Sandford Is Done

[Balog]

Sad state of affairs when we consider not lying about the horrible betrayal of his family to be a super positive virtue.

[thebaldguy]

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. 

Has anyone else noticed a problem with lots of governors in the last few years? New York, New Jersey, Illnois, and now South Carolina makes the list.

Anybody want to wager on which state will have the next embarassing governor?

[lupinus]

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.

[longeyes]

He had to be destroyed; he defied the Shogun.  And he was a potential political theat for 2012.  There's more to this than just a compulsion to confess.

I doubt any of us here think his wandering is exactly unusual at that level, do we?

[Boomhauer]

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.

It's not a bit funny. Not at all.

I fail to see why this should matter.

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)


Damn...

[lupinus]

Then you don't understand that the more conservative voters do not like infidelity

This 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.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[Boomhauer]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how did his emails end up public?

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[longeyes]

Why must they all ask for forgiveness?

Just one more form of profligacy without consequences as far as I'm concerned.

[LadySmith]

That's not my question. My question is, would you personally refuse to vote for a person over this?

I don't see what this has to do with anything. Over here voting is usually a secret and personal issue.

It looks an awful lot like you're trying to attack the person instead of the argument. Weak, very weak. 

[MicroBalrog]

How is it an attack?

My question was aimed to demonstrate the following principle:


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.

If you personally would make your decision based on a politician's family life, then you should say that, rather than say that some nebulous and undefined "other people" would so so, and that you're merely withdrawing your support based on him becoming "unelectable".

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

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.

[LadySmith]

How is it an attack?

Because you asked him a question:

Are you one of those voters?

And he answered it:

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.

Yet you're getting weird about it:

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?
What the heck?

People can and do vote over here for whatever reasons they choose. Your nit-picking a person concerning their personal [secret ballot] choices over your own concepts of right and wrong does appear to be an attack upon that person.
 

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[LadySmith]

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.

Allow me to reiterate...

Are you one of those voters?

No

So what was your point again? 

[Perd Hapley]

how did his emails end up public?

If they were job-related, or on .gov accounts, they MUST be public and stay public (ie, can't be deleted).  Our governor was fixin' to get in some trouble on that issue, but he didn't run for re-election, so...

[Zardozimo Oprah Bannedalas]

The average voter pays precious little attention to the candidates, their positions, and their votes. Some positions they don't care about. Moral issues are what they deal with all the time - stealing from the job, sleeping with the secretary (or boss), cheating on your taxes, etc. Thus, people tend to have cemented their moral values (to some extent). They have enough moral fiber to avoid doing these things (for the most part), and they expect their leaders to be at least as good as they are. 'Best and brightest' and all that.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[Stand_watie]

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.

How is that any different than here?

[Waitone]

Evidently The State paper filed an FOIA request and was in possession of the emails while Sanford was out and about.  Which brings up a point.  Most of the dust kicked up locally was thrashing about by Sen. Jake Knox (prominent second amendment supporter) who has tangled with Sanford for ever.  Kinda makes me want to know why the State went with Knox's angle and not with the real story.  Was the State prevailed upon by backroom parties to hold off knowing Sanford was in the process of either blowing up his marriage or trying to make a clean start.

Lots of noise locally out of republican poobah's about impeachment; not because he played around but because he may have used state money for the games.  No doubt SLED is working the case.  Anyhow, impeachment is a no go in a number of minds simply because the hot spare governor is a lightweight with lots and lots of warts, the least of which is he is highly unstable.

[BryanP]

Today's Something Positive sums it up nicely:

Edit: Potentially NSFW...

http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp06242009.gif

[ilbob]

We need some stern Romans.  Where are they?

Romans would not have considered having a mistress to be an issue at all.