In the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina, where a Republican nominee can lose some usual Republican voters and still get elected, if there's one clear message that can interpreted from the results from tonight's special election, it's that Republicans have fully embraced adultery and corruption.
Mark Sanford fits both the "adulterer" and "crook" label, yet Republicans in the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina elected him to the U.S. House of Representatives anyways.
He disappeared for nearly a week during his second term as Governor of South Carolina and, when he returned to the United States, revealed that he had been unfaithful to his then-wife Jenny Sanford. It was later revealed that he had flown to Argentina and had an affair with the woman that he is now engaged to.
Sanford settled 37 ethics charges that stemmed from his affair and he paid the largest ethics fine in South Carolina history after settling the charges.
Democrats, with the exceptions of Charlie Rangel, Alcee Hastings, and some others, tend to disown those who tarnish the Democratic brand...Jesse Jackson Jr., John Edwards, William Jefferson, Herman Talamadge, Rod Blagojevich, Dan Rostenkowski, Chuck Chvala, and others who have tarnished the Democratic brand for adultery and/or corruption are regarded as persona non grata in the Democratic Party these days, or, in the case of Talamadge, would be persona non grata in the Democratic Party if he were alive today.
Republicans, with some exceptions, tend to admire those who tarnish their brand...Newt Gingrich, David Vitter, Spencer Bachus, and now Mark Sanford, just to name a few. As a matter of fact, Howie Klein of Down With Tyranny is reporting that Mark Foley is considering a redemption run for public office of his own, although I'm not sure if that's merely a joke by Klein or if Foley is actually considering a return to politics.
For another observation I've made from tonight's special election in the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina, look below the orange squiggle.
Another observation that I've been able to make from the results in the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina is a key difference between how Democrats view the undue influence of money in politics and how Republicans view the undue influence of money in politics.
Democrats, for the most part, tend to support measures, up to and including efforts to amend the United States Constitution, to reduce the influence of money in American politics, particularly when it comes to the unlimited amounts of money that can be raised and spent by so-called "SuperPACs" as a result of the Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court case. While there are some Democrats who believe that Democratic front groups shouldn't raise unlimited amounts of money or not even run campaign ads at all, there are many Democrats, such as myself, who support changing the laws in order to reduce the influence of money in politics but are willing to allow Democratic outside groups to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on races until the rules are changed to prohibit that.
Republicans, for the most part, tend to embrace the concept of outside groups spending unlimited amounts of money unless, of course, it's used by Democrats against Republican candidates. Additionally, Republicans are unwilling to support measures to reduce the influence of money in American politics, but few Republicans are willing to openly admit that they support the concept of outside groups being able to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money. The fact that Democratic front groups spent a large amount of money in an attempt to win the 1st Congressional District of South Carolina provoked a hostile reaction among Republican voters who were willing to either support Democratic candidate Elizabeth Colbert-Busch or not vote in protest of Sanford winning the Republican nomination but ultimately voted for Sanford.