

I can't stand the thought of Sanford, but fuck Colbert's sister. Lunatic leftist was burned to the ground, the media has egg all over their faces, and I couldn't be happier about that. It might be a pyrrhic victory, but oh well.

"But it's not surprising you to hold a shitty opinion and then claim any opposition to it as insane. It sounds quite liberal, which again, is unsurprising"

Posted by: Burn the Witch at May 08, 2013 04:39 PM (eTjv9)

I supported COD in the primary and through the election, you incredibly vapid toothless hick.

Posted by: The Bar at May 08, 2013 04:41 PM (vbh31)

And the D.C. politicians are playing limbo.

The Republicans should have stretched this hearing out across more than one day, probably an entire week. It has been full of new information. But a full day of hearings is too much to report fairly and accurately in the drive-by media. It has already been blown off the TV by Jodi Arias. The media will run 20-second stories about it tonight, if they run any, and will move on. It was a one-day story. The Republicans treated it as such.

Youch.

131 -

Really?  That's your argument?  Because he won, nobody else did, and... what, nobody  else could have??

I seem to recall he won a fairly close primary.  Just like Akin in Missouri.  Was Akin the right choice?   Were we supposed to accept that as representative democracy as well? 

Posted by: Caustic at May 08, 2013 04:43 PM (/b8+5)

Senior career civil service employees serve their masters, and if they get out of line and don't read the teleprompter correctly, they soon find they have been hired by a banana republic thug government and have no "rights", especially if those right might prove detrimental to the regime.

I look at the Sanford vote this way.  What was the alternative?  Has anyone done any  thorough digging into that scrunt's personal life? 

If this were even the 1990's I'd be raising hell about Sanford's morality.  But we're into the fifth year of Dear Leader  in 2013.   Sometimes things become much bigger than one's personal life.

I've have a sordid past.  But I changed.  Let's see how Sanford treats his present marriage.

Sanford apparently doesn't agree with you.  He said that voting for him showed our forgiveness and the Power of Healing  and all that.

He may be our SOB, but he's still an SOB.

Sanford is just adopting some liberal policies to appeal to independents.


Wait, not supposed to do that now?!

***

If Stanford has to reach across the aisle I'd rather he did it with his dick than my money.

Posted by: Regular Moron at May 08, 2013 04:45 PM (U2UQk)

Wasn't Colbert's sister divorced, and didn't she also get arrested for obstruction or some shit during her divorce.

Here's an alternate question:  Does the fact that domestic terrorists Bill Ayres and Bernadette Dohrn became a professor of education and a professor of law bode ill for society?

You bet it does.

Posted by: sans_sheriff at May 08, 2013 04:45 PM (Lljg2)

Second best thing about that wipeout.  After months of balls to the walls attack articles against Sanford by the Democrat PR rags who call themselves newspaper here he beat the commie in a landslide. 

As I said this morning, I'll bet there were lot of editors puking in their trash cans after reading those results.

It's not a hero thing. It's whether or not they are worthy of the position they have been given. If we get rid of of the ones who aren't smart enough to hide their indiscretions then hopefully we get rid of the most of the crooks.

Doesn't really work but the logic has a certain appeal.

Posted by: gekkobear at May 08, 2013 04:46 PM (X0NX1)

--------------------------------------------

First and foremost in response to your post:  I'm getting tired of people telling me that this isn't the hill to die on.

The guy has no business holding an office of public trust.

Free advice from a friend....If you're ok with Sanford winning, you might want to avoid go after corrupt Democrats for awhile.

Posted by: DrewM. at May 08, 2013 04:21 PM (x8U/s)

----------------------------

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!

I gives a FUCK about charges of hypocrisy from you or your  soulmates in the Democrat party.   Any tool to bash   than limpdick Stephen Colbert,  his sea-hag of a sister, Jon Stewart  and his audience of 19-36 year old fucking potheads and you in the psyche with is a tool worth  wielding. 

Mark Sanford is that tool.

These fuckheads are bent on our total destruction,   but it would be better to have this dizzy Colbert-Busch   tuna  boat captain in office,  because then it would prove you right.  And that's  what all this bullshit about this election   and the Benghazi thing is about - Drew being right.   Guess what?  You're wrong.  Again.  

You won't dig in on the debt-ceiling, but you're worried about the pecadilloes of  some minor officeholder, when the  opposite choice is  installing another fucking Al Franken.

Why don't you start a blog for yourself and name it Credibility Zero? 

The NRCC cut off funding after it was reveled a few days after the election that Sanford was in his ex-wife's house in defiance of a court order. That's when they pulled the plug.

Okay, fair enough.  I missed that part (I didn't pay just a ton of attention to the race because: House race not in Texas).  And that's incredibly stupid.

Still, the point remains- we're not talking some majorly funded candidate here (someone mentioned Aiken above: yeah, he was mostly funded by Democrats, remember?), we're talking about someone outspent 5-to-1.  The residents of SC-1 all know his sordid past, and they seem to be more okay with that than with a liberal Democrat representing them.

Might someone else have been better?  I'm certain some would.  They either didn't run, or didn't connect with voters.

I'm not concerned about Sanford's past moral failings.  I'm concerned about how he acts now that he's back in public office.

And, yes, if he seems unreliable, I'm all for dropping him like a ton of bricks (not that my opinion matters here: see also: not in SC-1).

Posted by: megthered at May 08, 2013 04:50 PM (iR4Dg)

**

Exactly, I never held pols in high enough esteem to give two shits. They'll have to answer to a higher power than me eventually.

If it's morally ambiguous and there are valid arguments on both sides, it pretty much comes down to how hot the mistress is.

He gets a pass.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ needs to skip the beer and go straight to tequila at May 08, 2013 04:52 PM (ZKzrr)

That is who married my wife and I.  We got married in 1981 and I have never cheated on her.  And I am not in government.

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2013 04:51 PM (CaH7p)"

Fair enough... but WHY is this the hill to die on? 

Any reason at all to justify dying on this hill; or are you just in a hurry to die and every hill is a good hill to die on?

trying to get the father of her children jailed? this guy keeps looking more rational.

As I understand it, there was a court order which he violated.  Yes, she's being a witch about not saying "no harm, no foul," but she has reason to be bitter, here.

In most states, they can be taken in front of a Notary Public*.

* Dressed as Elvis optional.

***

Watch those Elvis impersonators.  They're big on ricin.

That the majority of people do not consider marriage as a sacred union?

The divorce rate and the number of people who just "shack up" and never bother to get married?

If you consider the type of people we have had in Congress, this does not bode ill.

Consider that his messy affair happened during his prior public employment.  Yeah, politics is just a "job," but his "purely personal" situation here screwed up the job.

Its like if you were hiring somebody and wanted to know why the quit their last job, and they said that a messy affair messed up their work relationships.  Golden hiring material?  Probably not.  You might hire them anyway if the other candidates were even worse, but you wouldn't be excited about it and you wouldn't think this info was irrelevant.

Posted by: Icedog at May 08, 2013 04:57 PM (9ScGj)

-------------------

Way to dig deep and power through it.

259 -

Ok then, you and I are talking about two different things then, because moping isn't in my behavioral repertoire. 

Frankly I don't care who represents S. Carolina District 2.  I'm just not going to stop calling him a scumbag, simply because he has an R behind his name.

And he is, indeed, a scumbag. 

Posted by: The purity brigade, morals division at May 08, 2013 04:18 PM (/WLC3)

Unless Ace, in his real-world alter-ego, is an appointed or elected public official who gave an oath upon assumption of that office, then his personal morals don't matter. I don't care what Ace does because I don't need to care. He's a private citizen, responsible only to himself.

It's about the oath, the sworn promise made by elected and appointed officials. Someone who breaks their marriage vow (which is an oath), as Sanford did, is someone who'll break any other. Character counts. That 'I'm not your damned role model' shit doesn't fly with those acting in the public trust.

We're not talking about moral purity here. We're talking about corruption. Corruption isn't always about money.

It was a district any Republican could have won, and any Republican did.

So explain why he beat two other Republicans in the primary.

This is stupid.  The fact is that he won.  I'm really not sure why anyone has a problem with it- all the things brought up are so far past (not his own indiscretions, but what they "say" about "the culture") that they're not even really worth discussing. 

People in general (as shown by their behavior), don't really care about marriage (this is also why more and more states are finally formally accepting gay marriage, and why polygamy, pederasty, and bestiality won't be far behind).  So, okay.  We don't care.  God will deal with that part.

Between now and then, though, I'm more worried about the continued errosion of my liberties.

Posted by: gekkobear at May 08, 2013 04:54 PM (X0NX1)

-------------------------------------------

We're running out of hills, in case you haven't noticed. 

I'm not happy that the electorate chose Sanford in the primary.  That is the election that tells me we are on the downside.   When given a choice,  my party which I proudly defended as being a party of upstanding morals, who will forgive but not forget ,  elects someone of the moral failings of Sanders in a primary, I have lost hope.

I'm   pissed that it forces me to support a jackwagon like that becuase I don't want a worse jackwagon to be elected.

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 08, 2013 04:59 PM (b9K4P)

---------------------------

That's so sad, that the sister of a make-believe  reporter was found to be lacking in  the requisite skill, experience or charisma to convince  the people  of this district to  ignore  every  one  of their  political principles and vote  for her.

Or maybe it's fucking DELICIOUS.  Collect his tears for me.  I've got some ballsack moisturizing to do.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at May 08, 2013 05:00 PM (0q2P7)

Ok, maybe your faith is different from my faith but the fact remains God is the only one who can judge, not man.

Posted by: The Obsidian Owl at May 08, 2013 04:49 PM (tWmgi) 

Nice thought, but if they can't find anything they will make it up. And then paste you with it if you don't make your campaign dedicated to denying it.

Playing by their rules means you lose. Screw that. Attack on all fronts. Flank the bastards. Make them beg for mercy. And then deny it to them.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose DOOMCASTER! at May 08, 2013 04:55 PM (0q2P7)

Anecdotal of course, but the US divorce stats and unwed mother count tend to indicate that a LOT of people do not take marriage as a direct covenant with God himself.  And of those that do see this as a religious covenant, I doubt that they would not be able to accept that since we are all sinners, (especially the politicians) they expect the resolution of that sinful act to be resolved by a higher power, not by an individual voter.

Posted by: crosspatch at May 08, 2013 04:57 PM (YRCZD)

There is one district where he could, but he would have to black.

Would you say that every Christian who has sinned doesn't believe in sin merly because he has sinned?

Oooo.  Now we get metaphysical.  Yes!!!

Actually, this has two answers.  I believe they believe in sin intellectually  They believe in sin as an abstract thing.  I don't think they believe in it really; I don't think they believe in it viscerally.  We look at "sin" like some abstract thing (and we're quite quick to justify/rationalize any sin we commit).

Fire?  We believe in fire.  Papercuts, too.  Giant clock-spiders are right up there.

You will very, very rarely find someone who is less-than-careful around fire, loose bits of paper, or clock spiders.

Posted by: Mike Hammer at May 08, 2013 05:04 PM (aDwsi)

probably because that is what he did before going to the House.

Drew is right, one of the reasons I have respect for the Conservative Movement is because the people involved in it are generally more honest, more trustworthy and more intelligent than the population as whole.

Character Matters

that's what is good about conservatism, if conservatism becomes something other than that then what good is it?

it isn't

And I agree that now , marriage is like going steady used to be.

To easy to call it quits, no societal stigma attached to divorce and no effort to make it work when you hit a rough patch. 

Posted by: Adam Smith's Invisible Pimp Hand at May 08, 2013 05:03 PM (b9K4P)

--------------------------------------------

McD's for dinner, a movie (preferable a chick flick)  and then her place.  How hard is that?

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at May 08, 2013 05:05 PM (kdS6q)

It is when there are 16 people in the primary.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 08, 2013 05:06 PM (sGtp+)

bingo!

Name recognition and more money? And 37% isn't a sweeping victory.

That was only enough to get him into the runoff.  Which he also won (as Vic said: by a wide margin).  And, I'm sorry, but "Name recognition and more money" doesn't cut it because a) in the primary he didn't have that much more money and b) his name recognition (by Republican standards) should have been a negative thing.

You realize that you're basically calling every Republican voter in South Carolina (at least that district) a complete moron (not in a good way) who can't possibly make his or her own decisions.  Right?

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at May 08, 2013 05:06 PM (sGtp+)

You know I am vociferously praying for that jury.  I'm praying that they have the intestinal fortitude to do what they think is right and that they aren't intimidated to not being true to themselves.

I guess I tend to take community support out of the marriage equation because as near as I can tell the community doesn't support marriage and society as a whole tries to knock it down every chance it gets.  What separated us from other countries in the world was the fact that we were "under God" and we had freedom of religion, now the community is allowing that to be slowly taken away.  I don't know the answer but I think people played the odds with Sanford figuring that he'd be a better representative for their thoughts and ideas than the other candidate.  Let's hop he lives up to that sacred trust.

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2013 05:10 PM (CaH7p)

McD's for dinner? Oh man I wish

Posted by: Icedog at May 08, 2013 05:11 PM (9ScGj)

^^^This!^^^

Posted by: WalrusRex

***

And of having an UGLY kitty.

McD's for dinner, a movie (preferable a chick flick) and then her place. How hard is that?

Posted by: Soona at May 08, 2013 05:10 PM (CaH7p)

Too hard. If I'm not in bed by 10, the next day is an ordeal. Now get off my lawn.

Piker.