Posted on 04/02/2013 9:44:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
‘Mark Sanford Gets Resurrected” — it’s the perfect headline for Easter Week. Sanford, the South Carolina congressman-turned-governor who fell from grace (and from office) when he surreptitiously slipped off to Argentina to meet a lover, is back. Polls seem to indicate that he’ll coast to victory in a runoff against Curtis Bostic to fill the House seat Tim Scott vacated when he was appointed to the Senate.
Though Bostic has positioned himself as far to the right as possible — the URL for his campaign website is StopSpending.com, and Rick Santorum recently stumped for him — Sanford has touted his experience in the capitol and the statehouse to no small effect. He won the primary with 37 percent of the vote, almost three times the support Bostic garnered. Things are good in Sanford World, and they seem to be getting better. Public Policy Polling recently gave Sanford 53 percent of the vote to Bostic’s 40.
Not everyone is surprised. “He’s a professional politician,” says Katon Dawson, a national Republican consultant and former chairman of the state’s party. “He’s good at this.”
To be sure, it’s still premature to say Sanford has the victory locked up. Insiders estimate that only 25,000 to 35,000 people will vote, which makes predictions little more than an educated guessing game. Plus, Bostic’s supporters are devoted — in particular homeschoolers, seeing as Bostic is himself a homeschooling father of five. At least one homeschool-activism group, Generation Joshua, is coordinating a small last-minute get-out-the-vote push.
But Sanford probably woke up this morning feeling more confident than Bostic. Sanford’s main advantage seems to be that he’s a proven quantity with a long record to run on. And although Bostic has drawn endorsements from many out-of-state conservative leaders, six of the beaten primary contenders have endorsed the former governor.
One of those contenders, Jonathan Rath Hoffman, says that Sanford’s past might not be the Achilles’s heel that Democrats are hoping for. “The good thing about Mark Sanford is, right now, you know what you’re getting,” he says. “And I think that’s really helped him, because people know who he is, they know every detail of his past and where he’s been and what he’s been through and what he stands for. And for the most part, people are willing to forgive.”
And former Sanford insiders think that confidence is warranted. I spoke with a number of his former congressional staffers — he served three terms, from 1995 to 2001 — and they all seemed devoted and loyal to their former boss. True, not everyone who worked for him is a fan, and not everyone I contacted called me back, but the people I spoke with painted a fairly consistent picture of Representative Sanford: a serious, no-nonsense, hard-working politician who was more interested in voting his principles than in kowtowing to leadership.
His staffers say they were surprised by his Argentinian dalliance, since his time in D.C. was characterized by a near-monastic lifestyle; Sanford followed a rigid schedule dominated by work and exercise, and spent the rest of his little free time with male friends (especially then-representative Lindsey Graham and Steve Largent). “He slept in his office, showered in the members’ gym,” says one former staffer. “He went to some receptions — I mean it was probably a lot for the free food, because he was so cheap.”
Staffers say that living out of his Hill office would have made it particularly difficult (though not impossible) to keep extracurricular activities under wraps — especially since many of his staffers worked late. “I certainly wouldn’t call Mark a lighthearted guy,” says one former staffer. “When you were at work, you were there to work. It was serious.”
But that didn’t curtail many staffers’ dedication. “He is a personality that inspires loyalty,” one says. “I mean, it was kind of an us-against-the-world thing then. He was the guy along with Ron Paul voting no.”
A few former staffers say that he expected his aides to scrutinize every vote and debate whether or not policies fit his governing philosophy. One staffer took that method to its logical conclusion, inviting lobbyists from opposite sides of an issue to come to the same meetings — unbeknownst to them — and have impromptu debates about how the congressman should vote. Once, for example, the staffer invited the congressman to catch the end of a debate between two lobbyists over telecommunications policy. Sanford thought the unconventional approach was clever, the staffer says.
If most observers’ predictions are borne out today, Sanford will be within spitting distance of his old digs on Capitol Hill. Regardless of tomorrow’s outcome, the race for Tim Scott’s old seat should make for great political theater. “It’ll be fun,” Dawson says. “Painful, but fun.”
— Betsy Woodruff is a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute.
Not to condone his behavior but it isn't out of the ordinary for politicians.
I don't know if there is some legal obstacle that is delaying his getting married again--or if the claim that they are "engaged" is just a sham and he feels that the public doesn't (by and large) hold cohabitation without marriage against politicians nowadays.
And we let it get to the point where it doesn't matter anymore....we just keep dropping our standards more and more, it's no wonder we find ourselves where we are now.
Adultery is a sin, but his ex never stuck me as a woman who would be all that amorous.
On the other hand, maybe he couldn’t relate to a strong woman.
If this guy was a Democrat, he’d have a show on some cable news network and be talked about as a potential future candidate for POTUS.
..if these were the only things we knew, but..
I would submit that if candidate C turned out to be a left wing liberal who was for abortion, gay marrage, gun control and bigger government, he would be a horrible choice, IMO.
There are absolutely liberals with impeccable morals...but deliver tyranny. I think that Senator Inoye might have been one of them.
Senator John Glenn was another...
Senator George McGovern was another...war heros, every one...
RE: There are absolutely liberals with impeccable morals...but deliver tyranny. I think that Senator Inoye might have been one of them.
So, in a theoretical match-up between Mark Sanford and Daniel Inouye, who to vote for?
Hah...you suckered me in...
What gets forgotten about this guy is the security issues, he disappeared and left the country leaving the state rudderless and his security people in the dark and a panic ensued, the Lt. Governor, not even his wife knew what had happened to him, and they found his car abandoned.
It was when the search started for the Governor during a time of terrorism and war, that he sneaked back into the country, seeming to think that he was just like a teen who sneaked out for a nighttime adventure.
This guy is not playing with a full deck and does not have a full grasp on reality.
It’s not even about having a mistress, yes I accept that most politicians get some nookie on the side, but usually they don’t let it affect the performance of their duties.
In this case, it did affect Sanford’s job performance.
Sanford. He has a pulse.
First, let me say that on most policy issues that I probably agree with Sanford. The big problem I have with Sanford is that he left the country, told no one (including aides) where he was at going and the Appalachian Trail wasn't it. I equate this to abandoning your post or going AWOL. Then there was the whole press conference incident where he had his “wife” there and then proclaimed his love for his true soul-mate (not his wife). He's definitely full of himself.
I know people aren't perfect but as long as he's “our philanderer” who hangs everyone out to dry, I guess it's OK to vote for him.
Of course in the "good old days" political leaders had many mistresses, everyone knew about them, and it didn't matter. Henry VIII, Charles II, Louis XIV, Louis XV, etc. Not to mention Biblical times (Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines).
That’s my major beef with the whole ordeal with Sanford.
RE: Sanford. He has a pulse.
OK Wise guy, assuming we have a LIVING, BREATHING Inouye today, in a theoretical match-up between Mark Sanford and a LIVING Daniel Inouye, who to vote for?
“The good thing about Mark Sanford is, right now, you know what you’re getting,”
Yeh, thats the problem.
I would vote for just about any Republican over Sanford, but Sanford over a Democrat.
You will NEVER see libs destroying a political ally for some kind of moral failing....and given this political climate, why should we?
I just hope that Sanford makes peace with God, and pushes politics toward max freedom for all of us....
...krap, Tiger Woods stumbled, hit the bottom, but now is back on track....apparently everybody loves him again..
Jesus's admonishment often was "go...and sin no more". What more can we do?
Should be “Sanford Erastes” — he’s a lover, not a fighter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.