• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ex-SC Gov. Sanford back in political office

Is there a way that Sanford can be removed from office and another Repub could be appointed to take his place? Or would they have to hold another Special Election?

I would rather see the seat held and get Sanford out another way. At least for 2014.

But after listening to this guy's Victory Speech and all that BS about change Washington, and sending someone to change Washington. Just listening to it over the Radio. One got the impression this guy is FOS. That isn't real and this is nothing but a power trip for him. This isn't serving the people.
 
Why should I care? I don't live in their district or their state. They can elect someone who will disappear down in South America for a while, or someone who is related to a television personality. I don't care.
 
He won because he made it a national election.

He tied CB to Pelosi and Obama, and she made it easier than it should have been, given the 6 to 1 spending advantage she had thanks to an influx of out of state money.
 
poweRob said:
Which only shows how sad and divisive partisans have become. So much for
the whole diatribe during the Clinton years the GOP threw about about how "Character matters!!111111!!!!!" Guess not.
Click to expand...

People chose a guy who had a mistress over someone who shares the same ideology as the President.

It's no wonder he won.

Democrats have a uphill battle after 4 and a half years of unmitigated failure from a President who has no issue with pushing about protest.
 
Texmex said:
Why should I care? I don't live in their district or their state. They can elect someone who will disappear down in
South America for a while, or someone who is related to a television personality. I don't care.
Click to expand...

I hear its nice in SC, you should give the move a good once over.

You know, keep Texas Conservative.
 
Fenton said:
I hear its nice in SC, you should give the move a good once over.

You know, keep Texas Conservative.
Click to expand...

I have been in North Carolina before, and I know that part of the country is beautiful; however,I was born in Texas and have no desire to live anywhere else, thank you very much.
 

it's somewhat surreal; however, it's not completely unpredictable. with the level of partisan division in this country, party trumps everything for many people.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Clinton issue was never character; it was lying under oath.
Click to expand...
Both wrong. Well...wrong and a half. Lying under oath...bad. Lying under oath while on trial of sexual harassment for jerking off in front of a campaign staffer and asking her to kiss it. Well...thats kinda an issue. Allegations of rape and sexual assault...those kinda matter too. Getting a blow job from someone he classified as a child...well...that just makes him a douchebag. But....a decent president and one I would vote in tomorrow if it were possible, considering who we have as available options.
 
So basically...the people of SC decided that as a politician, this guy was better than the gal who's claim to fame was that she had a famous unfunny brother. Or was it a 'referendum' on Obama? Maybe the people of SC did what so many liberals on this site say they did in 2012...voted for the lesser of two evils.
 
Why is her only virtue being related to Stephen Colbert?
 
Jack Hays said:
The Clinton issue was never character; it was lying under oath.
Click to expand...

And the Sanford issue wasn't his cheating it was using public funds to take trips to see his girlfriend.
 


Now explain the political career of Ted Kennedy.
 

Sometimes I think we are getting exactly what we deserve. The fact that this asshole could even get on the ballot is a statement in itself.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Clinton issue was never character; it was lying under oath.
Click to expand...

Actually it was religious right whack jobs exerting their influence over republicans to participate in a blatant witch hunt. If republicans had a brain, they would have gone after him for national security purposes. He put himself in a position to be bribed.

Instead the religious right does what it always does, it attempts to legislate morality.
 
we elect the politicians we deserve

that is all
 
Amadeus said:
Why is her only virtue being related to Stephen Colbert?
Click to expand...
Name one other virtue or characteristic she possessed that made her a qualified candidate. Even one of her biggest supporters, the HuPo introduced her as "Elizabeth Colbert Busch, the sister of political satirist Stephen Colbert". The only other previous public interest in her from the past involves a mug shot.
 
A get why Sanford beat that bag of nothing running against him, but couldn't the folks of SC find another Republican to run?

Can't stand the Sanfords of the world.
 
Don't kid yourself.

It was opportunistic establishment types who used the "religious right" to do their dirty work. Clinton presented a target of opportunity and the Republicans pounced. It worked, too. G.W. Bush became the next President.
 
Jack Hays said:
A Dem propaganda meme.
Click to expand...

Sure thing. To suggest that Family Values was not a centerpiece of the republican party is just silly.

The republicans are now trying to distance themselves from the Family Values bull**** line. They have embarrassed themselves enough apparently.


In other words, we are scumbags. We just can't go around telling others to behave when we are banging everything that squats to pee and even many of those who do not.

GOP Removes
 
Jack Fabulous said:
Don't kid yourself.

It was opportunistic establishment types who used the "religious right" to do their dirty work. Clinton presented a target of opportunity and the Republicans pounced. It worked, too. G.W. Bush became the next President.
Click to expand...

You have to love the right wing apologists. As if you would ever admit falling prey to your religious right bedfellows? Y'all got up with fleas.
 


Considering Democrats keep electing people like murderer-Ted Kennedy Corrupt - Chris Dodd, Loverboy-John Edwards, Charlie Rangel and Whitewater architect-Hillary Clinton. Now.....Let's talk partisan blindness
 
Top Cat said:
You have to love the right wing apologists. As if you would ever admit falling prey to your religious right bedfellows? Y'all got up with fleas.
Click to expand...
The funny thing about this post(other than the fact that the point went right over your head) is that it is obvious that you actually believe that the Democrats somehow don't have just as many fleas.:lol:
 
Jack Hays said:
The Clinton issue was never character; it was lying under oath.
Click to expand...

Clinton never had to run for office after the lying under oath thing.

The attacks on Clinton were accusations of marital infidelity, you know, character attacks.
 

Public interest is not a credential, especially when that interest is largely scandalous, as in Sanford's case. Aside from being an ethically ambiguous ideologue, I don't see what qualifies Sanford as a candidate.

As for Busch:

 
Amadeus said:
Public interest is not a credential, especially when that interest is largely scandalous, as in Sanford's case. Aside from being an ethically ambiguous ideologue, I don't see what qualifies Sanford as a candidate.

As for Busch:
Click to expand...

Maybe they just couldn't stand her brother.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…