A short distance from sanity

The death of Michael Jackson will obviously shift the media’s obsessive focus away from the extramarital exploits of Gov. Mark Sanford and his paramour from the pampas, but before we leave that topic entirely, let’s look at some analysis of what the Sanford and John Ensign scandals might mean for the Republican Party.


Dan Balz of the Washington Post speculates that the two scandals “will impact the Republicans in several ways. First, it further damages the GOP brand, potentially driving away more voters or at least making it more difficult to win back some of those who abandoned the party in the past two elections. Second, it could disillusion social and religious conservatives — a critically important part of the Republican coalition — who may now wonder whether those who share the Republican label truly share their values. Third, the Sanford saga removes one more new-generation GOP leader from the field of prospective 2012 candidates, adding to doubts about the strength of the party’s bench.”

Balz adds: “when every small step forward is matched by a setback juicy enough to dominate the cable-news culture of today’s politics, it’s no wonder Republicans continue to have such long faces.”

The New York Times’ Jim Rutenberg writes that “senior Republican strategists and leaders said they were concerned that their party’s large segment of evangelical voters makes the party more vulnerable to political damage from scandal, especially when it involves politicians like Mr. Sanford and Mr. Ensign, who had both been harshly critical of the infidelities of former President Bill Clinton and others.”

Joe Conason at Salon contends that the many instances of sexual misconduct involving “family values” conservatives shows that Republicans would be more accurately described as cross-dressing liberals.

“What they never do is face up to an increasingly embarrassing fact about themselves and their leaders,” Conason says. “They’re really just liberals in right-wing drag. The proof is in the penance, or lack thereof, inflicted on the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign and David Vitter, to cite a few names from the top of a long, long list.”

He adds: “For ideologues who value biblical morality and believe in the efficacy of punishment, modern conservatives are as tolerant of their famous sinners as the jaded libertines of the left. Even after confessing to the most flagrant and colorful fornication, the worst that a conservative must anticipate is a stern scolding, followed by warm assurances of God’s forgiveness and a swift return to business as usual.”

Time will tell us whether these assessments are accurate or not. Meanwhile, in other developments from the world of politics . . .

The national Republican Party seems to be headed for a serious split among its leadership over the upcoming Florida senate primary race between Gov. Charlie Crist and former legislator Mario Rubio.

Crist, the more moderate candidate in the GOP primary, committed the sin of happily accepting federal stimulus money from President Barack Obama and taking other stands on issues that didn’t please the Christian Right. Crist still has a lot of support from mainstream Republicans like Georgia Sen. Johnny Isakson.

The party’s social issues wing is lining up behind Rubio and taking some serious shots at the leaders who are backing Crist. One of the latest pro-Rubio statements came from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee:

“I’m disgusted that they would take a position in a hotly contested race when you have a quality candidate like Marco Rubio, who was the youngest Speaker in the Florida House. This is not just some nameless, faceless guy that decided to throw his name in, who had no chance and no credibility. I thought that their endorsement [of Crist] not only was premature, but was outrageous. And they ought to get behind the guy who would do a whole lot more, in my mind, to unite and fire up Republicans, and that’s Marco Rubio.”

For an oldtimer like me, it sounds like a replay of the bloody battle between the party’s Goldwater and Rockefeller factions in the 1960s. That was not a pretty sight – this one could be even uglier.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter, who confessed to being a patron of the DC Madam’s house of ill-repute, could have some serious opposition to his reelection bid in 2010.

Democratic Congressman Charlie Melancon is giving serious consideration to running against Vitter, which means that Vitter’s patronage of prostitutes could become an major issue next year.

As reported in The Hill: “State Democratic Party Chairman Chris Whittington said the prostitute issue will be front and center in the campaign, because Vitter will now be forced to answer questions he otherwise wouldn’t have. ‘He’s going to have to now,’ Whittington said. ‘And it’s such a strong issue, because he banged that Bible and ran on family values, when in reality he’s completely the opposite of that’” . . .

“Whether Melancon is the best possible candidate and whether he can win are two different questions. Democrats would like the race to be all about Vitter and his personal foibles, but Melancon will need plenty of help in a tough state. Republicans will do their best to nationalize the race at every turn, making it a referendum on President Obama, who performed poorly there last year, and Democratic initiatives like the stimulus package.”

You have to wonder sometimes whether this is all just a series of coincidences or whether someone is trying to send us a message:

During the last session of the Georgia General Assembly, a state senator proposed the levy of a $5 tax on persons who go to topless bars and other adult entertainment establishments (I’ll resist the temptation to call it a “head tax”). The money raised by the nightclub tax would be used to help young girls victimized by child prostitution.

Sen. Jack Murphy, the lawmaker who wanted to impose this tax burden on Georgians seeking solace from a sex worker, resides in the city of Cumming.

Earlier this week, I got an email from a press spokesman for a Nevada legislator who sponsored a bill that will impose stiff penalties on persons convicted of child prostitution offenses in that state (the measure goes into effect on Oct. 1). Because child prostitution is also an important issue in Atlanta, the legislative aide thought I might be interested in interviewing her boss.

The aide’s name was Beth Dickman.

I’ll say it again: you can’t make this stuff up.


Posted

in

by

Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *