Mark Sanford elected to US House of Representatives.

[Lenonis]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...olina/2140591/

Ok, I get it's South Carolina -- conservative stronghold.

But someone seriously needs to explain this to me.

The modern day conservative party has labelled itself family values and well...defender of all things of a certain religion which I will no longer mention to avoid this being locked.

Mark Sanford, for those not aware, skipped out on his duties as governor and used taxpayer dollars to fund trips to see his mistress. He also has been found to be violating the court order of protection -- something about going to the house or some such.

The best part? He pushed for Clinton to be impeached.

Do conservatives not realize they lose credibility every time this happens? In other discussion I've seen conservatives actually DEFENDING the guy.

"But Clinton!" they say.

Since when to two wrongs make a right?

And if Sanford gets a pass for Clinton's affair, then shouldn't Obama get a pass on Benghazi because Bush failed to stop 9/11?

How is it that this sort of blatant hypocrisy can exist in a political party that has such a clear ideology opposed to it?

Meanwhile, in other parts of the country, the family values party is forcing out people who have expressed support for marriage equality. So apparently family values has an incredibly flexible definition. I just don't get it.

[Wells]

family values!

[Naxere]

She outspent him, he outworked her.

[Wells]

She outspent him, he outworked her.

Republican wins in the south!

Stay tuned for more riveting news!

[Rukentuts]

Proof that GOP hypocrisy is rife.

[Lenonis]

She outspent him, he outworked her.

What does that even mean? Well, I mean I get the outspent part. Not sure what outworked means?

[mvaliz]

Wow... I would've put money down that Liz would've won...

And my parents live in SC. =(

[The Riddler]

Maybe because his opponent was a carpetbagging, inexperienced doofus whose only positive trait was she was the half-sister of a comedian that some people find mildly amusing.

I'm no fan of Sanford, but if the 1990s taught us anything it is that sex scandals don't matter. If the Democrats are irritated by that, then they are simply in a cleft stick of their own cutting. But between the two choices, Sanford was obviously the better selection. Honestly, Colbert-Busch is an idiot who shouldn't be elected to be a dog-catcher.

[Rukentuts]

Wow... I would've put money down that Liz would've won...

And my parents live in SC. =(

She put up a good fight, but it's very hard for a D to win in the 1st district.

[Lenonis]

Maybe because his opponent was a carpetbagging, inexperienced doofus whose only positive trait was she was the half-sister of a comedian that some people find mildly amusing.

So you elect an adultering, tax money abuser, court order breaking doofus whose only positive trait is that he has an (R) after his name?

[Rukentuts]

So you elect an adultering, tax money abuser, court order breaking doofus whose only positive trait is that he has an (R) after his name?

But but...he has good family values, for real this time.

How many times did he mention a deity in the past week? Low information / intelligence voters eat that shit up.

[Lenonis]

But but...he has good family values, for real this time.

How many times did he mention a deity in the past week? Low information / intelligence voters eat that shit up.

I think what truly baffles me about this is that it isn't even ancient history. I can see if it was 10, 20 years ago. But this was recent -- and it seems to not matter.

I might even get it if people are like "well he totally sucks, and it goes against my beliefs to vote for him because he's a tool, but I have to do it anyway." But people are defending him and he won against all the other republican candidates -- it's amazing.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So you elect an adultering, tax money abuser, court order breaking doofus whose only positive trait is that he has an (R) after his name?

At least he had experience at adultering, abusing tax money, and breaking court orders!

[Naxere]

family values!

Hey, what he does in his personal life has no impact on how he is as a leader, amirite?

What does that even mean? Well, I mean I get the outspent part. Not sure what outworked means?

He was holding events constantly, out with the people. She was more fundraiser-oriented.

[The Riddler]

So you elect an adultering, tax money abuser, court order breaking doofus whose only positive trait is that he has an (R) after his name?

I wouldn't vote for either of them. But given the choices on the ballot? Pht - yeah - if I had to pick between Sanford and "Colbert"-Busch (what a joke) then I'd have picked Sanford. Colbert-Bush was a pathetic candidate.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I think what truly baffles me about this is that it isn't even ancient history. I can see if it was 10, 20 years ago. But this was recent -- and it seems to not matter.

I might even get it if people are like "well he totally sucks, and it goes against my beliefs to vote for him because he's a tool, but I have to do it anyway." But people are defending him and he won against all the other republican candidates -- it's amazing.

Party tribalism.

[Adam Jensen]

Maybe because his opponent was a carpetbagging, inexperienced doofus whose only positive trait was she was the half-sister of a comedian that some people find mildly amusing.

I'm no fan of Sanford, but if the 1990s taught us anything it is that sex scandals don't matter. If the Democrats are irritated by that, then they are simply in a cleft stick of their own cutting. But between the two choices, Sanford was obviously the better selection. Honestly, Colbert-Busch is an idiot who shouldn't be elected to be a dog-catcher.

Sex scandals SHOULD matter if you're going to call yourself the party of "family values." Otherwise you're just the party of "hypocritical bullshit." Yeah, it's a bad mark on Bill Clinton to have an affair while in office, but it's equally hypocritical for a man like Newt to attack Clinton for such sins.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I wouldn't vote for either of them. But given the choices on the ballot? Pht - yeah - if I had to pick between Sanford and "Colbert"-Busch (what a joke) then I'd have picked Sanford. Colbert-Bush was a pathetic candidate.

So you'd vote for the clearly more corrupt and worse candidate all around because... the opposition's brother isn't funny? Or is it just blind party loyalism?

[Adam Jensen]

So you'd vote for the clearly more corrupt and worse candidate all around because... the opposition's brother isn't funny? Or is it just blind party loyalism?

He's just mad because Stephen Colbert does a perfect impression of all his favorite radio/TV personalities.

I'm amused by how conservatives all hate The Colbert Report/The Daily Show.

[Slybak]

It's a district that Mitt Romney carried by 18 points in 2012 and John McCain carried by 12 points in 2008 (a banner year for Democrats). SC-1 has been a deep red district ever since a large section of Charleston's African-American population was moved from it into SC-6 in 1992's reapportionment.

In other words, if the Republicans nominated a generic, baggage-free candidate, that candidate likely would have won by a bigger margin than Sanford (11 points).