Wow. Oh, yes he did. (Mediaite):

Former South Carolina Governor and Fox News contributor Mark Sanford wandered off the Appalachian Trail again Sunday morning when, in yet another completely isolated example of a Republican being totally-not-racist even though he sounds racist, said that President Obama is going to “come out and throw a lot of spears” at Tuesday’s upcoming debate.

Gov. Sanford first praised former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney‘s performance at the first debate, then predicted that “You know, obviously Obama will come out in this case much more forcefully and he will throw a lot of spears.”

Tongue firmly planted in cheek, Mediaite reporter Tommy Christopher wrote:

Completely coincidentally, and not at all related to this, the term “spearchucker” is a racial slur against black people, but what would a 52 year-old white guy from South Carolina know about that? Also, he didn’t call President Obama a “spearchucker,” he just said he would be throwing spears. That’s completely different.

I guess Sanford had his Klan sheet at the cleaners so it wasn’t available to wear during his Faux News appearance.

***

“But I’m not racist…”

Moving north to New Jersey, the race-baiting continues with the re-emergence of a familiar image of Barack Obama, this time in a display in Bill Skuby’s storefront in downtown Spring Lake.

The picture shows Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States, naked except for a primitive loincloth, with a bone through his nose, witch-doctor style. Underneath the image, a caption is written in black and white: ‘ObamaCare – coming soon to a clinic near you.’ The ‘C’ is depicted as a classic Communist hammer and sickle, a symbol not as regularly seen since the fall of the Soviet Union.

…Skuby, 66, a Spring Lake resident, saw nothing wrong with displaying his anti-Obama visual, which has been up since last week, for the world to see. ”A lot of people feel the way I feel, but are just afraid to say it,” said Skuby, who said that public response on the street in front of his store ran “70 percent positive” in favor of the display’s anti-Obama sentiments. “It always comes down to the race card.”

… “My son married a girl that had a biracial kid. She is every bit a part of our family as the other two in this picture. I’m not racist. And as long as my grandchild doesn’t think I’m a racist, I’m perfectly fine with all of this.”

It’s one of National Organization for Marriage’s favorite fact-free canards: if same-sex couples are allowed access to civil marriage, religious-based charities will be forced to close up shop. Preserve Marriage Washington, a local arm of NOM trying to block approval of Referendum 74 and thereby repeal Washington’s freedom to marry law, has included this scurrilous statement in their ads:

Religious groups such as Catholic Charities, in Boston and Washington, D.C., have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission — based on their religious beliefs — or accepting this new definition of marriage. As a result, they had to close their adoption program.

Not true, says Peter Meade, chairman of the board of directors for Catholic Charities of Boston during the period PMW is referencing.

“Opponents of the freedom to marry ignore the truth and distort history when they talk about Catholic Charities of Boston and its decision to shut down its adoption services. I’m shocked and amazed that so many years later, they are making the false claim that Catholic Charities’ decision had anything to do with allowing committed gay and lesbian couples to marry,” he told The Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

In fact Catholic Charities had willingly placed over a dozen children with adoptive gay couples before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court struck down freedom to marry prohibitions in the law.

But is wasn’t the court that ordered Catholic Charities to shut their doors. It was the Vatican. And it had nothing to do with marriage law.

“In 2005, tragically and out of the blue, the Vatican ordered our diocese to cease using the single criteria of ‘best interest of the children,’” writes Meade. “They ordered us to stop facilitating adoptions to qualified gay and lesbian households.”

“I objected strenuously for two reasons. First and foremost, the Church hierarchy was telling us to violate the best interests of the children who were in our care. It was an arbitrary edict that, to many of us, had nothing to do with what was best for these kids and undermined our moral priority of helping vulnerable children find loving homes.

“Here’s a second piece,” writes Meade. “Catholic Charities had long accepted taxpayer money in a contract with state government to handle the adoptions of these difficult-to-place children, many of whom were older, some who had disciplinary issues, and some who faced chronic medical issues that required constant attention.

“We were proud of our work, but we were also required to follow decades-old anti-discrimination laws. It had nothing to do with marriage equality.

“Here are the facts: When organizations accept taxpayer dollars, they need to obey anti-discrimination laws that exist to make sure everyone is treated equally. If we excluded qualified families simply because they were gay or lesbian, we would violate these laws.”

So it was the Vatican that pulled the plug on Catholic Charities of Boston. And it wasn’t because of the advent of marriage equality, but because the Vatican no longer wanted to abide by the anti-discrimination requirements long-attached to the state subsidies that Catholic Charities was receiving.

The board of directors of Catholic Charities of Boston “voted unanimously not to exclude gay and lesbian couples. It viewed the Vatican edict as wrong for children and in violation of state law.” But to no avail. Boston’s Cardinal Sean O’Malley enforced the edict, and in response Mr. Meade and numerous directors resigned in protest.

As they say on The X-Files, the truth is out there. But don’t count on NOM or Preserve Marriage Washington to reveal it. They serve the Vatican, not the truth.

I don’t think I need to rehash Thursday night’s VP debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan. The overpaid Washington punditry did it already. And I’m sure that the comments below will also do such.

But here is some food for thought. The following exchange was the most watched portion of the debate according to Politico:

Take it for what you will. Will it come back to haunt the Republicans? Who knows?