# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  "I hurt friends like Tom Davis"

## itshappening

I forgot about this but when Sanford revealed his affair he mentioned Davis.





Davis said this on his facebook:

No one ever said SC politics was boring. I went to college with Mark, helped manage his two successful SC gubernatorial campaigns and served as his chief of staff in the governor's office. How would he vote as a First District Congressman? Past is often prelude, and here's what the posted piece says about his first stint as a congressman: "Sanford represented the coastal district from 1995 to 2001 and had a conservative, almost libertarian voting record, often taking lonely stands on the House floor alongside Rep. Ron Paul of Texas."


-

We need to absolutely get behind Sanford and have his back because the other "conservative" sites baulk at his personal life and don't forgive him.

----------


## itshappening

Here are some of his votes in congress.  Not perfect but definitely better than most of the GOP

-
Mark Sanford on Abortion

    Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
    Voted YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999) 

Mark Sanford on Budget & Economy

    Limit spending increases to population growth plus inflation. (Nov 2006)
    Deficit spending hurts private business & personal finances. (Nov 2000)
    Incumbents spend more tax funds the longer they’re in office. (Nov 2000)
    Federal deficit weakens dollar against foreign currencies. (Nov 2000)
    No congressional pay raise until budget is balanced. (Nov 2000)
    Highway bills are congressional bribery. (Nov 2000)
    Sponsored bill allowing $3 on tax form to pay National Debt. (Sep 2000)
    Supports balanced budget amendment & line item veto. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Civil Rights

    No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
    Affirmative action in state contracts, but not colleges. (Nov 2002)
    Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
    Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998) 

Mark Sanford on Corporations

    Cut corporate income tax by raising cigarette tax. (Jan 2010)
    Sugar subsidy is corporate welfare to a wealthy few. (Nov 2000) 

Mark Sanford on Crime

    End parole for repeat violent offenders. (Nov 2002)
    Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)
    Voted NO on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime. (Jun 1999)
    Voted NO on maintaining right of habeas corpus in Death Penalty Appeals. (Mar 1996)
    Voted YES on making federal death penalty appeals harder. (Feb 1995)
    More prisons, more enforcement, effective death penalty. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Drugs

    Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999) 

Mark Sanford on Education

    Supports merit pay for teachers. (Nov 2006)
    Endorses teacher-led prayer & displaying Ten Commandments. (Nov 2002)
    Voted YES on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
    Voted YES on vouchers for private & parochial schools. (Nov 1997) 

Mark Sanford on Energy & Oil

    Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000)
    Stop harmful EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. (Mar 2010) 

Mark Sanford on Environment
    Market-based incentive for private land conservation. (Nov 2006) 

Mark Sanford on Families & Children

    Use tax code to reinforce families. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Foreign Policy

    1997: proposed freezing State Department budget at $6.3B. (Nov 2000)
    Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction. (Jul 2000)
    Voted NO on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. (May 2000)
    Voted NO on $15.2 billion for foreign operations. (Nov 1999)
    Sponsored bill allowing Americans to travel to Cuba. (May 2000) 

Mark Sanford on Free Trade

    Sugar and peanut subsides make no sense. (Nov 2000)
    Voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO. (Jun 2000)
    Voted YES on 'Fast Track' authority for trade agreements. (Sep 1998) 

Mark Sanford on Government Reform

    End unlimited and undisclosed campaign donations. (Jan 2010)
    Change rules of governorship and state officers. (Jan 2010)
    Bring horse-and-buggy government into the 21st century. (Nov 2006)
    Limit campaign contributions but not campaign spending. (Nov 2002)
    Term-limited Congressmen do behave differently. (Nov 2000)
    Cut his own staff and returned funds for staff pay annually. (Nov 2000)
    Supported 6- year congressional term-limits. (Nov 2000)
    Pledged never to take any PAC money. (Nov 2000)
    1995 government shutdown was a good thing, not a crisis. (Nov 2000)
    Require that congressional pay raises have open votes. (Nov 2000)
    Voted YES on banning soft money and issue ads. (Sep 1999)
    Limit punitive damages; term limits on Congress. (Sep 1994)
    Government is too big, too intrusive, too easy with money. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Gun Control

    Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) 

Mark Sanford on Health Care

    Transfer more Medicaid recipients into managed care programs. (Nov 2002)
    Voted NO on subsidizing private insurance for Medicare Rx drug coverage. (Jun 2000)
    Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide. (Oct 1999)
    Voted YES on establishing tax-exempt Medical Savings Accounts. (Oct 1999)
    Loosen "one-size-fits-all" approach to Medicaid. (Jan 2011) 

Mark Sanford on Homeland Security

    Voted YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill. (Jul 1999)
    Voted YES on deploying SDI. (Mar 1999)
    No US troops under UN command; more defense spending. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Immigration

    Voted YES on more immigrant visas for skilled workers. (Sep 1998)
    Declared English the official language of the US. (Jan 1999) 

Mark Sanford on Jobs

    Incentives to businesses create jobs & raise wages. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Local Issues

    Supports term limits for state legislators. (Nov 2002) 

Mark Sanford on Principles & Values

    Religious affiliation: Episcopalian. (Nov 2000)
    Rated C by the Club for Growth, pro-growth but not targeted. (Sep 2004)
    Contract with America: 10 bills in 1st 100 days of Congress. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Social Security

    Off-budget accounting undermines trust in government. (Nov 2000)
    Voted NO on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits. (Jul 2000)
    Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
    Sponsored bill for personal retirement accounts in Soc.Sec. (Jul 2000)
    Reduce taxes on Social Security earnings. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Tax Reform

    Voted YES on eliminating the "marriage penalty". (Jul 2000)
    Voted YES on $46 billion in tax cuts for small business. (Mar 2000)
    Repeal marriage tax; cut middle class taxes. (Sep 1994) 

Mark Sanford on Technology

    Highways are Congress’ responsibility, but don’t break bank. (Nov 2000) 

Mark Sanford on War & Peace

    Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999) 

Mark Sanford on Welfare & Poverty

    Redirect welfare funding to faith-based organizations. (Nov 2002)
    Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999)
    Limit welfare to 2 years & cut welfare spending. (Sep 1994)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm

----------


## sailingaway

That was nice of him. Davis, as his Chief of Staff took the heat when the Lt Govenor etc were making hay about Sanford being 'missing and incommunicado' when he walked the Appalachian Trail.  It was a political assassination imho.  They were calling as much attention to it as possible at a time when he was likely on a plane to Argentina and they likely were fully aware of it. There were press conferences, you name it, over a mere two day period.  You would have thought Martians had invaded SC and the Governor's absence put the state in danger or something.

What I'm saying, is the man has enemies, and we have to watch out for that.

I still want to look into the guy who endorsed Ron before the SC primary, because that was politically very risky and I think he deserves it, and I never got to the point of fully vetting Sanford, although I was very positive towards him when I was kinda following him.  But Sanford would definitely be a friend in Congress, imho.

----------


## itshappening

Former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) says he is considering re-entering public life with a bid for Congress. 

In an email late Saturday, Sanford acknowledged that reports that he may run for the House seat which will open up when Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) moves to the Senate were correct.

“To answer your question, yes the accounts are accurate,” said Sanford, according to the Associated Press. Sanford promised “further conversation on all this” in the near future. 

Sanford, a former two-term governor left office in 2009, after admitting to an extramarital affair and disappearing from the state capitol for five days. Sanford later divorced his wife and married the woman with whom he had the affair.

Before being elected to the governor’s mansion, Sanford served in the House representing the same area now in Scott’s district.

Scott was appointed to the Senate by Gov. Nikki Haley (R) after Sen. Jim DeMint announced earlier this month that he would leave the upper chamber at year’s end to run the Heritage Foundation.

A GOP primary to replace Scott is slated for March, with the special general election to be held in May. Candidates must file before the end of January, according to reports.

Sanford’s ex-wife Jenny has also said she is interested in running for the House seat. “I'd be crazy not to look at the race a little bit,” she said last week.

South Carolina GOP Chairman Chad Connelly told the AP that as of last Friday, 14 Republicans had expressed interest in entering the race. 

“Gov. Sanford getting in would certainly alter the dynamics,” predicted Connelly. “That list would go down significantly.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/...ep-scotts-seat

----------


## FSP-Rebel

Looks as if the ex might be trying to make trouble for him here.

----------


## itshappening

The ex will have to raise money and take him on.  I dont think she will to be honest... we'll see. 

Tell John Ramsey to back Mark Sanford:

http://pacliberty.com/

Maybe Rand can endorse him too.. this is an open seat!

----------


## Lucille

> Looks as if the ex might be trying to make trouble for him here.


"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, 
Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
--William Congreve




> The former first lady, a one-time investment banker with Lazard Frères, is smart, focused and very angry. For all the pious references to forgiveness stitched throughout the narrative, revenge is a barely concealed subtext.
> [...]
> Eight days after her husband's affair came to light, Sanford took legal steps to turn her own name into a trademark. According to U.S. Patent and Trademark records first obtained and reported by NBC's Columbia, S.C., affiliate, she applied to legally designate her name as a "good or service" (that is, a product) and to claim exclusive rights to "product merchandising to be sold at on-line retail stores featuring clothing, mugs and other household items; stickers, decals, notepads."

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> Tell John Ramsey to back Mark Sanford:
> 
> http://pacliberty.com/


I wonder what shape LFA is in. Haven't heard much about them lately tho I do remember they were meeting with Thiel and Rand down in Tampa. I was excited to hear it at the time, maybe they're in better condition than I'm presuming. It's not like Ramsey can keep sinking his inheritance into political races tho idk how much he has.

----------


## itshappening

I think his goal is to score victories and make the PAC self-sufficient through a wider donation list.

----------


## sailingaway

> The ex will have to raise money and take him on.  I dont think she will to be honest... we'll see. 
> 
> Tell John Ramsey to back Mark Sanford:
> 
> http://pacliberty.com/
> 
> Maybe Rand can endorse him too.. this is an open seat!


His Ex has some kind of establishment machine behind her.  I don't know the details of it, but she comes up in media a very systematic, 'established' way, and polls very favorably there.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Looks as if the ex might be trying to make trouble for him here.





> His Ex has some kind of establishment machine behind her.  I don't know the details of it, but she comes up in media a very systematic, 'established' way, and polls very favorably there.


She nearly became the Senator. No doubt options were discussed at that time in smokey back rooms. It would only make sense that with Tim Scott being promoted to US Senate, Jenny is the top establishment (and Haley's) pick for Scott's vacated seat.

----------


## itshappening

She would have to raise money very quickly.  Mark is already ahead of her and has 120k in his federal account plus if we get behind him and he works his other donor base (he was a governor for 8 years for gods sake he must know high powered money people in SC) then he can raise another 150k in a month and blow everyone away with radio, tv and mailers. 

The primary will be in March so candidates dont have much time, this favors Mark Sanford enormously.   He's also a seasoned campaigner and used to represent the district so knows it very well and knows the Republicans to reach out and meet with.

----------


## itshappening

Sanford went to congress as governor and begged them NOT to give his state any federal stimulus money... 

The legislature forced him into accepting some of the funds. 

He is truly fiscally conservative even if he's not perfect the record speaks for itself.

----------


## sailingaway

> She would have to raise money very quickly.  Mark is already ahead of her and has 120k in his federal account plus if we get behind him and he works his other donor base (he was a governor for 8 years for gods sake he must know high powered money people in SC) then he can raise another 150k in a month and blow everyone away with radio, tv and mailers. 
> 
> The primary will be in March so candidates dont have much time, this favors Mark Sanford enormously.   He's also a seasoned campaigner and used to represent the district so knows it very well and knows the Republicans to reach out and meet with.


If she has the establishment behind her, money is not going to be an issue, particularly at the Congressional level where races are cheaper. I'm not rooting for her, understand, I'm just mapping out a landscape as I see it.

----------


## itshappening

it doesn't matter sailing, she'd be a 1st time candidate and has to get moving very quickly.  Mark is a seasoned campaigner and can get moving quicker.

It's not easy to start from scratch and have a campaign designed to win in less than 3 months no matter who's behind you.

----------


## sailingaway

> it doesn't matter sailing, she'd be a 1st time candidate and has to get moving very quickly.  Mark is a seasoned campaigner and can get moving quicker.
> 
> It's not easy to start from scratch and have a campaign designed to win in less than 3 months no matter who's behind you.


As someone pointed out, she has her name already trademarked.  Just because you don't run a press release doesn't mean you aren't preparing.  But we'll see.  We just won't be blindsided.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

Mark Sanford: One of the most conservative members of Congress in history.

http://voteview.com/is_john_kerry_a_liberal.htm

This runs from 1937-2002. 

He is #3285 out of #3320 for a ranking of #35th. Ron Paul and Larry McDonald rank #1 and #2 respectively.



For those who have not liked yet: https://www.facebook.com/GrassrootsForMarkSanford

----------


## Spoa

> it doesn't matter sailing, she'd be a 1st time candidate and has to get moving very quickly.  Mark is a seasoned campaigner and can get moving quicker.
> 
> It's not easy to start from scratch and have a campaign designed to win in less than 3 months no matter who's behind you.


I don't have a preference currently in this race (besides not wanting the RINO state legislators to get this seat). One thing to remember is that Ms. Sanford will get the sympathy vote. People will look at her husband and think: What a terrible man he is...to leave his poor wife and sons while he runs away to Argentina! So, she could win easily if she gets the sympathy vote. Just saying.

If Governor Sanford wants to win, he has to emphasize his record. He has to keep talking about his conservative record and hope that people will look at his record and not his personal life.

----------


## erowe1

> His Ex has some kind of establishment machine behind her.  I don't know the details of it, but she comes up in media a very systematic, 'established' way, and polls very favorably there.


Plus she's rich.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> I don't have a preference currently in this race (besides not wanting the RINO state legislators to get this seat). One thing to remember is that Ms. Sanford will get the sympathy vote. People will look at her husband and think: What a terrible man he is...to leave his poor wife and sons while he runs away to Argentina! So, she could win easily if she gets the sympathy vote. Just saying.
> 
> If Governor Sanford wants to win, he has to emphasize his record. He has to keep talking about his conservative record and hope that people will look at his record and not his personal life.


He needs to emphasize forgiveness, mentioned he married the girl, and that Gingrich got 40% in the primary.

----------


## erowe1

> He needs to emphasize forgiveness, mentioned he married the girl, and that Gingrich got 40% in the primary.


I think he should mention as little of any of that as possible.

----------


## Spoa

> I think he should mention as little of any of that as possible.


I agree. If he mentioned about Gingrich, that would be like saying, "You voted for a crook...so you should vote for me!".

That would not be a good idea.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> I think he should mention as little of any of that as possible.


Well, when asked.

----------


## tsai3904

Judging by comments on a lot of articles, Tom Davis' FB page and PPP's poll, Sanford has a pretty bad reputation at this point.  SC has a runoff so the question comes down to if Sanford finishes the primary in the top two, would he be able to win a majority of votes in the runoff?  It seems like at this point, if there were two options and Sanford was one of them, many will vote for the other just to vote against Sanford.

----------


## Spoa

> Judging by comments on a lot of articles, Tom Davis' FB page and PPP's poll, Sanford has a pretty bad reputation at this point.  SC has a runoff so the question comes down to if Sanford finishes the primary in the top two, would he be able to win a majority of votes in the runoff?  It seems like at this point, if there were two options and Sanford was one of them, many will vote for the other just to vote against Sanford.


Then we should promote Sanford, but also work hard for the state legislator who endorsed Congressman Paul. If both of them make it into the primary, then it wouldn't be such a loss because one of them would win.

----------


## Spoa

I'm not sure if any of you remember Keith Blanford (who was thought to be running for senate against Graham). Well, he is planning to switch and try to run for this seat. He will vie for the GOP and Libertarian nominations:

http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...hree-additions




> Also vying for the seat will be Sullivan’s Island businessman Keith Blandford.
> 
> “Now that Tim Scott has been named as Senator DeMint’s successor, the feedback and encouragement our campaign has received to pursue Scott’s seat has been overwhelming,” Blandford said in a news release.
> 
> Blandford, who last month had announced his intention to oppose Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham in the primary, said he will try to run on the Republican ticket and also will pursue the Libertarian party’s nomination.
> 
> “We sincerely believe that the 2014 senatorial seats should be challenged in a primary, but we are confident that this is the best move for our team and our state,” Blandford said in the release.

----------


## Spoa

Here's Mr. Blanford's Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bland...57714730979231

----------


## tsai3904

John Kuhn, the former State Senator who endorsed Ron Paul, posted this comment on a youtube clip of the Ron Paul-Guiliani debate on blowback:




> people are stupid in america blinded by bull$#@! politicians who tell people what they want to hear. this man ron paul﻿ tells the truth. the fact of the matter is people can't handle the truth. so they go with everything they hear.

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

> John Kuhn, the former State Senator who endorsed Ron Paul, posted this comment on a youtube clip of the Ron Paul-Guiliani debate on blowback:


http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/...-ron-paul.html

I still think we should back Sanford though, with Kuhn as the backup.

----------


## Smart3

Blandford in the primary, Sanford in the runoff and Blandford in the general.

----------


## Spoa

> Blandford in the primary, Sanford in the runoff and Blandford in the general.


I'm sorry...I don't like the strategy that you propose. Why should we work to get people to win primaries and runoffs, and then back a different candidate in the general? Either support the candidate all the way or don't support him/her at all. There is no use supporting a candidate half-way in my opinion.

I think either Sanford or Blandford would be good congressmen. I will most likely support one or the other, but I won't attack the other one. That's my strategy.

----------


## Smart3

> I'm sorry...I don't like the strategy that you propose. Why should we work to get people to win primaries and runoffs, and then back a different candidate in the general? Either support the candidate all the way or don't support him/her at all. There is no use supporting a candidate half-way in my opinion.
> 
> I think either Sanford or Blandford would be good congressmen. I will most likely support one or the other, but I won't attack the other one. That's my strategy.


I was saying how I'd vote.

----------


## supermario21

Will there even be a Democratic candidate?

----------


## Spoa

> I was saying how I'd vote.


Voting Blanford in the general when you just voted for Sanford in the primary...why would you do that? By supporting Sanford in the primary, you would be agreeing that he is acceptable. What if Sanford and Blanford both ended up losing because you (and others like you) voted for Sanford in the runoff, but against him in the general?

----------


## Spoa

> Will there even be a Democratic candidate?


From the article I posted earlier:




> Democrat state Rep. Wendell Gilliard, who represents parts of downtown Charleston, also announced Tuesday he is exploring a bid for the seat.
> 
> “The primary question for Rep. Gilliard is this: ‘Can a Democrat with the full support of their state and national party win the 1st Congressional District seat?’ ” he said in a statement today.

----------


## erowe1

> Voting Blanford in the general when you just voted for Sanford in the primary...why would you do that? By supporting Sanford in the primary, you would be agreeing that he is acceptable. What if Sanford and Blanford both ended up losing because you (and others like you) voted for Sanford in the runoff, but against him in the general?


I voted for Mourdock in Indiana's senate primary last year. I was happy to see Lugar lose. But once Lugar lost, it didn't matter to me what happened. I didn't vote at all in the general. I thought about how I would vote if I were going to vote, and I never really made up my mind between Mourdock and Horning, the Libertarian.

----------


## Smart3

> Voting Blanford in the general when you just voted for Sanford in the primary...why would you do that? By supporting Sanford in the primary, you would be agreeing that he is acceptable. What if Sanford and Blanford both ended up losing because you (and others like you) voted for Sanford in the runoff, but against him in the general?


There are approximately 6,000 Libertarian or libertarian-leaning voters in the district. Sanford should have no trouble in the general if he loses those votes. 

November:
Tim Scott (R) - 62.03%, Bobbie Rose (D/WF) - 35.75%, Keith Blandford (L) - 2.18%

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I voted for Mourdock in Indiana's senate primary last year. I was happy to see Lugar lose. But once Lugar lost, it didn't matter to me what happened. I didn't vote at all in the general. I thought about how I would vote if I were going to vote, and I never really made up my mind between Mourdock and Horning, the Libertarian.


Weird that you chose to sit that one out and hats off to Horning for snatching victory from Rand's endorsee. One less ally in the Senate that was down for Rand's budget proposal and one less influential buddy going into the '16 prez season that could make the rounds for him.

----------


## erowe1

> Weird that you chose to sit that one out


I sat out the whole general election.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> I sat out the whole general election.


Got it but this was my reaction to the Senate race outcome

----------


## Smart3

> Got it but this was my reaction to the Senate race outcome


It's not as if Donnelly is a liberal Democrat. Heck, he's to the right of David Cameron.

----------


## erowe1

> It's not as if Donnelly is a liberal Democrat. Heck, he's to the right of David Cameron.


It doesn't matter. He'll vote with his party when they need him to, and they'll give him permission not to when they don't.

Regardless, I'm still glad to see Lugar out.

----------


## Spoa

> It's not as if Donnelly is a liberal Democrat. Heck, he's to the right of David Cameron.


Heck, it's not as if Ben Nelson is a liberal Democrat. He just happened to vote for Obamacare. Heck, it's not as if Mary Landrieu is a liberal Democrat. She just happened to vote for Obamacare too. 

I mean, it's not like Senator Lee's opponent was a liberal Democrat. Maybe we should have just wasted our vote on Scott Bradley, the Constitution candidate! #sarcasm

That kind of mentality leads to great problems. If a candidate is 80-90% on our side, he/she should receive our support. People like Mike Lee, Mick Mulvaney, Ted Yoho, Steve Stockman, or Dana Rohrabacher may not be perfect, but they should still receive our support during general elections (if it is people like Cantor, Bauchus, or Graham...vote for whoever you want to).

----------


## SpreadOfLiberty

According to this article, Kuhn is a Johnny come lately to fiscal sanity: http://www.fitsnews.com/2012/12/18/c...hn-kuhn-is-in/

----------


## itshappening

Sanford all the way.  These other candidates are not going to get anywhere against a two term state governor and former congressman. Be realistic.

I doubt very much Sanford's behavior will affect him that much.  

He is the overwhelming favorite.  I'm not sure if they could even force him into a run-off. I hope not but I dont know the people on the ground.  

The odds are Sanford knows his chances of winning are great and he knows the district better than anyone so he wouldn't run if he didn't think he was going to win.  

He's won all his other races in the district and across the state and even survived an impeachment attempt. 

That's my take on it anyway.

Sanford will have all the money he needs to be on tv and all over the district. 

It shouldn't even be close.  He has 100% name recognition and a solid public service record (16 years in office!).

He just needs to preach forgiveness and put an emphasis on his record.  SC Republicans are religious and believe in forgiveness.

People outside the district may not warm to him because on a national level he damaged himself but they don't matter.  It's possible they might latch on to someone else and boost them (maybe Jenny?) but I'm not so sure.  People nationally aren't going to be enthused by a congressional race in SC. The talkers and mainline news will ignore it unless the ex-wife has some kind of legitimate shot and somehow gains momentum.  Just people like us will tune in I suppose.

I hope he doesn't make a pledge to term-limit himself again as I think he would be great in congress for many years to come.

----------


## devil21

Sanford has always been keeping up in political circles, even during his "exile".  I saw him at the May 2011 Greenville debate but he was keeping low profile.  He's a tall guy so it's hard for him to keep a low pro on the street outside the debate hall.  Then I also saw him at the 2011 Spartanburg debate (RPs 88 second speaking time one) and he was recognized by the moderator and got MORE APPLAUSE than current Gov Haley.  Sanford is still VERY popular in SC.  I would love to have him as an ally.  Time will tell if he proves himself for a run but I like him so far, personal stumbles aside.

----------


## itshappening

> Sanford has always been keeping up in political circles, even during his "exile".  I saw him at the May 2011 Greenville debate but he was keeping low profile.  He's a tall guy so it's hard for him to keep a low pro on the street outside the debate hall.  Then I also saw him at the 2011 Spartanburg debate (RPs 88 second speaking time one) and he was recognized by the moderator and got MORE APPLAUSE than current Gov Haley.  Sanford is still VERY popular in SC.  I would love to have him as an ally.  Time will tell if he proves himself for a run but I like him so far, personal stumbles aside.


Will 1st district Republicans forgive his indiscretions?

----------


## compromise

> Weird that you chose to sit that one out and hats off to Horning for snatching victory from Rand's endorsee. One less ally in the Senate that was down for Rand's budget proposal and one less influential buddy going into the '16 prez season that could make the rounds for him.


While I personally would have voted for Mourdock, I understand erowe's concerns. Mourdock does support the Patriot Act.

----------


## itshappening

Mourdock was a poor candidate.  His demeanor was quite wrong plus he screwed up on abortion.  However, he would have been a reliable GOP vote on some issues.  

I dont know why red states send these Democrat senators, are there any blue state Republicans?

----------


## itshappening

People in S.C dont think he will have a problem with his personal life:

-
Longtime Republican activist and donor John Rainey, who convinced Sanford to run for governor after leaving congress, said Sanford's last six months in office, following his tearful press conference, had been his most effective.

"He's finally learned how to do it," said Rainey, who was chairman of the board of economic advisors during sanford's tenure. "Mark now understands the necessity of and art of compromise. It's not my way or the highway."

Rainey added that Sanford's engagement to Chapur could improve his standing with voters.

"Think of all that's happened since 2009. That's old news," he said. "Especially in the South, we're about redemption. I don't think he's got a problem."

----------


## compromise

> Mourdock was a poor candidate.  His demeanor was quite wrong plus he screwed up on abortion.  However, he would have been a reliable GOP vote on some issues.  
> 
> I dont know why red states send these Democrat senators, are there any blue state Republicans?


Mostly RINO-type progressive Rockefeller Republicans. For example, Maine's two Senators, Collins and Snowe, NH's Ayotte, Massachusetts' Brown, etc.

----------


## CaptLouAlbano

> Will 1st district Republicans forgive his indiscretions?


He'll do fine. The sad thing is that I don't know if he can ever break out of a House seat and run for the nomination (I was one of the folks who were hopeful of this back in 08).  But it would be great to have him back in the House and would do well for the CD.

----------


## Confederate

> Weird that you chose to sit that one out and hats off to Horning for snatching victory from Rand's endorsee. One less ally in the Senate that was down for Rand's budget proposal and one less influential buddy going into the '16 prez season that could make the rounds for him.


Yeah, $#@! the LP.

----------


## jonhowe

> Sanford went to congress as governor and begged them NOT to give his state any federal stimulus money... 
> 
> The legislature forced him into accepting some of the funds. 
> 
> He is truly fiscally conservative even if he's not perfect the record speaks for itself.


I hope he wins, but I won't raise money for someone opposed to gay couples adopting.

----------


## itshappening

why is that a deal breaker?  I could care less about adoption policies.

There are far more pressing issues like the budget that he will be a good fighter on

----------


## itshappening

> Mostly RINO-type progressive Rockefeller Republicans. For example, Maine's two Senators, Collins and Snowe, NH's Ayotte, Massachusetts' Brown, etc.


They seem to have personal followings though, for example Maine's "Republicans", as soon as one of them went they sent a leftist Independent and there was no Republican with a chance in hell.  Same with Brown, if it wasn't for him the GOP would have nobody.  Yet red states send Democrats from out of no where i.e Donnelly was a congressman in his first state wide race and won handedly then McCasckall in MO, Heitkkamp and quite a few more.   

They just seem much better in fooling the constituents into thinking they're personally conservative but when they get to DC they vote with the liberal national party most of the time.  Yet people like Brown are ass-backwards, they run as moderates and then govern as moderates and make deals with the Democrats to give them more votes and not with the party.

----------


## itshappening

Every single Democrat voted for Obamacare in the Senate and that was a huge expansion of federal government.  

The allegedly conservative democrats - in red states - ALL voted for it. 

I don't want to hear progressives ever whine about them again. 

If one of them actually had the principles they were elected on the GOP could have filibustered it. 

However I'd be willing to bet that if there was a prospect of a filibuster the regime would find a GOP vote or two to break it through some kind of presidential favor.  

Just like how the allegedly conservative justice saw it as constitutional. 

The system is corrupt and always finds a way to win.

It sickens me.

----------


## Confederate

> I hope he wins, but I won't raise money for someone opposed to gay couples adopting.


How is that a federal issue?

----------


## erowe1

> I hope he wins, but I won't raise money for someone opposed to gay couples adopting.


I doubt Ron Paul or any of the other candidates that have been supported here, aside from Schiff, have ever been for gay couples adopting.

----------


## erowe1

> Mourdock was a poor candidate.  His demeanor was quite wrong plus he screwed up on abortion.  However, he would have been a reliable GOP vote on some issues.  
> 
> I dont know why red states send these Democrat senators, are there any blue state Republicans?


I don't think he screwed up on abortion. His answer to that question was fine, and probably would have helped him more than it hurt him. I was leaning more toward voting for him after that than I had been before that. But the establishment was looking for a chance to turn on the guy who beat their pal Lugar, and they saw that as their opportunity.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

> But the establishment was looking for a chance to turn on the guy who beat their pal Lugar, and they saw that as their opportunity.


Horning was their ace in the hole.

----------


## Smart3

> I hope he wins, but I won't raise money for someone opposed to gay couples adopting.


You do have to remember that it is SC we're talking about here. Gays have it worse there than blacks did a few decades back.

I don't think Sanford is homophobic, at least not publicly. Remember, Dr. Paul isn't pro-adoption either.

----------


## Confederate

> Remember, Dr. Paul isn't pro-adoption either.


Yes he is. As long as its with contraceptives or "plan b."

Ron Paul is not truly pro-life.

----------


## Smart3

> Yes he is. As long as its with contraceptives or "plan b."
> 
> Ron Paul is not truly pro-life.


How can Dr. Paul be pro-adoption if he opposes married couples adopting? He opposes them getting married in the first place as well.

----------


## Confederate

> How can Dr. Paul be pro-adoption if he opposes married couples adopting? He opposes them getting married in the first place as well.


Ah sorry, I read your post wrong. I read you it saying that Ron Paul isn't pro-abortion either.

I do agree with him on the homosexuals not being able to adopt. It would be morally reprehensible to put a child into a home with two sexual deviants.

----------


## erowe1

> How can Dr. Paul be pro-adoption if he opposes married couples adopting? He opposes them getting married in the first place as well.


That's news to me, especially since he's married.

----------


## Smart3

> Ah sorry, I read your post wrong. I read you it saying that Ron Paul isn't pro-abortion either.
> 
> I do agree with him on the homosexuals not being able to adopt. It would be morally reprehensible to put a child into a home with two sexual deviants.


Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality or same-sex 'relations', they have been shown to be better parents than the average biological parents. It is better for a child to have two loving legal guardians than for them to have nothing.

Do you at least support step-parent adoption? For instance if one of the gays has children from a prior marriage?

and what do you wish to do with the thousands of gay couples who are raising children? some of them have adopted 5 or more children! 

MORE FREEDOM seems like the right solution to me.




> That's news to me, especially since he's married.


You know very well this was in the context of legally married same-gender couples. I see no need to specify the gender of the spouses anymore than I need to mention their creed or ethnicity. 

No one is, as far as I know, condemning Jon Huntsman for adopting overseas children and indoctrinating them into Mormonism. Why the double standard?

----------


## erowe1

> You know very well this was in the context of legally married same-gender couples. I see no need to specify the gender of the spouses anymore than I need to mention their creed or ethnicity.


If they're two members of the same sex, then whatever they are is not married. So if Ron Paul opposes same-sex couples adopting, then he's not opposing married people adopting, but something else.

----------


## Smart3

> If they're two members of the same sex, then whatever they are is not married. So if Ron Paul opposes same-sex couples adopting, then he's not opposing married people adopting, but something else.


So you don't believe in states' rights?

----------


## Confederate

> So you don't believe in states' rights?


States don't have a right to define marriage.

----------


## erowe1

> So you don't believe in states' rights?


Nope. Nor states, for that matter.

----------


## compromise

> They seem to have personal followings though, for example Maine's "Republicans", as soon as one of them went they sent a leftist Independent and there was no Republican with a chance in hell.  Same with Brown, if it wasn't for him the GOP would have nobody.  Yet red states send Democrats from out of no where i.e Donnelly was a congressman in his first state wide race and won handedly then McCasckall in MO, Heitkkamp and quite a few more.   
> 
> They just seem much better in fooling the constituents into thinking they're personally conservative but when they get to DC they vote with the liberal national party most of the time.  Yet people like Brown are ass-backwards, they run as moderates and then govern as moderates and make deals with the Democrats to give them more votes and not with the party.


Missouri has a Democratic Governor too. It was considered a swing state at the presidential level in 2008. It's not really that red. Sort of like Pennsylvania for the Dems, and the Repubs have Governor Corbett and Senator Toomey there.

----------


## jonhowe

> I doubt Ron Paul or any of the other candidates that have been supported here, aside from Schiff, have ever been for gay couples adopting.


Because Ron wouldn't have MADE it a federal issue. It seems like this guy would/has.

----------


## Confederate

> Because Ron wouldn't have MADE it a federal issue. It seems like this guy would/has.


Which federal legislation has he sponsored regarding homosexual adoptions?

----------


## erowe1

> Because Ron wouldn't have MADE it a federal issue. It seems like this guy would/has.


I'm not familiar with whatever you're talking about. Got a link?

----------


## jonhowe

> I'm not familiar with whatever you're talking about. Got a link?


Go back a page. Look at his voting record. This is not a man who truly understands the role of the federal government.

----------


## erowe1

> Go back a page. Look at his voting record. This is not a man who truly understands the role of the federal government.


Are you talking about a law for Washington DC?

Because, at least as far as the Constitution is concerned, that is the role of the federal government.



> Article I, Section 8: “The Congress shall have power … To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States.”


Incidentally, if that is the vote you're talking about, Ron Paul voted for the same law.
http://ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

----------


## Confederate

> Go back a page. Look at his voting record. This is not a man who truly understands the role of the federal government.


Which votes do you object to and why?

----------

