Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Two elections tonight

Two elections tonight

South Carolina


Mark Sanford Wins Primary Runoff


Supreme Court, Balance of Power, Future of Key Issues at Stake in Wisconsin Court Race.

Update: YESSSSSSS!!!!!!!

Wisconsin Supreme Court election 4-2-2013

Do you remember Justice Roggensack? Harken back to my post from August 2011, when Wisconsin was under attack from the unions and Justice Prosser was under attack from Justice Bradley, WI Justice Ann Walsh Bradley’s abusive claim of abuse:

“Justice Roggensack said if she had not got in between the two of them, she believes Justice Bradley would have “smacked him in the face with her fist .””


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Absolutely mind boggling stupidity on the part of South Carolina voters. These people ought to be ashamed of themselves.

    Estragon in reply to Paul. | April 3, 2013 at 12:53 am

    If my only information on the race came from conservative bloggers and the MSM, I might think so too.

    But it isn’t that people aren’t angry with Sanford. It’s that they weren’t dumb enough to let their anger and disappointment make them elect a big-spending establishment politician instead.

    Didn’t know that? Didn’t know that Sanford was a lock from the day he announced, having lived his whole life in the district as a businessman and community participant before he ever ran for public office? Didn’t know the district knows Sanford AND Bostic better than you do?

    Well, you might have to rethink the weight you give to your sources of misinformation.

      Paul in reply to Estragon. | April 3, 2013 at 1:25 am

      Don’t give me that it was Sanford or Bostic. My point goes even further back to the field of 16 earlier. You are attempting to tell me, that out of a field of 16, that Sanford or Bostic were the best the GOP had? My point stands, South Carolina voters ought to be ashamed of themselves. If Sanford is the best that can represent them, the shame is definitely on them.

        Estragon in reply to Paul. | April 3, 2013 at 1:44 am

        Chip Limehouse or Larry Grooms wouldn’t have embarrassed us in DC, but neither have Sanford’s proven record of reform in government and fighting to control spending and against pork.

        It’s not that people forgot his failings or aren’t so mad about them, it’s that his proven positive qualities and understanding of conservative governance outweighed them.

        So those dumbass Republicans pick someone who can’t win in the general election? Did he parade his “soulmate” for the dumbasses to ogle? What is wrong with these people? They pick Akin and Todd in winable races only to see them stick their feet in their mouths and lose in the general.

P. Roggensack wins per CSpan link! Good.

As to Sanford, it’s all I can do to stop myself from writing a check … to his Democrat opponent. How did we end up with a lying pig as a candidate? Weren’t we supposed to be better than the worshipers of Bill Clinton?

    snopercod in reply to DaMav. | April 3, 2013 at 8:37 am

    As to Sanford, it’s all I can do to stop myself from writing a check … to his Democrat opponent.

    See, I don’t get that. Before his tryst, Sanford was a rising conservative superstar who was considered presidential material. He had a great record at putting South Carolina’s fiscal house in order; He repeatedly vetoed the SC Assembly’s budget because it spent too much. So now his record is meaningless because he originally married the wrong woman? Does Sanford no longer believe in smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and more freedom? Of course he does, but you’ll support a candidate that believes in more government, more taxes, and less freedom just to prove that you’re morally superior? That doesn’t make sense to me.

    I think it would be wonderful if, just once, Republicans would stand behind a less than perfect candidate.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to snopercod. | April 3, 2013 at 11:12 am

      It’s not about marrying the wrong woman. If he had done that, he could’ve and should’ve asked his wife for a divorce. It is about abdication of duty and lying to his wife and constituents. It is about acting dishonorably. It is about ethics, about character, not about ideology. Your argument is that with the right ideology character doesn’t matter. Hello Democrats!

      I wonder who really voted for Sanford. Could Democrats have crossed over to set Sanford up for a loss later on?

    Juba Doobai! in reply to DaMav. | April 3, 2013 at 11:13 am

    Nothing can ever get me to write a check for any Democrat.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 2, 2013 at 11:14 pm

Time to narrow the focus down to his executive abilities. He could bring some needed acumen to the house.

He would make a better speaker than Boehner for instance.

If he wins it wil be a big win for Congress – if he loses – soooooo much pain.

    Executive abilities? Here we have an executive who abandoned his post, lying every step of the way to the stakeholders of his ‘company’, while creating significant damage to the brand. What assurance do we have that he won’t pull the same stunt again? Would you really hire him to run a company you owned?

Oh for Chrissake!

Okay, part of me thinks “it’s just about sex. Can’t we get back to the business of the people?”

The other part thinks we should torpedo the old goat. Is there a Libertarian running?

It’s probably time to invoke the Buckley Rule.

BannedbytheGuardian | April 2, 2013 at 11:22 pm

To Paul & Dav – you guys don’t know how to win .

The other side have no morals & are not held back by this stuff. If he says he has the skills to bring economic management – then go with that . What is the Colbert woman offering ?

Learn how to win. Like the thirst says…..

Though I walk through the Valley of Evil

I fear not because I am the biggest bastard there.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | April 2, 2013 at 11:35 pm

    T shirt . Autocorrect .

      “The other side have no morals & are not held back by this stuff.”

      Apparently neither do we. Just look at Sanford.

        Paul in reply to DaMav. | April 3, 2013 at 1:30 am

        Ya. the whole “They all do it.” argument is so tiresome. If by winning you sell your soul to the devil, have you really won?

        To banned, Learn how to win? At WHAT COST? Our moral principles as a nation have sunk so low, that we won’t survive as a free nation if we continue down this path.
        Winning isn’t everything. If we become just like our political opponents for the sake of winning, then we have already lost.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Paul. | April 3, 2013 at 2:48 am

          The cost of losing is losing is too high.

          In The Garden Of Good And Evil .

          We all live there. We are all sinners to some extent. me most likely more than you but I am not as bad as Hillary.

          Lighten up.

          katiejane in reply to Paul. | April 3, 2013 at 5:32 am

          Absolutely – I admit that at times I think the GOP doesn’t have the cajones to fight but to accept Sanford because “it’s only sex”. Winning is not the only thing – at least for some of us.

          katiejane in reply to Paul. | April 3, 2013 at 6:40 am

          realized my previous post didn’t make sense. I agree with Paul – there should be some level we won’t sink to just to elect a guy with an R after his name. We DON’T need to support/accept Sanford – if nothing else his total lack of judgment should disqualify him for public office.

          The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

FreshPondIndians | April 2, 2013 at 11:28 pm

A 24 year old Republican nurse also just got elected to the MA State Legislature tonight

Anyone who thinks the Democrat has a chance in the special election in May is also a victim of willful disinformation.

Karen Finney is right — it IS those crazy crackers on the right!

Mark screwed up, give him a chance to redeem himself. I liked him, I think he did a lot for SC and is a man keen to business. If you guys are waiting on Dudley Do-right to come along and sweep you off your feet you are going to wait forever in the hyperspeed information age……everyone, including Ronaldus Magnus, has baggage these days. Hey, like Clinton (and unlike L Graham) at least we know what side his bread is buttered on!

    katiejane in reply to scooterjay. | April 3, 2013 at 10:20 am

    So you’d rather have a liar who will deceive his wife and children, abandon his office and go out of country to play with his bimbo, spend political funds in support of that behavior – than have a candidate you think may be homosexual? Wow

      Juba Doobai! in reply to katiejane. | April 3, 2013 at 11:23 am

      There, Sanford becomes the lesser of two evils because the homosexual guy inevitably will want legislation in support of his interests, which is likely to be counter to mine. For instance, he might support the redefinition of marriage or the banning of the Boy Scouts. With such choices, neither would be acceptable.

      scooterjay in reply to katiejane. | April 3, 2013 at 7:23 pm

      nah, you are kinda going out of the way there with your reasoning. 2=2 doesn’t equal five until you add something

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | April 3, 2013 at 9:42 am

The special interest progressives won big time in Kansas City. They got three initiatives on the ballot and won all three with huge overwhelming margins, thanks to miniscule voter turnout.

Since I moved back to KC in 2006, this is at least the fourth election, some with more than one initiative at a time (yesterday there were three), that has passed. Most, if not all, deal with either new taxes or extending taxes set to expire. Off the top of my head I can’t think of a single one these progressive “voter initiatives” that has failed. They rely heavily on special elections when turnout is very poor to jam them through.

One ballot initiative that passed yesterday is a complete absurdity. It extends for another nine years a property tax on homeowners to help provide healthcare assisstance to the indignant. I guess the 76% of the people who voted for it, all uninformed morons apparently, are unware that Obamacare is law. It’s an embarrassing failure of democracy that people could be so stupid to pass this and that the people who recognized the absurdity couldn’t be bothered to vote.

The people behind these initiatives know how to work the system. They are extremely well organized. They have the money to promote. I first received in the mail a colorful, glossy, expensive brochure of about 8-12 pages about two weeks ago, and then oversized one page colorful glossy mailings advocating their positions almost daily after that. I also received a couple of robocalls. On the first inititiave I described above, there was not one word mentioned that the services covered by the tax will be covered by Obamacare. It was all about compassion and tugging on heart strings for the poor. I received no promotinal literature or robocalls from anybody taking the other side of the the three issues.

Henry Hawkins | April 3, 2013 at 9:42 am

Sanford’s defenders wish to make it about sex rather than abandoning his duties as governor. A strawman is what you deploy when you know your defense is weak.

The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior and it is unclear how/if Sanford has managed to change substantive character flaws which are demonstrably obvious. He would rejoin the US House where he’ll enjoy far less scrutiny than from the governor’s mansion, so maybe he’ll get away with it next time, whatever it is next time – and there will be a next time.

This proves conclusively that the worst thing about this country is not the politicians, it is the voters. Democrats are right; it seems that a large number of us are drooling mouth breathers.

Man! I didn’t know so many purists read this blog. Let the purest ones who actually live in Sanford’s district step forward and swear they have never sinned. The rest of you stop sucking your thumbs and go join the communist/democrat party where you belong.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to tmac. | April 3, 2013 at 11:12 am

    Your logic is woefully illogical, almost childlike in its naivete. According to you, no one should ever be fired, no one should be rejected, no one should be ousted from office, because sin happens and no one is without sin.

    Please show me in the Bible – you speak in terms of sin – where it is a sin to abandon your very high office and disappear.

    Having accomplished that, please show me where a US House Representative votes only on bills that affect only his or her home congressional district, therefore only voters from that district have standing.

      1. Sanford is lecturing SC-1 voters on Christian forgiveness while engaged to the woman he left his wife and four children for: a woman whom the voters are not given a chance to see.

      And the electorate falls for it.

      2. Maybe a critical mass of female voters are not amused. We’ll find out in the general election.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to tmac. | April 3, 2013 at 11:26 am

    When you stand for nothing, you will fall for everything.

If Sanford was anything other than a total idiot he wouldn’t have considered running for office.

i think it was a setup that he has the tables turned on….hence the turtle, sitting on the fence of the whole enchilada.

Henry Hawkins | April 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm

The mere act of Sanford running is a renege on his promise to term limit himself in the US House. (Before he became governor, he was a US House representative, promised to serve and leave).

Mark Michael | April 3, 2013 at 9:13 pm

The May general election is not that far away. Why not holster some of the hostility for Sanford and see who wins, the Far Left sister of Colbert or the character-challenged Sanford? In my case, I prefer Sanford over the Far Left D candidate. What tempers my distaste for seeing Sanford elected is his long service as a conservative in Congress and as governor of SC. I hope some of the deep hostility to him is pragmatic: You think he’s going to lose, thanks to his sex-related behavior. I do try to remember, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone.” Note that Jesus did not say, “He who has not committed adultery cast the first stone,” but without any sin. Forgiveness and 2nd chances are a longstanding American traditions. I don’t think they’re bad ones.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Mark Michael. | April 3, 2013 at 9:57 pm

    You realize your premise demands you also stop criticizing Obama?

    It’s real pretty sounding stuff and all, but basically it says nobody can criticize (cast a stone) anybody because everybody is guilty of something. Are we to assume you’ve never criticized anyone? Or, if you have, that you’ve never ‘sinned’?

      Mark Michael in reply to Henry Hawkins. | April 4, 2013 at 9:40 am

      “Are we to assume you’ve never criticized anyone?” No, it’s not that black-and-white. Christians often say, “Condemn the sin but not the sinner.” If the “sinner” repents and (hopefully) makes amends, we Americans tend to be forgiving. “Casting the stone” is at the person, not the sinner. Jesus told his followers, “If you do not forgive your brother his sin, neither will your Father who is in heaven, forgive you your sin.” Now, Sanford did not sin against me, but against his wife. It’s between the two of them; I’m on the sidelines. My interest is in having the more conservative of the 2 general election candidates elected at this point.

      Biblical teachings are always a bit paradoxical: the Bible instructs Christians to be “discerning” when dealing with others. Don’t associate with open, explicit sinners who show no inclination of repenting. If you do, you’re tell others that open, explicit “living in sin” is okay with you. It’s not; sends the wrong message to others. So one is forced into making judgments about others after all.

      If one decides Mark Sanford’s affair with the Argentine woman falls in this category, then carry on. Don’t vote for him in the general election.