Bostic attacks Sanford’s political effectiveness in Charleston debate

The issue of whether former Gov. Mark Sanford is a compromised candidate because of his highly publicized 2009 scandal arose yet again Thursday during an hour-long 1st Congressional District debate.

But it was Sanford’s relative effectiveness as both a three-term congressman and two-term governor that his Republican rival, former Charleston County Councilman Curtis Bostic, dwelled on more.

Bostic noted Sanford did not cosponsor a single piece of legislation that got passed while he served in Congress from 1995 to 2001 — and that 88 percent of his gubernatorial vetoes were overriden by South Carolina’s Republican-dominated Legislature.

“It takes more than saying no,” Bostic said. “We need people to come around conservative ideas. We need consensus builders. We’re fighting against debt, and it will take all of us. It will take more than ‘no.’ ”

Sanford defended his record, saying, “It also takes more than yes.” He noted his term as governor resulted in meaningful tax reductions, tort reform and regulatory reform. He said in 2010 alone, the Legislature sustained his vetoes that saved taxpayers $230 million.

In their only face-to-face meeting of their short runoff campaign, Bostic and Sanford slugged it out before a few hundred Republican faithful and others inside Charleston’s Porter Gaud School —a debate moderated by David Webb of Sirius XM’s Patriot Channel.


Read more later at postandcourier.com and in Friday’s newspaper.

Comments { }

Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full Terms and Conditions.