Public Sentiment Against Trump's Government Shutdown Grows-- But So Does Anxiety From Freshmen In The Republican Wing Of The Democratic Party

First Dem (New Dem) who wants to give in to Trump's blackmail & hostage-taking

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal published a piece by Natalie Andrews and Kristina Peterson, Wall Impasse Frustrates Many Newly Elected House Democrats, about how the conservaDem freshmen recruited and backed by the DCCC are more concerned that "the tone of negotiations hasn’t conveyed their willingness to compromise on tighter border security." Andrews and Peterson wrote that "many new Democratic lawmakers who beat Republicans in the 2018 midterm want their leadership to be more aggressive in at least trying to strike a compromise. Most of the Dems who flipped districts are status quo hacks, far closer in many ways to a Republicans than to activist freshmen like AOC or Rashida Tlaib. One worthless New Dem former CIA operative Elissa Slotkin (New Dem-MI) told them that "there's a number of us on the Democratic side who are quite concerned that we’re not working on negotiated positions and taking the bull by the horns and trying to think about what it would look like." Garbage candidates like Slotkin, make garbage members of Congress and dog the party further into the toilet with her and other new New Dems and Blue Dogs.

While weak links like Slotkin, Abigail Spanberger (Blue Dog-VA), Anthony Brindisi (Blue Dog-NY), Mikie Sherrill (Blue Dog-NJ) and Max Rose (Blue-Dog-NY) wring their hands and whine, public opinion is clearly with the Democrats on this-- everywhere. Maybe Sherrill and Brindisi should check in with their local newspaper editorial boards. This weekend the Albany Times-Union wrote that Real people are feeling the real pain of this needless brinkmanship.

Americans hoping that their leaders would find a way out of what is now the longest government shutdown in the nation's history should chew a bit on the word salad President Donald Trump tossed out on Thursday:

"When during the campaign, I would say 'Mexico is going to pay for it,' obviously, I never said this, and I never meant they're gonna write out a check, I said they're going to pay for it. They are."

Of course Mr. Trump did say Mexico would pay for the wall, and that it would do so in the form of "a one time payment," as he put it in writing in a 2016 memo. And, yes, he has also thrown a bunch of other more abstract payment possibilities at the wall, so to speak, perhaps in the hope that one might stick and give him a face-saving way out of an absurd promise that was the centerpiece of his campaign.

The larger point is this: A president who can't own up to the fact that he said what everyone heard him say, who changes his mind from day to day and who storms out of "negotiations" in which he doesn't negotiate is not trying to govern in good faith. He concocted a national crisis and is treating it like a plot on reality TV: The audience is watching, and that's what really matters.

This isn't TV though. It's a real-life drama that's hurting more than 800,000 federal workers who as of last week are no longer receiving the paychecks they need to cover their mortgages or rent, their grocery and day care bills, and all the other costs many Americans juggle paycheck to paycheck just to get by. It's affected countless other people who work under contract with the federal government, and all the people and businesses that all those workers and contractors do business with. The administration's answer? Have a garage sale or take up dog walking, actual suggestions offered to Coast Guard employees.

The New Jersey Star Ledger warned that "the border wall, which the president has used as his justification to shut down the federal government, was never meant to be anything other than a memory trick for an undisciplined mind. One advisor, Sam Nunberg, told the New York Times Saturday that he and Roger Stone meant the wall to be used only as a tool to remind Trump to talk tough about immigration. But what started out as a symbol has become a dangerous fixation, one responsible for mothballing massive sectors of our government and keeping 800,000 federal employees at home without paychecks – despite Congress steadfastly refusing to fund his wall, despite consistent public opposition, and despite overwhelming evidence that the impact on drug trafficking would be negligible. Yet here we are, hostages to a presidential brain spasm-- or temper tantrum, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested-- and fated to be horrified bystanders to a humanitarian crisis of Trump’s own creation. Ask yourself: Has a president ever used falsehoods, invented a crisis, and imposed a shutdown to bypass the legislative process and hold a government hostage?" Ask yourself that Mikie, before you start voting with the GOP. And the Jersey Journal wrote that it's Shameful for Trump to hold federal employees hostage. Trump, they wrote, is "so far away from the idea of cashing a paycheck before paying the rent, buying groceries or getting growing kids new shoes that he’s clueless or he simply doesn’t care about his 800,000 federal employees. Of course, it’s an accusation that’s been hurled at him scores of times in the past. Remember the lawsuits from contractors in Atlantic City saying casino developer Trump stiffed them? And Labor Department citations saying he didn’t pay overtime or minimum wage? The continuing shutdown of the federal government is a clear indicator of the kind of man Trump is. His shameful refusal to sign or even consider legislation to get furloughed workers back on their jobs and “essential” employees paid on schedule is just another sign that he is unfit to lead the country. Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, are beyond enabling; they are complicit in Trump’s disregard for decency." You sure you want to be part of that, Congressman Sherrill?

And that's not just the feeling from editorial boards in the Northeast. Over the weekend, the editors of the Montana Standard wrote that "There is not a crisis on the border. Violent crime is not up, there or elsewhere in the country. It is at a 14-year low. Immigrants here illegally do not commit a disproportionate amount of crimes. In fact, they commit less, on a per capita basis, than native-born Americans do. And a wall is not viewed by experts as the best tool to use in enforcing border security. Why, then, is this worth shutting down the government? Many federal workers here in Montana are working without pay. Others have simply been furloughed. Either way, their families are suffering needless hardship."

The editors of the Chicago Sun-Times concurred: "Take it from Illinois, this federal government shutdown is nothing but bad. And the man at the top will get most of the blame, as he should. For those of us who just lived through four years of such stupidity in Illinois, there’s a sense of deja vu in a partial government shutdown forced by a self-adoring man of business habituated to getting his way."

Same kind of message from the Santa Fe New Mexican: "Democrats are right to rebut the ugly message that Trump spews when he discusses the southern border, as he did Tuesday night in a prime-time address from the Oval Office (complete with fundraising appeals before and after).” Consistent on so little, the president began his presidential campaign by calling Mexicans rapists and drug dealers. Then, demeaning the Oval Office, he recited a litany of crimes committed by people here illegally, making it clear that he believes immigrants from the south desire to hurt the good citizens of the nation. That, despite clear statistics that show undocumented immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens. There were other falsehoods in the nine-minute address. Trump said the wall is needed to keep out illegal drugs; most drugs come through official ports of entry, not along the border between entry points. As we have pointed out before, too, illegal immigration is hardly a crisis, despite Trump’s claims. Border crossings are at their lowest point in decades. The humanitarian crisis Trump said he is addressing has been caused by his administration’s wrongheaded policies. That’s what Democrats must keep pointing out."

And the latest polling from Quinnipiac-- released yesterday-- is more bad news for Trump and his enablers. They found that voters support 63-30% a Democratic proposal to reopen parts of the government that do not involve border security while negotiating funding for Trump's vanity wall and voters oppose 63-32% shutting down the government to force funding for ridiculous project. The GOP is losing the battle-- 56% of voters say Trump and Republicans in Congress are responsible for the shutdown, while 36% say Democrats are responsible. After Trump's brain-dead Oval Office address, voters believed Pelosi/Schumer more than Trump, 46-36%, including 48-33% among independent voters. But at the heart of TRump's and the GOP's problem is that American voters say by a mammoth 73-16%-- including 57-28% among Republicans-- that immigration is good for the country.





UPDATE: How About Opening The Government This Way Too?

This evening, Miss McConnell had a rebellion in the ranks as 11 Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with all the Democrats to start debate on Schumer's resolution to disapprove of the Treasury Department lifting sanctions against Russia. The Motion to Proceed passed 57-42.  This is a big warning shot over Trump's bow. The Republicans voting against McConnell (and Trump/Putin):

• John Boozman (AR)
• Susan Collins (ME)
• Tom Cotton (AR)
• Steve Daines (MT)
• Cory Gardner (CO)
• Josh Hawley (MO)
• John Kennedy (LA)
• Martha McSally (AZ)
• Jerry Moran (KS)
• Marco Rubio (FL)
• Ben Sasse (NE)

How Much Does The Republican Base Absolutely Crave Being Lied To? And The Democrats?

Say NO to the anti-refugee assholes of both parties

Reality is more difficult for Republicans than for normal people. Not all Republicans, but many Republicans-- the ones whose minds have been damaged by Hate Talk Radio hosts and by Fox News. And that's a lot of Republicans. It's why the "dumbest states," as we saw last night, are all deep red states. The Republican base is, unfortunately, incapable of dealing with abstracts, even the most simple abstracts. They can repeat what they hear on Limbaugh's show and can grunt approvingly when something sounds like its confirming the notions in their tiny little minds. Reality TV sounds a lot more real-- and a lot more comfortable-- than reality. Most of them don't want someone with actual experience running the country; they want Donald Trump or Dr. Ben. They'd probably vote for Bozo the Clown if they could. In fact, according to a PPP survey released this morning, 79% of Republican primary voters-- despite the reality of 9/11-- think George W. Bush kept us safe. This is Republican Reality TV reality:

And that 53% are are convinced that the unemployment rate has risen since Obama became president... well, facts are the enemies of conservatives. Facts have always been the enemy of conservatives and always will be. Bush's economic policies crashed the economy in 2007 and unemployment started to rise. By the time Obama took over as president, the unemployment rate was around 8% (8.3% in February, 2009. The Bush policies pushed the rate to 10% by October, 2009. Once Obama's own policies started kicking in, the rate started decreasing, slowly at first-- Bush and the GOP did gigantic structural damage-- but the rate has been below 6% since the summer of 2014 and hit 5.0 in October, which is the number that should be freshest in the minds of the 53% of Republicans Mattingly reported were certain that the unemployment rate had risen since Obama has become president. Or are they uncertain of the difference between what an employment rate and an unemployment rate is. Who knows. But, if you think it's too implausible that the Republican primary electorate is going to nominate a Trump or a Carson or a Fiorina or a Cruz... think again. (This is actual reality:)

Every day there's another poll showing Trump triumphing over the a GOP "deep bench" that has proven to be so shockingly shallow-- and completely ineffective in standing up to a two-bit school yard bully who must have Mussolini's ghost doing cartwheels in hell. The most recent poll of Republican primary voters in New Hampshire, by WBUR, taken after the ISIS terrorism in Paris, shows Trump up 4 points and way ahead of any other candidate with 22%. And in Florida, home of two "top tier" Republican candidates, Trump whips both their asses and is increasing his lead over the pathetic pack of losers-- Trump 36%, Rubio 18%, Carson 15%, Cruz 10% and former Governor Jeb down in single digits.

Or, as Colbert put it the other night, "the Republicans essentially have a week left to take down Trump because... by Thanksgiving dinner next week people will stop worrying about the racist things some candidate might say and start worrying about the racist things their drunk aunt might say." And, on an ostensibly more serious note, "If Trump does well in Iowa and New Hampshire, there is no stopping him... Nothing he says or does can turn off voters. His campaign slogan might as well be 'Trump 2016-- You're stupid and ugly.' And his advice to the GOP Establishment types in their wing-tips: "The GOP needs to stop panicking over the idea of Donald Trump as your leader and embrace it. Instead of fighting this wave, learn to enjoy drowning."



Yesterday, the editors of the Washington Post took a slightly less cavalier look at the horrors Trump is already bringing to this country, pointing out that the man is an inveterate liar, every bit as "pathological" as what he insists Ben Carson is. And his lies do not exist in a vacuum; they're having real consequences already.

“Our President wants to take in 250,000 from Syria,” says Donald Trump, falsely. “Think of it, 250,000 people. And we all have heart, and we all want people taken care of and all of that, but with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 people-- some of whom are going to have problems, big problems-- is just insane.”

It is not insane. It is a lie. It is a lie that Mr. Trump repeats, even as fact checkers and reporters point out that it is wrong. Not just repeats, but embellishes. Last month, the number was lower: “Now I hear we want to take in 200,000,” he said on ABC News. “We don’t know where they’re coming from. We don’t know who they are. They could be ISIS. It could be the great Trojan horse.”

We have grown accustomed to politicians exaggerating, sometimes stretching the truth, sometimes fogging it up for effect. But it is disturbing on a different scale to see a U.S. politician repeating a big lie again and again, in a way that is calculated to inflame bigotry and fan fears.

Here are the facts: President Obama wants to allow 10,000 Syrian refugees into the country next year. The number may increase a bit the year after that, but it will be nowhere close to 200,000 or 250,000. So far, over the course of a four-year civil war, the United States has accepted fewer than 2,000 Syrian refugees, and the screening process for each prospective admission can take up to 18 months.

...After the Paris attacks, it’s understandable that Americans ask questions about the quality of U.S. refugee screening. But the discussion must be based on reality, not phantoms. The risk from a small number of vetted refugees is far outweighed by the humanitarian imperative to help innocent people escaping from Syria’s evil rulers and from the Islamic State.

Mr. Trump is fanning hysteria in other ways. Whereas the integration of Muslims in U.S. society, including in the armed forces, is a success story compared with Europe, the businessman would have us believe the opposite.

“The hatred is beyond belief,” Donald Trump said Monday, as he talked about surveilling and even shuttering mosques. “The hatred is greater than anybody understands.”

We continue to have enough faith in voters to believe that Mr. Trump won’t wind up in the White House. But he can still promote misconceptions that pull his party down, sully the post-Paris policy debate and, ultimately, hurt innocent people. Given his serial refusal to accede to reality, we doubt he will agree. The rest of his party must do better.

I'm glad the Post's editors have faith because even some elected Democrats-- albeit so far just the bottom of the barrel Democrats-- seem to be reacting in exactly the way a coward reacts to a loud-mouth bully like Trump. Worst, as can be expected, is Senate Democratic Minority Leader-in-waiting Chuck Schumer (AKA- Little Chucky Schmucky) and his pathetic, cowardly DSCC lackey, John Tester (D-MT) as well as their sad-sack candidates in New Hampshire and Nevada, Maggie Hassan and Catherine Masto, all of whom are buckling to Trumpian fascism. Democrats need strong leaders to stand up to right-wing bullies, not craven cowards like Schumer who pee in their pants and agree with them and the first ripple of trouble. There isn't much Democrats can do in the GOP primary but we must stop Schumer from becoming Senate Leader. Are you in touch with a Democratic senator? Tell him or her that if Schumer is elected Senate Democratic Leader with their help, they will lose your support. So far not one Senate Democrat has refused to support Little Chucky Schmucky's power grab, not even Durbin, who was in line to become leader! Are Senate Dems all this morally bankrupt?

UPDATE: What Would God Say To Trump/Schumer?

How about if we look to the Bible that so many of the anti-refugee opportunists profess to love so very dearly? Who remember Jesus-- not Republican Jesus, Biblical Jesus?

Luke 10:25-37

The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the Law? How do you read it?” 27 And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” 29 But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 And the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”

Brian Babin (R-TX): "Mary and Jesus didn’t have suicide bomb vests strapped on them, and these folks do."

Tomorrow South Carolina Voters Decide Between Colbert's Sister And The Obsessive Sex Fiend

Actually, it's not all of South Carolina. We're talking about SC-01, along the coast, a district that's not as crazy and extremist as the up-country congressional districts where talk of secession is still a hot topic. It's next door to SC-06, into which the legislature managed to gerrymander every conceivable African American in the area. SC-06 gave Obama 70.9% of its vote in November and reelected Jim Clyburn without opposition. Of South Carolina's 6 other--basically all white-- districts Obama went above 40% in only two-- SC-05 (with African-American-majority Fairfield and Lee counties as well as Democratic-leaning Chester and Sumter counties) and SC-01, where Obama actually won Charleston County. Nevertheless, if Colbert Busch wins Tuesday, there would only be three Democrats in Congress representing redder districts: Mike McIntyre (Blue Dog-NC), whose district has a PVI of R+12, Nick Rahall (D-WV), whose district has a PVI of R+14, and Jim Matheson (Blue Dog-UT), whose district has a PVI of R+16. SC-01 has a PVI of R+11. The three of them-- particularly the two Blue Dogs, vote with the GOP on crucial roll calls far more frequently than they vote with Democrats. Boehner and Cantor know they can count on Matheson and McIntyre and, to a lesser degree Rahall, whenever push comes to shove. Judging by her campaign statements, Colbert Busch is more likely to fall in around Rahall than McIntyre and Matheson. Unlike them, she's socially liberal-- pro-marriage equality, pro-Choice, pro-immigrant, pro-background checks, for example-- and then goes all GOP when it comes to economic issues. She's made some pretty nasty anti-union statements: “I’m proud to live in and support a right-to-work state" and “This is a right-to-work state and NLRB had no business telling Boeing where they can locate" and she's managed to attack Obama on Chained CPI-- although you might interpret that as backing Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson-- and on Obamacare, which she says needs "an enormous fix," which most progressives also agree with.

Sanford's campaign is all about trying to make voters forget he's a corrupt philanderer and a serial liar and think he's running against Nancy Pelosi. Colbert's sister is no Nancy Pelosi, not by a longshot. Nor is she some backward sleazy Blue Dog, willing to say anything to get elected. Polling hasn't been going her way lately. Late in April-- before the big right-wing money started pouring into the district (as well as the slimy smear campaign), she was clearing pulling away from Sanford and looked like a sure winner. She had a 9% margin and 56% of poll respondents had a favorable opinion of her-- as opposed to Sanford's 56% unfavorable rating. A more recent poll-- though not as reliable as the PPP poll cited above-- shows the race exactly tied, 46-46% with 7% undecided.

If money is going to decide the race, it's likely Colbert Busch will win. The NRCC, embarrassed by Sanford's ethical problems, pulled out and the DCCC and their House Majority PAC have invested very heavily. Colbert Busch outraised Sanford by around $400,000 but she burned through it faster, leaving Sanford with a $30,000 advantage of cash-on-hand in the final week.

Both campaigns had donors-- individuals and PACs-- from a variety of interest group areas, and both saw support from traditional backers of their respective parties. Lawyers and law firms were the top backers of Colbert Busch's campaign, giving her $38,250. She also picked up support from the education industry and industrial unions. Given her famous brother, it's no surprise to see that donors from the TV, movies and music industry chipped in $13,200.

Sanford received his greatest support from the securities and investment industry, which sent his campaign $54,000, followed by the real estate industry, which sent him $51,000.

Besides raising far less money than Colbert-Busch, Sanford is taking a huge hit when it comes to outside spending. According to OpenSecrets.org's profile of the race, outside groups have spent more than $929,000 on independent expenditures against Sanford. Conservative groups have spent only about $15,000 to help him. Meanwhile only about $4,600 has been spent by outside groups attacking Colbert Busch, while $1,500 has been spent upporting her.

The DCCC has chipped in $458,234 (of which $214,849 came in last week) and their SuperPAC, House Majority PAC put in another $425,851 (including $165,027 last week). Last week a right-wing anti-Choice "women's" group, Independent Women's Voice put down $96,584 slamming Colbert Busch (ad below), a candidate who is viewed with disgust and contempt by most women, regardless of political leanings. And FreedomWorks kicked down $1,614 last week. In teh last couple of days, wealthy Republicans have helped Sanford close the money gap and the last minute poll by PPP shows the race even-- with Sanford momentum.

PPP's final poll of the special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District finds a race that's too close to call, with Republican Mark Sanford leading Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch 47-46. The 1 point lead for Sanford represents a 10 point reversal from PPP's poll of the race two weeks ago, when Colbert Busch led by 9 points at 50-41.

Sanford has gotten back into the race by nationalizing it and painting Colbert Busch as a liberal. A plurality of voters in the district-- 47%- say they think Colbert Busch is a liberal compared to 43% who characterize her as ideologically 'about right.' Colbert Busch's favorability rating has dropped a net 19 points compared to 2 weeks ago, from +25 then at 56/31 to +6 now at 50/44.

While Colbert Busch is seen as too liberal, 48% of voters think that Sanford's views are 'about right' on the issues compared to just 38% who see him as too conservative. Sanford's also seen some repair to his image over the course of the campaign. Although he's still unpopular, sporting a -11 net favorability rating at 43/54, that's up a net 13 points from our first poll in March when he was at 34/58.

Alan Grayson (D-FL) asked his own donors to contribute to Colbert Busch's campaign and to support her efforts to beat Sanford. He was relieved she's at least pro-choice and pro-marriage equality, even if they don't see eye to eye on any number of issues. (Grayson, for example, is a major union supporter.) But his feelings are that if there's any chance to beat a Republican with a Democrat, it's worth the effort. "I'm going to ask you to support her campaign because the last thing that we need in the U.S. House of Representatives right now is another Republican. And the thing that we do need is more Democrats. Seventeen more Democrats, to be exact... Let's take back the House."

Tick, Tick, Tick... Will The GOP Actually Lose A South Carolina House Seat In Less Than A Week?

I suspect that Rand Paul was less reluctant about following Papa Paul in endorsing habitually dishonest South Carolina philanderer Mark Sanford than I was in endorsing Elizabeth Colbert Busch. After all, he's more of a party hack than I am and, after all again, the Tea Party Establishment has rallied 'round Sanford after opposing him in the primary. Tuesday the Koch brothers' FreedomWorks, one of the groups Rand is dependent on, got on board.

GOP congressional candidate Mark Sanford was formally endorsed Tuesday by Sen. Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite whose support could help in the final days of the special election for South Carolina's 1st District seat. The senator's father, former Texas congressman Ron Paul, threw his support behind Sanford last week.

"More than anything, Washington needs strong and consistent voices for fiscal responsibility and liberty," the younger Paul said in a statement. "Mark has proven during his time in office that watching out for taxpayers and holding the line on spending are his top priorities."

Sanford, a former South Carolina governor, faces Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a May 7 election for his old House seat. Once the favorite in the race, Sanford has had to deal with renewed attention on his 2009 extramarital affair and the loss of support from the House GOP campaign committee.

The small-government, anti-tax Tea Party movement might be waning in some areas, but South Carolina has been one of its strongholds. It's also the site of the important "first in the South" presidential primary, and Paul has been trying to make inroads in some of these early states as he considers a 2016 White House bid.

Tonight, South Carolina's hugely unpopular governor, Nikki Haley, headlined a fundraiser for Sanford, her one and only event for her controversial ex-guru. (When she was running for governor, she scrubbed references to Sanford from her campaign website after his scandals became public.)

The event is Haley’s first with her one-time mentor in his race against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, a political newcomer and sister of TV comedian Stephen Colbert. The appearance by South Carolina’s first female governor comes as Sanford is trying to overcome a huge gap among women who favor Colbert Busch by 20 percentage points, according to a poll released last week.

The fundraiser is at the home of luxury car dealer Tommy Baker, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by the S.C. blog GOPwrite.com. The event costs from $250 a person to $2,600 for a couple to attend.

...Democrats said Monday that Sanford and Haley, who was cleared last year by two S.C. House investigations into allegations that she used her post as a Lexington state representative for her personal financial benefit, both are “ethically challenged.”

“Haley and Sanford are two peas in an ethically challenged pod, who have proved time and again that they can’t be trusted to act in the best interests of the people or our state,” the S.C. Democratic Party said in a statement Monday.

Colbert's Sister-- Next Tuesday

I'm rooting for Colbert's sister-- and not just because she's Colbert's sister. And not just because Mark Sanford is likely to be one of the worst members of Congress-- far worse, in fact, than he was when he was in Congress the first time. Colbert's sister, thoroughly embraced as she is by the DCCC, doesn't need any help from Blue America and there's nothing to make me think she would qualify for a Blue America endorsement any way-- the way these guys have-- but... I'm still rooting for her because there's a lot of room between someone as good as Alan Grayson, Keith Ellison and Donna Edwards and someone like Mark Sanford.

From what I can tell, if I lived in South Carolina's first congressional district, I'd go beyond rooting for Colbert's sister; I'd probably even vote for her a week from today. She's a normal, decent Democrat on social issues-- pro-Choice, pro-equality, etc-- and kind of like a New Dem type on the economic issues. Like I said last week, I don't know if Colbert Busch will wind up voting with Republicans half the time. But it's what I suspect from watching the campaign. Still, that's better than voting with Republicans 100% of the time, which is what we can expect from Sanford. She's already come out in favor of marriage equality and background checks and her approach to Chained CPI was pretty good as well: “Not only does President Obama’s plan fail to put our finances back in order, it would cut benefits for our seniors, which is wrong. I believe that our seniors earned their Social Security by putting money away every single paycheck for a lifetime-- knowing that they could count on Social Security when they retired... Simply put, Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and politicians should keep their hands off the trust fund." If she has to, for the sake of election in South Carolina, attack Obama from the right, it's cool she can do it from a populist anti-bankster perspective.

Right wing propagandist John Fund writes that even if South Carolina voters know too much about Sanford for comfort, they don't know enough about Elizabeth Colbert Busch and if the turnout is really, really low, Sanford still has a chance to win.

The local and national media haven’t delved into Colbert Busch beyond her platitudes, and so far she’s avoided being tagged with any liberal labels. Her success at flying under the radar may serve as a model for other Democratic candidates in 2014. She plans to participate in only one debate during three months of campaigning. Some 500 of her pre-campaign tweets have been airbrushed away but thanks to the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation have been returned to the public record. In them, her favorite topics include “backing equal rights for our LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender] friends” and supporting President Obama’s proposed hikes in the minimum wage. Regarding Obamacare, she mocks its Republican opponents: “GOP Logic: Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound public policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.”

South Carolina is the least unionized state in the country, but Colbert Busch 1.0 was a big fan of unions, even tweeting that she wanted the support of the AFL-CIO. Unions opposed Boeing’s plans to build a new plant in right-to-work South Carolina, but Colbert showed no misgivings about seeking union support: She eagerly accepted donations from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, who tried to use the National Labor Relations Board to block Boeing’s move. “The voices of the union and all unions need to be lifted up,” she declared in a video she sent to union leaders as she prepared to run. “Nobody is recognizing that, and I promise to be that voice for you. Know that I hear you. Know that I’m working closely with your team.” Tara Servatius, a talk-show host and columnist for Charleston’s City Paper, concludes: “Bottom line, Elizabeth 1.0, the deleted version, is a hard-core liberal Democrat.”

So, yeah... let the DCCC use their money ($458,000) to push her, but-- what the hell-- vote for her next Tuesday instead of watching Sanford win this blood red district. They both fought for the center in their one debate, which was last night. Here's a small piece from it-- not especially interesting.

South Carolina Closets

After he wrote Over-Lawed to explain a run-in with a complicated securities law, Jay Stamper's thoughts must have turned to whatever other skeletons he had in his closet. Actually, Lindsey Graham has a closet. A more apt metaphor for Stamper might be... the Parisian catacombs. There are a lot of skeletons but regrettably, for him, few involve women, another thing he has in common with Lindsey Graham.

Anyways, like most people in their late 20’s, Stamper had experimented with purchasing the domain names of Republican members of Congress and linking them to websites promoting cannibalism, nudism and mail order brides. As part of our vetting process while we're thinking about helping him in his race against Graham, I asked Stamper about his brush with Republican Party cannibalism. Years later, he probably wishes he never did it-- just my guess-- but he was still chuckling at his attempt at political satire.

Congressman and future CIA director Porter Goss was put in the awkward position of having to explain why his name led to a site promoting the conversion of human breastmilk into cheese.

Childish stunts? Pranks committed by someone with too much time on their hands? Incredibly satisfying. Check on all counts. I enjoyed baiting Republicans in the press and inventing elaborate motivations ranging from radical activism to moneymaking. My friends thought it was hilarious. In my more pretentious moments, I would put on a black turtleneck and think of myself an avante garde performance artist for the internet age. As usual, my motivations were multiple: genuine anger at a Republican Congress that had just impeached the president, the thrill of seeing my name in print for the first time, satisfaction at tweaking authority. I enjoyed the controversy. I even found a monetary angle, putting the names up for sale on Ebay. In the end, I’m not particularly ashamed of having done it but not overly proud of it either, mostly because it could have been so much funnier.

Funnier? Like this?

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

Monday Bits-- Colbert's Sister Going To Congress? Will Nestlé And Wall Street Ever Be Held To Account?

PPP shows Elizabeth Colbert Busch opening a more significant lead (16% as of this afternoon) over disgraced ex-Governor Mark Sanford in the first district congressional special election. Voting is on May 7th in the carefully gerrymandered red district, who's voters gave Obama 40.2% in November, while right next door in the 6th district-- into which the state's racist legislature dumped every African-American voter they could find-- Obama won 70.9%. Although John Boehner endorsed Sanford on April 9, less than a week later the NRCC, which he controls, announced that due to Sanford's on-going behavior issues, it would no longer support him or invest in his race, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars being poured into the district by the DCCC and their House Majority PAC. The new DCCC as:



I don't know if Colbert Busch will wind up voting with Republicans half the time. but it's what I suspect from watching the campaign. Still, that's better than voting with Republicans 100% of the time, which is what we can expect from Sanford. She's already come out in favor of marriage equality and her approach to Chained CPI was pretty good as well: “Not only does President Obama’s plan fail to put our finances back in order, it would cut benefits for our seniors, which is wrong. I believe that our seniors earned their Social Security by putting money away every single paycheck for a lifetime-- knowing that they could count on Social Security when they retired... Simply put, Social Security doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and politicians should keep their hands off the trust fund."

Our Contest Ended Today

Nick Ruiz (FL) wound up with 50 donors so he won the $1,000 PAC check from Blue America. Daylin Leach (PA) had 40 donors, Carl Sciortino (MA) had 38 donors, Andy Hounshell (OH) 31 donors and Ken Sanders (TX) 29. The average donor contributed approximately $53. And the Saving Social Security page now has $9,140 on it. We randomly selected one contributor to thank with the 311 platinum award disc. And that winner is Joyce Bullock from Glenside, PA, who contributed $12.


Wall Street And It's DC Allies Will Enslave Us All... If We let Them

Jeffrey Sachs isn't a radical. He's a kind of mainstream economics professor at Columbia University. The audio on this video was shot April 17 at a conference, "Fixing the Banking System for Good." It sounds like he's almost come around to a less corporate/establishment point of view about how corrupt and criminal Wall Street is, even to the point of advocating out loud the need for "separating the politicians from the (Wall Street) crooks, but maybe that's so close together that they can't actually be separated; maybe it's just the same community." Maybe?

I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I’m going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological. And I’m talking about the human interactions that I have. I’ve not seen anything like this, not felt it so palpably. These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that They have no responsibility to pay taxes, they have no responsibility to their clients, they have no responsibility to people… counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive, and feel absolutely out of control, in a quite literal sense. And they have gamed the system to a remarkable extent and they have a docile president, a docile White House and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can’t find its voice. It’s terrified of these companies.

...[T]he financial markets are the number one campaign contributors in the U.S. system now. We have a corrupt politics to the core, I’m afraid to say… and both parties are up to their necks in this. This has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. It really doesn’t have anything to do with right wing or left wing, by the way. The corruption, as far as I can see, [is] everywhere...

And Speaking Of Antisocial, Nihilistic Greed... Nestlé

Nestlé has been claiming for some time that it invented the medical uses of herbs that have been used medicinally for centuries. And they want patents.

The world’s largest food company, Nestlé, is seeking a patent on the use of Nigella sativa to prevent food allergies, claiming the plant seed and extract when they are used as a food ingredient or drug. Commonly known as habbat al-barakah in Arabic, and frequently called “black seed,” “black cumin” or “fennel flower” in English, Nigella sativa is an ancient food and medicinal crop.

The Swiss giant’s claims appear invalid, as traditional uses of Nigella sativa clearly anticipate Nestlé’s patent application, and developing country scholarship has already validated these traditional uses and further described, in contemporary scientific terms, the very medicinal properties of black seed that Nestlé seeks to claim as its own “invention."

It was already being used in King Tut's time, when the Swiss were still sheltering and shivering around open fires in Alpine caves, gnawing on bones.

In claiming use of Nigella sativa against food allergies, Nestlé’s scientists have not innovated beyond what was already known in traditional medicine from Egypt to India and beyond. Moreover, prior to Nestlé’s claim, researchers in those countries used formal scientific methods to demonstrate the efficacy of traditional use of black seed to treat allergy symptoms.

Those simple facts, however, have not deterred Nestlé from advancing its claim. In November 2011, Nestlé’s patent application in Europe was published. Other national (or regional) applications may exist but have yet to be published. Recently, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) released a search of scientific literature related to the application, and found problems with Nestlé’s claim to have made an invention, citing some of the same research that is noted in this report. The PCT opinion, however, is not binding on national patent offices, and Nestlé may submit modified claims. Thus, while the opinion is a blow to Nestlé’s application, it doesn’t mean that the claims are dead.

Like well-known biopiracy cases before it, such as patents on uses of neem, Nestlé’s unashamed attempt to appropriate traditional knowledge reflects an ethical lapse and shows profound problems with the company’s intellectual property practices. It can be hoped that Nestlé’s claim will be turned down by patent authorities, but the fact that patent claims over traditional knowledge that preceded it have result in patents shows that intellectual property offices sometime share industry’s disrespect for traditional knowledge. Indeed the fact that a corporation with the resources of Nestlé would pursue a patent on such an obviously pilfered “invention” at all is indicative of the need to improve patent review standards so that such applications are not worth filing in the first place.

Fighting for people over profits is how the blog SumOfUs introduced Nestlé’s ambitious claims.

In a paper published last year, Nestlé scientists claimed to “discover” what much of the world has known for millennia: that nigella sativa extract could be used for “nutritional interventions in humans with food allergy."

But instead of creating an artificial substitute, or fighting to make sure the remedy was widely available, Nestlé is attempting to create a nigella sativa monopoly and gain the ability to sue anyone using it without Nestlé’s permission. Nestlé has filed patent applications-- which are currently pending-- around the world.

Prior to Nestlé's outlandish patent claim, researchers in developing nations such as Egypt and Pakistan had already published studies on the same curative powers Nestlé is claiming as its own. And Nestlé has done this before-- in 2011, it tried to claim credit for using cow’s milk as a laxative, despite the fact that such knowledge had been in Indian medical texts for a thousand years.

Don’t let Nestlé turn a traditional cure into a corporate cash cow.

We know Nestlé doesn’t care about ethics. After all, this is the corporation that poisoned its milk with melamine, purchases cocoa from plantations that use child slave labor, and launched a breast milk substitute campaign in the 1970s that contributed to the suffering and deaths of thousands of babies from poor communities.

Are South Carolina Republicans Going To Hand Elizabeth Colbert Busch A Path To Victory Today?

Today is run-off day in South Carolina's first congressional district, a strip of coast below Myrtle Beach and Georgetown almost as far as Savannah's suburbs (including white Charleston south of Calhoun Street). On Saturday we pointed out that underdog Curtis Bostic had Man-On-Dog Rick Santorum campaigning for him-- as well as hilarious endorsements from Ann Coulter, religious right charlatan James Dobson, and the district's former congressman, once-removed, Henry Brown.

Conventional wisdom has it that this deeply red district-- Romney beat Obama 58.3-40.2% (mostly because the latest GOP gerrymander ghettoized all the African-American neighborhoods into SC-06 next door, where Obama won 70.9-28.1%)-- could be in play. In November Tea Party Republican Tim Scott was reelected 62-35% but the seat is now open because he was appointed to the Senate seat vacated by Jim DeMint. Districts this red aren't normally in play. But because disgraced ex-governor Mark Sanford appears likely to win the primary, mainstream voters will have to decide if they're buying in to his pious claims of redemption. Too implausible? South Carolina is the capital of the Culture of Personal Crisis, where everyday is Jerry Springer Day and where celebrating pious claims of redemption, no matter how opportunistic, are a standard way of life.

The general election is May 7, so there will be plenty of time for voters to mull this over. But it certainly appears that Republican primary voters have already made up their hive mind. It looks like by the end of the night, the Colbert Busch camp will be celebrating. Her only real chance lies in a Sanford primary win. Even with Coulter's stark prediction that if Sanford is the nominee, Colbert Busch will win the seat-- oddly reminiscent of her prediction about a Romney debacle-- GOP voters just cannot resist that Culture of Personal Crisis drama-- not even with Pat Boone endorsing Bostic!

He finished a distant second in the first round of voting, with 13 percent, compared to Sanford’s 37 percent.

And despite the high-profile endorsements, there are no clear evidence Bostic has done much to rally the voters who backed other candidates in the first round of voting.

“It's Sanford's to win-- he's a professional politician and knows how to run a race,” said Katon Dawson, a former head of the South Carolina Republican Party.

Just one of the 14 other Republicans who ran for the seat has backed Bostic, while six have endorsed Sanford.

Bostic emerged from first round of voting flat broke and has been able to spend only $40,000 on television during the runoff, while Sanford is flush with cash and has advertised heavily.

Those watching the race closely say Sanford remains the heavy favorite to win, but note that the likelihood of an extremely low turnout could play to Bostic’s advantage.

“It's two days after Easter, it's spring break in the low country, and neither one has a ton of extensive get-out-the-vote, I know for a fact,” Dawson said. “Still, it would be the surprise of the year if Curtis wins.”

A recent poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling showed Sanford leading Bostic by 53 to 40 percent, though special elections and House primaries are notoriously hard to predict.

Politico's Alex Isenstadt is also predicting that the final match-up will be between Colbert Busch and Sanford. "[I]f polling proves accurate, Sanford’s universal name ID, bigger war chest and carefully tailored plea for redemption to the district’s large contingent of social conservatives will prove too much for his little-known rival to match."

How Sanford has managed to bring himself back from the political wilderness is just the latest test of voters’ willingness to look beyond their elected officials’ transgressions. Sanford purposefully crafted a message of remorse and redemption that he believed would resonate with socially conservative voters who dot the district.

His personal troubles, Sanford tells voters, have made him a more religious person. He said at the debate that he had failed “very publicly”-- but insisted that he’s learned from his mistakes.

“I think, by and large, people are forgiving, especially if they believe your repentance is real. If they believe you are asking for forgiveness authentically and sincerely, then I think people are willing to give people a second chance. I’ve been around the governor, and it seems authentic and sincere to me,” [South Carolina GOP Chairman Chad] Connelly said. “I do think the people of the 1st Congressional District know him well. He’s run there before, and they’ve supported him. If there’s any group that’s willing to give him a second chance, this is it.”

...Sanford is also benefiting from simply being better known than his opponents. At the restaurant, he was treated like a celebrity as diners asked to have their photo taken with him. And as he stumped at the Charleston strip mall, it was hard to find a passerby who didn’t do a double take when the former governor walked by. Many of them stopped to talk with Sanford and to offer him their congratulations.

Long known for his love of retail politics, Sanford ate it up. He asked some voters for their phone numbers so he could call later to discuss the issues they were interested in. Bostic, by contrast, has struggled to draw sizable crowds. Even a joint appearance last week with former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum, a favorite among Christian conservatives, was sparsely attended.

“I just think Bostic has too little, too late,” said Warren Tompkins, a longtime Republican strategist in the state. “I think Sanford is going to win by a pretty significant margin.”

Colbert Busch is holding her breath. The latest PPP survey of the district shows her and Bostic tied 43-43%-- but shows her beating Sanford 47-45%. Over the weekend, The State did an in-depth look at Colbert Busch and found her pretty credible as a person and a candidate, also focusing on her strategy:

South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District changed in 2011 when lawmakers created a new, 7th Congressional District anchored in Horry County.

The Republican strongholds of Horry and Georgetown counties were removed from the 1st District. Remaining are Beaufort, Charleston and Hilton Head Island.

“Dropping Horry and Georgetown, it has made this district much more Libertarian-leaning, much more fiscally conservative to the point that social issues aren’t nearly as important to the average Republican voter,” said Scott Buchanan, a political science professor at The Citadel in Charleston. “I don’t think it’s necessarily making it friendly for Democrats, but making it more friendly for those who run a fiscally conservative platform. People more willing to give you a pass on the social issues.”

It appears Colbert Busch is shaping her campaign along that model. She supports gay marriage, telling The State newspaper in an interview “this is a matter of civil rights and this is a matter of equal protection under the law.” And she supports “a tough but fair path to citizenship” for the country’s millions of undocumented immigrants, including having them pay back taxes.

“This is about keeping the best and the brightest in our country. We have to find a sensible way to be able to keep them here,” she said.

And when she starts talking about fiscal policy, she sounds more like a Republican-- drawing on her 25 years of business experience, railing about the nation’s $16 trillion debt and saying on her website that “if Congress were a business, our leaders would be fired.”

She said she is not in favor of new taxes “in the short term” but did not say if, or when, Congress should raises taxes to address the budget deficit. She says she is against the budget sequester-- the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts that went into effect March 1-- pointing out the federal government first needs to get rid of fraud, waste and abuse, especially in the Medicare program.

She says the Medicare program-- health insurance for anyone over 65-- could save $24 billion a year if Congress would allow the program to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies on prices. And she cites studies from the federal Government Accountability Office and the nonprofit Rand Corporation estimating Medicare has $142 billion in overpayments and fraud, waste and abuse each year.

“Here is ... $166 billion that we know from the GAO is in fraud, waste, overbilling and pharmaceuticals, right? And that’s just one part of the entire budget. But that one part is twice what the sequester is,” she said. “We have to look through the entire budget, find out where else are we overpaying.”

She added that “being fiscally conservative is not unique to any party”-- which is true, especially when you are potentially running against Mark Sanford. The former governor probably won’t win over many social conservatives because of his lying and cheating on his wife in 2009. But conservatives love his record on fiscal issues, which Sanford would undoubtedly make a major part of his campaign should he win on Tuesday.

Brad Friedman points out another advantage Republicans have in the May 7th general election-- they control the vote counting apparatus, "the state's oft-failed, easily-hacked, always 100% unverifiable touch-screen voting systems. The candidate announced as the 'winner' of that election, based on those unverifiable voting systems, will either be the one who received the most votes from SC voters in the 1st Congressional District-- or the one who didn't. There will never be any way for anybody to know for sure one way or the other."

UPDATE: Latest Polling

One of the most consistently accurate polling companies in the country, Celinda Lake Partners, was out with a new poll late yesterday, paid for by the Colbert Busch campaign, showing Colbert Busch beating Sanford in a general election match-up 47-44%, just slightly better than the PPP survey from last week.

LAST UPDATE: No Surprises From GOP Primary Voters

Sanford won everywhere but Beaufort County, taking 26,066 votes (57%) to Bostic's 20,005 (43%). Keep in mind what Ann Coulter predicted: "If, in some horrible twist of fate that's been stalking Republicans, Sanford wins the runoff, he will lose the general election. Worse, he might win, making Republicans look like utter hypocrites on family values.

"In any event, so many resources will have to be diverted to save an easy Republican House seat that even if Sanford wins, some other Republican candidate will lose a close election after having to beg for money.

"And the payoff is: Yay! We win one of the most Republican districts in the country with a high-risk candidate!"

"The Republican Party owes Sanford nothing. He had a chance and he blew it. National Review wasted five years of cover stories on how awesome he was, but he never accomplished anything of substance."

Can Colbert's Sister Win In South Carolina-- Even Against A Corrupt Philanderer Like Mark Sanford?

In the South, they prefer a sinner who claims to have repented rather than a saint who never sinned. No one can relate to a saint; they're all sinners, struggling with guilt and fearing the hell their preachers use to keep them in bondage. And in their weird religions of self-righteous hatreds-- a kind of "Christianity" utterly devoid of Jesus' message-- they've been taught that no matter how opportunistic and insincere the repentance, it trumps everything else. James Dobson-- the pope of a right-wing s&m religionist cult based in Colorado Springs but appealing primarily to primitive southern neo-Confederates with an overwhelming feeling of having been wronged-- built a ministry, and a personal fortune worth over a hundred million dollars, based on it-- and little else. After winning first place in the South Carolina Republican primary Tuesday, Mark Sanford promised voters he would marry María Belén Chapur, his Argentine mistress.

Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch never really had much of a chance. It's a very Republican district. No Democrat has represented it since 1980-- and it's been gerrymandered in such a way to dump thousands of African-American voters into the 6th district to the west. Last November Romney beat Obama there 58.3% to 40.2%. (Obama beat Romney in the 6th district, 70.9% to 28.1%-- next door neighbors with such divergent views, the truest mark of a partisan gerrymander effort.) From day one, Colbert Busch's only real chance to win was predicated on a Sanford victory in the 15-man Republican primary. That's because Sanford's greatest asset-- his name recognition-- is also, potentially, his greatest liability.

For some reason, National Review's John Fund is warning darkly that Colbert Busch could win, but that's a long shot. If you really want it, Phillip Bump has an extensive run-down on the demographics, but what all you need to know is that Republicans outnumber Democrats 60-40 in the district; it went for Mitt Romney by 18 points; Sanford won more total votes than Colbert Busch Tuesday, even though she got 96 percent of the Democratic vote; and no Democrat has represented the seat since the fairly conservative Mendel Davis lost in 1980.

Sanford's return is proving eerily like his fall: weird to watch, because it feels guiltily like rubbernecking, but also a refreshingly honest performance the likes of which seldom occurs in politics. Back in 2009, once Sanford admitted he hadn't been hiking and 'fessed up to his extramarital affair, the world was treated to one of the oddest, most frank press conferences ever, in which he explained his love for María Belén Chapur, in surprising, squirm-inducing detail. And he showed his resilience then: Despite predictions from almost every quarter that he'd have to step down, Sanford finished out his term as governor before entering the figurative (rather than literal, Appalachian) wilderness, briefly.

During his comeback, sensing the futility of trying to cover it up, he's maintained a similar stance, as Jason Zengerle showed in a great profile in New York. Sanford insists he's learned from his mistakes, but is extremely self-effacing: "I'm anybody but the guy to take marriage lessons from, but you want to treat that marriage as something special and unique and guard it and protect it in a way that I did not." And yet he still does things like ask his ex-wife to run his campaign, just as she did his prior ones. ("I could pay you this time," he offered.)

She passed. But will South Carolina voters-- especially South Carolina women voters? The runoff is April 2 and it is expected to be a very low-turnout affair. This could help former Charleston City Council Member Curtis Bostic, who has backing from evangelical activists and the presumed backing of the last congressman from the district, Senator Tim Scott. Most of the South Carolina congressional delegation cringes at the idea of Sanford but it isn't likely any of them will come out and endorse Bostic (after two had endorsed third-place runner-up Larry Grooms last week). So far the only significant endorsement since Tuesday has come from former state Senator John Kuhn, who finished 6th out of 16 and says he's voting for Bostic-- and that he wouldn't even vote for Sanford in the general election if he wins the primary!

“I think that Curtis Bostic is a great guy. He's honest, he's honorable and he's hard-working, a strict constitutionalist. I got to know him on the campaign trail and like him a lot," Kuhn said. "I'm definitely throwing my support behind Curtis Bostic.

“I will not back Sanford under any circumstances including in the general [election]. That doesn't mean I'd vote for the Democrat either, but I would not back Sanford under any circumstance. I think he's lied too many times to the public of South Carolina.”

...Despite Kuhn’s endorsement of Bostic, it’s unclear whether there’ll be a groundswell of resistance to Sanford by his former opponents.

That may hurt Bostic’s prospects of catching Sanford, who has a major cash and name identification advantage with less than two weeks until the runoff.

South Carolina state Rep. Andy Patrick (R), who finished fifth in the GOP primary, said he jumped into the race partly because he thought Sanford’s run was a bad idea.

But he declined to endorse either candidate in the April 2 runoff and said other GOP state lawmakers in the state have not begun to rally around Sanford or Bostic.

“I’ve been up in [the state capital] Columbia the last two days and don’t really get a sense that anyone is really coalescing around anyone,” Patrick said.

In fact, Sanford has locked up the endorsements of two first-round rivals-- Charleston County School Board member Elizabeth Moffly and businessman Keith Blandford-- though neither won more than 1 percent of the vote.

Patrick said Sanford faces a more difficult task convincing voters in the upcoming special election to rally behind him.

“I don’t know, but a lot of them seem to think that it was a bad idea for [Sanford] to run,” Patrick said. "That is one of the reasons I decided to run."

Teddy Turner, who won a little less than 8 percent of the vote, said Sanford would fare better than Bostic in the general election but declined to endorse either candidate “at this point.”

Turner said he is leaving for spring break with his family and would not be able to contribute, regardless.

Turner said it is difficult to switch from competitor to ally so soon after an election.

“You are fresh off a race where you are running against these guys,” he said. “It’s kind of really hard to kiss and make up.”

In a special election, Turner argued, Sanford’s high name recognition would outweigh the baggage that is associated with his name.

“It certainly hadn’t [hurt] so far,” he said. “Everyone’s got baggage … His is all out there so everybody knows Mark Sanford and knows his baggage. And it doesn’t seem to upset as many people as you would think it would.”

Kuhn disagreed, arguing that Sanford was vulnerable in the primary and would put the seat at risk for the GOP if he wins the runoff.

“Yes, absolutely he's vulnerable in the general. The vast majority of women in the Republican Party won't vote for him, and I'm worried they'll turn around and vote for [Democrat] Elizabeth Colbert Busch against him,” he said.

“Even someone like me who's a party loyalist won't back him, with his ethics violations and spending the state's money to visit his mistress.”

State Sen. Larry Grooms (R), who Bostic narrowly edged to make the runoff, also hasn’t endorsed anyone.

Colbert-Busch is counting on moderate Republicans, Republican women, enthusiastic Democratic turnout-- and her good relationships in the district... including with Republicans. Still, if Sanford just keeps yelling "Obama" and "Pelosi" often enough, it's likely that Republican voters will be unable to resist the hatreds and prejudices that dominate the area's politics.