Mark Sanford Loses SC Seat In Primary

[timosman]

Can somebody enlighten me what the purpose of juleswin posting here is?

 

[juleswin]

1. Here you go. Here he is criticizing withdrawal from TPP. First answer. Second paragraph https://www.weeklystandard.com/haley-byrd/sanford-tariffs-are-an-experiment-with-stupidity

2. He was one of five Republicans to vote against funding for the wall regardless of what he said. Sanford has sensible immigration views similar to Ron Paul's. There is nothing that will please left wing immigration groups. They only want Democratic voters.

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have missed the one. I did a google search of Sanford + some of populist Trump policies got nothing for the policies I used. Also on the immigration bit, I think he still supports Trump's policies with opposition coming from ways to pay for it.

Could this have harmed him with his base? yes. I guess you were right all along

 

[angelatc]

His was a big one. It was a public one. There were a series of unexplained absences. He told his family he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail. Maybe that's what they call it in Argentina. He was charged with misuse of state funds to carry on his licentious behavior, because it turns out the woman in Argentina was not the first.

A congressman needs to be ethical and focused. We need people there who dial down the crazy.

You don't see the irony of Trump calling Sanford out over his infidelities though? Honestly I was always somewhat relieved that I didn't need to hold my nose and vote for Sanford, but I would have.

We were better off with him than we will be without him.

 

[thoughtomator]

You don't see the irony of Trump calling Sanford out over his infidelities though? Honestly I was always somewhat relieved that I didn't need to hold my nose and vote for Sanford, but I would have.

We were better off with him than we will be without him.

Sanford did it while in office and lied to his constituents about it. I remember when it happened, his behavior was absolutely indefensible.

Trump's infidelities were in his capacity as a private citizen, and no one alleges that they continue while in office.

 

[angelatc]

Can somebody enlighten me what the purpose of juleswin posting here is?

One of the owners is on record as saying that the trolls are good for their bottom line. Sadly that seemed to come at the expense of being a political activism forum.

 

[angelatc]

Sanford did it while in office and lied to his constituents about it. I remember when it happened, his behavior was absolutely indefensible.

.

I agree. If you are bored, dig back through the old threads and you'll see that I was pretty unforgiving about the betrayal.

This will get lost in the Trump noise, but Sanford predicted he was going to lose before Trump tweeted.

 

[Matt Collins]

For libertarian-leaning candidates, running against Trump is NOT a winning strategy. It didn't work for Rand during the primaries, it didn't work for this guy and it won't work for anyone else. A far better strategy is to try to sell libertarian ideas under a populist banner to try and ride the wave. Populism is big, left and right, throughout the Western world. Libertarians with political ambitions either need to use this fact to their advantage or realize they'll be neutered politically.

This is absolutely correct. And I am not a huge Trump fan. But it is a political reality.

Rand and Massie's current strategy are gaining some results.

 

[specsaregood]

You mean dishonesty..
You are right.. most libertarians tend to be too Honest. Truth is rarely politically correct.

Here is some honesty; Sanford should have worked with a speech therapist years ago to eliminate that lisp of his. I could never stand listening to him for more than a minute just because it was grating.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Yes, just what we need--more sexual shenanigans in the Senate. Sanford is a philanderer. Dude neglected the affairs of the state of South Carolina to be with some Argentine broadcaster. Sanford is why you now have Nikki Haley taking down the Confederate flag and moving on to UN Ambassador. Who actually did a lot of the negotiating in the run up to the US/DPRK summit.

Sanford is in theHouse, not the Senate. And I don't know that you can blame him for Haley...

 

[Anti Federalist]

I just saw that woman's picture... holy fucking shit on a pogo stick, that woman is ugly. Sanford must have screwed this up royally to get beat by that. Hell, you could win an election just by printing her name on a picture of her face and distributing it everywhere. DAYUM THAT UGLY ugly. I know they say politics is acting for ugly people, but they didn't mean THAT ugly. That's break the lens ugly. You really gotta fuck up to lose to ugly on that level.

I've seen worse at Danke's Home for Wayward Women.

 

[euphemia]

I miswrote. I had it right in another post.

Haley was the one who took over as governor when Sanford left office. Haley was hand picked by Sanford for the office. It makes it all the more important that Sanford not be in the House where his main job is spending money. He spent state money on himself in SC.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Kind of a sad thing, I guess, but don't poke the bear is the lesson here.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Sanford did it to himself. No one probably remembers the following thread:

Sanford: ‘I’m a Dead Man Walking’

My comments:

I saw that when it came out. I am not sure if this article is a good thing. Seems like a way to undermine. Sanford is the point man in the House on Obamacare repeal and replace (Rand's version). Is this the right time for a public "FU" to Trump? Opposing ideas and nominations is one thing, but this will not win Trump's support for legislation.

Other than that, it also portrays Sanford as a disheveled, broken and desperate man, still publically obsessing about his affair.

Yeah, I'd have to say this one isn't positive.

The intro to the article:

None of this feels normal. The congressman greets me inside his Washington office wearing a wrinkly collared shirt with its top two buttons undone, faded denim jeans and grungy, navy blue Crocs that expose his leather-textured feet. Nearing the end of our 30-minute interview, he cancels other appointments and extends our conversation by an hour. He repeatedly brings up his extramarital affair, unsolicited, pointing to the lessons learned and relationships lost. He acknowledges and embraces his own vulnerability—political, emotional and otherwise. He veers on and off the record, asking himself rhetorical questions, occasionally growing teary-eyed, and twice referring to our session as “my Catholic confessional.”

And then he does the strangest thing of all: He lays waste to the president of his own party.

Most Republicans in Washington are biting their tongues when it comes to Donald Trump, fearful that any candid criticisms of the new president could invite a backlash from their constituents or, potentially worse, provoke retribution from the commander in chief himself.

Mark Sanford is not like most Republicans in Washington.
...
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/02/mark-sanford-profile-214791

And who remembers Sanford's NY Times Op-Ed attacking Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/...onald-trump-now-release-your-tax-returns.html

 

[Krugminator2]

It makes it all the more important that Sanford not be in the House where his main job is spending money. He spent state money on himself in SC.

All of that stuff was brought up when he ran against Stephen Colbert's sister. He spent less on travel than any of his predecessors.

His being frugal personally and in office is the one thing he is most known for. He even turned down stimulus money. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24528985.html

Instead of making minimum wage or whatever a governor makes, they should have paid him $5-$10 million a year and made him governor for life.

 

[nikcers]

Sanford did it to himself. No one probably remembers the following thread:

Sanford: ‘I’m a Dead Man Walking’

My comments:



The intro to the article:



And who remembers Sanford's NY Times Op-Ed attacking Trump?

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/...onald-trump-now-release-your-tax-returns.html

This is about this nicest thing a conservative could say, and the only reason a conservative could give for voting for Trump. He probably helped bring about Trumps victory by pushing this narrative and giving conservatives a reason to vote for a moderate like Trump.

I am a conservative Republican who, though I have no stomach for his personal style and his penchant for regularly demeaning others, intends to support my party’s nominee because of the importance of filling the existing vacancy on the Supreme Court, and others that might open in the next four years.

 

[euphemia]

All of that stuff was brought up when he ran against Stephen Colbert's sister. He spent less on travel than any of his predecessors.

His being frugal personally and in office is the one thing he is most known for. He even turned down stimulus money. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24528985.html

Instead of making minimum wage or whatever a governor makes, they should have paid him $5-$10 million a year and made him governor for life.

He was using state money to visit his mistress in Argentina. He was charged with like 37 separate violation. If he had controlled his hormones, he would still be married and would have finished out his term.

This is why I think people should hold office based on what they're good at. Sanford, hormones aside, was good as governor, but has not been so great in the House. Likewise, liberal Phil Bredesen (founder of HCA/former Nashville mayor and TN gov) has excellent executive abilities, but should not be running for Senate.

 

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.

It isn't that he attacked him, it's how and when. Whatever you think of him, Trump tapped into a very real and fruitful vein of support, mostly from people discontent with immigration and modern American culture. A whole host of Conservatism Inc. types started piling on and Rand looked like just another one of those. If you read my posts from that period, you'll see that I was fine with him attacking Trump, provided it was an effective strategy that helped the campaign. It wasn't. Rand's campaign was dysfunctional and ineffective

 

[Brian4Liberty]

This is about this nicest thing a conservative could say, and the only reason a conservative could give for voting for Trump. He probably helped bring about Trumps victory by pushing this narrative and giving conservatives a reason to vote for a moderate like Trump.

That statement would have been fine if he had left it at that. He didn't leave it at that though.

 

[nikcers]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.

Rand's strategy possibly has endeared him with some of the Trump supporters for giving him a chance. I think his strategy was good in hindsight. I don't think anyone would of been able to defeat million dollar attack ads against them the first day they announced, a crowded field that eats up any sort of campaign funding you can get to campaign to non traditional voters, and an opponent that gets billions of dollars in free advertising. I don't think a Rand Paul rally would of ever got played on CNN at primetime.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Rand shot himself in the foot by opening the first debate attacking Trump for not being a party-line Republican. His father's credibility came from not being party line. He blew all that.

Yeah, perhaps Rand's single biggest mistake. But it wouldn't had mattered anyway, Trump became inevitable very quickly. As a matter of fact, Rand has played it quite well since then.