Democrats & Liberals Archives

Mark Sanford's Worst Infidelity

As newsworthy as being a social conservative who doesn’t act with the courage of his convictions is, the matter of what made and still makes Governor Sanford’s behavior problematic, is not the breach of his marital promises to his wife, but the breach of his responsibilities to his constituents.

The infidelity, as far as I'm concerned, is a mere aggravating factor, not the crime itself. It only makes things stranger, the subterfuge more pathetic in its embarrassing convolution. Nonetheless, his real offense against South Carolinians is the incredibly poor judgment this surrender to immoral temptation lead him to exercise.

The Republicans have been quick to emphasize the shame of the motivating factor in his disappearance: his affair with a South American woman. The public is already accepting of politicians who can't keep it zipped. But they aren't quick to call attention to his disappearance from the State Capitol.

The man is a public servant, elected to his position by people who expected him to carry out his responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to be on call for the constituents who need him, to be reachable, even if he's taking a break. If those powers cannot be exercised by him while he's gone, he needs someone in there who can exercise those powers in his place.

This abandonment of an elected executive post would be unforgiveable regardless of one's party. If this is such a burden for him that he cannot live as he pleases, then he is free to make his leave of absence of these responsiblities permanent.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2009 10:36 AM
Comments
Comment #283573

stephen

“his real offense against South Carolinians is the incredibly poor judgment this surrender to immoral temptation lead him to exercise.”

i agree completely, and IMO he should resign. that being said we now move on to a more pressing question. if we cannot trust someone to keep thier vows of fidelity to thier wives, then how can we trust them to keep thier vows to thier constituants to uphold and defend the constitution? how can we trust these folks to act in our best interests, when they can’t even act in thier own?

Posted by: dbs at June 25, 2009 11:28 AM
Comment #283576

dbs - couldn’t agree more. it is the fact that he broke a vow to the person he proclaimed to love more than any other. if he can break that vow, he would break any vow, or promise. like a campaign promise.

Posted by: bluebuss at June 25, 2009 11:57 AM
Comment #283579

Let’s not forget that he probably paid for his excursions with taxpayer money. He should be brought up on charges of theft against the people of South Carolina. If you’re going to abandon your post, do so on your own dime!

Posted by: Mike Falino at June 25, 2009 12:19 PM
Comment #283580

I didn’t think Clinton should resign so I also wouldn’t call for Sanford to resign. Shouldn’t we all be consistent here?

Sanford seems to be getting some points for coming clean - but of course he figured when the trail to Argentina was found by the reporter he would be busted. And his statement that he has been crying for the last 5 days is a big fat lie.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 25, 2009 12:33 PM
Comment #283582

S.D.
Finally a post that isn’t partisan and I could agree with you. Yes politicians no matter what party they are affiliated with should pay for their indiscreations.

Posted by: KAP at June 25, 2009 12:59 PM
Comment #283583

What’s funny is story should be over in the red column as the real story, and it has nothing to do with Sanford. This is all about SC GOP politics and a Governor’s primary next year as orchestrated by a coalition of political figures and operatives. And though not as “sexy” as Sanford’s love letters, from a political standpoint the real story is much more entertaining.

Sanford served up a big ol softball with his love story, no doubt. But who took the swing? Not The State newspaper; they’ve already admitted that they received the copies of Sanford’s personal account e-mails from an anonymous source, and they’ve also admitted that they received a tip about Sanford’s flight yesterday. That they’re taking the credit for it does gives some welcome cover for a few folks though.

Sanford might have been popular on the national scene, but back home he had some serious enemies within the state GOP. That they threw him under the bus for their own political gain is not surprising.

And I wonder where someone got the idea about hacking a Governor’s personal e-mail account from (remember last summer)? Weren’t the Sanford e-mails all dated in July?

Off subject, RIP Farrah. I had your poster on my door…

Posted by: George at June 25, 2009 2:14 PM
Comment #283584

He should be sacked. Not for infidelity but for leaving his post without arranging a contingency. A clerk at the corner store would be fired for this type of behavior and Sanford is in charge of a state!

Posted by: UmmBob at June 25, 2009 2:26 PM
Comment #283586

dbs-
I could care less about his relationship with his wife, so long as it does not interfere with the business of governing.

Obviously, it did. As my post indicates, his personal infidelity to his wife is not, politically speaking, the worst infidelity he committed. I do not believe that a person’s bedroom conduct rises to a level of being problematic unless they are indiscrete in other ways, like blabbing state secrets, abandoning responsibilities, or breaking the law with their conduct.

I believe these people who cheat on their spouses in public office are no worse than the liars and cheats who do that out of public office. Their conduct in office, their lies about what they’re doing in their official capacity are what concern me.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2009 3:22 PM
Comment #283587

He should Resign like Spitzer did SD makes the point.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2009 3:37 PM
Comment #283597

All:

I understand the various points of view that are being stated, but let’s get real - why is being Governor of a state such an important job that he can’t be AWOL for a few days? It’s not like we didn’t go from the “the United States of America are” to the “United States of America is” a long time ago. If it came down to the nut for a critical situation (say a repeat of the 1800’s Charleston earthquake), the Lt. Governor would step in, if not the Feds. All the faux outrage seems more political than any real issue.

BTW - I don’t condone his actions, but he’s not the first person (or political person) to stumble in his personal life. This seems like a non-story, other than purient interest or political gotcha.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 25, 2009 6:19 PM
Comment #283598

stephen

this is an issue of character. it may not matter to you, but it does to me. i don’t care what letter preceedes his official title, BTW there are plenty of democrats that also have these same character flaws. if they are not trustworthy they need to go. there are plenty of names on BOTH sides of the isle that are IMO douche bags, and have no business having thier hands in our gov’t. go ahead though and cotinue to insist these transgretions are not important.

Posted by: dbs at June 25, 2009 6:29 PM
Comment #283599

mike

you may not agree with me, but i believe these folks need to be held to a higher standard. thier actions can have a serious affect on us all. if they can’t, or won’t live up to these standards, then we need to find people of the appropriate caliber, and they do IMO exist.

Posted by: dbs at June 25, 2009 6:33 PM
Comment #283600

dbs:

To be clear - I generally agree with you. I personally would not vote for Sanford or others like him, primarily because he has not shown good judgment. His actions leave the door open for corruption, in that anyone with knowlegde of his actions has a lever on him. I don’t know about the higher standard - I think everyone should hold themselves to a high standard and others also. In that respect, he failed himself, his family and his voters. I think that is what you meant, rather than politicians having higher standards.

I just find this being used as a distraction - we are now passing an energy bill that is a vehicle for extracting taxes so that those in power can reward their contributors. The voters will take care of Sanford (or not, like Sen. Kennedy). It’s their choice and not very important in the big scheme of things.

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 25, 2009 6:45 PM
Comment #283601

mike

“I just find this being used as a distraction - we are now passing an energy bill that is a vehicle for extracting taxes so that those in power can reward their contributors.”

pretty sad isn’t it. it will be you, i, and every american who pays for that piece of crap. so much for only increasing taxes on the rich (not that i agree with that BTW). anyone who didn’t see this comming just wasn’t paying attention. not to mention the comming tax on co. paid medical benefits, that is unless you belong to a union. hey enjoy that $12 a week tax cut. don’t get me started. ;-)

Posted by: dbs at June 25, 2009 7:42 PM
Comment #283602

Mike in Tampa-
People would spend time trying to find him in a disaster, and his absence, until somebody put the Lt. Governor in charge, would be even more glaring now than it would be under most conditions.

He wants to take a jaunt off to the Southern Hemisphere to be with his mistress? Fine. It’s sleazy as hell, but it sure isn’t illegal, and if he kept in contact, somebody could find him, and bring him back to do his job.

What ticks me off is that this failure to tell anybody where he was for that period of time was clearly politically motivated.

My outrage isn’t faux. I fundamentally don’t like politicians who value their own political neck over their constituents needs. He kept everybody in the dark so there would be nobody to squeal on him. If you doubt my thesis that his secrecy, his lie of omission was politically motivated, I direct your attention to that Appalachian trail cover-story. That wasn’t simply inaccuracy. That was an attempt to misdirect people’s attention from what was really going on. You don’t compose cover-stories like that unless you’re trying to protect yourself.

One of the reasons I so despised the Bush Administration, was their tendency to let bad situation get worse, it seemed, just to avoid losing political face, to avoid admitting that something had gone wrong, and that action was necessary. To me, that’s the height of selfishness, and a betrayal of the responsibilities of those offices.

dbs-
Look, I prefer men and women who keep their promises, who are faithful to their spouses. But we are imperfect people, with imperfect leaders, some of whom are good leaders despite their failings as husbands and wives. While they occupy that office, my main question concerning their personal morality, is whether or not they’re able to keep their personality flaws, their vices, from becoming a problem for the nation. Failing sterling morality, I would like a leader who doesn’t let their personal peccadillos become a national tragedy.

I also prefer leaders who don’t go out of their way trying to turn the opposition’s personal peccadillos into a national tragedy just to get ahead. As reporting on the hypocrisy of Republicans moralizing against Clinton demonstrated, many of these people were no better in their own lives than Clinton was in his.

I’m not going to excuse Clinton’s behavior. He perjured himself. He created this opening for his opponents. But the Republicans clearly were trying to make it clear that what they were doing demonstrated their commitment to decent, Christian, Family values.

But that meant something that I think the imperfect people of the Republican party were ill-prepared to admit at the time to themselves: that they would be judged as they had judged.

How many Republicans have seen themselves destroyed over their private lives since then?

There was a reason most folks left such things alone in the old days, that the old dead girl/live boy rule applied simply put, everybody knew that what goes around, comes around. If you try to advance your party’s interests by implying your party’s inherent moral and religious superiority, you had better have all your ducks in a row.

My attitude? He’s accountable to his wife, his children, and his God at this point about his infidelity. It’s his failure to act responsibly, his decision to put his own selfish interests ahead of his people that leads me to think he’s due for a reckoning.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 25, 2009 7:58 PM
Comment #283603

“”that is unless you belong to a union”” Ford UAW workers thought and did different. There are some good ones dbs and some not as good.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2009 8:08 PM
Comment #283604

Rodney

my point was that those belonging to unions would not be subject to the tax. this in my opinion is purely a political payoff to stop the unions from objecting to the tax. why should they be exempt when no one else is? i realize there are many high quality union workers out there, unfortunately unions also protect the lazy in the name of keeping up membership. this in my opinion is thier major achillies heel.

Posted by: dbs at June 25, 2009 8:22 PM
Comment #283605

rodney

if you like drag racing nostalgia you’ll get a kick out of this. it will keep playing. there is some nostalgia funny car meet footage from fontana ca. if you let it go long enough.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wg8VsyGPaY&feature=PlayList&p=5EDE085EB435B4E8&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=40

Posted by: dbs at June 25, 2009 8:26 PM
Comment #283606

Stephen:

“What ticks me off is that this failure to tell anybody where he was for that period of time was clearly politically motivated.”

Nah, couldn’t have been that he was being caught cheating on his wife, while he was seeing his paramour. Occam’s Razor…..

Come on, really. Everything in life is not political, in spite of what one would believe reading WatchBlog. I’m not so naive as to think that politics did not enter into his thinking, but I still don’t think this was his primary motivation. His lack of zipper control was the problem. I do think that dwelling on it smacks of politics. If it were Joe Sixpack, who would care?

“While they occupy that office, my main question concerning their personal morality, is whether or not they’re able to keep their personality flaws, their vices, from becoming a problem for the nation.”

My point to dbs, I agree with you. He should resign. But, that’s between him and his constituents.

Why does everyhting need to be related back to Bush? I’ll stipulate he sucks. Who cares now?

Posted by: Mike in Tampa at June 25, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #283610

M i T,

His wife already knew, and had kicked him out, and that is why he ran off, crying, to Argentina. His cover story was not personal…it was political. He left the state without notifying the Lt. Governor of his absence. That was against SC law. He left the COUNTRY without notifying the Lt. Governor…I wonder what laws that breaks???

Posted by: Marysdude at June 25, 2009 9:42 PM
Comment #283611

“”lazy in the name of keeping up membership”” (wrong Blog sorry i was on the phone.) Those were the bench warmers dbs or sitting on the bench, I seen guys do that for 20 -30 some years and collect a full Pension! :) My dad use to pull guys off the street and say you want a good Union Job Back in the 1950s and 1960s he was loyal and they were loyal back he had his pass the muster test of course and about 10-15 percent didn’t = bench warmers. He worked my can off! Thank you for the link.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2009 9:44 PM
Comment #283612

In the mid 1980s I wrote a poem about Mark Sanford…not really, but the poem I wrote sure fits him now.

INCOGNITO
Marysdude

Self-righteous and self centered he, but his name’s not duplicity,
as that would mean a motive cold, and chill is farthest from his deeds.
For of this world he is, the core of which is hot…but, hotter still…
his needs.
The doubt remains, and doubtless will in rampant waves of roiling swill
as if today’s the last he’ll get. And he runs wasted toward a rain
a chase that’s lasted long…albeit, a shorter race than he has run… from pain.
For how long must this mask remain?
This mask that covers all the pain…
Forever! He must long exclaim,
For less than that destroys the game…
And more.
His challenge is misunderstood, he’d play it cool if e’er he could.
But, nature placed a heavy hand upon his cringing self-esteem,
and though he wishes that he can…he cannot show his weaknesses… or dreams.
His game masks love, love masks the game. The mask that hides his love’s
the same. He does not turn away to cheat, but playing hard the way he plays, he has to turn to chill his heat…because, to consummate his love… tempts fate.
For how long must this mask remain?
This mask that covers all the pain…
Forever! He must long exclaim,
For less than that destroys the game…
And more.
He’ll do what he thinks he must do to hide the fear behind the blue,but selling out the love he bears is not within his means or ways.
Desire exists to show he cares…but taking falls is only for… unwary days.
The game is not a game at all, as losers win and winners fall.
And, only two can play the game of ‘Liars Tongue and Silken Glove’. Both
players shall have lasting pain…from scars that hide the winless wounds… of love.
For how long must this mask remain?
This mask that covers all the pain…
Forever! He must long exclaim,
For less than that destroys the game…
And more.

Posted by: Marysdude at June 25, 2009 9:50 PM
Comment #283613

I just don’t understand these men. Clinton, Spitzer and now Sanford. And what about that guy in New Jersey who discovered he was gay and implied that his infidelity was a way to overcome discrimination.

I don’t understand even more their wives. Why do these women stand up there with these dogs?

But we have learned that stonewalling works. If Clinton had come clean when first accused, he would have been out, if for no other reason than his extreme distraction in the Oval Office. But he hung on long enough and brassed it out. He knew it was more important to win than do the right think.

My biggest complaint about Clinton is what he did to his supporters. They all went down in the mud with him. Even the head of the National Organization of Women accepted his sexual harassment of a young intern. So many sold their ideals for the mess of politics.

Clinton was the dumbest mistake and probably the most exploitive. Spitzer actually broke laws. Sanford was not as bad, but his case is so weird that he has to go.

Posted by: Christine at June 25, 2009 10:01 PM
Comment #283614

Ha,Ha…At least he wasn’t hanging out in public restrooms with the other Republicans. I just love it when blue nosed hypocrites get their comeupance.

Posted by: bills at June 25, 2009 11:10 PM
Comment #283628

And why didn’t he notify the Lt. Governor? Sanford already knew he was toast, and he knew who toasted him…..

Posted by: George at June 26, 2009 8:45 AM
Comment #283630

“”Clinton was the dumbest mistake and probably the most exploitive”” Does the Mask apply for him and Newt “People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones” That applies to us all at least once or twice ;)

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 26, 2009 9:59 AM
Comment #283642

Oh…did Clinton have an infidelity problem? Hmmm, I forgot. Did Whatsername ever claim sexual harassment? I forgot…remind me please what was the subject before we got off onto Clinton…again…and again…and again…

Posted by: Marysdude at June 26, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #283658

>And why didn’t he notify the Lt. Governor? Sanford already knew he was toast, and he knew who toasted him…..
Posted by: George at June 26, 2009 08:45 AM

George,

Because his heart hurt? His wife had just kicked him out of the house, and he was on his way to cry on the shoulder of his mistress…he probably just forgot for a moment that he was governor???

Posted by: Marysdude at June 26, 2009 4:32 PM
Comment #283659

bills

“Ha,Ha…At least he wasn’t hanging out in public restrooms with the other Republicans”

ya,or running a gay prostitution ring out of his basement LOL!!!!

Posted by: dbs at June 26, 2009 6:16 PM
Comment #283661

Christine,

Sexual harrasment means unwanted advances. Not true with Monica. She made no complaint. Was there a power imbalance? Was it dumb? Was it inappropriate? Sure. But please, let’s not label every consensual blowjob Sexual harassment.

Posted by: gergle at June 26, 2009 8:24 PM
Comment #283669

Gergle

A good thing about the Clinton indiscretion is that it tuned down some of the sexual harassment hyperbole. I don’t disagree with you, but the way that sexual harassment was defined turning the Clarence Thomas hearings would have fit the Monica affair.

The President clearly used his position to help seduce a young woman. The power imbalance was just too great. Many bosses, professors or politicians can get “willing” young women (and men) to do all sorts of things. Do you really want to open that door? And what happens to others in the organization when the intern is doing the boss and getting … access. In a situation like this, wouldn’t the men and women not benefiting from sexual access have legitimate reasons to question promotions and assignments and wouldn’t that be a form of sexual harassment?

BTW – you don’t really need to defend Clinton anymore. Let’s just define the behavior, not the person doing it. If you heard that a powerful boss was getting oral sex from a young intern, would you really bother to ask if she was “asking for it.”

Posted by: Christine at June 26, 2009 10:34 PM
Comment #283672

dbs-
Yeah that would have been bad. Especially if Barney Frank had actually done that. The investigation into him found those claims by the man to be false, however.

You want some additional irony here? The guy who tried to get him kicked out or censured was Larry Craig.

I would think things would be a lot easier for Republicans in this department if they allowed themselves to be seen as mere mortals, Americans equal to everybody else, no better and worse.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2009 12:19 AM
Comment #283675

The hypocrisy truly is stunning here. Sanford the “pious christian” once claimed that Clinton should definitely resign because of his marital infidelity, and that Spitzer should definitely resign because of his marital infidelity, but now following his own little “Mrs. Hiking Trip” suddenly he shouldn’t need to resign, simply because he’s now decided to compare himself to King David — of all biblical figures.

Lordy, lordy! Let’s call it for what it really is: The Christian-Republican Double Standard or DAISNAID: Do as I say, not as I do.

Today he said of his wife:
“This goes into the personal zone. I’d simply say that Jenny has been absolutely magnanimous and gracious as a wonderful Christian woman in this process.”

The way he thinks throwing biblical references and the word “Christian” into his comments in an attempt to suddenly exempt himself from what he has tarred and feathered others for in the past is enough to make one gag.

Posted by: Nicole at June 27, 2009 1:05 AM
Comment #283676

stephen

ok then lets talk about john edwards, or elliot spitzer, or maybe jim mc grevy. i wasn’t the one slinging mud. i actually said he should resign, but if someone else wants to start that BS i’m more than happy to jump in. there’s plenty of democrats to choose from. i was trying to be objective, but i guess thats pointless around here.

Posted by: dbs at June 27, 2009 5:09 AM
Comment #283677

Objective???

Posted by: Marysdude at June 27, 2009 5:29 AM
Comment #283678

>Does the Mask apply for him and Newt “People Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones” That applies to us all at least once or twice ;)
Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 26, 2009 09:59 AM

Rodney B,

Nah! There has to be passion involved for the ‘mask’…only gonads were involved with Newt and Bill. Sanford is emotionally conflicted, and has been willing to give up his sons in order to be with his paramour. Bill nor Newt could sacrifice anything. Mark’s penchant for using the Bible and his Christian background as a springboard for his dalliances is somewhat interesting…King David??? Hmmm…

Posted by: Marysdude at June 27, 2009 6:11 AM
Comment #283679

If an atheist commits a moral SNAFU he should be tarred and feathered…but, if the Christian commits the very same SNAFU, he should be forgiven because he has been ‘born again’. It’s as plain as the nose on your face. I wonder why more people don’t see the correctness of this ethic system…I wonder…Hmmm…

Posted by: Marysdude at June 27, 2009 7:08 AM
Comment #283694
KAP wrote: S.D. Finally a post that isn’t partisan and I could agree with you. Yes politicians no matter what party they are affiliated with should pay for their indiscreations.
Since when was there an article about William Jefferson?

Or John Murtha?

Or any Democrat wrong doing?

Any way, Mark Sanford should resign, because he also isn’t doing his job either.

dbs, I agree …

dbs wrote: If we cannot trust someone to keep thier vows of fidelity to thier wives, then how can we trust them to keep thier vows to thier constituants to uphold and defend the constitution?

Well, it might all “depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is?

It’s amazing how many people don’t see it that way.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: d.a.n at June 27, 2009 3:24 PM
Comment #283695

King David and Abraham got some DESCENDENTS out of the deal!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 27, 2009 3:30 PM
Comment #283696

A good thing about the Clinton indiscretion is that it tuned down some of the sexual harassment hyperbole. I don’t disagree with you, but the way that sexual harassment was defined turning the Clarence Thomas hearings would have fit the Monica affair.

The President clearly used his position to help seduce a young woman. The power imbalance was just too great. Many bosses, professors or politicians can get “willing” young women (and men) to do all sorts of things. Do you really want to open that door? And what happens to others in the organization when the intern is doing the boss and getting … access. In a situation like this, wouldn’t the men and women not benefiting from sexual access have legitimate reasons to question promotions and assignments and wouldn’t that be a form of sexual harassment?

BTW – you don’t really need to defend Clinton anymore. Let’s just define the behavior, not the person doing it. If you heard that a powerful boss was getting oral sex from a young intern, would you really bother to ask if she was “asking for it.”

Posted by: Christine at June 27, 2009 3:35 PM
Comment #283698

I lived in South Carolina for 4 years (on the coast). While there I provided early intervention services to infants and toddlers. This required I go to the home to work with the child and family. I grew up in Charlotte, NC and had done similar work going into many of the low income apartment complexes. I thought that I had seen poverty until going to SC.

I will admit that I would love any reason to get rid of this sad excuse of a human being. IMO this man has no moral fiber at all. He is no christian. He has no understanding or appreciation of what it means to be poor. He sees no need for any type of services to help others. If he had had his way, there would be no state services to assist anyone in SC. Not only is he not liked by democrats, there are a large number of republican law makers who detest this man. During his last run for governor there was a coalition of republicans that put out signs stating they were republicans for ___(the other guy-who’s name escapes me now). They actively worked to get the democrat elected. Unfortunately, because SC is so conservative the voters would not listen.

Sanford is so radical to the right that many republicans don’t consider him a republican.

If anything he has done in the last week or so can get him impeached or make him resign-then good let’s use it. I could care less what it is or if it is a legitimate as long as it gets rid of Sanford. If any other politican had done what he had just done, I would probably just ignore it but he needs to be gone from politics.

Posted by: Carolina at June 27, 2009 4:48 PM
Comment #283700

That religious crutch of forgiveness seems an all too convenient excuse for these folks to stray. It is becoming almost as though they can justify their actions simply because they are practicing Christians. I really can not think of any better example of double standard. Talk about your hypocrites. I really could not care less that this guy cheated on his wife but he is in a role model position and should be expected to live up to a certain standard. Just like baseball players and steroids. If he had any balls he would hold himself to the same standards he has set for others in his situation. Instead he chooses to take the usual nauseating position of asking forgiveness by way of human weakness and ignoring the so called moral standard he has held others to.

Posted by: RickIL at June 27, 2009 5:11 PM
Comment #283703

D.a.n

While I don’t think lying to the public is admirable and may be just cause for removal, I get more than a bit uncomfortable with politics as it is.

This is hardly new. Jefferson had to deal with Sally Hemming rumors in his day. Would he survive office in today’s enviroment?

We do not know the situation between Sanford and his wife. No one does, but them. Couples I’ve known for years have surprised me when something goes awry and the sparks fly. The peeping tom aspect of celebrity and politics isn’t much different than nature of the small town rumor mills. It seems to be human nature, but it’s hard for me to decide who are the bigger hypocrits.

Posted by: gergle at June 27, 2009 8:38 PM
Comment #283712

“Objective???”

yep, read my first post. i singled out no one. i hold both to the same standards, and never brought up any individual democrat until bill made his comment. BTW i believe my first comment was that he should resign, but hey you make the call.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 10:03 AM
Comment #283713

>this is an issue of character. it may not matter to you, but it does to me.

Making a blanket statement like this one is anything BUT objective. The entire realm of morals and character is subjective…there are no proofs…there are no data…there is no objective way to look at either. But, hey, you make the call…

Posted by: Marysdude at June 28, 2009 10:14 AM
Comment #283714

carolina

“If anything he has done in the last week or so can get him impeached or make him resign-then good let’s use it. I could care less what it is or if it is a legitimate as long as it gets rid of Sanford. If any other politican had done what he had just done, I would probably just ignore it but he needs to be gone from politics.”

what a sad statement. this part especially.

“I could care less what it is or if it is a legitimate as long as it gets rid of Sanford.”

it’s all about politics. don’t like his politics destroy him anyway possible, doesn’t matter if it’s legitimate or not. keep in mind the person who replaces him may be just as conservative. BTW i think he should resign, but this statement is incredible.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 10:17 AM
Comment #283715

NO dbs that is where you are wrong. This isn’t about politics for me. It is about being human, being kind, following Jesus’ priniciples of taking care of the less fortunate. This man Sanford is another one of those people that blame the poor for their situation, that pull yourself up by your bootstraps. Of course he can say that given his priveleged childhood and given how he lives now.

I could care less if he is a democrat or republican. I would say the same thing no matter what party. Just as I say get rid of the blue dog democrats who are in the pockets of the insurance companies and are now getting close to killing the public health care option. I say get them out too. But don’t use lies to do it just use the truth. “The truth will set us free”

Posted by: Carolina at June 28, 2009 10:30 AM
Comment #283716

“The entire realm of morals and character is subjective…there are no proofs…there are no data…there is no objective way to look at either. But, hey, you make the call…”

so if you never claim to be of good moral, and character then no one can expect you to be, that way if you do something that the average decent person would look at and say what turd, you can’t be held accountable because you never claimed you weren’t a turd. obfuscation anyone?

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 10:32 AM
Comment #283717

carolina

while i understand what you’re trying to say. it still doesn’t justify the polotics of desruction ie use any means needed to eliminate your political opponent.

“It is about being human, being kind, following Jesus’ priniciples of taking care of the less fortunate.”

do you believe jesus would approve of the destruction of another in his name. even if you feel what you’re doing is just?

“This man Sanford is another one of those people that blame the poor for their situation, that pull yourself up by your bootstraps.”

some are responsible for thier situation some aren’t. unfortunately the only way to help them is to teach them how to help themselves ie “pull themselves up by thier bootstraps”. that’s not to say giving them some assistance in order to facilitate that isn’t ok, but it’s not the entire answer. there will always be those who will not make the effort to help themselves.

“Of course he can say that given his priveleged childhood and given how he lives now.”

we are all born in to different circumstances, and that is reality. you can’t hold that against him, anymore than you can hold it against someone who was raised in poverty. life will never be fair, and all the taxes, and laws you could pass will never make it so. like i said this man IMO should step down, he violated the trust of those who elected him to act in a decent, and responsible manner. i don’t believe his political views should have anything to with it.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 10:56 AM
Comment #283724

dbs

I guess we just disagree on what is destruction of another human being. I don’t think it would be destruction to get Sanford out of office. He did it to himself. Maybe it would give him some humility and a boarder understanding of others. He is very big on people being responsible for their actions-I say so be it.

As for the poor, I have worked a lot with the less fortunate and feel I have a good handle on what life is like for them. It is easy to decide what we think is best for someone else and how they should or shouldn’t be helped. I would say unless you have spent time with people of lower economic status then you really aren’t speaking from experience.

As for Jesus seems to me he was the first to cast the money changers from the church.

I can certainly hold it against him that given all that he has had in life that he has chosen not to help the less fortunate or to even bother to find out what their lives are like. It isn’t about what he has been given in life it is about how he has used his life for the betterment of others. My point was that he has been given much in his life and therefore can’t understand someone else’s life unless he wants to make an effort to learn.

Posted by: Carolina at June 28, 2009 1:26 PM
Comment #283731

Morality, ethics, character…all are SUBjective. Your statement that you had been OBjective was a sham. I merely pointed that out. We can discuss the merits of morality, the limits of ethics and the character of character if you want, but perhaps we should remain on subject? Ah, never mind…we tried this before and failed…I’m dropping it again, it has become a bore.

Posted by: Marysdude at June 28, 2009 3:43 PM
Comment #283732

“Your statement that you had been OBjective was a sham.”

how so? i merely held him to the same standard i would hold anyone, regardless of thier party affiliation. sorry if you find that a bore. saying that character is a subjective observation as opposed to an objective one IMO is just an excuse to excuse those for whom you find it politicaly expedient.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 4:44 PM
Comment #283734

carolina

“I would say unless you have spent time with people of lower economic status then you really aren’t speaking from experience.”

if you are talking about wondering where your next meal was coming from, or how you were going to keep a roof over your head, and just struggling to provide the basic needs to live, i’ve been there myself. there were times when i found it nessesary to work two jobs, and was lucky ot get 4 hours of sleep a day.

my point was not that the poor shouldn’t be helped, but that they should be willing to do what ever it takes to better thier situation. IMO public financial assistance should be limited, and temporary.

you know it’s funny i can remeber a time when those on unemployment had to show up every two weeks, and prove they were actively looking for employment before thier next check was approved. not anymore they sit and collect it until it runs out when they could have been looking for work. that IMO is abuse of the system, and should not be tolerated. you can’t give people public assistance with no strings attached, because there will always be those that abuse it. sometimes you have to be willing to take a job that pay less, sometimes alot less, whether you feel it is befitting a person of your stature or not.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 5:53 PM
Comment #283737

dbs-
Let’s talk about them, then. John Edwards screwed his career for good. Cheating on a cancer patient wife isn’t a good thing, whether You’re Edwards or Newt Gingrich.

Elliot Spitzer is a moron for breaking the law to get extramarital sex. If he had merely had an affair, like Rudolph Giuliani had, he might have remained governor, as Rudy remained mayor.

As for Jim McGreevey? It’s not the openly gay part that was a problem, it was his appointing the guy who was either his lover or object of sexual harrassment to a position he had no business being in.

And if you followed the Reports in the Liberal press, you won’t find most people defending them. They did stupid things.

But here’s the thing: most liberals and Democrats in Congress and elsewhere stay the heck out of other people’s love lifes. So when they’re outed as gay, or revealed to have an affair, it doesn’t have the irony factor that it often has with Republicans, who have been on the record so many times concerning family values, and who often support intrusive measures in legislation along those lines. We’re not typically prudes about such matters, or even outright haters of the culture. So when there’s a sex scandal, it stays mostly a matter of personal character, rather than being further proof that our party isn’t the party of morality.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2009 6:39 PM
Comment #283742

stephen

i’m not defending hypocrats. while saying one thing and doing another makes you a hypocrat, it doesn’t change the fact that being a douche bag whether never claiming not to be, or claiming not to be, makes no difference. this is where you folks don’t get it. a douche bag is a douche bag, even though some douche bags may also be hypocrats. which is the case with sanford.

Posted by: dbs at June 28, 2009 8:53 PM
Comment #283747

dbs,
Could you clarify this for me?

I’m not sure what qualifies one as a douche bag.

I’ve always thought hygiene was a useful and positive thing.

I do vaguely remember some ninth graders using this term as an insult, it just didn’t seem to have much of a meaning, except “Look at me! I’m insulting you!” Somehow I always thought it ironic that it was precisely that kind of behavior that qualified one for “douchyness.”

Posted by: gergle at June 28, 2009 11:40 PM
Comment #283751

Wasn’t this guy, until this fiasco, on the fast track to become the Republican nomination for president? Thought I had read that somewhere. Not quite the abomination of the party some have posted here.

Posted by: womanmarine at June 29, 2009 7:30 AM
Comment #283752

gergle


thats funny, and yes proper hygiene is a good thing. so you understand what i’m trying to say, but object to the term. would you perfer dirtbag, or scumbag, or how about turd. tell ya what, pick one and i’ll use that instead.

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2009 8:45 AM
Comment #283757

OK DBS One last time on this topic then I’m done.

I don’t know your life situation so I will describe to you a little of what I consider poor. I am talking about people who grow up in abject proverty-children that grow into adults with out having the luxury of living in a middle class home with parents that demonstrate daily coping skills, with extended family and friends that exhibit life experiences that teach how to communicate effectively with other people, how to sell yourself and your skills, how to even recognize your strengths. Understanding the simple everyday things such as cancelling doctor appointments, finding a pencil or crayon in the home to complete homework with (certainly no access to computer), and so on. Eating crap because the stove doesn’t work, or because its near the end of the month and the food stamps have run out (because your parents haven’t ever been taught how to budget). You live in a house in South Carolina that should have been condemned but South Carolina doesn’t govern those types of things. There are holes in the floor and walls, there is one light source in the living room-a lamp on the floor with no shade (there isn’t the money to spend on better lighting). There is no air conditioning or heater. If you are lucky someone will give you a space heater or a gov’t agency will donate one to you. You live in public housing that isn’t much better with the constant strain of fighting, crime, gun shots, and police (this is life long stress), the walls look like they quiver because there are so many roaches running up and down. Roaches are in your clothes, your shoes, and your bed (there is no money for exterminators or purchasing bug killer spray). There are no toys or books which are primary avenues for children to stimulate their intellect. Your parents and extended family and friends have been so beaten down by proverty and just living day to day that they are depressed and unable to cope with more than just making it to the next day. I could go on but I think that is enough.

There are many poor people who aren’t this bad off and usually they are the ones that utilize support services for awhile and then are able to help themselves. But without the support services to assist them they would end up in abject proverty.

I get really tired of people who don’t want to help the less fortunate and want to judge them but have no problem with the major corporations sucking us dry, not paying taxes, taking gov’t handouts and yet we say nothing about corporate welfare.

Posted by: Carolina at June 29, 2009 10:15 AM
Comment #283758

womanmarine

yep, i believe so. it’s good he self destructed now. maybe they will wise up and hopefully pick a real candidate by 2012.

Posted by: dbs at June 29, 2009 10:28 AM
Post a comment