South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford admits to extramarital affair
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sanford-argentina25-2009jun25,0,6844581.story
Well, when I first heard the excuse I thought it seemed like it was way to fishy of a story to just be a camping trip. Its a shame, as Sanford had some good ideas.
It takes a special kind of idiot to travel to another country for an affair when you are a public figure on the DNC's hit list.
I fail to see why this should matter.
If you cant' be expected to do what's best for your family then we're not going to trust 'em in public office.
Enjoy four more years of Obama, then. After all, he's loyal to Michelle.
However, someone who will not keep his vows and do what is right for his family has indicated he has a character flaw that may cause him to also do something wrong for the country.
No doubt a man loses points points for marital infidelity.
But there are so much more things to lose points for. Corruption. The wrong stands on the right issues.
If Stanford previously scored, say, 70 out of a hundred, he scores 65 now.
If you're going to vote for a man who's wrong on the issues over a man who's right on the issues over an event like this, you should not wonder why the socialists keep winning.
No doubt a man loses points points for marital infidelity.
But there are so much more things to lose points for. Corruption. The wrong stands on the right issues.
If Stanford previously scored, say, 70 out of a hundred, he scores 65 now.
If you're going to vote for a man who's wrong on the issues over a man who's right on the issues over an event like this, you should not wonder why the socialists keep winning.
No, a politician who has something to hide is susceptible to bribes and other forms of corruption. How do you trust a politician who is caught in a real lie?
No, a politician who has something to hide is susceptible to bribes and other forms of corruption. How do you trust a politician who is caught in a real lie?Everyone screws up and/or has skeletons in the closet. Personally, I'd rather mine have the balls to promptly admit they screwed up.
...he could have easily gotten off with a cover story that was much less damaging to his future.
[tinfoil_haberdashery]Maybe admitting to an affair with another woman is the "less damaging cover story." [/tinfoil_haberdashery]
Sad state of affairs when we consider not lying about the horrible betrayal of his family to be a super positive virtue.It's not so much that as it is admitting you screwed up and accepting the consequences rather then trying to deny it until you can't anymore.
This is too funny. I must admit that I don't know much about him, but I'm guessing he's a "Family Values" type of politician.
I fail to see why this should matter.
Then you don't understand that the more conservative voters do not like infidelityThis is very true. However, I also think they understand a certain measure of forgiveness and someone who admits his screw ups for the sake of admitting them because it's the right thing to do.
It's not so much that as it is admitting you screwed up and accepting the consequences rather then trying to deny it until you can't anymore.That.
Then you don't understand that the more conservative voters do not like infidelity and such, and you don't understand how the South is. Sanford's goose is cooked for sure now, if it wasn't before (he's been under the gun from both parties for a while)
Are you one of those voters?
No, but I actually do live in South Carolina, was born here, and very much understand the culture of Southerners and how conservatives view issues.
That's not my question. My question is, would you personally refuse to vote for a person over this?
If you personally would not refuse to vote for a person over the contents of his family life, then it would be wrong to withdraw support from him because you think other people would do so.Hogwash. How successful a politician might be is definitely worth considering when deciding who to support.
How is it an attack?
Are you one of those voters?
No, but I actually do live in South Carolina, was born here, and very much understand the culture of Southerners and how conservatives view issues.
That's not my question. My question is, would you personally refuse to vote for a person over this?See above...you asked him a question, he answered it, now you're trying to say that wasn't the question you asked?
In my view, voting against a candidate, not because you personally oppose him, but because you fear that other people will oppose hi, and thus attempt to make some form of 'tactical voting' decision, is a wrong decision to make, especially in a primary.
Are you one of those voters?
No
how did his emails end up public?
Oh well. Maybe I am wrong. After all, I live in a country where it's harder for me to name a major politician who is NOT corrupt than vice versa.
We need some stern Romans. Where are they?Romans would not have considered having a mistress to be an issue at all.
Romans would not have considered having a mistress to be an issue at all.
Were Romans in the habit of touting "family values"?
Chris
I have a hard time trusting someone who can't keep promises to those closest to them. If he won't do what he promised his spouse he would do, why would he keep promises made to constituents.
Adultery is indicative of week character. It shows me that a person will not stick to principle when tempted, but only when it's easy.
I know I'm probably in the minority, but I can't vote for adulterers.
Two words: temple prostitutes.
History fail. Roman culture (depending on what era Romans we're talking about) may have had an emphasis on some "family" values, but they were not a sexually moral people. Two words: temple prostitutes.This is true. The Romans were VERY moral people by and large. However, their morals were their own. It wasn't immoral to have a mistress in the slightest. Abandoning your family for said mistress was immoral however.
As with everything it all comes down to worldview. If you think morality is a subjective societal construct vs an absolute standard, well.... Hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone when you can't agree on the meanings of words.
Oh, I am a great believer in objective morality. I still disagree that there is only one pattern of personal and sexual behavior that is moral.
Oh, I am a great believer in objective morality. I still disagree that there is only one pattern of personal and sexual behavior that is moral.
When I go into politics, it will be well known which interns I'm sleeping with.... :laugh:
ie none of them. ;)
Chris
[qute]
I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.
I also don't think that adultery is okay (except within the confines of an open relationship, in which case it's not really adultery), but I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.
[qute]
You're a smart guy, but I'm not sure you understand American politics as well as you think.
Oh I understand that this will reduce Stanford's chances at electoral success. I also don't think that adultery is okay (except within the confines of an open relationship, in which case it's not really adultery), but I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.
Where I live, we just had a minister convicted of taking bribes and he's whining that he's been racially discriminated against because he got four years in prison while another minister (who got caught stealing money from a Holocaust memorial charity) got five.
I'm sorry if I can't help but think that a guy like Sanford is awesome as compared to the idiots I observe in office in my own country, on a daily basis - or, to that end, the guy who's in charge of your country, right now.
How is holding socialist viewpoints a crime?
So Micro, you're saying he's the lesser of two evils?
Can we go back to talking about the Romans? Its less embarassing.
Why are you embarrassed?
Micro's sex positive lifestyle is hard for him to bear.
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2009/06/25/sanford-saga-im-more-interested-in-who-brought-him-down/
sanford saga - i’m more interested in who brought him down….
Posted: 25 Jun 2009 04:06 PM PDT
Love letters between Mark Sanford and his *secret Latin lady lover* were printed yesterday in The State. The South Carolina paper reported that they have been holding onto the emails for six months, and were provided by an anonymous source.
Who is that source? (And how gross is that to print sandofrd_579246a
personal emails like that? OK, yes, I read a couple of snipits from them…so, sue me. But seriously, that was gross.)
E-mails obtained by The State newspaper in December detailed an affair between Gov. Mark Sanford and Maria, a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
However, attempts to verify the e-mails — from an anonymous source — were fruitless, until Wednesday. Then, acting on another anonymous tip that Sanford would be on a plane returning from Argentina, the paper sent a reporter to Atlanta.
When Sanford got off a plane from Buenos Aires, he stopped an interview with The State when asked if he had been with anyone in Argentina.
Obviously at least one person at The State knew about the affair, per the emails. The person who provided the paper the emails knew about the affair. Someone on Sanford’s staff knew he went to Argentina - regardless of what they say. Someone knew. Someone booked his ticket. Someone cleared his calendar. Sanford named a few people that have been working with him, and his family during these difficult times. And someone tipped The State that Sanford was arriving from Argentina (an anonymous passenger on the plane? uh huh).
John O’Connor, the newspaper reporter who wrote the story about the e-mails, told CNN Wednesday afternoon that The State did not confront Sanford with the messages in December because at the time “there was little way to tell that these were authentic e-mails.”
The media basically ignored the John Edwards scandal, until it broke in the National Enquirer. (And then the MSM still ignored it). So, why the media fire storm over Sanford, who was, for all intents and purposes, on vacation for a few days? Why all of a sudden was the media acting like Dick F*chin’ Tracy?
There is nothing particularly sexy about this scandal - except the DUMB DUMB DUMB lie about where he was. Sanford had already told his wife about his Latin lady lover five months ago. He confessed the affair to his father in law. It was a private matter between husband and wife at this point. The Sanfords were working on how to proceed, as a family. He reportedly went to Argentina to end this relationship.
As far as anyone knew, he was on vacation, but within hours it became a firestorm. His wife wasn’t worried when asked about his whereabouts (she had already asked him to move out, so she was not privy to his schedule) but said he wanted to get some peace and quiet, and do some writing. His office said he was hiking. OK, a little mix up in detail, but no one on his staff, or his wife, was *worried* about his whereabouts. Why did the media become so concerned, all of a sudden?
The big political hoopla now is that Sanford left South Carolina unattended. A tragedy could have struck, and no one would have known where he was! Hogwash. People knew where he was. Had something happened, he would have been on the phone in a second. The Lt. Governor would have stepped in, just as they would if the Governor was on vacation, or out of state on business.
Yes, Sanford screwed up. He had an affair and he brought this on himself. This seems to be the M.O. of pols on both side of the aisle.
But, it seems to me that someone knew about it, and stoked the media firestorm with the intent to bring him down. Who? That’s the real story. Affairs, sadly, are a dime a dozen in Washington these days.
Perhaps whoever sent those emails 6 months ago has been waiting for the right time to bring him down? They obviously have known about this for quite a while. Did the source panic, knowing that Sanford went to Argentina to end the affair, and the window for opportunity was closing? Or have they been waiting for the opportunity to catch him in the act?
The only reason, in my opinion, this story got the coverage it did was because someone KNEW he was in Argentina, and forced this story to break. (and because he is a Republican.)
I’m not saying it should not have broken. I just want to know who did it.
State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, called for Sanford’s resignation immediately after Sanfords press conference. Perhaps he did it.
Or maybe a fellow Republican? A potential Presidential Candidate (Romney?) could have reason to want to bring him down. Sanford was gaining traction, and was a potential risk in 2012.
The Dems or Obama administration had reason to want to take him out - Sanford criticized the $787 billion federal stimulus law and was a big critic of Obama. Hey, would Obama have access to action on a passport?
Jenny Sanford is a potential suspect, a woman scorned and all that, but she is open to a reconciliation, so I don’t think she is an obvious choice.
Or it could have just been someone in his office, who had access to his computer….
Who else?
The Today Show covered this and Meredith’s opening remarks bugged me:
Sex scandal? How tacky, Meredith. A sex scandal is Larry Craig trolling for boy toys in the airport bathroom. This seems like an emotional love affair. And seriously, Sanford saw the woman three times in one year… this wasn’t a sex scandal.
At least the guy gave us the truth yesterday. No denials, or bullshit, just raw emotion. Yes, he was *caught* but he truly seems broken up. I think it’s kind of sad.
Do I think Sanford should resign? Normally I would say no. I didn’t think Bill Clinton should be impeached, either. Sanford did…so, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gov’nor.
Oh, and John Kerry said this:
“Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’
The Romans had temple prostitutes. And so do we, brothers.Where?
The Romans had temple prostitutes. And so do we, brothers. Yet we deem ourselves a moral people and the Rome of modern times.
Sanford is no Roman--by any measure.
I would never say America is a moral people, not anymore. And I think modern politicians are a great example of the Romans; bread and circuses, right?
Where?
I take it as a compliment, of course
I would go further and say that the rise and strength of the socialist/progressive movement in the United States correlates fairly well with the decline of morality in America.
I wouldn't.
DC. Corporations and SIG's head to the temple, and buy their chosen prostitute with campaign contributions and the like.Oh. He weren't speakin' literal. *kicks rocks* And here I was, all ready to convert. =| :laugh:
You probably wouldn't post home made porn of yourself on teh intarwebz either.
I hate the way so many terms have been corrupted and slanted. "Sex positive" is one of the worst examples. It's sheer propaganda; anyone who disagrees with utter degeneracy as normative just hates sex, and is bad and negative. :rolleyes:
I have questions for the guys: Does it make any difference to you that he appeared to really care for the other woman? Are you more forgiving because (according to the posted article) he was trying to work it out within his family?That brings up an interesting point - is it more wrong for a married man to be running around with prostitutes or have an emotional whatnot with another woman? Which one will do a better job of breaking up a family?
I hate the way so many terms have been corrupted and slanted. "Sex positive" is one of the worst examples. It's sheer propaganda; anyone who disagrees with utter degeneracy as normative just hates sex, and is bad and negative.
Yup. “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams
If you can criticize my sex-positive views, I can criticize your sex-negative views. Goose. Gander.
This would be the presumption we're talking about. That your view is good and positive, and mine is bad and negative.
I come down the other way, Savalas. Emotional connections are not subject to rational whims. The stronger the emotion, the harder it is to restrain. Extreme love or hate are almost impossible to restrain.Well, everybody's different. I've found emotions pretty easy to restrain. Especially positive ones. :laugh:
On topic, does anyone know the truth of that report posted earlier that the paper sat on information about the affair for several months? That would seem odd to me, unless they were waiting to shoot him down and discredit him at the worst possible time.As far as I know, it's true. Discrediting him at the worst time would sell a lot more papers, after all.
Again, I ask: Would folks be attacking him if his wife got on stage and said "It's between myself and my husband: none of your damn business!"?
Not trying to stir the pot here: being serious
Again, I ask: Would folks be attacking him if his wife got on stage and said "It's between myself and my husband: none of your damn business!"?Probably.
Would y'all still feel the same way if the wife got up at the press conference, and told the world "This is between myself and my hisband, and no business of the rest of you"? Or would y'all still feel the need to declare possession of the moral highground?
I consider love/emotional affairs/etc to be as avoidable as shooting an elephant.
Minor point of order: Sanford. Like 'Sanford and Son'. Not Sandford.
The Hollywood scheme, "Two people thrown together against their wills and then form an emotional attachment," is bunk. These things can be seen and avoided, if one so desires to avoid it.
I will inform Comrade Shakespeare immediately.He was the guy who had fairies. And turned one guy's head into that of a donkey.
He was the guy who had fairies. And turned one guy's head into that of a donkey.
The problem here is in determining whether certain elements are fantastic or fact.
So? Shakespeare's understanding of human nature can be understood and learned from, regardless of the obviously fantastic elements of his plays. (And wasn't Midsummer Night's Dream a comedy anyway?)
I will inform Comrade Shakespeare immediately.
WA, where ya been?
Good to see ya! =D
Sorry that you had to see an online pissing contest.
There have been plenty in the last several days, staff is working on a solution as I type this. :|
Every hour it wasn't out in the open Sanford was at risk of blackmail. That is an unacceptable risk and indicates very poor judgment on Sanford's part.Quote from: jfruser3. He left himself open to blackmail and put the state gov't and taxpayers at risk.<I'll give you 1. 2 I'm not so sure about. 3 you'll have to explain how you blackmail someone about something that is out in the open, and what risks the state taxpayers assume because of said hypothetical situation...
Quote from: jfruser>Also, the "open marriage" or "swingers" hypothetical is a whole 'nuther reason not to vote for the man and place him in authority.<
Ok... you'll have to explain that one. Unless they're hosting orgies in the gov's mansion, what difference does it make?
Indicates a cultural perspective too far deviant from mine to have my electoral support. Also, such an arrangement has a high correlation with views on other issues I find unacceptable. If their swinging habit is all I know about them, I am playing the odds and opposing them.