The Sanford Crack-Up: Important, Not Important, Who Knows

Political smarty Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic presents the case for, and against, the national political significance of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's adultery scandal. I think "against" wins,  but here are selections from both sides of the argument:

It Will Matter:

He's the latest in a line of potential GOP presidential candidates to fall victim to his personal appetites. This means that the GOP primary electorate is more likely to choose a nominee with stellar, unimpeachable family-values, socially conservative credentials, which means that anyone who evinces moderation hasn't got a shot…..

The GOP loses one of its most articulate anti-spending, anti-deficit spokespersons. Sanford's machinations may not have been popular, but he articulated a view of the world that many conservatives share….

This may be a tipping point: a few examples of conservative moralists who cheat on their wives (Vitter, Ensign) can be, perhaps, accepted as evidence that human beings are normal. But at some point, the liberal talking point about GOP hypocrisy starts to have the ring of truth….

It Won't Matter:

the GOP is at a market bottom already. The public's image of the party can't really go down much further….

Most Americans probably didn't know who Sanford was before today, so it'll hard to attribute any massive change in politics to his sudden emergence…..

Sanford was never a viable 2012 candidate because of his eccentricity; to put him in the same category as a Mitt Romney or a Sarah Palin misjudges the impact he would have had.

Reason has blogged every step of this grim and silly little morality play, here and here.

Comments

[Jaybird]

So, like, am I wrong in assuming that the people who say “we shouldn’t judge harshly, it’s between him and his wife, let him without sin throw the first stone, etc…” most forcefully are also folks who have cheated on their significant others?

[Pro Libertate]

I think it matters to GOP voters, so, therefore, it matters in reference to 2012.

This “GOP is dead” crap sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me. Heard the exact same thing about another party not all that long ago. The Democrats are overreaching too much to feel (at the top level) very cocky about 2010, let alone 2012. Not to mention, if we have high inflation next year, they’ll almost certainly lose one or both houses of Congress.

[Tricky Prickears]

The woman’s name is Maria

Maybe he should have stayed in America

[Douglas Gray]

The cheating itself is no big deal.

Indirectly, it bolsters the cause of libertarianism and limited government. His staff is being paid by the taxpayers to either lie about where he is, or demonstrate incompetence, like, “how should we know where he is?”

It just makes me think, “why should these people get paid for what they do?” Minimum wage maybe? No, that’s too much.

[Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke]

I’d think the republicans would be thrilled their politicians are back to cheating on their wives with other women.

[Robert]

It certainly scuttles his own political ambitions. However, this conjecture:

He’s the latest in a line of potential GOP presidential candidates to fall victim to his personal appetites. This means that the GOP primary electorate is more likely to choose a nominee with stellar, unimpeachable family-values, socially conservative credentials, which means that anyone who evinces moderation hasn’t got a shot.

I don’t see any reason to believe. The primary electorate will be driven to choose a nominee with stellar personal family values — which they all have until someone finds out otherwise, so it’s a wash.

[John-David]

Sanford was never a viable 2012 candidate because of his eccentricity

That statement pisses me off far more than I could ever be pissed by Sanford’s infidelity.

[Lost_In_Translation]

I would not have voted for Mr. Family Values Sanford anyway, so I vote “Meh”.

There are no heroes, merely those that have hid their fuck-ups.

[John Thacker]

I would not have voted for Mr. Family Values Sanford anyway, so I vote “Meh”.

So you would have never voted for Dr. rated 76% by the Christian Coalition for Family Values and 17% by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State Ron Paul for the same reason, L_i_T? Or is there a particular Family Values issue you differ on?

[John Thacker]

I mean, I can see people who dislike immigration liking Ron Paul and disliking Mark Sanford. And I can see people disliking Ron Paul’s stance on Family Values but liking his other stances enough and thinking that Sanford isn’t as serious as Paul on what matters to them and being wary, and several other possibilities.

[John C]

“the GOP primary electorate is more likely to choose a nominee with stellar, unimpeachable family-values, socially conservative credentials”

So that means Ron Paul is going to win?

[B]

Christ, given the unemployment and deficit projections with the clown we have in office now and his embarrassing foreign policy, the GOP could probably run a corpse and get it elected

[zoltan]

“the GOP primary electorate is more likely to choose a nominee with stellar, unimpeachable family-values, socially conservative credentials”

So that means Ron Paul is going to win?

More like Mike Huckabee, unfortunately.

[PapayaSF]

A few thoughts. Comparisons with Clinton, and references to Sanford’s support for impeachment, don’t seem quite apt. Clinton was impeached not for cheating on his wife but for lying about it under oath. He ended up being disbarred for that.

Also, I can understand the charges of hypocrisy when a family-values politician gets caught with his pants down, but it’s interesting that it doesn’t seem to work that way when economic leftists, always blathering about the poor, are caught with their hands in the till. Corrupt liberals like Dodd, Rangel, Murtha, etc. seem to be reelected more often than not.

[ed]

Mark who? Don’t you know that Farrah and Michael died?

[FatDrunkAndStupid]

I still think the 2012 Nomination is Sanford’s if he wants it. Rudy is 10X the adulterer Sanford is and that was never became an issue for him. People think Americans vote like puritans but I don’t see the evidence to support that. South Carolina has a Gay Senator. Louisiana is about to re-elect the guy who was on the DC Madame’s speed dial. At some point don’t the claims of how “immorality” will sink you as a politician actually have to sink some politicians? Clinton, Rudy, and Newt all remain “viable” politicians in the mainstream media. I think what what sets Sanford apart is not his upcoming divorce, but rather the fact that he’s anti war and anti government.

[Ebeneezer Scrooge]

the GOP could probably run a corpse and get it elected

If only that were true. But the corpse didn’t spend a trillion “bail out” dollars to insure its victory in the next election.

[prolefeed]

I still think the 2012 Nomination is Sanford’s if he wants it. Rudy is 10X the adulterer Sanford is and that was never became an issue for him. People think Americans vote like puritans but I don’t see the evidence to support that.

Rudy ran in that * conservative * bastion, New York City. (/sarcasm) He got squashed when he ran for national office.

Republican primary voters are mighty harsh on politicians caught cheating on their spouses, even though I suspect that Republicans are no more immune to infidelity than Democrats, just more guilty about it. Democratic primary voters are more forgiving, though apparently a gay affair is even more than they can stomach.

[Bill Woolsey]

Why does Mark Sanford have a reputations as a family values politician?

Here is his website for his reelection campaign.

http://www.sanfordforgovernor.net/content.asp?catid=4588

He isn’t from the Christian Coaltion wing of the Republican Party.

[James Ard]

It is way too far off for this to influence what kind of Republican gets the nod in 2012. I still think the press conference was an attempt to keep the door open for a run. I’d still take Sanford over Huckaby, Romney or Palin, but thankfully it’s going to be Mitch Daniels.

[Tricky Prickears]

…a gay affair is even more than they can stomach.

Not necessarily. In NJ Jim McGreevey’s approval numbers actually went up immediately following his “announcement”. It wasn’t until residents found out about the “position” he appointed to his unqualified, gay lover that he “went down”.

[Lost_In_Translation]

So you would have never voted for Dr. rated 76% by the Christian Coalition for Family Values and 17% by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State Ron Paul for the same reason, L_i_T? Or is there a particular Family Values issue you differ on?

He endorsed McCain and appealed to conservatives to line up behind that dead weight. That’s enough for me.

[R C Dean]

Not to mention, if we have high inflation next year, they’ll almost certainly lose one or both houses of Congress.

Its really hard for me to imagine the Dems losing control of the Senate, and I would even give odds on them retaining a bare majority in the House, even if we are still mired in the Great Recession in 11/2010.

Of course, a true economic catastrophe would throw all the cards in the air, but we won’t even begin to undo the damage done to our Republic until the entire Congress is turned over, preferably in one brutally cathartic anti-incumbent voter temper tantrum.

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

in one brutally cathartic anti-incumbent voter temper tantrum.

Just so long as there’s guillotines…

[Brandon]

The idea that the bad economy will lead voters to punish the Democrats and put the GOP back in power, just two years after they severely punished the GOP for a bad economy and gave the Democrats an expanded majority, is a pipe dream. Voters may begin to blame Obama and the Dems if the economy still sucks in 2012, but now and through 2010 at a minimum, the Republicans own this recession, not the Dems.

Republicans will probably pick up a few seats in the House, but they will fall far short of regaining the majority in either house of Congress. The Democrats right now have immense structural advantages that are just too difficult to overcome.

[R C Dean]

now and through 2010 at a minimum, the Republicans own this recession, not the Dems.

That’s certainly what Team Blue is hoping for, but I don’t think you can pin a recession on a minority party for that long, especially after extraordinary bill after extraordinary bill has been pushed through on party line votes.

“Its all Bush’s fault” has a definite shelf life, and is rapidly approaching its sell-by date.

[Syd]

Sure you can. FDR did it for eight years.

[Michael Ejercito]

This “GOP is dead” crap sounds like whistling past the graveyard to me. Heard the exact same thing about another party not all that long ago.

The exact same thing was being said about the GOP in 1913, just months after a deep, divisive election which pitted a former Republican president against the incumbent Republican President, a schism between the progressive and conservative factions, and a Democratic Party united under the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson.

[Michael Ejercito]

Republican primary voters are mighty harsh on politicians caught cheating on their spouses, even though I suspect that Republicans are no more immune to infidelity than Democrats, just more guilty about it. Democratic primary voters are more forgiving, though apparently a gay affair is even more than they can stomach.

The Democratic establishment was not very forgiving of Governor Eliot Spitzer.

[Michael Ejercito]

At some point don’t the claims of how “immorality” will sink you as a politician actually have to sink some politicians?

It sank Spitzer and Hart, to name a few.

[John Thacker]

He endorsed McCain and appealed to conservatives to line up behind that dead weight. That’s enough for me.

What, Sanford? But you were talking about being too religious conservative, weren’t you? McCain is a lot of things, but he’s not that.

[Polio Robot]

“Sure you can. FDR did it for eight twelve years.”

There, FIFY.