Why Stephen Colbert's Sister Was Pummeled

You know, I've seen some people make stretches, take leaps of faith in their assertions. But this? This is Silly trying to reach low orbit. A democratic candidate won in a heavily republican district in a red state despite the other guy being a dick. Look, I hate to be the one to burst your bubble Silly, but that republicans don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the moral failings of their leaders should be readily apparent given the fact that Rush Limbaugh still has listeners after his drug abuse scandal, and asserting the reason that Colbert lost was because, and only because, she held the same position on gay marriage that virtually every democratic politician these days holds is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. Especially given that in 2008, an openly gay politician held the same position against a much better-prepared candidate and lost by far less. Funny how, when talking about how Colbert lost, you don't mention push polling, or how lousy her campaign was.

 

Still trying to figure out in exactly which direction you'd like for us to speculate with regard to Colbert-Busch's defeat...

Also, the fact that you keep saying it makes it all the more ridiculous...

 

She wants us to believe Colbert's stand on abortion, and her subsequent election loss, indicates a ground swell of opposition to abortion. And she's also trying to push through some other stuff as proof that Liberalism is dead, and apparently without regard for the results of the last Presidential election

Actually she's just projecting again

 

All while disregarding the facts presented...

 

What facts? Sanford should not have won with a conservative vote even. His behaviors are that objectionable. Remember, this is the consituency that called for Clinton's impeachment for a fling that he was devastated and apologized for. Yet conservative and moderate women lined up to vote in Sanford over Colbert-Busch in spite of the fact that Sanford stood up just days after being discovered and sung the love songs in public of his hot new mistress as his wife and kids were still puking and reeling from the news that he was cheating.

No, this was no ordinary upset. This was special. And democratic strategists had better get busy figuring out why these women hated Colbert-Busch so much, or what she stood for so much that they would pick the unthinkable over her.

 

You are trying your hardest to read WAY too much into this...

 

I think the Democractic theorists have already figured it out- Conservative Christians in South Carolina disapprove of adultery, but disapprove of Democrats even more.

 

Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not be a Democrat.

 

Hey Silly:

You see that? That in bold? That's your argument going up in flames and devouring itself.

 

You're ignoring Sanford's gruesome fall from grace in the very recent past. That's a factor in this discussion.

 

Yeah! Except it doesn't speak in your favor! An openly gay woman who supported gay marriage did better against a much less tarnished opponent in the same district. Clearly, homosexuality is not the issue.

Like, hypothetically, imagine a gay woman in favor of gay marriage loses against Jesus by 4 points in a certain district. Then, a different woman in favor of gay marriage who is not gay loses against, say, Tom DeLay by 10 points in that same district. Is it fair to say that gay marriage is clearly not a deciding factor here?

 

When was that election where an openly gay woman won against a less tarnished man and what seat where they running for? US Senate?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_E._Brown,_Jr.

House of representatives. Same state. For reference:

http://www.dailykos.com/news/Linda Ketner

Also for reference: the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing post 3 posts above directed at you and quoting you. Jesus christ, Silly, are you illiterate or do you just choose not to read?

 

There are only two posts above, yours and mine. You like to spam pages off the topic with your friends. It's a double-edged sword sometimes eh?

So, state of SC house of representin'. Not even a state senator. It's possible SC voters know a US representative is more important? Sanford shouldn't have won; not by any yardstick. There was nothing inherantly objectionable about Colbert-Busch, but she still lost to a creep by 10 points. One has to wonder at least in the wee hours of the morning, why that was?

I'll bet a democratic strategist or five are wondering..

 

40PPP master race representing.

Read it again. I know you're bad at reading, but come on, hooked on phonics isn't that expensive. He's a US representative for South Carolina. As in, the US House of Representatives. National congress. Same district, same position.

It's possible that you could read, and chose to just lie anyways...

Yep, you do. And people have - it had to do with the lukewarm campaign, the fact that people still didn't know what the hell Colbert was on about other than that her brother was a famous comedian, the fact that Southern Carolina has drifted quite hard red, especially post-gerrymander, and probably a few other factors. However, the fact that 4 years earlier, an openly homosexual democrat who supported gay marriage did considerably better against a far less tarnished candidate completely destroys your theory that Colbert-Busch lost solely because of their support of gay marriage - a theory you support with... um... oh right. Jack (*)(*)(*)(*). (*)(*)(*)(*) off, dude. Nobody is buying what you're selling because what you're selling has the putrid stench of lie. As said before: there are leaps of faith, but this is you trying to reach low orbit.

 

No, I just read what you wrote and didn't visit the links. I seldom do unless quotes are provided from them. Just a habit.

Yes, the sister of a famous comedian without a history of marital infidelity and lying should've had a better chance than being beaten by 10 points by a man who in very recent memory cheated on his wife, essentially bragged about it days after and was shunned by the GOP thereafter. I think maybe the GOP was curious to see if they could run their worst prospect to see just how tired folks in the middle are of the democratic rainbow-platform. All Colbert-Busch's other platforms are testing out with good numbers and bipartisan support in the middle anyway. And we know middle votes are what make or break a campaign. So one of her platforms is based on false statistics. And from the Prop 8/Chic Fil-A syndrome, where the real numbers were manifest, I think I can guess which platform that was that Colbert-Busch foolishly sung her stalwart intentions to promote...

The women from The View were adamant in supporting the owner of Chic-Fil-A's right to his opinion and those lines wrapped around the block in support too. Was every single person in those lines a far right republican? Or even a republican at all? Or were they just regular peeps floating somewhere around in the middle. I looked. They didn't look fanatical either way to me.

 

Sanford should not have won. And we democrats need to look very closely at why he did by 10 points.

 

Still?

You should go back and take a look at how partisan things have become over the past decade or so...

 

Thanks for the tidbit.

Not that Silhouette won't dance around it- because after all- her goal is to stigmatize homosexuality.

- - - Updated - - -

However, the fact that 4 years earlier, an openly homosexual democrat who supported gay marriage did considerably better against a far less tarnished candidate completely destroys your theory that Colbert-Busch lost solely because of their support of gay marriage

 

My goal is to understand why a candidate who is the sister of one of America's most popular celebrities, lost to a cheating husband and GOP outcast by 10 points. There is more than partisanship involved in the "10 points" part.

She was predicted to be neck and neck or possibly to win. Didn't come close. THAT is what is at issue here...

 

Well then maybe you should do some research on it- and see what people are saying are the reason:

"Even the WaPo gets it.
How Mark Sanford won

Sanford has always had a folksiness about him to which voters in the state respond; there’s a reason he’s never lost a single election. He also is (and always has been) a gifted communicator on television. Sanford’s go anywhere, talk to anyone approach (more on that below) worked to defuse some of the negativeness directed at his personal life and seemed to convince enough people that he wasn’t that bad a guy.

His speeches started with talk of changing and Second chances, then proceeded to the issues.

Joel Stein has some words for the GOP.

Sanford says he’s learned a lot about forgiveness and accepting other’s selfish choices. “After you’ve been through a complete cratering in life, you learn to let it go,” he said. The GOP better hope so, because he’s going to be around for a while. "

National Review Online:

In the end, Sanford was able to effectively tie Colbert Busch, the sister of Comedy Central star Stephen Colbert, to House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. He claimed her first loyalty would be to her liberal agenda rather than to the conservative district. Then there was the curious stealth campaign that Colbert Busch ran. “While the former governor barnstormed the district, Colbert Bush seemed to be in hiding,” Politico reported. “At a Chamber of Commerce forum last week, the Democrat delivered four minutes of remarks and was then hustled out of the room by a team of handlers. As baffled reporters trailed, Colbert Busch made a beeline for the parking lot.”

The race became a contest between the all-too-well-known Sanford, who at least had a consistent conservative record in office, and the mysterious Colbert Busch. Voters went for the known quantity.

Everyone laughed and snickered when Sanford resolved to reclaim the congressional seat he gave up because of a self-imposed term limit in 2000. Since then, Sanford had gone on to become South Carolina governor, ending his successful two terms with a tumble into humiliating personal scandal. He sought political redemption in seeking the congressional seat and has won it. He no doubt will now have the most name recognition of any South Carolinian serving in Congress. Here’s hoping he puts it to good use on the fiscal and economic issues he knows so well.


.

 

http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/editorials/2013-05-10/sanfords-statement

But the Republican’s relatively breezy win in Tuesday’s special election over Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch is a remarkable statement – probably several of them, actually.

It may say that notoriety – whether for good or ill – is a huge advantage. “I don’t care what they say as long as they talk about me,” is the old Hollywood axiom.

Indeed, Reader’s Digest this week announced the 100 “most trusted” people in America – and most of the top 10, including No. 1 Tom Hanks, are from Hollywood.

Sanford’s win no doubt also says that many voters have forgiven him – and that’s certainly their prerogative, though they are hereby waiving any right to complain about any Democratic sex scandals.

Colbert Busch’s loss also has to be a stinging personal rebuke. Even trading on her celebrity as the sister of comedian Stephen Colbert – whose name ranks just under Stephen King’s in a Google Search – Colbert Busch, who never quite defined her political persuasion, was, ultimately, a horrible candidate incapable of taking down a seriously wounded opponent.

This, too, is utterly jaw-dropping: Mark Sanford won despite the fact that the National Republican Congressional Committee withdrew its support of him last month after his ex-wife charged he’d trespassed in her home. Republicans were basically ceding the seat to Democrats, who made an all-out attempt to help Colbert Busch – at the highest levels of the national party.

Some say that may have only antagonized voters in the mostly conservative district.

Most of all, the election outcome likely is a powerful statement by South Carolina voters – that, with America’s freedoms, finances and standing in the world at severe risk, we just can’t afford to give Democrats any more power in Washington.

On that, they’d be absolutely right.

 

Yeah, but by 10 points? I guess Schwarzaneggar should run for governor again and Clinton for Office. Also Weiner. Yet for some reason people think they wouldn't have a chance at winning. And Clinton was one of the most popular presidents in US history. Weiner did a lot for his constituents too. I wonder if they'd all win by 10 points?

 

Schwartzeneggar was amazingly unpopular with Republicans.

Clinton has been forgiven by his electorate and could win again if he was legally able to run for President.

Read the editorials rather than argue with us. Plenty of people have offered their opinion on why he won.

And none of them have to do with anything 'gay'.

 

How about exit polls?