Guess who's running for Tim Scott's old House seat...

Post Reply New Topic

I had a Repugnican call me on the telephone and she was telling me all about her parties "traditional family values". I told her that I was an angel and it says in the Bible that angels neither marry nor are given in marriage. She really freaked out when I told her that.

Mr. Sanford is just another rich mofo. And, of course we will count on him to look out for the interests of other rich mofos. The "family values" nonsense is just to get poor South Carolina churchgoers to vote for him.

why do so many americans persist in voting for other sociopaths?

The sociopaths control the elections.

somebody better needs to control the sociopaths.

Who is better than the almighty dollar provided by corporate interests?

somebody with smarts and the ability to rally us hoi polloi [AKA "the 99% or at least the 47%] into collectively voting with our feet and dollars, against the evil corporate powers that are screwing us blind.

The evil corporate powers control the elections.

It is a government by the corporations, for the corporations, and of the corporations. Even more so since Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

Heck, South Carolinians would even vote for a Mormon, provided he presented himself as pro-Rich and anti-Gay.

That is all that a typical South Carolina voter can understand about "family values."

Mr. Sanford is apparently a fervent Episcopalian, which is the most hauty-tauty upper-class Christian denomination in the land. No hoi-polloi need apply. George H.W. Bush is an Episcopalian. On Sunday morning, the Episcopalian Church is the one with the fleet of Bentleys, Lincolns and Cadillacs in the parking lot, and the one where minimum expected attire is an Armani suit. Sunday sermons tend to dance around the Beatitudes and not to emphasize Jesus' scolding of rich folks. You don't want to make your congregation too uncomfortable.

If I remember my history lessons correctly, the Episcopalian Church got started when King Henry VIII decided that he wanted to divorce his wife. The Pope said "Nyet!" Henry replied "f**k you! If I want to dump this old hag and get myself a new piece of ass, you can't stop me! I'll start my own God-Damned church, and you can go to Hell!"

Hence, the Episcopalian Church may be somewhat soft on divorce. However, in Matthew 5

Henry probably didn't marry any divorced women, so he was scripturally okay. After all, if you're the King, then why have sloppy seconds?

However, Miss Chapur is a divorcée, and should be considered off limits, if Mr. Sanford takes his faith at all seriously. For the sake of his immortal soul, I do hope that he is abstaining from all vaginal contact at the very least, and and that he is only going to South America for the occasional hand job, at least until after the wedding.

If King Henry wanted to avoid divorce he could have built a harem.

Are you sure the Mormons are not a hauty-tauty denomination? Most Mormons I know of are completely loaded.

Actually, there does seem to be a loop-hole

If Miss Chapur's husband had divorced her for fornication, then the divorce would have been legitimate, and she would have been fair game for any practising Christian. So, I'm willing to give Mr. Sanford the benefit of the doubt, assume that Miss Chapur's husband divorced her for fornication, Mr. Sanford did the same, and that he is staying away from her vagina until the wedding night.

Regarding the Episcopalian Church: it does seem to be rather soft on sodomy: to the point of celebrating homosexual weddings, where legal.

http://www.episcopalchurch.org/notice/s ... up-leaders

This would be completely at odds with Mr. Sanford's official anti-marriage equality, anti-gay adoption, anti-civil union, pro-constitutional-amendment-defining-marriage-as-the-union-of-one-man-and-one-woman posturing.

http://www.towleroad.com/2012/08/anti-g ... z2GTaIQsIg

And, he has caught some heat for his associations with the Episcopal church

http://lefemineforlife.blogspot.com/200 ... ernor.html

But, like I said, South Carolinians will even vote for a Mormon, so long as he presents himself as a stridently homophobic pro-Rich candidate.

South Carolina is big on "Abstinence Only" sex education

http://www.scpie.org/programsaded.html

Now, I'm absolutely positive that Mr. Sanford is no hypocrite, and is eagerly awaiting his wedding night to examine and enjoy Miss Chapur's vagina.

It looks like Mr. Family Values Sanford will be running against Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who is the sister of popular Conservative commentator Stephen Colbert

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/mark-sanford-c ... g--;_ylv=3

It should be entertaining.

He's already done that - no need to wait until after the wedding.

The Luv Gov may well win back his old seat. He has in his favor the highest name-ID in a crowded Republican primary. And whoever wins that primary (& likely runoff) will be the favorite in the general election. SC-1 includes Charleston, its suburbs & much of the southern coastal region. It's a pretty conservative district, but its conservatism is more of the "country club" variety than the "hellfire damnation" variety, so voters there may be more inclined to forgive his Argentine fling than people might assume. Among Republicans, Mark Sanford is certainly more representative of the mindset of this district than Tim Scott.

As for Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, she will likely win the Democratic primary & have more than enough money to be competitive, but will still face an uphill battle. The district has a fairly large African-American population, along with many newcomers & retirees from other parts of the country. There is a fairly strong environmentalist/conservationist ethos among voters in this district as well. So it's not a completely lost cause. Democrats have come close to picking off this seat a time or two, but it has been in Repubican hands ever since the political realignment of the South in the 1970s.