Source: USA TODAY

Republican Mark Sanford won South Carolina’s congressional special election Tuesday, but the results may not conclude the drama of a disgraced former governor on the outs with his own party.

Sanford’s quest for public and political redemption after an extramarital affair succeeded with voters Tuesday, who returned him to a congressional seat he left in 2001. Sanford will fill the seat vacated when Rep. Tim Scott was appointed to the U.S. Senate in January.

On Thursday, however, Sanford will appear in a televised court hearing to answer a charge of trespassing from his former wife. Then he’ll head to Washington, where he made few friends during his previous three terms in office bucking the Republican leadership.

Sanford defeated Elizabeth Colbert Busch, despite her backing by national Democratic organizations and fundraising help from her brother, comedian Stephen Colbert.

The victory in what had been seen as a tight race means the district, centered on Charleston, “is a safe Republican district … and Democrats have not a lot of hope going forward,” says political scientist Danielle Vinson of Furman University in Greenville, S.C.

“I don’t see him having a lot of trouble if he can just shut his mouth about his private life and stop making an enemy of his ex-wife.” If he can’t, Vinson says, “the frustration with being a national punch line is pretty high in that district.”

Sanford won nomination for the special election over a field of 16 Republicans, so there is no lack of potential primary challengers in 2014 should he continue to make embarrassing headlines.

During his previous terms in Congress, Sanford stuck to his fiscal hawk positions even when he clashed with Republican leaders.

“I don’t suspect he’ll be any better a colleague than he was 15 years ago,” said Mark Tompkins, a political scientist at the University of South Carolina. “He doesn’t change those spots, but on the other hand, he’ll vote for Republican leadership. The election … really does get him on the path to overcoming his current liabilities. And that’s a big deal.”

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, congratulated Sanford on Twitter on Tuesday night on his victory, and Republicans said it proved the unpopularity of national Democrats.

Sanford was late-night-comic fodder in 2009 when he told staff he was hiking the Appalachian Trail and instead headed to Argentina to visit his mistress.

He paid a $70,000 ethics fine for spending public money on personal travel. He is now divorced and engaged to his Argentine girlfriend.

“The House Republican caucus has added yet another ethically challenged embarrassment who will be an albatross around the neck of every Republican forced to answer for Mark Sanford’s embarrassing and reckless behavior,” said House Majority PAC Executive Director Alixandria Lapp.

The PAC backed Colbert Busch with $450,000 in ad spending.

Rep. Steve Israel of New York, who runs the House Democratic campaign effort, said “House Republicans’ outreach to women voters now has Mark Sanford as the face.”

Democrats “laid siege” to the district because Charleston County, one of five in the district, voted for Obama, says county GOP Chair Joe Bustos. Sanford’s win, “is not a green light that future elections can be taken for granted at all.”

Sanford was initially favored to win the special election when he prevailed in the primary, but revelations that his ex-wife had filed a complaint alleging he trespassed at her home brought him a wave of bad publicity. The national Republican House campaign operation pulled its support, and polls suddenly showed Colbert Busch ahead by 9 percentage points before Sanford closed the gap.

Sanford campaigned with a cardboard cutout of House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and tried to tie Colbert Busch tightly to national Democrats. In the final week of the campaign, South Carolina’s two senators endorsed him and Gov. Nikki Haley appeared at a fundraiser on his behalf. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, also endorsed Sanford.

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

CHARLESTON, S.C. – If political debates are all about “creating moments,” as South Carolina Republican strategist Hogan Gidley says, then first-time candidate Elizabeth Colbert Busch seems to have created one Monday night. Her zinger to former governor Mark Sanford about his disappearance to Argentina in 2009 led the late TV news here – the only look most voters will get of the congressional debate, which wasn’t shown on local television.

Both Colbert Busch, a Democrat, and Sanford, a Republican, told voters they would attack federal spending if elected from the 1st Congressional District. Then Colbert Busch “went there,” as one of the moderators put it: “When we talk about fiscal spending and we talk about protecting the taxpayers, it doesn’t mean you take the money we saved and leave the country for a personal purpose,” she said.

It was a veiled reference to Sanford’s 2009 disappearance for several days to visit his mistress in Argentina.

Sanford didn’t respond – he said he didn’t hear Colbert Busch – but the audience in the debate hall did, including Lee Anderson, a Boeing employee who went to the debate undecided about his vote but certain that if he were to miss five days of work with no explanation, he would be fired. What would have happened, he wanted to know, if something like the Boston Marathon bombings had occurred while Sanford was absent?

“While I agree with a lot of his rhetoric in certain areas, that kind of broaches the integrity issue for me. I just keep coming back to it.” Anderson said after the debate. It helped that Colbert Busch “did not come across like a quote unquote typical Democrat.”

“It feels like Mark Sanford is dying a death of a thousand cuts,” Anderson said.

Sanford returned to the issue himself later in the debate saying a man should not be punished forever for a mistake made in his past.

Richard Kopec, a 23-year-old undecided voter, said Colbert Busch was buoyed by support from the debate audience. It’s not the first time a South Carolina debate crowd has egged on a candidate, he pointed out, citing a Republican presidential primary debate last year where candidates including Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum drew raucous responses.

“For someone who has never really gone into a big spotlight, (she) really held her own,” he said. “At the beginning she seemed a little nervous, but in the end, she was a firecracker.” The largely pro-Colbert Busch crowd jeered at Sanford’s frequent mentions of Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi as he tried to tie Colbert Busch to the liberal Democrat in this red-leaning district.

“Come on, Mark,” one audience member called out.

Colbert Busch said she supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights – not typically popular with South Carolina Republicans – but Kopec said he is “libertarian” on social issues and found her economic and fiscal policies moderate enough for his approval. “I will say I don’t agree with everything, but I feel that that I can trust her a lot more than I can with Mark Sanford,” he said.

Sanford said gay marriage should be left up to each state. He did not say what his views on abortion are — his answer focused on pro-choice tweets that Colbert Busch’s deleted from her account — but as governor and during his previous terms in Congress, he supported restrictions on abortion.

To be sure, there was a vocal minority at the debate supporting Sanford. “He has saved this state billions of dollars and we should be honored that he’ll go back” to elected office, said Shirley Rabens, 66, a retired restaurateur. Colbert Busch’s qualifications for office “should be more than ‘Your brother’s a comedian.’” The candidate’s brother is Comedy Central TV host Stephen Colbert.

Though running out front in a recent opinion survey, Colbert Busch didn’t play it safe, said Gibbs Knotts, a political scientist at the College of Charleston.

“She went after him in a lot of ways. He’s got to be very relieved to be talking about issues. Any time he’s talking about federal spending, the size of government, he does best,” Knotts said. But the candidates’ answers on social issues were helpful for voters, he added, since the candidates have focused heavily on the economy, jobs and federal spending.

Gidley, who worked for one of Sanford’s primary opponents, says he thinks Sanford performed better in the debate by appearing more knowledgeable and experienced. Colbert Busch passed the threshold test – she didn’t make any serious mistakes, he said — but she should have hit Sanford harder on his record as governor. “I don’t think that performance is going to make someone go and vote for her. What she is going to have to hope for is that a lot of Republicans just stay at home because they don’t want to go and vote for Mark.”

The special election is May 7. The candidates have separate appearances Tuesday, then appear before a Charleston Metro Chamber of Commerce group on the city’s waterfront and a forum sponsored by the Goose Creek NAACP. During both appearances, the candidates will address attendees but won’t debate.

Contributing: Associated Press

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Source: USA TODAY

News media reacted to the Boston Marathon bombings with massive coverage but considerable caution in speculating on culpability, as social media blossomed with warnings about the unreliability of preliminary information.

News of the bombing broke on Twitter at least 10 minutes before cable television networks picked it up – a surprising lag given that there were plenty of media at the marathon. Throughout the afternoon social media functioned as journalistic conscience – warning reporters to be cautious – and scold: calling out mistaken reports and commentary deemed “too soon” to post.

As in Atlanta’s 1996 Olympic bombing and San Francisco’s World Series earthquake in 1989, sports reporters covering the marathon quickly turned to reporting on the bombing. In addition, journalists from at least seven news organizations, including USA TODAY, had run in the marathon and then began reporting on the twin explosions near the finish line. But perhaps as a legacy of the 1996 Centennial Park Olympic bombing – after which news organizations were sued for libel by Richard Jewell, wrongly identified as a suspect in the case – most news organizations reiterated often that no suspects or motives for the attack were yet known.

New York-based network correspondents converged on Boston as broadcast television networks carried live coverage through the afternoon and early evening. NBC also aired an hour-long special Monday night.

Broadcast networks also carried live President Obama’s remarks Tuesday morning.

About two hours after the bombing, the New York Post reported that 12 people had been killed, a statement characterized by several journalists on Twitter as being “out over their skis.”

“Going to ignore the NY Post for the time being,” tweeted Blake Hounshell, Foreign Policy managing editor. By Tuesday’s Post print edition, the number had been corrected to three deaths confirmed by Boston police.

The newspaper also reported on its online site that a Saudi national was in custody. No one has been taken into custody, Boston authorities said Tuesday morning.

When a Saudi student was questioned by police and his house in Revere searched, the tone of television coverage was determinedly matter-of-fact. “Interest in him is waning pretty rapidly,” NBC’s Pete Williams said Tuesday.

Reports that cell service had been shut down by authorities to prevent possible detonation of other explosives also turned out to be incorrect. Media also reported that a third explosive device had been found at the John F. Kennedy Library, which turned out to be unrelated fire. But Boston police also mentioned the third explosive device at a news briefing before correcting their report.

Twitter also was the place where attempts to speculate or politicize the event were slapped down. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof apologized for a tweet noting that the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives lacks a permanent director – an issue that has been raised in gun legislation discussions – and blaming Republicans for blocking the Obama administration’s nomination.

“OK, that was low blow, I take it back,” he tweeted later.

The tragedy also pushed media boundaries of propriety. Video of the moment of the explosion quickly surfaced and was repeatedly replayed on television: graphic, and bloody photographs of the injured bombing victims quickly appeared online. Even photos that didn’t show injured people showed pavements stained with blood – a lot of it. Many news organizations, for instance, showed a photograph of an injured young man in a wheelchair being rushed to medical help. His lower body was out of the frame. The Atlantic news site however, put up a warning that users had to click through before showing the complete photograph, which revealed that the young man’s leg had been blown off below the knee.

Copyright © 2013 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.