Disgraced former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford is running for Congress in the state’s first district. It’s doubtful that anyone would really care, except that he is running against comedian Stephen Colbert’s sister, Elizabeth Colbert Busch. And, of course, Sanford became famous when he disappeared for six days during his term as governor to visit his mistress in Argentina. Remember this?
His absence left fellow state leaders scratching their heads.
The lieutenant governor couldn’t figure out where Sanford was. Calls from a state senator and close friend rolled to voice mail. Even his wife said she hadn’t talked to him for several days.
The explanation came late Monday night from his spokesman: The second-term chief executive was hiking along the Appalachian Trail “to kind of clear his head after the legislative session.”
The Republican governor left town on Thursday, [Joel] Sawyer said, with plans to hike the trail, which passes through 14 states but not South Carolina. Sawyer said he didn’t know where exactly Sanford was along the 2,200-mile route and declined to discuss if anyone was hiking with him.
“He’s an avid outdoorsman,” Sawyer said. “Nobody’s ever accused our governor of being conventional.”
Yeah, that cover story turned out to be bullshit and he was almost impeached as a result. His wife divorced him and took custody of the kids. Then he started violating the terms of divorce under which he must get permission to go on his ex-wife’s property. The story keeps getting stranger. He’s actually due in court on May 9th to answer for his latest trespass. The special election for the House seat in on May 7th. He never mentioned that he was in legal trouble when he was running for the Republican nomination. Even worse, he managed to introduce his children to his mistress on the stage of his victory party, which upset them according to their mother.
The NRCC is cutting Sanford off from any funding for the special election. But that still doesn’t mean he won’t win. The district has a Cook PVI of +11, which means it is eleven percentage points more conservative than the country as a whole. It should be a safe Republican district, and it is only Sanford’s creepy antics that could make it close.
There are so many story lines in this election that it would make a good movie, but it’s really not that important. Picking up one seat in the House won’t change a thing in Washington and it will almost certainly be surrendered right back to the GOP after the 2014 election. Meanwhile, in an effort to avoid that fate, Rep. Elizabeth Colbert Busch would vote against us on anything contentious anyway.
Sorry to be cynical, but I think CabinGirl put it best when she said that “The NRA has created a climate where any bill that doesn’t hand out guns in the birthing room is not pro-gun enough.” That’s the only explanation I’ve heard for why the Senate voted against stronger penalties for gun traffickers, despite the fact that the NRA was in favor of the amendment. We have a climate in this country. And it ain’t pretty.
The Tea Party fever is up to about 105 degrees right now in some parts of the country. Convulsions and brain damage are setting in. The only question is whether it is a permanent state.
The question isn’t whether they are going to take safe Republican seats and hand them to the Democrats on a silver platter; the question is how many.
what makes it funny is that confederates will happily vote for him ANYWAY.
as always, electorates deserve, what electorates vote for. (shrug)
It doesn’t have to make sense. It just has to make money.
Hopefully he will be found in violation of the court’s order. Too bad it won’t be heard before the election.
Maybe it’s because I don’t really have a dog in this fight – my only solution is utterly non-viable – but I see two (three) possible motivations. The first, and most obvious, is that they want to deny Obama a win. On anything. The bill could be on drilling ANWR but if it was an Obama initiative they’d vote against it – the substance is irrelevant.
The second motivation is more principled, literally. If, as a matter of principle, you believe legislation is heading in the wrong direction then you will vote against it, no matter how innocuous or ineffective it may actually be. Let me rephrase the quote and see if the principle is clearer:
It’s an unlikely scenario, obviously, but do you see where a principled opposition could be coming from?
Also, too, lobbyist money.
Meanwhile, in an effort to avoid that fate, Rep. Elizabeth Colbert Busch would vote against us on anything contentious anyway.
Really? Don’t we want politicians to vote their conscience?
And their districts?
Take that up with Mark Begich and Mark Pryor, for starters.
As my old college roommate, The Arkansan, would say: “That man ain’t whole!”
The father of four disappeared on Father’s Day weekend.
Picking up a Democratic seat with a white female candidate would change a 20-year trend in South Carolina. Nonetheless, Colbert-Busch is part of the Charleston establishment and will watch over those military bases with the eagle-eyes of a Mendel Rivers.
How flexible she can be on gun legislation depends on her ability to persuade constituents. After all, no one has taken those large numbers of support for universal background checks and other aspects of the late lamented gun legislation and allocated it over Congressional Districts.
Political opinion in South Carolina is largely reflective of what peers consider acceptable. There is continual testing to see if any friends, family, neighbors, and co-workers are going off the plantation. I’ve noticed some more openness to different ideas among my conservative friends than existed a year ago. Everybody is getting frustrated with US politics and the circus in DC.
So the latitude that Colbert-Busch would have with her constituents depends on (1) the local popular grapevine and (2) how interested the Charleston establishment is to shed the image of know-nothingism. In no way are those locked up.
the man couldn’t have picked a more private moment to introduce his kids to his HO..than his election night party?
seriously?