Bostic vs. Sanford
When Stacy McCain came out for Curtis Bostic, his thumbnail description of the candidate sounded good. Then a commenter of Stacy’s decried Bostic as having a poor record on fiscal issues, and said he is the kind of candidate that people hear about at 8 am and endorse at 8:05 am.
That criticism may not be just as to Stacy, who may have spent considerable time looking into Bostic’s record. But it would be a fair criticism of me if I were to support Bostic, just because he’s not Sanford, or because he’s supposedly a tea party style candidate or something. I’ve never heard him speak and know nothing about him.
If you always rebel against the establishment candidate, no matter what, sometimes you get Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, and sometimes you get Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin. I want to learn more about the candidates as people. Those of you who have looked at Bostic closely, tell us why we should or should not like him. The rest of you, get out the popcorn and enjoy the drama.
It just occurred to me that you could make a pretty quick determination if someone named Bill Self was running! 🙂 Feel free to delete if this isn’t as funny to you as it is to me.
Your line “If you always rebel against the establishment candidate, no matter what, sometimes you get Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio, and sometimes you get Christine O’Donnell or Todd Akin.” is spot on.
phaedruscj (dc2574) — 4/2/2013 @ 6:56 amIf Bill Self is running for your party’s nomination, it is time to switch parties.
JD (3cbfc7) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:02 ami think the cheesy manwhore may be more responsive to voters since he’ll be in rehabilitation mode for the rest of his career
the Bostic is just another stanky old social con – and worse he’s one of the demint ones who see nothing wrong with co-opting the tea party in the name of advancing a stanky old so-con agenda
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:23 amCurtis Bostic has a great résumé, but he could turn out to be a doofus if elected; that’s always possible. But for me, the issue is simple: Mark Sanford abandoned his post!
To me, that is disqualifying, period. I don’t live in Carolina, but if I lived in that district, and Mr Sanford wins the runoff, I would have to vote third party, even if that meant the Democrat would win.
The serious Dana (3e4784) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:30 amhttp://www.beccalower.com/sc-rep-mulvaney-conservative-base-will-show-up-on-april-2-for-bostic/
narciso (3fec35) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:34 amThe Left sure has out the sharp knives for Bostic.
JD (3cbfc7) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:36 amBut Sanford did it for love, because he had found his soulmate, it was like hiking the Appalachian trail, it was …. Mehh, I got nothing.
nk the romantic (c5b7ef) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:48 amother post-abandoners are include the sarah palin and the aforementioned demint bit so far not dave agema
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:51 am*but* so far not I mean
I’m practicing brushing my teefs and commenting at the same time
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:52 amI agree with The Serious Dana. When the incumbent or establishment candidate is this flawed then casting a protest vote for anyone else on the ballot (or even writing in Mickey Mouse or your dog’s name) is better than casting a vote for that candidate. I consider Sanford one of those flawed candidates.
I understand not everyone would agree with me, and there are good reasons for doing so — especially when the ultimate goal is putting the most conservative person possible in office. Even Sanford is better than Colbert-Busch, so some may vote for Sanford if they think he has a better chance of winning the general election (although I think they may be underestimating how relentlessly the Democrats will attack Sanford’s history as a wandering Governor and a philanderer). Finally, as a conservative, I understand being leery of a candidate who is untested and poorly vetted (although I don’t know if that’s the case with Bostic).
Nevertheless, this is a race I’m content to leave up to the voters of South Carolina. I like their beautiful State and the handful of people I know from there, but Senator Lindsey Graham proves their values are different than mine. If they like Mark Sanford, so be it.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/2/2013 @ 7:58 amRemember this is Colbert’s proxy, so the left will pull out all the stops, in order to win this one,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:05 amI think it’s unfortunate that Palin resigned but I understand why she did so. The constant ethical attacks and the resulting legal fees were financially draining her family and the State of Alaska, and also making it impossible for her govern — which was probably the complainants’ goal. So she resigned.
On the other hand, Sanford’s problems were self-created and he made it worse by staying in office, taking a paycheck, and (worst of all) using public funds to fund his private affair. IMO that’s completely different from Palin, but I don’t want this to be about Palin even if one commenter here does.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:07 amAs Governor, Mark Sanford would hardly have been the first to find a new love on the side. His wife already knew about the affair, so it’s not like he was trying to hide it from her. He could have taken a vacation, and turned over authority to the Lieutenant Governor until his return, and I wouldn’t consider that abandoning his post at all.
But he didn’t do that. He came up with some cockamamie hiking excuse, disappeared for days, and somehow thought that he could actually get away with that; just how fornicating stupid does he have to be to have thought that?
I expect 17 year old burger flippers at McDonald’s to skip shifts without calling occasionally; Mr Sanford proved that he’s just as qualified to flip burgers as anyone.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:11 amnarciso wrote:
Perhaps, but we err if we think that that is all Elizabeth Busch is; she has a sound résumé all her own.
The Dana who doesn't live in the Palmetto State (3e4784) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:14 amMark Sanford abandoned his post
The Limerick Avenger (3e4784) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:23 amFor a chick he thought was the most
A Brazilian with flare
He managed to snare
But in this election he’s toast!
But what if Sanford gets a puppy love for her during the general election?
nk who knows the origin of "sarcastic" (c5b7ef) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:25 amWhat’s more, Dana, he used a taxpayer-funded trip to visit her in South America. That’s what I find the most objectionable in his conduct.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:31 amI’m up here in New England, not in South Carolina, but I agree with those who say “Anyone but Sanford”.
If Bostic is elected and turns out to be a moron, he’s one vote out of 435 and can be replaced in 2014 or 2016. If Sanford is elected, he can be used as a weapon against conservatives who believe that marriage is the foundation of a free society. We’re in the middle of a massive national debate (and possible rule by judicial fiat) regarding gay marriage, and we’re thinking of putting the poster boy for marital infidelity in office?
That is madness.
I’ll take one moron out of 435 before Sanford.
bridget (84c06f) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:35 am…which is to say, the worst-case scenario with Bostic is better than the best-case scenario with Sanford.
bridget (84c06f) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:36 amWell said, bridget.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:38 amI dunno about Bostic. The Dems will drop Sanford like a bad habit. Count the seat as lost.
f1guyus (647d76) — 4/2/2013 @ 9:04 am“other post-abandoners are include the sarah palin ”
I’m with DRJ on this one. Sarah Palin took on the Republican establishment in Alaska which was in cahoots with the oil industry. What she did was best for the residents, many of whom live on the oil revenues they get as long term residents. When she became McCain VP nominee, she was suddenly the A1 target of Democrats who demonized her and brought out the nutcase wing in Alaska, not an insignificant number.
The attacks on her with ethics charges were facilitated by a flaw in the Alaska law which made the legal costs the state or the official’s responsibility. It was a bit like the Democrats’ attacks on Gingrich when he forced out Wright in the House.
Also, every time Akin is mentioned I have to remind everyone he was NOT the Tea Party or Palin supported candidate. Both supported another better qualified candidate. Akin was supported by the Democrats with a lot of money.
Mike K (dc6ffe) — 4/2/2013 @ 9:30 amLet’s go with cynicism. If they run Mark Sanford and they lose it becomes a case of “You should’a known better.” He’s a bad candidate from the start. If they run Curt Bostic and he turns out to be a moron then I’d almost have to call it fate and ask S. Carolina why they can’t find any good candidates to fill safe seats. Take a chance on Bostic.
rustypaladin (b3c999) — 4/2/2013 @ 1:31 pm“Then a commenter of Stacy’s decried Bostic as having a poor record on fiscal issues, and said he is the kind of candidate that people hear about at 8 am and endorse at 8:05 am.”
How is that last part a negative? If someone is willing to endorse you five minutes after they first hear about you, that’s a good sign.
Joshua (9ede0e) — 4/2/2013 @ 2:28 pmendorse in haste repent at leisure I think
Mourdock got all the way up to October 23 before he got all crazy with the rapey cheez whiz
oof!
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 4/2/2013 @ 2:35 pmHappyfeet – you have to ignore the context to say that about Mourdock.
JD (b63a52) — 4/2/2013 @ 2:45 pmWhich is exactly what the MFM counted on.
JD (b63a52) — 4/2/2013 @ 2:46 pmMike K wrote:
I agree that it is a serious problem that Governor Palin resigned; she failed to build the record she needed to run credibly for President.
However, I don’t see her as having abandoned her post; by resigning, she passed it along to the lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, and didn’t leave her state without a chief executive.
The Dana who notes the diference (af9ec3) — 4/2/2013 @ 2:54 pmI guess maybe so Mr. JD but we’d still have needed to have a conversation to discern that context – and, of course, the context also included what Akin had said a month or so earlier
to me that was most important – that we were being dragged back into the whole rape conversation
the whole Akin/Mourdock/Walsh thing was a last straw for me
the number of lifeydoodles I’ll vote for has dwindled drastically, and even those I’m tentative about
maybe Jindal
maybe Mr. Rand Paul
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 4/2/2013 @ 2:57 pmSo long as the narrative stays intact.
JD (b63a52) — 4/2/2013 @ 3:11 pmIf Todd Akin had lost the primary, then Joe Donnolly wouldn’t be a U.S. Senator right now.
Even some liberals I know understand that there is a difference between Akin and Mourdock; the latter expressed the belief that the value of a person’s life does not depend on his parent’s actions. A child conceived in rape and carried to term will be a joy to any adoptive parents (and, often, to the birth mother – and many birth mothers decide to keep their children in those circumstances). That child will be someone’s friend on the playground, later a valued soccer teammate; then a confidante in junior high; someone’s prom date; someone’s rock-solid best friend and college roommate; someone’s husband or wife; and then a parent and a grandparent.
There’s nothing offensive about that, unless you believe that a father’s evil condemns the child to non-existence.
bridget (84c06f) — 4/2/2013 @ 3:18 pmat some point the narrative went from being about my political party to being about someone else’s political party I guess
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 4/2/2013 @ 3:18 pmCorrection, if Lugar hadn’t been such a jackwagon, ala Castle, Murkowski, et al, then Murdock would have prevailed,
narciso (3fec35) — 4/2/2013 @ 3:26 pmWhat Stacy & others seems to be overlooking is the fact that Mark Stanford is one of the few Republicans running for congress that is a Tea Partier both by experience and principles. He has a real track record of confronting our
smokedaddy (7a8a0d) — 4/2/2013 @ 3:47 pmgop establishment while in high office in order to limit the size of government. Yes, he had a serious moral failing while governor and lied about it. What he did was all too human and stupid. He deserved to be deposed as governor, which he was. He does not deserve to be exiled for life from politics with no possibility of redemption. If we allow our support for otherwise qualified & principled candidates to be derailed by their moral failings, or an impolitic statement in a talk radio interview for that matter, then we’re done for. Time to grow up and make distinctions between public & private failings. Sanford deserves our support.
Bostic says that what we need are congressman with the moral courage to say yes. This tells you everything you need to know about how he’ll operate and support compromise at all costs with the Dems, at least on fiscal issues. I’m sure Boehner, Rove & co will be very happy should he beat Sanford.
smokedaddy (7a8a0d) — 4/2/2013 @ 3:52 pmi think they only had like 8 minutes after your comment to get to the polls Mr. smokedaddy
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 4/2/2013 @ 4:03 pmsmokedaddy wrote:
I have taken the distinction between public and private failings, and it seems to me that abandoning your post constitutes a very public failing.
The Dana who hasn't been smoking that stuff! (af9ec3) — 4/2/2013 @ 4:23 pmwho didn’t abandon their post was the sarah palin and the dave agema, unlike notorious post-abandoners jim demint and mark sanford
(the latter being a man filled with hubris what nobody should vote for cause of he’s a dangerous weapon pointing menacingly at the heart of traditional marriage)
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 4/2/2013 @ 4:29 pmLet me ‘splain it to you.
Gus (694db4) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:03 pmBOSTIC has moral and principles. He must be DESTROYED.
SANFORD is a whore AND A POLITICAL WHORE. He has the Alynski seal of approval.
Until he runs against a LIBTARD.
Sanford’s problem is not that he went sniffing after some strange stuff. It’s that he became a laughingstock doing it. No gravitas.
nk (d4662f) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:20 pmThat’s true. He was a willing joke.
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:21 pmI am having difficulty finding the words to describe how little I care about who wins this. I guess I trust the voters of that state to decide who they prefer to represent them without obligating any of my money or offering my input. Surely no one can argue that any sentient person in that jurisdiction is unaware of Sanford’s story.
elissa (9c074b) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:35 pmthe internet says Mr. Sanford wins
traditional marriage is doomed in america I’m afraid
either that or this will have no effect on the fate of traditional marriage
happyfeet (4bf7c2) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:40 pmwhen i go hiking there’s always mostly older ‘deliverence’ guys lurking in the wood not salma hayek stuff but if
pdbuttons (2648f1) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:48 pmbut if
but if there was i’d max out my credit cards toot suite and i know i wouldn’t regret it
It looks like former Governor Sanford has won the primary runoff. My website will be looking at the third party candidates for an endorsement.
The blogger Dana (af9ec3) — 4/2/2013 @ 5:57 pmhikers unite! I like trying for the summit but I always fergets water food and stuff so I pass out and I really love America and whoever the local authorities who gave the go ahead for my ‘helicopter’ rescue I just want to say/ again
pdbuttons (2648f1) — 4/2/2013 @ 6:12 pmThanks
Dana- he was both their former governor and a former congressman. Not an unknown quantity by any means. Do you think it’s possible that despite recognizing his very disappointing personal failures that voters also saw something in his previous public service and professional conduct– a competence or a leadership quality perhaps–that they liked and are rewarding? Is there any indication that Democrats crossed over to vote for Sanford? (I don’t know the rules in that state about that.)
elissa (9c074b) — 4/2/2013 @ 6:15 pmSouth Carolina is open primary, like Illinois. Crossover allowed, no questions asked.
nk (d4662f) — 4/2/2013 @ 6:26 pmelissa: Mr Sanford was certainly better known than Mr Bostic, and it is possible that those of us outside the Palmetto State who supported Mr Bostic actually turned some Carolinians against him.
Personally, I just don’t know how you can support someone who abandoned his post; that, to me, is a completely disqualifying action. I would rather see Elizabeth Busch win the special election than Mr Sanford; her votes might be repugnant, but here’s no indication that she is dishonorable.
The extremely disappointed Dana (af9ec3) — 4/2/2013 @ 6:39 pmThanks for the info, nk. Dana, I have no dog in this fight. I’m just asking questions about the electorate there and their possible motivations.
elissa (9c074b) — 4/2/2013 @ 6:47 pmnetflix has a documentary about the appalachian trail
i haven’t watched it yet but i bet I will one day
happyfeet (8ce051) — 4/2/2013 @ 8:43 pmDid it never occur to all these well-intentioned people who say “how can SC voters be so stupid?” without knowing any more about the candidates or the race than they’ve read on blogs or MSM reports that perhaps the voters of this district, who have known both men all their lives, have a more complete opinion than outsiders?
Sanford is THE anti-establishment candidate in SC, Bostic is the establishment candidate who never tried to cut spending in any way. If you believe otherwise, you have been misinformed.
And NO, we have not forgotten Sanford’s failings, but we know enough of both men not to send a big spender to do Bobby Harrell’s will in Washington because of them.
Estragon (3bc1a7) — 4/2/2013 @ 10:40 pmEstragon,
I believe you are the McCain commenter I referred to in the post, although you perhaps use a different handle there, if I am not mistaken.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/2/2013 @ 10:52 pmIt’s a moot point now but for what it’s worth there were good arguments made in this thread (such as by DRJ) that made the case for Anybody But Sanford. The taxpayer funded international junkets to see the Main Squeeze really are unforgivable.
Then you had folks like Gus at #39, whose arguments I find less persuasive. I can’t really muster positive enthusiasm for an unknown quantity any more, even if hyperpartisan folks declare any dissenters to be LIBTARDS.
Ultimately, though, it was up to the SC voters, and it looks like they have made their choice. I’ll take a Ted Cruz over any of these clowns any day of the week, but there are only so many such people to go around.
Patterico (9c670f) — 4/2/2013 @ 11:04 pmP
be careful -if you dont automatically support the tea party LEADERS (note so called spokespersons) picks for office – you will no longer be welcome at your own blog
do I need to put the sarc tag for the usual characters?
EPWJ (1cedce) — 4/2/2013 @ 11:32 pmSanford’s official sins have already been dealt with according to South Carolina law. There are no lingering questions, so all the angst about “deserting his post” and “taxpayer money” is about points long moot.
Given that the state establishment (but not the voters) was extremely hostile to Sanford from the start, those who think he got off easy are on their own. Some will never be dissuaded once they take a position.
But there wasn’t a single voter who wasn’t aware of all this, while outsiders read a couple of blog posts – OMG Ann Coulter is for Bostic!!! – and pretend to know it all.
The experience has enlightened me to the fact that conservative bloggers are no better than the MSM in overlooking truths that interfere with their preferred narrative.
But perhaps the most hilarious aspect is the idea that South Carolina voters were going to respond positively to a bunch of carpetbaggers telling us what we should do. We start wars over that stuff. What were these morons thinking? That us hicks would thank them for enlightening us as to people we’ve known all their lives?
Estragon (3bc1a7) — 4/3/2013 @ 12:13 amEstragon – You hicks deserve who you get.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 4/3/2013 @ 12:31 amGreat points Estragon. I think local voters mistrust of outsiders is not to be underestimated. This was likely at play in the Mia Love race. When candidates start paying more attention to speechifying at CPAC than they do to Chamber of Commerce mixers, they tend to run into trouble.
smokedaddy (7a8a0d) — 4/3/2013 @ 12:45 amI respect the South Carolina voters’ decision, and I accept Estragon’s point that local voters know more about their candidates than “carpetbaggers.”
DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/3/2013 @ 1:24 am