Buzzfeed recently noticed a similarity between the (non-homemade) campaign signs of Mark Sanford and the flag of Argentina. See both below:
The light blue banners running across the top and bottom, with that white-colored center that hosts the logo/image, sure are similar, alright.
But doesn't that only bring to mind Sanford's infamous (and extramarital) excursion to Argentina? And which he himself only brought up all over again when his Argentine girlfriend joined him onstage for the night of the GOP runoff election?
Was the use of this logo on campaign signs a psychosomatic slip or Freudian error, or is it just Sanford's latest tongue-in-cheek?
Here's a merged combination of the two images:
(Borrowed from Buzzfeed)
What does Nancy Pelosi have to do with Elizabeth Colbert-Busch? Not a thing.
Try telling that to Mark Sanford, however, whose full-page ad in the April 21 edition of Charleston’s Post & Courier attempts to tie them together.
In his advertisement, Sanford makes that truth-twisting name-drop four times, including “Pelosi’s PAC.”
But the California congresswoman’s “PAC to the Future” has made no contribution to Democratic candidate in South Carolina’s special election for the 1st Congressional District.
PAC to the Future has contributed to other campaigns but not a dime to Colbert Busch, as its records show (1, 2, 3). Those filings are only through March 31, but the local campaign also confirms no donation from that political action committee throughout the entire election cycle, too.
“We have not received any contributions from PAC to the Future,” says Ann Beser, a senior campaign advisor to Colbert Busch.
Pelosi hasn’t contributed personally, either.
The Sanford ad also refers to “Pelosi’s committee” making contributions to Colbert Busch, but that’s another error. In her role of Minority Leader, Pelosi doesn’t serve on committees outside of congress.
She’s also not on the Democratic Congressional Candidate Committee, which is another frequently-dropped name in Sanford’s advertisement. She’s not even part of its “Women LEAD” program.
So why is Sanford’s campaign attempting these falsehoods?
Well, it seems he’s banking on an assumed negativity that some might associate with Pelosi.
In 2010 when she was Speaker of the House, for example, Pelosi’s nation-wide public approval rating had slipped down to 29 percent, a Gallup poll reported.
That was actually higher than approval for Congress overall, though. And Pelosi’s won all of her congressional campaigns by huge margins, only twice taking less than 80 percent of the vote, so she’s apparently well-approved by her own constituency.
Sanford might also be relying on public opinion of Pelosi to be liberal in attempt to associate her with Colbert Busch with negative intentions in this more conservative district.
Actual liberals disagree, however, including liberal organizations and the liberal congresspersons with whom Pelosi has frequently squabbled over particular bills.
Or maybe after losing so many female voters due to his publicized extramarital affair, coupled with more recent news of continued disrespect for his now ex-wife, Sanford might just be trying to build up male voter support by comparing female Colbert-Busch to female Pelosi.
But if that’s the case, maybe he should remember that 55 percent of the registered voters in this district are female.
This April 21 ad also distorts historical facts.
Comparing himself to the William Travis, who led Texas Army troops in the Battle of the Alamo, Sanford cites the date of this historical event to be March of 1863, even though it actually took place in February and March of 1836.
(Sanford’s comparison is partially correct, however; Travis walked out on his pregnant wife and son, then claimed on public records that he was single, then proceeded to have an affair with another woman.)
This Sunday ad isn’t the first instance of his campaign issuing falsehoods (which are completely allowed in political advertisements, unfortunately).
For example, his most recent television ad also includes false information, claiming a union that donated to Colbert-Busch’s campaign “tried to shut down Boeing and ship 1,000 jobs out of South Carolina.”
That IAMAW union did no such thing, however, and had even included specific terms in its legal complaint specifying that it did not seek effect on the company’s North Charleston facility.
So where will these and other stunts leave him? In second place, apparently.
If he’d like to gain any support from anyone, Sanford should begin telling the truth.
A new poll finds Elizabeth Colbert-Busch to have support from 50 percent of likely voters.
Released on April 22, the report from Public Policy Polling says the Democratic candidate has a nine-point lead over Republican Mark Sanford.
This marks improvement for Colbert Busch in comparison to the same company’s poll from four weeks ago, when she only led Sanford by two (47 to 45).
Recent negative news may be partially responsible for Sanford’s four-point drop in support. A slight majority (51 percent) say learning of his violation of divorce settlement terms made them doubt his suitability for public office.
Colbert Busch’s reputation has improved independently, as well; 56 percent of respondents noted positive regard for her in the most recent poll, versus only 45 in last month’s.
This gain apparently comes from voters who were unsure of their opinion in March, as Colbert-Busch’s unfavorable rating from 31 percent of respondents remains unchanged.
Green Party candidate Eugene Platt scored low in the poll, but could have been lower were it not for Sanford’s reputation.
Scoring three percent overall, he was selected by four percent of respondents who identified themselves as Republicans and seven percent of conservatives, who apparently grant Platt their support only as rejection of Sanford.
Part of his decline is not the sole fault of Sanford, though, Public Policy Polling notes.
In its release of the recent poll data, the company offers “it’s interesting to note that there is some backlash against Republicans over last week’s vote on background checks.”
Eighty-six percent of the poll’s respondents said they favor required background checks on persons who buy guns at gun shows, and 72 percent stated strong favorability.
Republicans in the U.S. Senate recently voted against a bill that would have enforced such background checks, however.
“Forty-five percent of voters say the GOP’s opposition to (background checks) makes it less likely they’ll support the party in the next election,” Public Policy found.
The survey was conducted April 19-21, and has margin of error of 3.5 percent.
A Sanford campaign sign in Summerville's Hutchinson Square.
The recent “Third Thursday” celebration in Summerville brought in its normal crowd of hundreds of locals. And joining them on April 18 was none other than Mark Sanford.
The Republican congressional candidate wasn’t exactly warmly received that evening, though, say some attendees.
One, a retired Navy lieutenant who asked not to be identified by name, said she watched Sanford walk along W Richardson Ave. for the monthly event sponsored by Summerville D.R.E.A.M.
He had no campaign staff or volunteers with him, and Sanford remained alone in the crowd, too, she said.
“When folks recognized him, they would cross the street,” according to the veteran. Some turned their backs to walk away, she said. “Nobody approached him.”
Another witness, a 46-year-old man who attended the last “Third Thursday,” also said most patrons were avoiding Sanford. “He looked like the number nine on my microwave oven – rarely touched.”
Sanford did succeed in at least one handshake, the Navy veteran witnessed, but only after what she describes as inducement.
“He approached (a restaurant manager) who was standing in front of the restaurant, held out his hand, and said ‘Hi, I’m Mark Sanford.’
“(The manager) wouldn’t take his hand. He just looked him in the eye and said ‘I know who you are.’
“’Aren’t you going to shake my hand?’ (Sanford) asked.”
The restaurant manager did, but slowly and with a grim look on his face, the Navy vet says.
The retired lieutenant says she later saw Sanford putting up his own campaign signs in Hutchinson Square near the corner of W Richardson and N Main St.
Not a Sanford supporter herself, the incident did move her to grant him sympathy.
“It was sad.”
The Charleston Central Labor Council is challenging the validity of recent advertisements of Mark Sanford’s congressional campaign, and on April 18 formally asked for a retraction of the ads with corrective statement.
A new television commercial attacks Democratic opponent Elizabeth Colbert-Busch for accepting donations from labor unions, including the International Association of Machinists and Aeronautical Workers.
All of the claims are false, however, says Erin McKee, president of the CLC.
“On behalf of (CLC), I formally request that Sanford, his campaign and the SCGOP retract those incorrect statements, and that those advertisements be withdrawn from further distribution and airing.”
Sanford’s claim about Boeing and IAMAW refers to the new production facility in North Charleston. In its press release, CLC offers documentation that refutes Sanford’s claim.
In 2009 after projection of increased need, Boeing began a search of existing facilities or creation of new ones to produce 787 Dreamliner aircraft. It eventually settled on North Charleston.
In 2010 Boeing executive Jim Albaugh said to press that a facility in Everett, Wa. was excluded from that search because of the IAMAW union at that location.
That public statement indicating retaliation against a union violates terms of the National Labor Relations Act, however. The IAMAW chapter in Everett then filed legal complaint that year.
In its complaint, the union requested as compensation that any secondary production of 787s the North Charleston facility couldn’t accommodate would go to its Everett facility.
An anti-labor movement, including Republican members of congress who even came to Charleston for a hearing on this matter in 2011, incorrectly insinuated that the complaint would cause a shutdown of Boeing’s local plant.
IAMAW quickly refuted, however. Seattle district president Tom Wroblewski said in June 2011, “if Boeing tries to shut down its North Charleston operations, my union will stand with the employees of South Carolina to stop it. Because the fact is, the only one in the room suggesting that the North Charleston plant will close is Boeing itself(.)”
In late 2011, after approval of a new contract in Everett, the union withdrew its complaint.
“Not once did IAMAW request a ‘shut down’ of, or any jobs from, the North Charleston facility, which had nothing to do with its complaint,” McKee says in the CLC press release. “At no time were any South Carolina jobs at risk.
“The (CLC) requests that Sanford and the state Republican Party not attempt to hide behind the lack of subjectivity of ‘truth in advertising’ laws to political campaigns, and ask that they issue corrective statements and cease broadcast and distribution of ads that contain this incorrect information.”
Campaign ads are classified as “political speech,” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. As a result, “Truth in Advertising” laws don’t apply to candidate advertisements; even obviously false statements can be issued without risk.
Sanford’s campaign spokesman Joel Sawyer, who also issued statements insinuating IAMAW tried to take jobs away from South Carolina, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
photo provided by Brad Woodhouse
One day after a critical news leak, Mark Sanford’s congressional campaign received additional damages.
On April 17, the National Republican Congressional Committee announced that it will no longer provide funding to Sanford’s campaign, Politico first reported.
Calling it “a potentially fatal blow,” Politico quotes spokeswoman Andrea Bozek, who said “At this time, the NRCC will not be engaged in this special election.”
Yesterday, media reported that his ex-wife filed complaint against Sanford for trespassing inside her home two months earlier. It was not the first incident, Jenny Sanford states.
The news brought Sanford’s much-publicized 2009 extramarital affair back to the public eye, as did his public appearance with his mistress on the night of the runoff election.
The Colbert Busch campaign has declined comment on these recent incidents.
The special election for the 1st Congressional District is May 7.
On Oct. 14, 2012, and while still working as a commentator for Fox News, former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford issued a statement that immediately struck many as racist.
Referring to an upcoming debate between Pres. Obama and Republican opponent Mitt Romney, Sanford said the black incumbent would have to "throw a lot of spears."
Media quickly gave Sanford flak for his insinuated use of "spearchucker," a racist term used to slander African Americans.
Here's the video:
Google Trends for "Mark Sanford" from Jan. 1 through April 13, 2013
So what if he's running for congress?
According to Google Trends, so far this year websurfers have had more interest in Mark Sanford's personal life than his political aspirations.
Instead of searching for the "love gov" regarding his latest campaign, many more have searched for information on his girlfriend/fiancee and his ex-wife.
Folks have even searched the specific names of those two women (Maria Belen Chapur and Jenny Sanford) more frequently than they've looked for information on his born-again bid for congress.
Is that saying anything about his chances in the May 7 election?
From Dick Harpootlian, chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party: “Mark Sanford’s tenure as Governor can be summed up in three words: Dereliction of duty."
(posted on youtube by SCDemParty)
“Mark Sanford abandoned the people of South Carolina, misled them about his whereabouts and allowed his personal life to overshadow his public responsibility. Sanford was forced to pay one of the largest ethics fines in South Carolina’s history. His actions brought embarrassment to the state of South Carolina and his policies brought economic trouble on our people. Is this really the failed record of someone South Carolinians want to represent them in Congress?”
Robservations by Rob Groce is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.