Those are two scuzzy states inhabited by a lot of scuzzy people.

i am still predicting that the aide goes to jail for lobbying violations and Ensign get re-elected.

If you're Karl Rove your thinking, "Hey, maybe affairs, divorces and public restroom sex make us more electable!"

Doesn't seem to be helping Terry Sanford, though.

Much a do about nothing.

The casual voter in Nevada may not even be aware of the scandal plagued Ensign's misconduct (it certainly doesn't garner much national press), and most probably aren't familiar with his potential challengers.

That's a good line, but it's worth emphasizing how accurate it is.

Let's wait until 2012, before casting that net.

Yeah, and priests molested children, and they were given comfortable sinecures in out-of-the-way parishes or country retreats. Reagan had multiple wives and got divorced when divorce was still officially scandalous, and he's been all but canonized.

Authoritarians are authoritarians. Their pieties and other "values" are just for show. It comes down to one thing and one thing only: are you in the group and following orders, or are you not?

Paul Krugman covered this already.... IOKIYAR.

PJ--

I'm assuming you're referring to Mark Sanford (R) of SC and not Terry Sanford (D) of NC. FWIW, Terry Sanford died in 1998.

I don't know Steve... I'm not sure numbers this far out mean a whole heck of a lot. Let's see what the horserace numbers look like after a Vitter gets pummelled by a few months worth of "Diaper Dave" ads, and Ensign gets hammered for paying off his cuckold buddy. Especially if Ensign's ethics problem turns into a legal matter, it's goign to get rough for him.

This just goes to show how damaged the Democratic brand is now, that someone like Ensign could be leading in the polls.

Of course it's worse for Democrats. Republicans are expected to be lying, cheating, sanctimonious sacks of sh** wrapped in the flag and the bible.

When democrats do it people are actually disappointed because they have higher expectations from democrats.

Meh. Asking "where's the outrage?" isn't really an argument. NV and LA constituents set their own standards. If they don't vote against paying off mistresses or frequenting hookers, then that's democracy. And if they decide those are less important than making sure poor people don't have health care, you can't really argue with them.

For what it's worth, Spitzer walked away when he didn't need to. But Slate gave him a column and he could probably return to public life if that's what he wanted, at least as a pundit. Edwards (who I supported in the primary) just kept lying after he was caught.

You forgot Scott Brown. Witness Kathleen Parker's channeling of Peggy Noonan in her column about Brown, obliquely slipping in the bit about the youthful indescretion --the nude photos in Playgirl.

Now imagine the reaction at a Dem doing a swimsuit ad.

It seems we are all blind.

The Democrats are on the verge of losing a Senate race in Massachusetts. And you are wondering why a Republican is doing well in Nevada.

The answer is:
Ensign is NOT a Democrat

First, there is a lot of wiggle room from now until election day. Ensign and Vitter might look good now, especially when your average voter hasn't given it much thought.

Second, let's face it, they are in republican districts, and R's think D's are out to destroy the world, so no shocker that they would get behind and adulterer.

You're reading too much into this. Specifically you are taking a comparison and infomation about one thing being compared and trying to draw from that a universal rule without considering the thing it is compared to.

Voter willingness to re-elect ensign could indicate they don't care about hypocrisy or it could indicate that Dem hypocrisy has galled them more, or maybe Nevada is full of teabaggers w9orried about coming death panels. Or a million other combinations of factors.

After all is said and done, for Republicans this is mostly about winning a game. They can't stand to lose, everything else is secondary. It does not matter if the person carrying the ball into the end zone is a morally bankrupt hypocrite, as long as they get to seem him throw down the ball and dance.

A slightly different slant:

50% of marriages end in divorce, and a large majority of those involved marital infidelity.

The other fifty percent also experience marital infidelity.

Outrage is only a useful tool when used by Reps against Dems.

We recently heard the Reps demand the Majority Leader's hide for 'misspeaking'.

Question: How many Democratic senators demanded Ensign, et al, to resign for "bringing disgrace to this August Body"?

Buncha wimps, is what ya is. . .

Maybe it's all that radioactivity in Nevada.

Please don't say "wiggle room" when discussing Ensign and Vitter. It really conjures up some unseemly images.

republican voters look at politics as a kind of blood sport. Which is a good way to look at it. Thus, if you're on MY team, it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you deliver the goods..but, mostly, just being on my team is good enough. At your worst, you're still better than someone from the other team.

It's no co-incidence that most GOP voters are in the Southeast, where they take their sports very, very seriously.

Terry Sanford died in 1998.

Then affairs, divorce and public restroom sex really didn't help him.

"It's no co-incidence that most GOP voters are in the Southeast, where they take their sports very, very seriously."

Too true, LL. Once you've learned to embrace the corruption and sleaziness of big money college football, nothing else really fazes you.

It's all about what fits the picture (or not) that the voters, (who particularly on the right are mostly low-information voters) have of the particular candidate. Democrats are all wanton hippies so a blow job or two for Clinton was the most important thing ever because it fit and expanded that picture. Bring up ole Bill to a fundie and that's the first thing they will come up with even today. The fictional stuff sticks too: Democrats have no morals and are in the thrall of Satan so of course they had their best friend since kindergarten murdered on the Potomac at the drop of a hat.
A Republican can run around in diapers with hookers or have their parents pay 100G to the affairee's husband or whatever happened, and he's still a pro-Establishment saved by Jesus climate change and evolution denying authoritarian. It just doesn't make a dent.

What these poll results, and this post, and this comment thread indicate is that Republican voters might have a better grasp of what politics and government are for than Democratic voters do. A rational voter focuses solely on how a politician does their job. How a politician conducts their personal life is irrelevant and it is none of the voters' business. Republicans continue to support these candidates because they feel that these candidates are most likely to vote the way Republicans want.

What the evidence shows is that Democrats would rather make themselves feel superior, and offer prudish rants about someone else's sex life, and drive out talented politicians than win elections and get quality legislation enacted into law.

The goal of politics is to win. A politician might be the biggest bastard on Earth, but if he or she is going to represent you in the government in the way that you want, you should vote for him or her.

And, if they are willing to lie, cheat and steal and murder, they are even better because they will win at any cost. I wonder what this lack of integrity might cost us in good will and standing in the global community? These things do matter. That is why there are rules and that is why there are referees and umpires. How is Haiti's lack of a responsible government working for them?

To Mark:
The goal of politics is to win - the perfect representation of the reptilian thinking most commonly found among republicans. Jesus, the candor you display makes clear to me just why the Bush years were so appallingly amoral.

How a politician conducts their personal life is irrelevant and it is none of the voters' business. Republicans continue to support these candidates because they feel that these candidates are most likely to vote the way Republicans want.

You're goddamned right. Just look at the warm welcome Log Cabin Republican candidates continually get from their party. It's almost as big a group hug as the one the GOP gives to its atheist members.

Has anyone looked at the possibility of Harry Reid attempting to switch seats to run against Ensign?

How a politician conducts their personal life is irrelevant and it is none of the voters' business.

Except when the politician's position is that the government should police personal morality. Then the stench of hipocracy and the lack of credibility should lead to the politician being swiftly replaced.

And to suggest that Ensign should be able to prudishly lecture the rest of us on correct behavior, but calling him on his double standard is a prudish rant, boggles the mind. Nothing is taboo in order to win. I'm waiting for the onionesque headline where it's OK for republicans to gun down democratic voters to secure the seat. Unbelievable.

"The moral of the story: adultery is fine, and hypocrisy is fine, just so long as you have an "R" after your name."

Wonder what would happen if Obama had a bimbo eruption. And what if the woman was white? Maybe nothing much, but it might get real ugly.

"Cheating on your wife is a deal breaker for Republican voters -- but only if you're a Democrat."

Not always true. GOP Sen. Tim Hutchison of Arkansas got caught screwing a staffer, and the conservative voters of that state turned him out for Democrat Mark Pryor, in an otherwise banner year for the GOP (2002 midterms).