Here’s what John Hayward writing for Red State thinks;
“Aha!” cried liberals across the land, when the election returns from South Carolina came in, and the zombie political corpse of Mark Sanford had somehow managed to score a landslide victory over the vivacious Elizabeth Colbert Busch. ”Now we’ve got you right where we want you, Republicans! Your hypocrisy on family values will be your undoing!”
The idea is to tear off Representative-Elect Sanford’s zombie arm – the one he prefers to wrap around the trim waistlines of Argentinian cuties – and beat the rest of his party senseless with it. The party of John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, and Anthony Weiner will ask the public how they could possibly support a party that would tolerate adulterers in its ranks. When the public raises an eyebrow at these demands, Democrats will say you can’t accuse them of hypocrisy, because they’re not serious about all that “family values” stuff, no matter what they say in red-state campaign ads.
Looking at the difference between Mark Sanford and, say, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, it would seem that whatever Mark Sanford’s flaws, he still has some understanding of the relationship between sex and marriage. His ex-wife Jenny certainly does. His marriage to her ended, fairly quickly and decisively, once it was discovered that his hiking expedition down the Appalachian Trail ended in Argentina. He is now engaged to his former mistress.
Mark Sanford didn’t try to hide from the scandal that sidetracked his political career. He faced it and wasn’t scared to answer questions from his constituents. The Clintons, Kennedys and Weiners of the Democrat party did everything they could to hide their scandals with extraordinary help from a complicit media.
All the while the media was constantly harping about Sanford’s infidelity, they completely ignored Elizabeth Colbert-Busch’s arrest and contempt charges in a prior divorce proceeding.
Moe Lane, as did I, predicted a Sanford victory;
Mark Sanford, by a bit. This is frankly subjective, but I suspect that more people agree with me on this than let on: I’ve been reading a lot of ‘momentum swinging back to Sanford’ pieces by individuals and groups who aren’t particularly happy about that development. Generally you’d be expecting more triumphalist posts by Democrats at this point if they thought that Elizabeth Colbert Busch was a shoo-in. Or maybe even any.
Then Moe goes on to equate what Democrats are doing in Georgia with their soon to be open Senate seat with what they did in the SC-1 special election which is to pretty much give up the seat by running a relative nobody who’s only name recognition is the fact that she is former Senator Sam Nunn’s daughter.
The problem, of course, is that the Democrats don’t want to nominate candidates that can easily win statewide races in states that aren’t on the East or West Coasts.
I said it before and it bears repeating, the republican candidate got out among the voters and wasn’t afraid to answer questions. The Democrat candidate hid behind the press and her political donors. The consensus is that Busch was a sacrificial lamb because the Dems knew they had zero chance of winning the seat. If you go into a race with that kind of attitude, of course you’re going to lose. If Colbert-Busch had tried to make herself more available to the voters, she still might not have won, but the race could have been a lot closer than it was.