What Does the Election of Mark Sanford in SC Say About Conservative Family Value

1. 85

   My Esotericposted 12 years ago

   What Does the Election of Mark Sanford in SC Say About Conservative Family Values?
   
   To me it says that Conservatives, at least those in that political District, hate Democrats more than they support the virtue of family values.  Given what I suspect of human nature, this does not surprise me which is why I pay no attention to anybody claiming to be in favor of "family values".

   replyreport
2. 80

   Attikosposted 12 years ago

   Yes, the demwits are embittered over this one. They thought they had it in the proverbial bag. Now they're spinning it as a "loss for women," simultaneously running a man against South Carolina's current governing woman. Go figger.
   
   What the liberal establishment ought to do is rethink its delusion it can turn red states blue with shallow vicarious-celebrity politics, which is the race Colbert Busch ran, and by using its money advantage to buy elections. In the wake of this one it's attacking the voters instead, which will only alienate them further. Figger that, too.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Nathan Orfposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Great way to make a point, Attikos, calling Democrats "demwits." Truly, it shows your intelligence, expertise, and good grace in the area of politics!

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you, Nathan Orf, but just wait until the retardicans are the subject of conversation. The only intelligent, expert, graceful way to address either of them is exactly so, but then it takes an intelligent, expert and graceful mind to know it.

      replyreport
   3. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      @Nsathan, if you read my hub on Right-wing Authoritarian followers, you will understand why @Attikos writes the way he does.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Attikosposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ... or at least he'd get a glimpse of the reactionary perspective that can cope with dissent to one's own orthodoxy only by dehumanizing dissenters.

      replyreport
3. 74

   pagesvoiceposted 12 years ago

   I believe that Forest Gump could sum up what happened in South Carolina this way: "Momma always says, stupid is as stupid does." Additionally, I think gerrymandering played a major role in the way the voting went.

   replyreport
   1. 67

      Marquisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I wish the best for him. An election for a Republican means one less a vote for voter fraud, illegal immigration and selling the decent American down the river to cheap exploitable labor.

      replyreport
   2. 74

      pagesvoiceposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      As Governor he was charged with 37 ethic violations, left his wife, flew to Argentina with his mistress, lied to his constituents and paid for it all with taxpayer dollars and you're worried about voter fraud? Wow, is that called decency?

      replyreport
4. 69

   LandmarkWealthposted 12 years ago

   What makes you so sure they voted for him on the basis of family values.  Perhaps they viewed the election through the lens of another potential big gov't social engineering candidate versus someone who is more friendly towards limited gov't ideals.  Every election is the lesser of two evils these days.  Sometimes we have to overlook aspects of a candidates personality or backround because the alternative is simply worse.  That doesn't mean that a conservative is still not for family values.  I sure am, yet I'd vote for Sanford over Colbert as well.  I think I'd vote for just about any average citizen over her.
    
   In general, I really don't particularly care who he had an affair with behind his wife's back, as I am not privy to all the facts involved in someone else's marriage.  As long as their affair didn't potentially compromise national security information as in the case of our fallen general...  It's none of my business.  The obvious comparison it the Clinton administration.  The problem with that comparison is he was not a target for having an affair.  But rather because of numerous accusations of sexual harassment and in one case rape.  Whether they are true or not, we will probably never really know for sure.  But the Lewinsky case was part of a much wider investigation into a pattern of behavior which was not only immoral, but potentially illegal. Even though the media wanted it to be just about an affair.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Patriot Questposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Landmark...........now that is one well thought out comment! My hand to you sir!  Why do Dems always believe we are in for family value?  We simply want govt out of our lives and WE will worry about values on our own terms..........man I liked that!

      replyreport
   2. 85

      My Esotericposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Could it be that every time Conservatives define themselves, it is in terms of family values, among other things, implying, at the same time, Dems have none.

      replyreport
   3. 69

      LandmarkWealthposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What does that have to do with how they voted.  You make a lot of assumptions.  I don't cheat on my wife and I would vote for him because the alternative is simply worse. I just select the least destructive candidate to my personal liberty.

      replyreport
5. 69

   Freeway Flyerposted 12 years ago

   For me, it says very little. Members of Congress are elected to cast votes. So if you believe that one candidate will cast votes more to your liking than the other, then it makes sense to vote accordingly. The person's supposed family values are beside the point.
   
   I have no way of knowing if Mark Sanford has rededicated his life to Jesus or if he is seeking out new Argentinian temptresses on the Appalachian Trail. But it is possible to evaluate his past voting decisions. Voting on the basis of someone's self-professed family values is irrational.

   replyreport