The Colbert Busch/ Sanford debate moderators react to the crowd’s thunderous applause following Elizabeth Colbert Busch’s final remarks, which included the revelation that, if elected, she would take a 10% pay cut in light of the current fiscal dysfunction in Congress.
South Carolina’s First District constituents were treated to a lively debate held at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina on Monday, April 29, 2013. This debate offered the first glimpse of Elizabeth Colbert Busch under the scrutiny of a publicly moderated format against her competitor, former Governor Mark Sanford. From the rush of applause that greeted her entrance to the debate, there was no doubt as to the powerful presence of her supporters. However, a strong contingent of vocal Sanford supporters were also present, quick to applaud the former Gov as he touted his financial credentials — for example, his being a member of the “Republican Revolution” in the 1994 Congress and for famously turning away stimulus money as Governor. Let’s take a look at this lively exchange, and its ramifications for the remaining days leading up to the election on May 7th.
The moderators treated Sanford more like an incumbent in this special, up-for-grabs race: he was given mostly the first opportunity to answer every question, and addressed as “Governor.” Elizabeth was usually relegated to taking the responding position, and referred to her opponent casually, as “Mark.” Whereas Sanford answered the questions in lengthy, rambling responses, Elizabeth was comparably more terse and matter-of-fact. Generally, Sanford was quick to play up his fiscal conservatism, which clearly resonated with his supporters in the room. Elizabeth touted her business credentials over her decades-long career, and for the need to focus on technical education – the STEM fields.
Although the two candidates were (relatively) polite to one another, there was no denying how starkly they contrasted on the issues, mostly along party divides. Here were some of the distinctions:
- Regarding immigration reform that is currently in Congress? Colbert Busch for, Sanford against, with Sanford citing the “ineffectiveness” of the 1986 Amnesty bill signed into law by President Reagan, and the need for a more “nuts and bolts” analysis of immigration reform prior to committing to any current legislative efforts.
- Obamacare? Sanford not havin’ it, no thanks. He would have voted against the Affordable Care Act, or to defund it now.
- On gay marriage? Elizabeth offered her support. Sanford invoked the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, which he supported during his tenure in Congress.
- On abortion? Elizabeth came out as pro choice.
Sanford was at the ready to attack the “special interests” of Elizabeth’s campaign. He was basically characterizing her entire campaign as funded by outside, liberal groups, unrepresentative of the first district. Sanford particularly was quick to invoke the largely unpopular Nancy Pelosi throughout the debate, and donations brought into Elizabeth’s coffers from democratic organizations and PACs and by Act Blue, to the tune of about $400,000. (It’s worth noting that ActBlue is sort of like the political “paypal” account on the Colbert Busch campaign website. If you donate to it, just as a means of grassroots support for Elizabeth, it does not mean you are part of a democratic action committee. This seems to be a mischaracterization by Sanford.) Sanford hammered Elizabeth on her accepting $70,000 from labor unions, when she declared in the debate that she supported South Carolina as a “right to work” state and that she opposed the National Labor Review Board’s attempts to prevent Boeing from moving to South Carolina.
Elizabeth fought back at Sanford’s jabs, citing that if Sanford was so concerned about fiscal matters, why would he use state money for “personal” use (i.e., visiting his mistress?) Yes, she went there. Sanford pretended not to “hear” her; ah, that old Reagan trick. She also hammered back on his lack of support for dredging efforts at the Port of Charleston, which they had previously negotiated on, long before they were congressional rivals.
Congressional candidate and former Governor Mark Sanford touts his fiscal credentials to a sharply divided crowd.
Overall, Sanford sounded strongest on fiscal issues, and weakest on anything socially related. When a moderator pointed out that he voted to impeach Bill Clinton for his extramarital affair, people gasped in the room. Sanford went on quickly to appeal for redemption.
Elizabeth held her own, brushing aside Sanford’s characterizations and strongly asserting that as a congresswoman she would make the constituents the only special interest she would work for. In her closing remarks, she surprised everyone by declaring she would take a 10% pay cut if elected.
“I want to be very clear. No one tells me what to do, except the people of South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.”
Sanford is trying to make Elizabeth’s financial supporters look like shadowy outside groups trying to wield undue influence over SC-1. Full disclosure: I myself am one of those donors, and I can definitely say that I have no political agenda, other than to support Elizabeth. And people from outside districts or groups donating to congressional races are hardly anything new or controversial, if they share the ideals of the candidate they are supporting.
When you look at the issues being debated, Colbert Busch and Sanford’s exchange crystallizes the larger national debate going on right now about some of the most pressing issues: immigration reform, gun control, the ramifications of Obamacare, gay marriage, and job creation. It is unfortunate that in light of these serious issues, the biggest, most contentious item up for debate has to be who is the most “party establishment candidate” of the two.
It’s easy to see why Sanford would want to cast Colbert Busch in such an unflattering light. Despite Sanford’s attempts to make his campaign seem more grassroots with the plywood campaign signs, impromptu cardboard cut out debates, etc., Elizabeth Colbert Busch has gained true grassroots support from enthusiastic supporters both in and outside of SC-1. The rally and desire for change, and a move towards the future is taking hold in the first district, and old players in the political game like Mark Sanford, with his considerable political and personal baggage, are falling to the wayside.
The Sanford/Colbert Busch Debate: A Cursory Impression
The Colbert Busch/ Sanford debate moderators react to the crowd’s thunderous applause following Elizabeth Colbert Busch’s final remarks, which included the revelation that, if elected, she would take a 10% pay cut in light of the current fiscal dysfunction in Congress.
South Carolina’s First District constituents were treated to a lively debate held at The Citadel in Charleston, South Carolina on Monday, April 29, 2013. This debate offered the first glimpse of Elizabeth Colbert Busch under the scrutiny of a publicly moderated format against her competitor, former Governor Mark Sanford. From the rush of applause that greeted her entrance to the debate, there was no doubt as to the powerful presence of her supporters. However, a strong contingent of vocal Sanford supporters were also present, quick to applaud the former Gov as he touted his financial credentials — for example, his being a member of the “Republican Revolution” in the 1994 Congress and for famously turning away stimulus money as Governor. Let’s take a look at this lively exchange, and its ramifications for the remaining days leading up to the election on May 7th.
The moderators treated Sanford more like an incumbent in this special, up-for-grabs race: he was given mostly the first opportunity to answer every question, and addressed as “Governor.” Elizabeth was usually relegated to taking the responding position, and referred to her opponent casually, as “Mark.” Whereas Sanford answered the questions in lengthy, rambling responses, Elizabeth was comparably more terse and matter-of-fact. Generally, Sanford was quick to play up his fiscal conservatism, which clearly resonated with his supporters in the room. Elizabeth touted her business credentials over her decades-long career, and for the need to focus on technical education – the STEM fields.
Although the two candidates were (relatively) polite to one another, there was no denying how starkly they contrasted on the issues, mostly along party divides. Here were some of the distinctions:
Sanford was at the ready to attack the “special interests” of Elizabeth’s campaign. He was basically characterizing her entire campaign as funded by outside, liberal groups, unrepresentative of the first district. Sanford particularly was quick to invoke the largely unpopular Nancy Pelosi throughout the debate, and donations brought into Elizabeth’s coffers from democratic organizations and PACs and by Act Blue, to the tune of about $400,000. (It’s worth noting that ActBlue is sort of like the political “paypal” account on the Colbert Busch campaign website. If you donate to it, just as a means of grassroots support for Elizabeth, it does not mean you are part of a democratic action committee. This seems to be a mischaracterization by Sanford.) Sanford hammered Elizabeth on her accepting $70,000 from labor unions, when she declared in the debate that she supported South Carolina as a “right to work” state and that she opposed the National Labor Review Board’s attempts to prevent Boeing from moving to South Carolina.
Elizabeth fought back at Sanford’s jabs, citing that if Sanford was so concerned about fiscal matters, why would he use state money for “personal” use (i.e., visiting his mistress?) Yes, she went there. Sanford pretended not to “hear” her; ah, that old Reagan trick. She also hammered back on his lack of support for dredging efforts at the Port of Charleston, which they had previously negotiated on, long before they were congressional rivals.
Congressional candidate and former Governor Mark Sanford touts his fiscal credentials to a sharply divided crowd.
Overall, Sanford sounded strongest on fiscal issues, and weakest on anything socially related. When a moderator pointed out that he voted to impeach Bill Clinton for his extramarital affair, people gasped in the room. Sanford went on quickly to appeal for redemption.
Elizabeth held her own, brushing aside Sanford’s characterizations and strongly asserting that as a congresswoman she would make the constituents the only special interest she would work for. In her closing remarks, she surprised everyone by declaring she would take a 10% pay cut if elected.
“I want to be very clear. No one tells me what to do, except the people of South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District.”
Sanford is trying to make Elizabeth’s financial supporters look like shadowy outside groups trying to wield undue influence over SC-1. Full disclosure: I myself am one of those donors, and I can definitely say that I have no political agenda, other than to support Elizabeth. And people from outside districts or groups donating to congressional races are hardly anything new or controversial, if they share the ideals of the candidate they are supporting.
When you look at the issues being debated, Colbert Busch and Sanford’s exchange crystallizes the larger national debate going on right now about some of the most pressing issues: immigration reform, gun control, the ramifications of Obamacare, gay marriage, and job creation. It is unfortunate that in light of these serious issues, the biggest, most contentious item up for debate has to be who is the most “party establishment candidate” of the two.
It’s easy to see why Sanford would want to cast Colbert Busch in such an unflattering light. Despite Sanford’s attempts to make his campaign seem more grassroots with the plywood campaign signs, impromptu cardboard cut out debates, etc., Elizabeth Colbert Busch has gained true grassroots support from enthusiastic supporters both in and outside of SC-1. The rally and desire for change, and a move towards the future is taking hold in the first district, and old players in the political game like Mark Sanford, with his considerable political and personal baggage, are falling to the wayside.