Behind the Ad: Elizabeth Colbert Busch's final push

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Elizabeth Colbert Busch (D) campaign.

Where: South Carolina's First Congressional District.

What's going on: In this ad, Colbert Busch talks about the need for a balanced budget amendment and a ban on special interest earmarks. She also pledges to cut her own pay by ten percent. It is, after all, a red state. She has to make fiscally conservative noises.

With the election a day away, Colbert Busch has been endorsed by the biggest newspaper in the district:

The Charleston (S.C.) Post And Courier endorsed Colbert Busch on Sunday, lauding her as "A new leader for the Lowcountry." Her "resolve to reach across the aisle" would serve South Carolina well on local and national platforms, the paper wrote.

A survey by Public Policy Polling on April 22 had Colbert Busch ahead by nine points, but the GOP-leaning Red Racing Horses had the two candidates tied as of Thursday.

It does appear that it will be close between Colbert Busch and former Republican Gov. Mark Sanford. This one probably is too close to call and may depend on how many conservative women are so disgusted by Sanford that they stay home tomorrow. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Behind the Ad: Mark Sanford says, "don't look here, look there"

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.) 

Who: The Mark Sanford campaign.

Where: South Carolina's First Congressional District

What's going on: With the South Carolina House special election only days away, it seems that former Gov. Mark Sanford is taking a different approach. In a new ad, he calmly faces the camera and announces that the "contest is bigger" than just him. The obvious point is that if people do think it's just about him, he is about to lose. 

His attempt to draw Nancy Polosi into the fray is clearly meant to fire up local conservatives in a way that makes them forget what he has done to his life and political career. 

That's a little desperate. 



(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Behind the Ad: Democratic super PAC on Mark Sanford's affair

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: House Majority PAC (Democratic PAC).

Where: South Carolina First Congressional District.

What's going on: Anyone paying even slight attention knows that former South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford famously disappeared to meet his Argentine mistress while in office. He is now trying to revive his political career by running in a special House election in the state. In this ad, a Democratic super PAC draws attention to the affair and attempts to appeal to women in particular who may have concerns about the indiscretion.


(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Rand Paul is already running hard

By Richard K. Barry

Sen. Rand Paul is certainly running hard for the presidency, early as it is. He'll be in Iowa and New Hampshire in May, and in South Carolina in June. 

CNN reports that he is getting ready to endorse Mark Sanford in the special election in South Carolina:

Paul is organizing a series of public and private appearances across the first-in-the-South primary state in June, GOP sources with knowledge with the plans told CNN. The trip is "an effort to get to know Republicans across the state," as one person involved in the event-planning described it.

Paul makes no secret of his libertarian leanings, just like his father, but he is trying to cleave to the centre a bit more in order to have a credible run at the top job. The question may be whether he can appeal to moderates without completely alienating libertarian activists who make up so much of his enthusiastic base. 

The bigger problem is probably that he won't be able to shed enough libertarian orthodoxy to appeal to moderates. 

And if Rand Paul finds some way to get the GOP nomination, Hillary won't need to break a sweat. 

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Behind the Ad: The DCCC attacks Mark Sanford in South Carolina

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)  

Who: The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Where: Special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District.

What's going on: The DCCC goes after Mark Sanford for alleged ethics violations when he was governor, just a day after the RNCC abandoned his campaign after charges that he trespassed on his ex-wife's property.

It's a clever little ad that makes no mention of Sanford's admitted extramarital affairs, though it shows a man walking through the woods, a reference to the alibi his gave to cover up his trip to Argentina to meet his mistress. Sanford told his aides he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.

The DCCC is spending about $205,000 on the ad, which will run on broadcast television stations in the Charleston and Savannah, Ga., markets April 19-28, according to a committee source.

Sanford goes up against Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch, sister of Stephen Colbert, in a May 7 special House election to fill the seat vacated when former Rep. Tim Scott (R) was appointed to the Senate.

There is no doubt Sanford could still win in this very red district, but it will likely be close either way.

(Cross-posted at Phantom Public.)

Republican Party pulls out of Mark Sanford

By Michael J.W. Stickings

First my wife, now my party...

As I wrote yesterday, a Republican should have no trouble winning an election, special or otherwise, in South Carolina's First Congressional District (even against Elizabeth Colbert Busch, who, famous brother or not, is a political neophyte running in a red district).

Well, unless that Republican is Mark Sanford, the former governor and former holder of this very seat, who has finally, it would seem, crossed the line:

National Republicans are pulling the plug on Mark Sanford's suddenly besieged congressional campaign, POLITICO has learned — a potentially fatal blow to the former South Carolina governor's dramatic comeback bid.

Blindsided by news that Sanford's ex-wife has accused him of trespassing and concluding he has no plausible path to victory, the National Republican Congressional Committee has decided not to spend more money on Sanford's behalf ahead of the May 7 special election.

"Mark Sanford has proven he knows what it takes to win elections. At this time, the NRCC will not be engaged in this special election," said Andrea Bozek, an NRCC spokeswoman.

Translation: The guy's proven to be a massive hypocrite without a shred of genuine self-awareness or humility, and we were still behind him, but enough is enough.

Read more »

Mark Sanford, trespasser

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I realize this is for the most part a private matter that probably shouldn't have been made public, but I still find something delicious about it:

Jenny Sanford, the ex-wife of South Carolina congressional candidate and former Gov. Mark Sanford, has filed a lawsuit alleging that her husband trespassed at her home earlier this year, the Associated Press reported Tuesday evening.

According to the AP, Jenny Sanford's attorney filed a lawsuit on Feb. 4 alleging that she confronted Mark Sanford at her home the previous day, where he had been using his cellphone as a light. Trespassing would violate the terms of their divorce settlement, which said that neither would be able to be at the other's home without explicit permission.

A court hearing is slated for May 9, according to the report – two days after Sanford competes in a closely watched special election.

Ah yes, the special election, where he faces the formidable (and not just because of her brother) Elizabeth Colbert Busch. 

South Carolina's First is a solidly Republican district -- in fact, it's been Republican since 1981 (with Democrats holding it before that going all the way back to 1897). Sanford himself held it for three terms, first winning in the Republican wave of 1994. The previous incumbent, Tim Scott, is now in the Senate, and of course the state itself is solidly Republican as well.

Read more »

Second acts in American politics: Weiner vs. Sanford

By Richard K. Barry

Politico is reporting that the New York Times will publish, in the coming weeks, a story featuring an extensive interview with former New York Rep. Anthony Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin.

You wil recall that Weiner resigned from Congress in 2011 after it was discovered that he had sent naughty pictures of himself to a 21-year old college student.

Weeks ago the Wall Street Journal reported that Weiner had "spent over $100,000 on polling and research, leading to speculation that he is preparing a political comeback."

In January, Mr. Weiner’s name was among the five mayoral candidates voters were asked about in a survey conducted by an anonymous pollster, according to a report in the Daily News. The New York Post reported at the time that pollsters had asked about a run for comptroller against Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, currently the only candidate in the race.

In an interview with People magazine last summer, he didn’t rule out the possibility of running for public office again. ”I can’t say absolutely that I will never run for public office again, but I’m very happy in my present life,” he said at the time.

Naturally, this brings to mind the Mark Sanford situation in South Carolina, in which he disappeared for four days while governor of the state, in order to carry on an extramarital affair. Now, he is well positioned to return to politics as a member of the House of Representatives in a special election for the seat vacated by Rep. Tim Scott.

The question is: what does it take for a candidate's actions to be considered so toxic that there can be no second act?

I suppose the answer is that voters will let us know.

Does Stephen Colbert's sister have a chance in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes. But I'd say it's less than a 50% chance.

According to a new PPP poll, she's doing well:

PPP's first look at the special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District finds a toss up race. Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch leads Republican Mark Sanford 47-45 and ties Curtis Bostic at 43.

This is a Republican leaning district and Barack Obama's approval rating in it is only 41% with 57% of voters disapproving of him. But Democrats are far more unified than the Republicans are. Busch is winning 87-89% of the Democratic vote while Sanford (76%) and Bostic (72%) are both earning less than 80% of the GOP vote. Busch is also up by 16-18 points with independent voters.

So far, so good.

Now, (Colbert) Busch's opponent is likely to be Sanford, who's trying to get back into office after, you know, taking some time off to hike the Appalachian Trail. And things do look promising for her:

Focusing in on the potential race between Busch and Sanford it's surprisingly close for one simple reason -- voters like Busch and they continue to strongly dislike Sanford. 45% of voters see Busch favorably to only 31% with a negative opinion. On the other hand Sanford is still stuck with a 34% favorability rating and 58% of voters seeing him in a negative light. 

Voters in the district have every reason to dislike the former governor. Even if you don't want to get into the trials and tribulations of his personal life, he violated the trust the voters of South Carolina placed in him, used state resources to support his philandering, and proved to be, as so many Republicans are, a massive hypocrite without a shred of genuine self-awareness or humility.

Read more »

Where the hell is Jan Brewer?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Persecuting immigrants? Targeting non-whites?

Daily Intel:

Occasionally amusing Arizona governor Jan Brewer is on some sort of secret out-of-state trip for the rest of the week, the details of which her office refuses to divulge. Even the Arizona secretary of State, who is serving as the acting governor until Brewer returns, hasn't been told what the trip is about. Everyone has already made the Appalachian Trail joke, so just don't.

Has anyone checked Argentina? (Does that count?)

Totally not racist

By Mustang Bobby

Just catching up on the latest in the efforts on the part of the conservatives to sow harmony and brotherhood among all Americans of every race and ethnicity.

First up is this ambassador of good will at a Romney rally in Lancaster, Ohio, on Friday:

Now I will give the Romney campaign the benefit of the doubt on the t-shirt guy; unlike the Bush campaign, they can't control everyone that shows up at their rallies and police what they're wearing, no matter how racist they are. And I seriously doubt that anyone in the Romney campaign is actively selling these t-shirts. When it comes to alluding to President Obama's race, they're a little more subtle.  But not much.

For example, next up is former South Carolina Gov. (and now Fox News commentator) Mark Sanford, recently returned from hiking the Appalachian Trail, who tells Fox News what President Obama plans to do at the next debate with Mitt Romney:

"Obama's going to come out in this case much more forcefully, and he's going to throw a lot of spears," Sanford opined. "And I think it's very, very important that in this case that, you know, Romney stay focused on his vision for the country and stay focused on the things that, I think, matter most to people in this country, which is, where is the economy going, where are we with jobs, and what's happening next on the debt and the deficit issue?" [emphasis added]

Yes, Mr. Sanford just called the President of the United States a spearchucker. And if you don't think that he did it intentionally and that he knew he was tweeting his dogwhistle, then you're as stupid and as racially insensitive as he hopes you are.

And to make it a trifecta, here's Jason Thompson, son of Tommy Thompson (R-WI), speaking on behalf of his father's candidacy for the Senate and making travel plans for Mr. Obama:

Jason Thompson, the son of former Governor and Wisconson [sic] Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, speaking this morning at a brunch attended by Tommy Thompson and RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said that "we have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago — or Kenya." A woman in attendance then chimed in "we are taking donations for that Kenya trip." A spokesman for Thompson did not immediately return a request for comment.

See, that's supposed to be funny, but the Republicans really aren't that good at comedy because they don't get the essence of what makes something funny, or they think that just by putting a smile or a laugh on something cruel makes it humorous and therefore totally not racist. The art of comedy is knowing when you’re not funny at all. That's a lesson these people have yet to learn.

(h/t to SFDB)

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

It looks like we'll still have Mark Sanford to kick around

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Censure yes, impeachment no:

House lawmakers Wednesday rejected a measure to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford, making it unlikely the governor will be removed from office.

However, the special House impeachment panel approved an official rebuke -- or censure -- of Sanford for bringing "ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame" on the state, its citizens and the governor's office.

Funny (sad?), isn't it, that "ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame" do not amount to impeachability? Have we just come to expect all that from our elected officials?

How 'bout them ethics violations, Mark Sanford?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think what you will of the whole "hiking the Appalachian Trail" thing. What bothered me about it was not so much what Mark Sanford did -- I'm no moralist -- but how he did it, and how he broke the public trust, and how he was such a hypocrite, a "family values" Republican whose own values were less than admirable.

And how did he do it? Well, by using state property, and by lying, and by sneaking off without telling anyone. When he did all that, it wasn't just personal anymore, it was public, and against the public interest. Governors and elected officials generally simply should not do what he did in the way he did it -- at the public's expense, without his security detail, while he was on the job.

And it goes much deeper than that. Sanford has been charged by the South Carolina Ethics Commission with 37 ethics violations. Some involve his Argentinian mistress, but all show him benefitting personally, in one way or another, from the use of state funds or resources -- or, rather, all show him using state funds and resources for personal gain or otherwise for non-official purposes.

Whether Sanford will be charged criminally is up to the state attorney general. Whether he is or isn't, though, I think we can safely conclude, without presuming guilt, that he hasn't exactly lived up to his oath.

The "hard" life of Mark Sanford

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I must admit, I really do feel sorry for Mark Sanford. He's only human, after all.

Sanford is alone now in the governor's mansion in Columbia, South Carolina, and it's "hard." But, he says, "there are consequences for any mess-up that we have in life, and that's one of them."

He is contrite -- genuinely so, it seems -- and he has, it seems, accepted responsibility for what he has done, not least when it comes to his family: "They've been subjected to a lot this summer. That was a result of my actions, but nonetheless it put them in a spot they really didn't want to be."

This genuineness, I think, differentiates Sanford from other politicians, and other public figures, who have sinned, at least according to their own definition of "sin," or otherwise done something that they have come to regret -- if only because they were caught. Sanford knows that he is "dead politically." (Perhaps. There are usually second, and sometimes also third and fourth, chances for conservatives who sin, repent, are forgiven, and are welcomed back into the fold.) He is not denying what happened, nor trying to spin it to save his career. I admire that. And I sense that he may very well emerge from this whole episode a better man. (He is no Ensign or Vitter or Craig, all of whom remain appallingly self-righteous.)

I have been extremely critical of Sanford throughout -- see, for example, here and here -- and there remains a great deal about him that I don't like at all, mostly his politics and theocratic leanings. He is human, all-too-human, but he has also been a hypocrite, and his actions, his deceptions, not so much the infidelity but how he conducted himself as an elected leader, lying to his own staff and sneaking around without security and travelling to a foreign country, suggest that he violated the people's trust.

Simply put, he should no longer be in office. And yet, there he is, and, given his humility, that may not be so bad: "I am not running for another office. I just want to make the most of the 16 months that are remaining in trying to honor where I started in this thing, which is, how do you do some things that hopefully make people's lives just a little bit better in South Carolina." I still don't, and won't, agree with his policies, which are unlikely to change, but perhaps he really will dedicate his remaining days in office to something other than right-wing Republican politics. Or, if he does, perhaps he'll be less ideological in his approach to governance.

And perhaps, just perhaps, Mark Sanford will find peace, both with himself and with his loved ones, and move on with his life a happier man than he is now.

Deny, deny, deny

By Michael J.W. Stickings

You can defend yourself all you want, Mark Sanford, but if it's a "feeding frenzy" for your opponents, you have only yourself to blame.

Woe is Sanford

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sanford, in an op-ed at The State, says he's sorry and pledges "to use this experience both to trust God in his larger work of changing me and, from my end, to work to becoming a better and more effective leader." He's been "humbled and broken as never before in my life" and he believes that "this will make [him] a better father, husband, friend and advocate."

Is it enough? I'll leave that to the people of South Carolina, as well as to his own conscience.

For my part, I continue to be struck by the enormity both of his pathetic self-pity and of his egotism. He hides behind his God here, and that, to me, is not just bad taste but a convenient out. He has sinned, sure, but God, benevolent God, will forgive him -- and therefore so too must the rest of us.

I'm sorry, but that's too easy.

I do not wish pain and suffering upon Sanford, and I do hope that he can get his life back together, that he can find love and peace again with his wife and family, but it is detestable, I think, at this point, to try to use what he did -- or, more accurately, to try to use his having gotten caught (for would he so apologetic, so convinced that he can be a better man, had none of this ever come out?) -- as support for his ongoing political career? He did wrong, but he, and the people of South Carolina, will be so much the better for it? Please. This whole episode, this whole sordid mess, may have beaten him down, but his self-righteousness is apparently still fully intact.

And what's worse, to me, is that he's bringing his God not just into his personal quest for redemption, assuming that he's actually serious about that, but into his political life. I realize that personal experience informs politics -- for good and bad, and unavoidably so -- but I'm not sure we want our politicians to bring their personal quests for salvation to the forefront of political leadership. Actually, I am sure. We don't, or shouldn't, want that at all, and Mark Sanford should work to fix himself, and his personal life, in private. Pledging to be a better leader is, once more, just a convenient out, and he shouldn't be given a free pass just because, with his political career on the line, he's now claiming that he's a changed, and ever-changing, man.

So where was Mark Sanford? Who knew?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't written on the Mark Sanford saga in a while -- mainly because there hasn't been much new/newsworthy to report (he's still in office and he's apparently trying to reconcile with his wife), but also because, I admit, I grew tired of it -- but The State has some new details on Sanford's trip to Argentina to see his mistress (or, to be more precise, on the story he spun to cover up that trip) that make his irresponsible actions all the more disturbing:

Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief of staff, Scott English, called the governor’s cell phones 15 times during the governor’s secret trip to Argentina to visit his lover last month. But the governor never picked up.

Meanwhile Sanford’s communications director, Joel Sawyer, worked to minimize the fact the governor had been out of touch with his staff for about four days.

Records released Monday show Sawyer juggled e-mails and media calls from around the nation, giving a consistent message that was later proven to be untrue.

Those records also show Sanford declined a dinner invitation from a company looking to expand its business in South Carolina because Sanford planned to be in Argentina that day.

Sanford has since said he intentionally misled Sawyer and other staff members to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail when he was really with his Argentine lover.

Let me be clear about this, once again: What Sanford did in private is his business -- and his family's. It shows poor judgement, to be sure, but I don't think we ought to judge the private lives of politicians (unless they truly cross the line into illegal or unethical behaviour).

But... he's a state governor, the holder of the highest office in South Carolina. It is simply unacceptable that he just up and disappeared, that he deceived, lied to, his own staff, to his closest advisors. It is unacceptable that they couldn't reach him. Privacy -- yes. But not at the expense of one's duty to the public. If he values his own private life so much, and if it gets in the way of his duty to the public (which it apparently did), he should resign.

But... no. He's still there, refusing to step down, his ego still getting the better of him (and of South Carolinians), and he'll no doubt follow in a long line of moral transgressors and hypocrites by re-emerging a changed man, all for the better, no harm done.

But harm was done -- to his wife, to his family, to his staff, to all those who care about him both personally and politically, as well as to his state and its citizens. He put himself first, not just before all else but at the expense of all else, and, in going AWOL, he crossed the line. There's no way he should still be in office.

Mark Sanford, mental case?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I've written a lot already on the whole Mark Sanford saga -- click here, if you want -- and I don't intend to write much more on it this morning. Let me just say this:

Is it really necessary to delve into the man's psyche, and specifically to do so without actually examining him, and, what's more, so publicly?

He does seem to be going through some sort of adolescent mid-life crisis. And he does seem to be something of a narcissist. But what's with one of his home-state publications, The State, reporting that "mental health experts," while "reluctant to pin a diagnosis on the governor," and just observing him from afar, think his behavior "suggest[s] a chemical imbalance, narcissism and impulsive behavior"?

Really? They can tell that he has a chemical imbalance, that he's clinically narcissistic and clinically impulsive, that, that is, he's a mental case?

Please.

The man thinks he found his "soul mate." He thinks he's at the center of a tragic love story. The man is behaving, that is, like a smitten teenager who's read a few too many romantic novels.

To the extent that he's a narcissist, he may just be as narcissistic as your average teenager.

To the extent that he's impulsive, he may just be as impulsive as anyone else who has ever gone through such a "tragic" love story. (Many of us have been there, haven't we?)

To the extent that he appears to have some sort of chemical imbalance, he may just be as unbalanced as anyone else who's ever been so deeply (if delusionally) in love.

The only weirdness here, I suppose, stems from the fact that he's 49, not 19 -- well, and from the fact that he's the governor of a U.S. state, and that his mistress is Argentinian, and that he snuck around to meet up with her, and that his wife knew about it for some time, and... well, you know about it already.

So, enough with the psychological diagnoses, enough with all the talk about his "mental state." If he really does have problems, let him deal with them, and get treatment for them, in private.

As it is, though, it seems to me that Mark Sanford is quite normal.

The tragedy and narcissism of Mark Sanford

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Simply, the tide is rising against him.

His Argentine mistress was his "soul mate," he claims, but he wants to reconcile with his wife? Okay, but what does his wife think of that? "This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story. A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day." Sure, I get that. And, in a way, I feel for him -- and I feel sorry for him. It must be difficult to have all this out in the open.

He admits that there were others during his 20 years of marriage: "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line." This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry, George, and Elaine talk about when sex happens. Jerry says it's when the nipple makes its first appearance. That's obviously meant to be humorous, but it does seem that Sanford is pulling out a variation of the Newt defence. If "the ultimate line" is -- what? -- vaginal intercourse, is everything else pretty much fair game?

Well, that's his business, I suppose -- his private life should remain private, and he should only be judged by what he did in his capacity as an elected official (like being a moralistic hypocrite), but it does seem that his resignation is imminent. With South Carolina Republicans turning against him, his position may be untenable.

"For the past two days, I have been speaking with Republican leaders across South Carolina," said state GOP chair Karen Floyd. "There is clearly a growing view that the time may have come for Governor Sanford to remove himself and his family from the limelight, so that he can devote his efforts full-time to repairing the damage in his personal life."

That sounds like the right thing to do. There is much damage to be repaired, if it is repairable at all. Sanford has no political future left, but perhaps, just perhaps, he can find happiness again in his personal life.

**********

My feeling somewhat sorry for him aside, Sanford is hardly the Shakespearean tragic figure he is making himself out to be. If anything, he is proving himself to be a shameless narcissist caught up in the delusions of romantic love. As Michelle Cottle put it so well at The Plank yesterday:

It's not simply that he couldn't choose between Jenny and Maria. We're talking about a guy who repeatedly asked his wife's permission to run off for a quick visit with her competition. Sanford not only wanted to have his cake and eat it too--he wanted his legally wed cake to tell him that it's ok to keep dipping his fork into his extramarital cake--excuse me, extramarital Soul Cake. In theory, of course, he was struggling to gently disentangle everyone from the ridiculous web he had woven. But he didn't disentangle. He just kept tangling and tangling and tangling. Until he tangled so completely that the entire world found out about his situation--which, in turn, only prompted him to spin more stories on national TV about himself as the tragic slave to love. And then a few days later--even more stories, with more talk about his commitment to his family even as his poor heart is shattered. Oh, boo hoo hoo.

*****

Now, of course, Sanford wants to be cheered, or at least pitied, for buckling down and committing to "falling back in love with" his wife -- despite having announced to the entire globe that Maria is his true love. What nobility. What self-sacrifice. What moral fortitude. What utter nonsense. What now happens within the Sanford family should be an entirely private matter (as, indeed, this entire Love Story should have remained, if only the governor could have handled it less absurdly -- and without taxpayer funding.) But however it ends, let's not kid ourselves: Mark Sanford isn't remotely special. He isn't even particularly tragic, at least not in the romantic sense. The man isn't a fool for love so much as he's just a fool. And his political future now largely depends on how gladly the voters of South Carolina will suffer having a fool as their leader.

Pity this fool as you see fit.

Truth in Comics

By Creature


If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.