The Mark Sanford Case
Jun 25th, 2009 | 9 responses
Americans love a juicy scandal spiced with sex, intrigue, lies and ultimate redemption, especially when it involves a rather high-profile person such as Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina.
It would not surprise me if in Sanford’s high school yearbook he was voted the least likely senior to have an affair, let alone writing steamy emails to his paramour at a time his political party was considering him on a short list for vice president of the United States.
In his public persona, Sanford exuded Republican family values and strong religious beliefs with his chief cheerleader, his wife Jenny, working alongside him frantically to bolster his political career.
It is crystal clear today that Sanford’s private side is a train wreck illustrated by his rambling confessional of a press conference he held yesterday on the state’s capitol rotunda. Let me also be clear. I don’t believe an extra-marital affair by a politician is grounds for resignation or impeachment nor do I believe it has anything to do with him being a Republican. Sexual dalliances know no political boundaries.
But (I love that word in these kinds of discussions), the man is a hypocrite for espousing religious and moral standards in voting for President Clinton’s impeachment and removal of Newt Gingrich as House Speaker, both involved in various forms of infidelity.
More important, Sanford ditched his office for five days not telling his staff or security team where he was going and leaving the lieutenant governor holding the bag without the transfer of power to do anything should it arise.
But the granddaddy of questions is who the hell considered him presidential timber?
Once he went missing this past weekend, the balloons were launched and, among others, Howard Fineman of Newsweek and MSNBC said he was known in Republican circles as an “odd duck.”
By yesterday’s end of his press conference, we learned he was a nasty chap to deal with in personal relationships with his legislature. He once brought two pigs onto the floor of the legislature to illustrate his point against pork-barrel projects. One crapped on the carpet, we are told. He is known for being private and vindictive. But, in context of presidential ambitions, we learn from news coverage that the constitutional powers of governor in South Carolina are extremely limited. That could explain more than principle why he was forced to accept the federal stimulus money in a ruling from the state’s supreme court. He challenged the governing power system and lost.
Americans will never accept a presidential candidate considered a flake. Mark Sanford is a flake, and not a very lovable one. His timing couldn’t be worse. He disappeared on the Father’s Day weekend for a more “erotic” trip to visit his mistress even though at his press conference he apologized and called his sons “jewels.” I feel sorry for his sons, the youngest 10. I can imagine that pain if my dad, also the father of four sons, announced one night he had a mistress. It’s one of those world shaking events that never are completely repaired.
As for Republican supporters whining they lost another presidential aspirant, I say thank your lucky fortunes. And, what the heck was Rush Limbaugh lamenting “he coulda been another JFK.” The only similarity I can determine is both had extra-marital affairs. He called the Argentinian “the girl from Ipanema” in a trashy tone. Wow!
Another thing. If his family knew about the affair five months ago, why did he flee unannounced to Argentina at this time? To end the relationship?
And, those emails. They appear to say he is smitten with Maria and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
And, why did the South Carolina newspaper The State sit on those emails since last Christmas?
One of the Argentine trips was paid by the state but what about the other two or three he admitted?
That’s the trouble with press conferences. They raise more questions the more one talks and Sanford rambled for nearly an hour.
I suppose the only winner out of this mess is the great pub bestowed on the values of hiking the Appalachian Trail.
Cross posted on The Remmers Report
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “The Mark Sanford Case”
*shrug*
Did he break the law? nope.
Does an affair mean he can't do a good job? nope. Unless you think that Thomas Jefferson, FDR, JFK, Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton all were awful.
Sure he wasn't a very good husband, but he has been doing a fine job as Governor of my State and I vote for good political leadership, not for good husbands.
First and foremost,
Governor Sanford BROKE the “Chain of Command” in my state (SC) leaving us with NO immediate response capability in the event of an emergency. For this action and this action ALONE he should be impeached! I don't care that his wife didn't know where he was or not. I don't care he had an affair. I do care that his staff either covered for him or did not know how to reach him and he had not released power of authorization to the Lt. Governor as ANY Governor would have if they were going incommunicado.
Spin the rest of the story anyway you want but dereliction of duty makes him a dangerous liability to our state.
Now should he be attacked publicly?
For 15 years Gov. Sanford presented himself as a rabid family values candidate and has now been caught in dereliction of duty due to his INFIDELITY!
Are we not to point out the hypocrisy of this man's actions and beliefs?
Remember this man publicly demanded Clinton resign for his “infidelity” with Lewinsky.
At least Clinton never disappeared and left us with no chain of command.
I believe you should rethink your post LEONIDES because it smells of Republican hand wringing more than a true cognitive thought on the proper response to this issue.
If I recall,drewrichards, he demanded Clinton resign for lying under oath, ie, criminal behavior:
“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
Sanford on the other hand broke no laws. I'll refer you to this NPR article
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…
<snip>
So what happens when a chief executive goes off the grid? Did Sanford, in addition to breaking his marriage vows, violate any requirements of his high office — other than probity — when he was incommunicado?
“I don't think so,” says James Underwood, the leading expert on South Carolina's Constitution and author of a four-volume history of the document.
“He perhaps acted imprudently,” Underwood said, just moments before a teary Sanford, father of four, confessed during a news conference that he'd made himself unreachable in South America to spend time with his paramour.
“But I don't think he violated any technical provisions,” he says.
<snip>
“It doesn't seem to present much of a problem with the constitution as an absolute fact,” says John Simpkins, a Charleston School of Law professor.
<snip>
I think you need to rethink your own “cognitive” thoughts a bit.
“Did he break the law? nope.”
Let's not jump to conclusions
Fair enough.
Lets go with, Is their any indication that he broke any laws? nope.
I suppose with the various sex scandals in the GOP these days their new motto is, “Make love not war.”
That's one way for them to make a comeback.
Leonnidas, “Sanford on the other hand broke no laws.”
So he broke no laws but has no principles. Swell.
Leonidas, by the way, you keep quoting those quotes:
“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]
“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
In the first one he only says that anyone would have to go if they face these ALLEGATIONS, not that they actually broke a law.
In the second one Sanford talks about the effect that lying has, which is undermining trust (and that quote also mentions that Clinton must go because he lied to his WIFE, if nothing else).
In other words Sanford is saying that the mere allegation of impropriety or the loss of confidence in a business or political official is enough reason for that person to resign.
In the quotes you gave, Sanford says nothing about Clinton having to go because he broke a law.
StockBoySF,
I think your reaching on the assumption that the quote pertains to Clinton lying to his wife and not on him committing perjury. I don't think many will buy that except left-leaning partisans.