Mark Sanford wins, democracy shamed

[cubby1223]

Publish images of your cock around twitter and people like the thread's creator continue to support you in politics for life. Have an affair and it's a travesty if someone still supports you in politics.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Publish images of your cock around twitter and people like the thread's creator continue to support you in politics for life.

What are you talking about?

 

[davmat787]

What are you talking about?

I think he is referring to Anthony Weiner's weiner pics scandal, and Craig's reaction to that in comparison to his reaction to Sanford.

Please keep in mind Charles, many of us have a lengthy history "debating" with Craig in the P&N forum going back many years, and dealing with some of the same issues you have borne witness to in this thread.

Oh yea, we need an airquotes emoticon too. 😛

 

[irishScott]

As I've explained repeatedly, no.

Maybe I need to illustrate this more dramatically.

I disagree with Obama on his not pushing harder for single-payer healthcare.

I disagree with Stalin for killing 20 million people.

The phrase 'someone yo disagree with' applies to both. But not equally.

I have gont to great pains - mine, and the readers' given how much I've had to do it - to distinguish between 'disagree with his policies' and what makes him different.

I just don't see a point to repeating it.

To your last point: let me try to say it more clearly.

There are different kinds of shame for democracy. As I said before, one that does not apply here is election fraud.

I can't say this involves the main purpose of democracy - I think the main purpose is thedistribution of power from the few rich guys to everyone getting a vote.

And, putting aside discussions of things like media and money, democracy was successful.

But a secondary purpose is the hope that 'the people' will make a good choice. If they do (Kennedy) they might be proud. If they don't they might not be (looking back at Nixon). And in cases where it seems especially clear the people elected someone with big flaws that - in someone's opinion make them an especially bad choice - that is one form of 'shame for democracy'.

I tried to illustrate this with an example like the KKK guy winning on a hate campaign.

If it's not clear now, I don't think repeating it more will help.

It sounds like we might disagree about how much voters electing someone 'despicable' is a shameful event. That's ok.

Yeah, you could call it shameful to the voters, but not to democracy in general. I would say the idea of democracy isn't that the people make "good" decisions all the time, just that they usually make better ones than other systems that have been tried.

 

[Craig234]

Yeah, you could call it shameful to the voters, but not to democracy in general. I would say the idea of democracy isn't that the people make "good" decisions all the time, just that they usually make better ones than other systems that have been tried.

I agree. It's just that when it seems an especially poor result happens, it's hard not to feel badly about what's happening compared to how it's supposed to work.

Let me repeat the New Jersey example - where I don't like how a gay man had to resign to be replaced by a rich Goldman Sachs guy who could essentially by the office. Democracy?

I think we agree though on a main point that what's more important in democracy is the power the people get, over the best choice being made.

 

[Craig234]

I think he is referring to Anthony Weiner's weiner pics scandal, and Craig's reaction to that in comparison to his reaction to Sanford.

Please keep in mind Charles, many of us have a lengthy history "debating" with Craig in the P&N forum going back many years, and dealing with some of the same issues you have borne witness to in this thread.

Oh yea, we need an airquotes emoticon too. 😛

Care to make any specific points, or don't have any, just snide and vague?

I guess if you can't win a point, you can always refer snidely to the attempt.

I don't think there's any comparison between Anthony Weiner's actions of consensual genital photos, and the behavior of people like Sanford here.

I do think Weiner got more punishment than warranted for the original acts and it's inconstent with how others are punished.

Having said that I very much condemn Weiner's lies to cover it up and to the extent that was a cause of him having to resign I'm not very sympathetic to him. Next?

 

[ivwshane]

How about we just skip all the bullshit and look at Sanford's record. How did he do before? What legacy did he leave? Before the "scandal" how was he doing?

 

[Craig234]

How about we just skip all the bullshit and look at Sanford's record. How did he do before? What legacy did he leave? Before the "scandal" how was he doing?

I don't thik the scandal and related things are bull, but the rest of his record is of course important.

Unfortunately, it's not going to help much here - it's a partisan issue.

The same things that will make me say he's horrible will make those who hate America, er I mean the right-wing, love him.

A liberal group rated him 11th worst governor based laregly on ethics issues; Libertarian Cato Institute rated him #1 for oppsing government spending aorund the most.

I mentioned he vetoed a state budget, and the legislature overrode his veto.

I'm not that familiar with him but don't know much that would change the 'left hates, right loves' opinions. IIRC his approval ratings were in the 45-60 range.

It's the dishonesty, irresponsibility, appearence of sociopath qualities, narcissim, 'con man' type persona that seem pretty bad to me outside policy.

Chris Christy, for example, seems to have similarly bad policies, but to be far better on the other qualities.

WIsh I had other Republicans as an example, but sadly, their current leadership seems filled with pretty serious problems. Michael Steele's one, but he left the party.

 

[pcgeek11]

Actually Craig seeing as how you do not live here it really doesn't matter what you think about Mark Sanford being elected.

Just to be brutally honest about it. A lot of the things you posted was just tripe stirred up by his spiteful ex wife and politics.

Such as the trespassing BS; he was bringing his son home, his ex was not there as she was supposed to be as agreed on. His son was not feeling well and requested his Father stay with him until his Mother arrived. He did. She became a bitch about it ...

 

[Craig234]

Actually Craig seeing as how you do not live here it really doesn't matter what you think about Mark Sanford being elected.

Just to be brutally honest about it. A lot of the things you posted was just tripe stirred up by his spiteful ex wife and politics.

Such as the trespassing BS; he was bringing his son home, his ex was not there as she was supposed to be as agreed on. His son was not feeling well and requested his Father stay with him until his Mother arrived. He did. She became a bitch about it ...

The only thing that seems to have any chance I listed to be 'tripe and politics' is the tresspassing, and I'll give more credence to your information than my media reports.

But I'm afraid it does matter, to all Americans. Both in terms of how our democrary and country are doing in different areas, and his vote in Congress.

I don't mind if you're critical of our fiasco electing Schwarzeneggar in California, either.

 

[smackababy]

I don't mind if you're critical of our fiasco electing Schwarzeneggar in California, either.

Because Gary Coleman or that porn star would have done a better job... I actually supported Larry Flint's campaign though. He is a very intelligent man who happens to be a porn king. And the Governator hasn't exactly done an awful job. But I'm sure you hate him because he is a Republican right?

 

[Craig234]

Because Gary Coleman or that porn star would have done a better job... I actually supported Larry Flint's campaign though. He is a very intelligent man who happens to be a porn king. And the Governator hasn't exactly done an awful job. But I'm sure you hate him because he is a Republican right?

Obviously those two would have been bad as well. There were better choices - especially not recalling Davis at all.

I might prefer Flynt to Schwarzeneggar - it's just not clear what most of his policies would be and he's sort of a one-note out of control figure. But he has some good points.

I don't like Schwarzeneggar becasue I think his drive was long on ego and short on talent and governing skills, and that he had terrible policies.

Being a Republican is bad, but not his only flaw by far. It also embarrassing that the voters were so driven simply by his celebrity.

The history of that election had a lot to do with some rich guys in Orange County who decided to invest in a recall and replacement that would profit them and it worked.

 

[Moonbeam]

Democracy has been shamed. We live in a country where a vicious self hating culture of blacks can stick a finger in the eye of decency and vote for Marion Barry, or a bunch of self hating white trash can elect a worthless immoral prick like Mark Sanford.

How did we get this why way and why are we powerless to change it? Because we are asleep, I think.

So there is nobody to blame but you. You are the reason you are fucked up, you and you and all of you and me. There is only one job to do that I can see and that is to awaken from our sleep or we will surely die fully rested.

What are the answers? It seems to me these are some:

Money is not speech and the SC must be reversed by amendment if necessary, the same with Corporations are people. Political contributions by unions and corporations must end. Elections should be publically funded. Gerrymandering must be replaced by computer drawn districts impartially. The filibuster should be done away with, perhaps by replacing it with a time extension for mandating more Senatorial debate on some issue. Voting can be made so that a vote for a third party isn't wasted by having a second vote for a 2nd candidate count if first choice fails and so on. Political advertising on public media should be limited to a rather narrow time before each election and claims independently verified and reported on. The terms of elected office might be set at 6 years with no return to any Washington insider job or any lobby group.

We see these things can't be done but to restore dignity to democracy we must. Then we can stop complaining we have only the lesser of two evils to chose from.

There is a huge pile of tinder, it seems to me, but what we really need is a spark. That's what I think the discussion should be about.

 

[Fern]

Actually Craig seeing as how you do not live here it really doesn't matter what you think about Mark Sanford being elected.

Just to be brutally honest about it. A lot of the things you posted was just tripe stirred up by his spiteful ex wife and politics.

Such as the trespassing BS; he was bringing his son home, his ex was not there as she was supposed to be as agreed on. His son was not feeling well and requested his Father stay with him until his Mother arrived. He did. She became a bitch about it ...

Seriously?

If that's true I'll have to reconsider my position that he's showed some poor judgement of late.

Fern

 

[Fern]

He lied about it for a long time before confessing. And lied about being the father of the child. IIRC, Sanford confessed pretty quick.[/quote

That doesn't mean a thing. As if Sanford admitted it out of choice. All it means is Sanford was caught faster, which doesn't make him one bit better.

He got caught, he STILL tried to deny it, until the evidence just became overwhelming. You might remember the 'biggest board apologist' label - this is an example.

2 things:

1. The longer you keep up a lie the more people seemed to get offended. Pretty much everyone expects a guy caught cheating to lie when confronted about it. But to keep it up after it becomes a known lie is insulting to some people.

2. Edward's stuff was in the news for much longer because he drug it out by keeping up the lie. Even if two things are equally bad, the one that stays in the news for so much longer will have a bigger impact. People are constantly reminded of it, they don't get a chance to forget. Sanford's situation was in the news, then gone soon. Edwards dragged his out for years.

Edwards went through some pretty shady financial stuff to pay hush money to his honey etc. The allegations and trial were on the news for quite a long time too.

Some 'pretty shady financial stuff' - meaning, taking money from willing parents and a willing wealthy supporter for the mother of his child, to hide things.

Wow, how shady. Far worse than the things you ignore from Congress.

Yeah, "shady".

Edwards, unlike Sanford, was in the news for his court troubles, allegations of fraud, an indictment and a trial. Once again, and not unimportantly, keeping his situation in spotlight for a period of years.

Fern

 

[highland145]

How about we just skip all the bullshit and look at Sanford's record. How did he do before? What legacy did he leave? Before the "scandal" how was he doing?

Fiscally conservative but didn't play well with the state house so the good ole boys didn't like him much. Better than the previous and current Govs.

The same things that will make me say he's horrible will make those who hate America, er I mean the right-wing, love him.

"Greatest country in the world. Help me change it."

Who hates America again?

 

[ivwshane]

Fiscally conservative but didn't play well with the state house so the good ole boys didn't like him much. Better than the previous and current Govs.


"Greatest country in the world. Help me change it."

Who hates America again?

How were his job numbers? What did he do for education?

 

[Craig234]

"Greatest country in the world. Help me change it."

Who hates America again?

The right wing.

Take a quiz. Which is better for America:

A. With 90% Elder Poverty
B. With 10% Elder Poberty

A. With segregation and legal racial discrimination
B. With laws against segregation and legal racial discrimination

A. Without banking regulation letting the finance industry extract 25% of the American economy's profits into its own pockets for little to nothing of value and cause crashes
B. With banking regulation that keeps banking doing more of the productinve things helping the economy, taking 15% instead of 40% of the profits, and not crashing

A. Increasing our deficits to gigantic amounts
B. Lowering our deficits to smaller amounts

A. With tens of millions fewer Americans with health insurance, many people with pre-existing conditions unable to get insurance, less preventative medicine
B. With tens of millions more Americans with health insurance, people with pre-existing conditions able to get insurance, more preventative medicine

A. With the government paying hundreds of billions for no reason in higher prices for Medicare drugs because it is outlawed from negotiating down from list prices
B. With the government allowed to negotiate drug prices to save hundreds of billions

A. Without the fair pay act for women
B. With the fair pay act for women

A. With gays prohibited from serving in the military, serving secretly without thousands expelled
B. With gays allowed equal rights to serve in the military openly

A. With a historically low world opinion of the US, viewing the US as doing things like launching illegal wars
B. With a higher world opinion of the US, respected for things like banning torture

If you chose a lot of "A" answers, you hate America, opposing improvements in our country.

If you chose a lot of "B" answers, you love America, supporting improvements.

Every issue above had Democrats leading the improvement over the opposition of Republicans, except ending racial desegregation, where Republicans also supported the measure, but a Democratic President was the leader to bring the change and more non-Southern Democrats voted for the change than Republicans.

 

[Craig234]

2 things:

1. The longer you keep up a lie the more people seemed to get offended. Pretty much everyone expects a guy caught cheating to lie when confronted about it. But to keep it up after it becomes a known lie is insulting to some people.

We're not talking about 'people seeiming to get offended'.

We're talking about which is morally worse.

Getting caught faster doesn't make him morally better.

And Sanford DID try to keep up the lie until the evidence was overwhelming - like Edwards.

Yeah, "shady".

Edwards, unlike Sanford, was in the news for his court troubles, allegations of fraud, an indictment and a trial. Once again, and not unimportantly, keeping his situation in spotlight for a period of years.

Fern

News story:

"Federal prosecutors dropped all charges Wednesday against John Edwards, triggering criticism that the year-long prosecution of the former presidential candidate was a waste of time and taxpayer money."

 

[Fern]

We're not talking about 'people seeiming to get offended'.

We're talking about which is morally worse.

That's in the eye of the beholder for one thing.

For another as to the the issue of why the apparent disparate treatment, I keep trying to explain the longer 'bad shizz' is in the news, the more it sticks with people/voters.

News story:

"Federal prosecutors dropped all charges Wednesday against John Edwards, triggering criticism that the year-long prosecution of the former presidential candidate was a waste of time and taxpayer money."

Doesn't mater much. They only dropped it after a (mostly) hung jury. That prosecution and trial stretched out over a period of years making the bad impression stick.

Getting dragged through prosecutions/courts is very damaging. Everybody knows the cliche that after you're cleared by the court "where do I go to get my good name back?"

I think we're discussing two different things here. You're focused on the 'morals". I'm recognizing the practical and palpable differences between something drug out and in public view for years versus something much more short lived.

Fern

 

[Craig234]

That's in the eye of the beholder for one thing.[/qupte]

Thank you for clarifying that morality is in the eye of the beholder and not science.

Many people were clearly saying otherwise, by many, meaning no one in human history.*

* That was hyperbole for effect. Probably someone in human history has claimed morality is science, but no one in this thread did.

For another as to the the issue of why the apparent disparate treatment, I keep trying to explain the longer 'bad shizz' is in the news, the more it sticks with people/voters.

You repeat that point; I repeat my response that we're not talking about voter opinion, we're talking about which is worse morally.

If voters make the mistake of treating one as better than the other, that's a mistake, just as I asserted in the beginning of this statement.

Doesn't mater much. They only dropped it after a (mostly) hung jury. That prosecution and trial stretched out over a period of years making the bad impression stick.

Getting dragged through prosecutions/courts is very damaging. Everybody knows the cliche that after you're cleared by the court "where do I go to get my good name back?"

I think we're discussing two different things here. You're focused on the 'morals". I'm recognizing the practical and palpable differences between something drug out and in public view for years versus something much more short lived.

Fern

Yes, that's what I've been saying. I'm pointing out the morality - and by implication criticizing voters if they get that wrong.

You're expressing an opinion about how the voters might well get it wrong, without any concern if they're wrong.

Those are two very different purposes.

It's like my saying 'people liedabout WMD's to get people to support us going to war!'

And you're saying 'people supported going to war because they believed there were WMD's'.

I'm criticizing the problem, you're mentioning that it exists without judgement.

My points are to criticize people lying, and assert they were lies; you show no concern for those things, just saying 'a belief in WMD's is why we went to war'.

 

[highland145]

How were his job numbers? What did he do for education?

Depends on which spin you like, just like any politics. Fiscal conservative. Didn't have a good relationship with the legislature, iirc, because of his attitude/personality.

Pro limited state government/budget but the pork always won out.
Pro school competition/vouchers. Look at SC's school record and you'll see it's in the toilet and has been for a long time.
Wanted to reject stimulus $$ because it couldn't be used to pay down some debt and it would disappear after 2 years and we'd be "hooked" on the new higher budget $$s and long term requirements that would costs SC more $$.
Thought that the public colleges should spend $$ on education instead of research facilities.

I have no problem with any of that but I'm pretty tight with finances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/round-2-omb-rejects-sc-governors-stimulus-plan/

Unemployment history for S.C. vs other states.


At the end of the day, nothing spectacular was accomplished but he sure can campaign.