House lawmakers Wednesday rejected a measure to impeach Gov. Mark Sanford, making it unlikely the governor will be removed from office.
However, the special House impeachment panel approved an official rebuke -- or censure -- of Sanford for bringing "ridicule, dishonor, disgrace and shame" on the state, its citizens and the governor's office.
Showing posts with label Mark Sanford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Sanford. Show all posts
Thursday, December 10, 2009
It looks like we'll still have Mark Sanford to kick around
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
How 'bout them ethics violations, Mark Sanford?
Think what you will of the whole "hiking the Appalachian Trail" thing. What bothered me about it was not so much what Mark Sanford did -- I'm no moralist -- but how he did it, and how he broke the public trust, and how he was such a hypocrite, a "family values" Republican whose own values were less than admirable.
And how did he do it? Well, by using state property, and by lying, and by sneaking off without telling anyone. When he did all that, it wasn't just personal anymore, it was public, and against the public interest. Governors and elected officials generally simply should not do what he did in the way he did it -- at the public's expense, without his security detail, while he was on the job.
And it goes much deeper than that. Sanford has been charged by the South Carolina Ethics Commission with 37 ethics violations. Some involve his Argentinian mistress, but all show him benefitting personally, in one way or another, from the use of state funds or resources -- or, rather, all show him using state funds and resources for personal gain or otherwise for non-official purposes.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The "hard" life of Mark Sanford
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I must admit, I really do feel sorry for Mark Sanford. He's only human, after all.
Sanford is alone now in the governor's mansion in Columbia, South Carolina, and it's "hard." But, he says, "there are consequences for any mess-up that we have in life, and that's one of them."
He is contrite -- genuinely so, it seems -- and he has, it seems, accepted responsibility for what he has done, not least when it comes to his family: "They've been subjected to a lot this summer. That was a result of my actions, but nonetheless it put them in a spot they really didn't want to be."
This genuineness, I think, differentiates Sanford from other politicians, and other public figures, who have sinned, at least according to their own definition of "sin," or otherwise done something that they have come to regret -- if only because they were caught. Sanford knows that he is "dead politically." (Perhaps. There are usually second, and sometimes also third and fourth, chances for conservatives who sin, repent, are forgiven, and are welcomed back into the fold.) He is not denying what happened, nor trying to spin it to save his career. I admire that. And I sense that he may very well emerge from this whole episode a better man. (He is no Ensign or Vitter or Craig, all of whom remain appallingly self-righteous.)
I have been extremely critical of Sanford throughout -- see, for example, here and here -- and there remains a great deal about him that I don't like at all, mostly his politics and theocratic leanings. He is human, all-too-human, but he has also been a hypocrite, and his actions, his deceptions, not so much the infidelity but how he conducted himself as an elected leader, lying to his own staff and sneaking around without security and travelling to a foreign country, suggest that he violated the people's trust.
Simply put, he should no longer be in office. And yet, there he is, and, given his humility, that may not be so bad: "I am not running for another office. I just want to make the most of the 16 months that are remaining in trying to honor where I started in this thing, which is, how do you do some things that hopefully make people's lives just a little bit better in South Carolina." I still don't, and won't, agree with his policies, which are unlikely to change, but perhaps he really will dedicate his remaining days in office to something other than right-wing Republican politics. Or, if he does, perhaps he'll be less ideological in his approach to governance.
And perhaps, just perhaps, Mark Sanford will find peace, both with himself and with his loved ones, and move on with his life a happier man than he is now.
I must admit, I really do feel sorry for Mark Sanford. He's only human, after all.
Sanford is alone now in the governor's mansion in Columbia, South Carolina, and it's "hard." But, he says, "there are consequences for any mess-up that we have in life, and that's one of them."
He is contrite -- genuinely so, it seems -- and he has, it seems, accepted responsibility for what he has done, not least when it comes to his family: "They've been subjected to a lot this summer. That was a result of my actions, but nonetheless it put them in a spot they really didn't want to be."
This genuineness, I think, differentiates Sanford from other politicians, and other public figures, who have sinned, at least according to their own definition of "sin," or otherwise done something that they have come to regret -- if only because they were caught. Sanford knows that he is "dead politically." (Perhaps. There are usually second, and sometimes also third and fourth, chances for conservatives who sin, repent, are forgiven, and are welcomed back into the fold.) He is not denying what happened, nor trying to spin it to save his career. I admire that. And I sense that he may very well emerge from this whole episode a better man. (He is no Ensign or Vitter or Craig, all of whom remain appallingly self-righteous.)
I have been extremely critical of Sanford throughout -- see, for example, here and here -- and there remains a great deal about him that I don't like at all, mostly his politics and theocratic leanings. He is human, all-too-human, but he has also been a hypocrite, and his actions, his deceptions, not so much the infidelity but how he conducted himself as an elected leader, lying to his own staff and sneaking around without security and travelling to a foreign country, suggest that he violated the people's trust.
Simply put, he should no longer be in office. And yet, there he is, and, given his humility, that may not be so bad: "I am not running for another office. I just want to make the most of the 16 months that are remaining in trying to honor where I started in this thing, which is, how do you do some things that hopefully make people's lives just a little bit better in South Carolina." I still don't, and won't, agree with his policies, which are unlikely to change, but perhaps he really will dedicate his remaining days in office to something other than right-wing Republican politics. Or, if he does, perhaps he'll be less ideological in his approach to governance.
And perhaps, just perhaps, Mark Sanford will find peace, both with himself and with his loved ones, and move on with his life a happier man than he is now.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Deny, deny, deny
By Michael J.W. Stickings
You can defend yourself all you want, Mark Sanford, but if it's a "feeding frenzy" for your opponents, you have only yourself to blame.
You can defend yourself all you want, Mark Sanford, but if it's a "feeding frenzy" for your opponents, you have only yourself to blame.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Woe is Sanford
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Sanford, in an op-ed at The State, says he's sorry and pledges "to use this experience both to trust God in his larger work of changing me and, from my end, to work to becoming a better and more effective leader." He's been "humbled and broken as never before in my life" and he believes that "this will make [him] a better father, husband, friend and advocate."
Is it enough? I'll leave that to the people of South Carolina, as well as to his own conscience.
For my part, I continue to be struck by the enormity both of his pathetic self-pity and of his egotism. He hides behind his God here, and that, to me, is not just bad taste but a convenient out. He has sinned, sure, but God, benevolent God, will forgive him -- and therefore so too must the rest of us.
I'm sorry, but that's too easy.
I do not wish pain and suffering upon Sanford, and I do hope that he can get his life back together, that he can find love and peace again with his wife and family, but it is detestable, I think, at this point, to try to use what he did -- or, more accurately, to try to use his having gotten caught (for would he so apologetic, so convinced that he can be a better man, had none of this ever come out?) -- as support for his ongoing political career? He did wrong, but he, and the people of South Carolina, will be so much the better for it? Please. This whole episode, this whole sordid mess, may have beaten him down, but his self-righteousness is apparently still fully intact.
And what's worse, to me, is that he's bringing his God not just into his personal quest for redemption, assuming that he's actually serious about that, but into his political life. I realize that personal experience informs politics -- for good and bad, and unavoidably so -- but I'm not sure we want our politicians to bring their personal quests for salvation to the forefront of political leadership. Actually, I am sure. We don't, or shouldn't, want that at all, and Mark Sanford should work to fix himself, and his personal life, in private. Pledging to be a better leader is, once more, just a convenient out, and he shouldn't be given a free pass just because, with his political career on the line, he's now claiming that he's a changed, and ever-changing, man.
Sanford, in an op-ed at The State, says he's sorry and pledges "to use this experience both to trust God in his larger work of changing me and, from my end, to work to becoming a better and more effective leader." He's been "humbled and broken as never before in my life" and he believes that "this will make [him] a better father, husband, friend and advocate."
Is it enough? I'll leave that to the people of South Carolina, as well as to his own conscience.
For my part, I continue to be struck by the enormity both of his pathetic self-pity and of his egotism. He hides behind his God here, and that, to me, is not just bad taste but a convenient out. He has sinned, sure, but God, benevolent God, will forgive him -- and therefore so too must the rest of us.
I'm sorry, but that's too easy.
I do not wish pain and suffering upon Sanford, and I do hope that he can get his life back together, that he can find love and peace again with his wife and family, but it is detestable, I think, at this point, to try to use what he did -- or, more accurately, to try to use his having gotten caught (for would he so apologetic, so convinced that he can be a better man, had none of this ever come out?) -- as support for his ongoing political career? He did wrong, but he, and the people of South Carolina, will be so much the better for it? Please. This whole episode, this whole sordid mess, may have beaten him down, but his self-righteousness is apparently still fully intact.
And what's worse, to me, is that he's bringing his God not just into his personal quest for redemption, assuming that he's actually serious about that, but into his political life. I realize that personal experience informs politics -- for good and bad, and unavoidably so -- but I'm not sure we want our politicians to bring their personal quests for salvation to the forefront of political leadership. Actually, I am sure. We don't, or shouldn't, want that at all, and Mark Sanford should work to fix himself, and his personal life, in private. Pledging to be a better leader is, once more, just a convenient out, and he shouldn't be given a free pass just because, with his political career on the line, he's now claiming that he's a changed, and ever-changing, man.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
So where was Mark Sanford? Who knew?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I haven't written on the Mark Sanford saga in a while -- mainly because there hasn't been much new/newsworthy to report (he's still in office and he's apparently trying to reconcile with his wife), but also because, I admit, I grew tired of it -- but The State has some new details on Sanford's trip to Argentina to see his mistress (or, to be more precise, on the story he spun to cover up that trip) that make his irresponsible actions all the more disturbing:
Let me be clear about this, once again: What Sanford did in private is his business -- and his family's. It shows poor judgement, to be sure, but I don't think we ought to judge the private lives of politicians (unless they truly cross the line into illegal or unethical behaviour).
But... he's a state governor, the holder of the highest office in South Carolina. It is simply unacceptable that he just up and disappeared, that he deceived, lied to, his own staff, to his closest advisors. It is unacceptable that they couldn't reach him. Privacy -- yes. But not at the expense of one's duty to the public. If he values his own private life so much, and if it gets in the way of his duty to the public (which it apparently did), he should resign.
But... no. He's still there, refusing to step down, his ego still getting the better of him (and of South Carolinians), and he'll no doubt follow in a long line of moral transgressors and hypocrites by re-emerging a changed man, all for the better, no harm done.
But harm was done -- to his wife, to his family, to his staff, to all those who care about him both personally and politically, as well as to his state and its citizens. He put himself first, not just before all else but at the expense of all else, and, in going AWOL, he crossed the line. There's no way he should still be in office.
I haven't written on the Mark Sanford saga in a while -- mainly because there hasn't been much new/newsworthy to report (he's still in office and he's apparently trying to reconcile with his wife), but also because, I admit, I grew tired of it -- but The State has some new details on Sanford's trip to Argentina to see his mistress (or, to be more precise, on the story he spun to cover up that trip) that make his irresponsible actions all the more disturbing:
Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief of staff, Scott English, called the governor’s cell phones 15 times during the governor’s secret trip to Argentina to visit his lover last month. But the governor never picked up.
Meanwhile Sanford’s communications director, Joel Sawyer, worked to minimize the fact the governor had been out of touch with his staff for about four days.
Records released Monday show Sawyer juggled e-mails and media calls from around the nation, giving a consistent message that was later proven to be untrue.
Those records also show Sanford declined a dinner invitation from a company looking to expand its business in South Carolina because Sanford planned to be in Argentina that day.
Sanford has since said he intentionally misled Sawyer and other staff members to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail when he was really with his Argentine lover.
Let me be clear about this, once again: What Sanford did in private is his business -- and his family's. It shows poor judgement, to be sure, but I don't think we ought to judge the private lives of politicians (unless they truly cross the line into illegal or unethical behaviour).
But... he's a state governor, the holder of the highest office in South Carolina. It is simply unacceptable that he just up and disappeared, that he deceived, lied to, his own staff, to his closest advisors. It is unacceptable that they couldn't reach him. Privacy -- yes. But not at the expense of one's duty to the public. If he values his own private life so much, and if it gets in the way of his duty to the public (which it apparently did), he should resign.
But... no. He's still there, refusing to step down, his ego still getting the better of him (and of South Carolinians), and he'll no doubt follow in a long line of moral transgressors and hypocrites by re-emerging a changed man, all for the better, no harm done.
But harm was done -- to his wife, to his family, to his staff, to all those who care about him both personally and politically, as well as to his state and its citizens. He put himself first, not just before all else but at the expense of all else, and, in going AWOL, he crossed the line. There's no way he should still be in office.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Mark Sanford, mental case?
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I've written a lot already on the whole Mark Sanford saga -- click here, if you want -- and I don't intend to write much more on it this morning. Let me just say this:
Is it really necessary to delve into the man's psyche, and specifically to do so without actually examining him, and, what's more, so publicly?
He does seem to be going through some sort of adolescent mid-life crisis. And he does seem to be something of a narcissist. But what's with one of his home-state publications, The State, reporting that "mental health experts," while "reluctant to pin a diagnosis on the governor," and just observing him from afar, think his behavior "suggest[s] a chemical imbalance, narcissism and impulsive behavior"?
Really? They can tell that he has a chemical imbalance, that he's clinically narcissistic and clinically impulsive, that, that is, he's a mental case?
Please.
The man thinks he found his "soul mate." He thinks he's at the center of a tragic love story. The man is behaving, that is, like a smitten teenager who's read a few too many romantic novels.
To the extent that he's a narcissist, he may just be as narcissistic as your average teenager.
To the extent that he's impulsive, he may just be as impulsive as anyone else who has ever gone through such a "tragic" love story. (Many of us have been there, haven't we?)
To the extent that he appears to have some sort of chemical imbalance, he may just be as unbalanced as anyone else who's ever been so deeply (if delusionally) in love.
The only weirdness here, I suppose, stems from the fact that he's 49, not 19 -- well, and from the fact that he's the governor of a U.S. state, and that his mistress is Argentinian, and that he snuck around to meet up with her, and that his wife knew about it for some time, and... well, you know about it already.
So, enough with the psychological diagnoses, enough with all the talk about his "mental state." If he really does have problems, let him deal with them, and get treatment for them, in private.
As it is, though, it seems to me that Mark Sanford is quite normal.
I've written a lot already on the whole Mark Sanford saga -- click here, if you want -- and I don't intend to write much more on it this morning. Let me just say this:
Is it really necessary to delve into the man's psyche, and specifically to do so without actually examining him, and, what's more, so publicly?
He does seem to be going through some sort of adolescent mid-life crisis. And he does seem to be something of a narcissist. But what's with one of his home-state publications, The State, reporting that "mental health experts," while "reluctant to pin a diagnosis on the governor," and just observing him from afar, think his behavior "suggest[s] a chemical imbalance, narcissism and impulsive behavior"?
Really? They can tell that he has a chemical imbalance, that he's clinically narcissistic and clinically impulsive, that, that is, he's a mental case?
Please.
The man thinks he found his "soul mate." He thinks he's at the center of a tragic love story. The man is behaving, that is, like a smitten teenager who's read a few too many romantic novels.
To the extent that he's a narcissist, he may just be as narcissistic as your average teenager.
To the extent that he's impulsive, he may just be as impulsive as anyone else who has ever gone through such a "tragic" love story. (Many of us have been there, haven't we?)
To the extent that he appears to have some sort of chemical imbalance, he may just be as unbalanced as anyone else who's ever been so deeply (if delusionally) in love.
The only weirdness here, I suppose, stems from the fact that he's 49, not 19 -- well, and from the fact that he's the governor of a U.S. state, and that his mistress is Argentinian, and that he snuck around to meet up with her, and that his wife knew about it for some time, and... well, you know about it already.
So, enough with the psychological diagnoses, enough with all the talk about his "mental state." If he really does have problems, let him deal with them, and get treatment for them, in private.
As it is, though, it seems to me that Mark Sanford is quite normal.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
The tragedy and narcissism of Mark Sanford
By Michael J.W. Stickings
Simply, the tide is rising against him.
His Argentine mistress was his "soul mate," he claims, but he wants to reconcile with his wife? Okay, but what does his wife think of that? "This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story. A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day." Sure, I get that. And, in a way, I feel for him -- and I feel sorry for him. It must be difficult to have all this out in the open.
He admits that there were others during his 20 years of marriage: "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line." This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry, George, and Elaine talk about when sex happens. Jerry says it's when the nipple makes its first appearance. That's obviously meant to be humorous, but it does seem that Sanford is pulling out a variation of the Newt defence. If "the ultimate line" is -- what? -- vaginal intercourse, is everything else pretty much fair game?
Well, that's his business, I suppose -- his private life should remain private, and he should only be judged by what he did in his capacity as an elected official (like being a moralistic hypocrite), but it does seem that his resignation is imminent. With South Carolina Republicans turning against him, his position may be untenable.
"For the past two days, I have been speaking with Republican leaders across South Carolina," said state GOP chair Karen Floyd. "There is clearly a growing view that the time may have come for Governor Sanford to remove himself and his family from the limelight, so that he can devote his efforts full-time to repairing the damage in his personal life."
Simply, the tide is rising against him.
His Argentine mistress was his "soul mate," he claims, but he wants to reconcile with his wife? Okay, but what does his wife think of that? "This was a whole lot more than a simple affair, this was a love story. A forbidden one, a tragic one, but a love story at the end of the day." Sure, I get that. And, in a way, I feel for him -- and I feel sorry for him. It must be difficult to have all this out in the open.
He admits that there were others during his 20 years of marriage: "There were a handful of instances wherein I crossed the lines I shouldn't have crossed as a married man, but never crossed the ultimate line." This reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which Jerry, George, and Elaine talk about when sex happens. Jerry says it's when the nipple makes its first appearance. That's obviously meant to be humorous, but it does seem that Sanford is pulling out a variation of the Newt defence. If "the ultimate line" is -- what? -- vaginal intercourse, is everything else pretty much fair game?
Well, that's his business, I suppose -- his private life should remain private, and he should only be judged by what he did in his capacity as an elected official (like being a moralistic hypocrite), but it does seem that his resignation is imminent. With South Carolina Republicans turning against him, his position may be untenable.
"For the past two days, I have been speaking with Republican leaders across South Carolina," said state GOP chair Karen Floyd. "There is clearly a growing view that the time may have come for Governor Sanford to remove himself and his family from the limelight, so that he can devote his efforts full-time to repairing the damage in his personal life."
That sounds like the right thing to do. There is much damage to be repaired, if it is repairable at all. Sanford has no political future left, but perhaps, just perhaps, he can find happiness again in his personal life.
**********
My feeling somewhat sorry for him aside, Sanford is hardly the Shakespearean tragic figure he is making himself out to be. If anything, he is proving himself to be a shameless narcissist caught up in the delusions of romantic love. As Michelle Cottle put it so well at The Plank yesterday:
Pity this fool as you see fit.It's not simply that he couldn't choose between Jenny and Maria. We're talking about a guy who repeatedly asked his wife's permission to run off for a quick visit with her competition. Sanford not only wanted to have his cake and eat it too--he wanted his legally wed cake to tell him that it's ok to keep dipping his fork into his extramarital cake--excuse me, extramarital Soul Cake. In theory, of course, he was struggling to gently disentangle everyone from the ridiculous web he had woven. But he didn't disentangle. He just kept tangling and tangling and tangling. Until he tangled so completely that the entire world found out about his situation--which, in turn, only prompted him to spin more stories on national TV about himself as the tragic slave to love. And then a few days later--even more stories, with more talk about his commitment to his family even as his poor heart is shattered. Oh, boo hoo hoo.
*****
Now, of course, Sanford wants to be cheered, or at least pitied, for buckling down and committing to "falling back in love with" his wife -- despite having announced to the entire globe that Maria is his true love. What nobility. What self-sacrifice. What moral fortitude. What utter nonsense. What now happens within the Sanford family should be an entirely private matter (as, indeed, this entire Love Story should have remained, if only the governor could have handled it less absurdly -- and without taxpayer funding.) But however it ends, let's not kid ourselves: Mark Sanford isn't remotely special. He isn't even particularly tragic, at least not in the romantic sense. The man isn't a fool for love so much as he's just a fool. And his political future now largely depends on how gladly the voters of South Carolina will suffer having a fool as their leader.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Forgive and forget
By Mustang Bobby
When the news broke that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and then Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) had confessed to having extramarital affairs (and in the case of Mr. Vitter, engaged the services of a prostitute), the knee-jerk reaction among the conservatives was to respond with "Spitzer-Edwards-Clinton did it too!" even if no one had brought up the former Governor of New York, the former Senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate, or the former president. It was a preemptive attempt to inoculate them from accusations of hypocrisy by distraction. It's a juvenile response and it really doesn't work because a) it's irrelevant, and b) why would conservatives, who make a living bashing liberals or anyone who doesn't toe their line of granular morality, want to compare themselves to people they view as moral degenerates?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of. For one thing, the Republicans have branded themselves as the party of morality and personal responsibility and held up the Democrats as advocates of "divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and pornography." And yet the Republicans have supplied us with ample examples of their own "moral degeneracy," as Joe Conason delineates in Salon.com:
That brings up another element in the equation. The conservatives are remarkably forgiving of their own transgressors. Mr. Vitter, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Sanford still have their jobs, and the idea of quitting -- at least voluntarily -- doesn't get much traction with them or with their party. (The one exception was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who, when caught e-mailing sexually explicit messages to teenage boys, was out of a job and out of town before sundown. The difference, of course, was that he is gay. Gov. Mark Sanford's e-mails to his mistress are the stuff of bad romance novels, but he still has a job. There are even double standards in incriminating evidence.) Democrats are not so lenient. Mr. Spitzer resigned his office (as did Gov. Jim McGreevy (D-NJ) when he came out of the closet and admitted to an affair with his driver) and Mr. Edwards will never hold political office again.
Why is that? You could probably chalk the Republicans' ability to forgive and forget up to their Christian charity, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that they're just big old hypocrites who hold everyone else up to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves up to. (Either that or if they ran out everyone in the party who was divorced or had a fling, there would be even fewer of them than there are now.) And you can also assume that they will find someone else to blame for their own failings; back when Newt Gingrich was going through his divorce, his allies blamed it on Bill Clinton's culture of permissiveness, and now Rush Limbaugh is blaming Mr. Sanford's fling on Barack Obama and the struggle he had with the South Carolina state legislature accepting federal stimulus funds (bringing a whole other meaning to the term "stimulus package," I guess). So much for the "personal responsibility" party.
Moral failings and human frailties are oblivious to party allegiance. We all have them. So trying to exploit someone else's while holding yourself up as the paragon of virtue is destined for epic failure. That's harder to forgive and forget.
(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
When the news broke that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) and then Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) had confessed to having extramarital affairs (and in the case of Mr. Vitter, engaged the services of a prostitute), the knee-jerk reaction among the conservatives was to respond with "Spitzer-Edwards-Clinton did it too!" even if no one had brought up the former Governor of New York, the former Senator from North Carolina and presidential candidate, or the former president. It was a preemptive attempt to inoculate them from accusations of hypocrisy by distraction. It's a juvenile response and it really doesn't work because a) it's irrelevant, and b) why would conservatives, who make a living bashing liberals or anyone who doesn't toe their line of granular morality, want to compare themselves to people they view as moral degenerates?
There are a couple of reasons I can think of. For one thing, the Republicans have branded themselves as the party of morality and personal responsibility and held up the Democrats as advocates of "divorce, illegitimacy, adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and pornography." And yet the Republicans have supplied us with ample examples of their own "moral degeneracy," as Joe Conason delineates in Salon.com:
The supposed depravity of the Democratic Party has long been a favorite theme of conservatives, dating back to the rise of Newt Gingrich, who distributed an official campaign lexicon to Republican congressional candidates that featured such defining insults as "decadent," "permissive," "sick," "selfish" and, of course, "liberal." Back then the Georgia Republican was on his second marriage and carrying on a clandestine affair with the young Capitol Hill clerk who would eventually become his third wife (after he converted to Catholicism and had his union with wife No. 2 annulled). In 2007, he admitted on James Dobson's radio show that he was cheating on wife No. 2 with future wife No. 3 while he was publicly chastising President Clinton for consorting with Monica Lewinsky. Gingrich has remained a consistent favorite among his pious comrades.
Today, in fact, Gingrich is fully rehabilitated as a party spokesman, still nurturing presidential ambitions. So why should any other Republican fear the wrath of the righteous? The disappointment in Sanford and Ensign among the devout must be particularly keen, since they have so rigorously aligned themselves with the most fervent elements of the religious right.
For more than a decade, Ensign lent his name to Promise Keepers, the all-male Christian prayer movement run by a former Colorado football coach, whose mass rallies highlighted men's integrity, purity and uncompromising domination of family life. Both he and Sanford have worked closely with the Family, a secretive Christian fellowship on Capitol Hill that maintains a brick townhouse where Ensign and other members of Congress have resided. Over the years both men have won the highest marks from the Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition and the American Family Association -- and until the other day, Sanford was featured as an invited speaker at the Family Research Council's upcoming Values Voters Summit 2009. (As Pam Spaulding and Think Progress noted, however, the FRC removed his photo from the summit Web site immediately following his confessional press conference.)
Certainly there is considerable pressure for Sanford to resign in South Carolina, and perhaps he will surrender. But he might well ask whether that is fair when Ensign is hanging on and Vitter appears to be in the clear. For a while, Family Research Council president Tony Perkins had threatened to challenge Vitter in the Republican primary next year, but last March he announced that he won't run after all -- and instead endorsed Vitter for reelection. Amazingly, Perkins then hosted a radio broadcast with Vitter as his guest, where they tut-tutted over the alleged ethical problems of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Nobody had the poor taste to mention the infamous black books in which Vitter's friendly madams in Washington and New Orleans had inscribed his name and phone number.
That brings up another element in the equation. The conservatives are remarkably forgiving of their own transgressors. Mr. Vitter, Mr. Ensign, and Mr. Sanford still have their jobs, and the idea of quitting -- at least voluntarily -- doesn't get much traction with them or with their party. (The one exception was Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), who, when caught e-mailing sexually explicit messages to teenage boys, was out of a job and out of town before sundown. The difference, of course, was that he is gay. Gov. Mark Sanford's e-mails to his mistress are the stuff of bad romance novels, but he still has a job. There are even double standards in incriminating evidence.) Democrats are not so lenient. Mr. Spitzer resigned his office (as did Gov. Jim McGreevy (D-NJ) when he came out of the closet and admitted to an affair with his driver) and Mr. Edwards will never hold political office again.
Why is that? You could probably chalk the Republicans' ability to forgive and forget up to their Christian charity, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that they're just big old hypocrites who hold everyone else up to a higher standard than they are willing to hold themselves up to. (Either that or if they ran out everyone in the party who was divorced or had a fling, there would be even fewer of them than there are now.) And you can also assume that they will find someone else to blame for their own failings; back when Newt Gingrich was going through his divorce, his allies blamed it on Bill Clinton's culture of permissiveness, and now Rush Limbaugh is blaming Mr. Sanford's fling on Barack Obama and the struggle he had with the South Carolina state legislature accepting federal stimulus funds (bringing a whole other meaning to the term "stimulus package," I guess). So much for the "personal responsibility" party.
Moral failings and human frailties are oblivious to party allegiance. We all have them. So trying to exploit someone else's while holding yourself up as the paragon of virtue is destined for epic failure. That's harder to forgive and forget.
(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)
Friday, June 26, 2009
Mark Sanford, you're no King David
By Michael J.W. Stickings
I haven't written anything on the Mark Sanford saga since Thursday morning, when I commented on his humanity and hypocrisy -- what he did was all-too-human, however bizarre the contortions of his trip to Argentina and the lies of those close to him, but also, given his conservative Republican moralism, deeply hypocritical as well.
Since then, more has come out. For example:
-- His wife, Jenny, now says she's known about the affair since January.
-- Fox News, hardly a media outlet to pass up sensationalism, whatever its partisan leanings, reported that the mistress, a 43-year old resident of Buenos Aires, is professional, passionate, and beautiful -- and a brunette.
-- Politico reported that Sanford had initially booked a 10-day trip.
-- TMZ.com found the bar Sanford and his mistress went to, the owner of which noted that the two were "all over each other," "kissing, holding hands and drinking wine."
-- The woman's name, apparently, is Maria Belen Chapur. And, apparently, she's hot.
-- And then there was Dear Leader Rush, once again proving himself to be a top blowhard among blowhards, and spewing his usual partisan venom, blamed Obama for Sanford's demise.
In that last post of mine, I said I felt sorry for Sanford -- and certainly more so for his family, especially his wife. Do I still? Yes, I suppose I do. I may not agree with him on, well, anything, but I am not without compassion. I recognize that what he has done is not just all-too-human but all-too-common, and maybe he truly is remorseful. I hope so.
But it's hard to feel sorry for him when he's comparing himself to King David.
Yes, that's right. King David:
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
May I say it again?
Mark Sanford... you're no King David. (Not that I knew King David, but I think I'm right.)
Now, I realize that the Bible is full of fictional(ized) stories meant to be edifying. And I realize, though I am neither Jew nor Christian (nor anything else of the kind), that those stories are not without value to all of us. They can say a lot to us, if we keep our minds open, and we can learn from them, Jew or Christian or not.
But come on... King David? Really? Is that the best comparison to be making at this point?
Sanford is saying many of the right things, and following the standard script -- confession, apology, determination to heal, dismissal of the story, hope that it fades from the media's attention -- but this wasn't one of them.
Now, should he resign? Well, that's not for me to say... ultimately, Sanford is answerable to the people of South Carolina, not to the rest of us onlookers and commentators. And South Carolinians are divided. A poll that was conducted shortly after his Wednesday press conference has it 50-42 in favour of resignation.
But Mark Sanford, to Mark Sanford, is King David, and he's not about to resign. (One of his advisors has said that resignation is not an option. Of course, that's what they always say.)
We shall see.
I haven't written anything on the Mark Sanford saga since Thursday morning, when I commented on his humanity and hypocrisy -- what he did was all-too-human, however bizarre the contortions of his trip to Argentina and the lies of those close to him, but also, given his conservative Republican moralism, deeply hypocritical as well.
Since then, more has come out. For example:
-- His wife, Jenny, now says she's known about the affair since January.
-- Fox News, hardly a media outlet to pass up sensationalism, whatever its partisan leanings, reported that the mistress, a 43-year old resident of Buenos Aires, is professional, passionate, and beautiful -- and a brunette.
-- Politico reported that Sanford had initially booked a 10-day trip.
-- TMZ.com found the bar Sanford and his mistress went to, the owner of which noted that the two were "all over each other," "kissing, holding hands and drinking wine."
-- The woman's name, apparently, is Maria Belen Chapur. And, apparently, she's hot.
-- And then there was Dear Leader Rush, once again proving himself to be a top blowhard among blowhards, and spewing his usual partisan venom, blamed Obama for Sanford's demise.
In that last post of mine, I said I felt sorry for Sanford -- and certainly more so for his family, especially his wife. Do I still? Yes, I suppose I do. I may not agree with him on, well, anything, but I am not without compassion. I recognize that what he has done is not just all-too-human but all-too-common, and maybe he truly is remorseful. I hope so.
But it's hard to feel sorry for him when he's comparing himself to King David.
Yes, that's right. King David:
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
May I say it again?
Mark Sanford... you're no King David. (Not that I knew King David, but I think I'm right.)
Now, I realize that the Bible is full of fictional(ized) stories meant to be edifying. And I realize, though I am neither Jew nor Christian (nor anything else of the kind), that those stories are not without value to all of us. They can say a lot to us, if we keep our minds open, and we can learn from them, Jew or Christian or not.
But come on... King David? Really? Is that the best comparison to be making at this point?
Sanford is saying many of the right things, and following the standard script -- confession, apology, determination to heal, dismissal of the story, hope that it fades from the media's attention -- but this wasn't one of them.
Now, should he resign? Well, that's not for me to say... ultimately, Sanford is answerable to the people of South Carolina, not to the rest of us onlookers and commentators. And South Carolinians are divided. A poll that was conducted shortly after his Wednesday press conference has it 50-42 in favour of resignation.
But Mark Sanford, to Mark Sanford, is King David, and he's not about to resign. (One of his advisors has said that resignation is not an option. Of course, that's what they always say.)
We shall see.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Clownfish of the Week: Gov. Mark Sanford
By (O)CT(O)PUS
Photoshop credit: AZrainman
He disappeared from plain sight. When asked of his whereabouts, his cohorts refused to answer. Security, they said. His wife knew nothing. Reporters spotted his car at the airport. Rumors swirled. Something about taking a hike in the Appalachians. Finally, an admission, a clandestine trip … Yeee Haah … to Argentina!
For seven days and seven nights days, Governor Mark Sanford of South Caroline was missing. This is the same Governor Mark Sanford who refused to accept federal economic stimulus funds ... for the State of South Carolina that has among the worst unemployment stats in the nation … and failing grades in education.
This is the same Governor Sanford whose own legislature voted to accept the stimulus money and override his veto, whose own State Supreme Court upheld the state legislature that demanded the governor take the stimulus money; the same Governor Sanford from the same great state of South Carolina, rumors say, who wants to run for president of these even greater United States of Aye!
After seven days and seven nights, we discover Governor Mark Sanford had secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he had been having … an affair! "I've let down a lot of people," said the governor at a news conference where he choked up as he ruminated on God's law, moral absolutes, and following one's heart. His family did not attend.
At The Swash Zone today, the temperature is 87 degrees and sunny. Visibility is 10 miles, and the surf is calm. All resident clownfish have left our shores … bound for South Carolina.
(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)
Photoshop credit: AZrainman
He disappeared from plain sight. When asked of his whereabouts, his cohorts refused to answer. Security, they said. His wife knew nothing. Reporters spotted his car at the airport. Rumors swirled. Something about taking a hike in the Appalachians. Finally, an admission, a clandestine trip … Yeee Haah … to Argentina!
Can’t you hear me, baby, rappin’ on your door?Can’t you hear me, baby, rappin’ on your door?Now you hear me tappin’, tappin’ across your floor.
For seven days and seven nights days, Governor Mark Sanford of South Caroline was missing. This is the same Governor Mark Sanford who refused to accept federal economic stimulus funds ... for the State of South Carolina that has among the worst unemployment stats in the nation … and failing grades in education.
Feel like a broke-down engine, ain’t got no drive at all,Feel like a broke-down engine, ain’t got no drive at all.
This is the same Governor Sanford whose own legislature voted to accept the stimulus money and override his veto, whose own State Supreme Court upheld the state legislature that demanded the governor take the stimulus money; the same Governor Sanford from the same great state of South Carolina, rumors say, who wants to run for president of these even greater United States of Aye!
Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord, Lordy, Lord.
After seven days and seven nights, we discover Governor Mark Sanford had secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he had been having … an affair! "I've let down a lot of people," said the governor at a news conference where he choked up as he ruminated on God's law, moral absolutes, and following one's heart. His family did not attend.
Feel like a broke-down engine,ain’t got no whistle or bell,If you’re a real hot momma,drive away Daddy’s weeping spell.
At The Swash Zone today, the temperature is 87 degrees and sunny. Visibility is 10 miles, and the surf is calm. All resident clownfish have left our shores … bound for South Carolina.
(Cross-posted at The Swash Zone.)
The humanity and hypocrisy of Mark Sanford
By Michael J.W. Stickings
"Mark Sanford is no longer missing, but he's obviously lost." So writes Slate's John Dickerson to open an article on the Mark Sanford saga that, in light of what we learned yesterday, adds some much-needed humanity, largely out of respect to Sanford's own humanity, to what has been, in some circles, a case of gleeful Schadenfreude.
It's an article that really got me thinking last night. Hopefully this makes sense.
I and many other bloggers and political commentators were making a big deal out of the Sanford saga. At first, though, it was rather easy to. The man upped and disappeared, ditching his security detail and not even telling his family where he was going over Father's Day weekend. Plus, it seemed like his office was lying, or that he'd been lying to his staff. (His wife said he was off writing. His staff said he was hiking. Surely there was inconsistency there.) And then there was the not-so-small matter of a sitting governor just leaving. It all seemed rather weird, and I think it was only proper to ask questions.
Which is the point that many observers were making, myself included: There were more questions than answers. What was needed was answers.
Well, the answers came yesterday, in an awkward and uncomfortable press conference, a confession in front of the press, and, yes, Sanford revealed himself to be... a human being -- deeply flawed, perhaps, or perhaps even broken, but much like the rest of us all-too-human human beings.
And, yes, I do feel sorry for him. (He and his wife, Jenny, have separated. Read her statement here. I have been through too many personal difficulties of my own over the years not to be sympathetic. I do not envy them.)
Here at The Reaction, there was a difference of opinion with respect to whether even to cover the saga in the first place (with me writing extensively on it, prior to Sanford's return, and Carl arguing yesterday that Sanford's philandering is simply not "within bounds").
The saga remains a huge story, though, and so we continue to cover it, but, now that we know what happened, more or less, we can acknowledge that it's really none of our business. Sanford's personal troubles, I mean. He will have to live with what he has done, and his family will have to try to recover. It doesn't seem quite as funny, though it remains rather disturbing, that he took off for Argentina while his staff, clueless or covering up, put him somewhere on the Appalachian Trail.
Where there is an issue, though, is with the hypocrisy of conservative Republicans who talk family values but don't live up to the talk. It's an old story, yes, and there are many of them: Vitter, Foley, Ensign, Gingrich, etc.
To me, that is the story, or a big part of it, and it is what separates liberals from conservatives. Liberals and Democrats have, to be sure, found themselves at the center of media storms over their philandering: Clinton, Edwards, etc. But neither Clinton nor Edwards was a moralist or a theocrat. They revealed themselves to be flawed human beings, but they didn't promote conservative "family values." There was no hypocrisy.
"The State has no place in the bedroom of the nation," said Pierre Trudeau, one of Canada's greatest prime ministers, and, to me, that applies to all of us. The nation -- the people -- has no place in anyone's bedroom, unless there is harm being done, unless there is just cause to intervene.
In this case, we have no place in Sanford's bedroom, or in the middle of his family. What he did in private, in Argentina or elsewhere, is his business -- and his family's. But what he did in public -- the executive of a state using state property, and temporarily leaving the state on personal business without, it would seem, informing all those who needed to know, as well as what he has said and the policies he has supported as an elected official, namely, the moralism of the right -- well, that's the people's business, too, especially so in a democracy.
Liberals, in particular, should respect the public/private divide and give Sanford space. It makes no sense, and it is just plain ugly, to gloat over the very human failings of another human being. But I think we are right to point to the hypocrisy, and to marvel at the arrogance of one who forces his morality on everyone but himself.
"Mark Sanford is no longer missing, but he's obviously lost." So writes Slate's John Dickerson to open an article on the Mark Sanford saga that, in light of what we learned yesterday, adds some much-needed humanity, largely out of respect to Sanford's own humanity, to what has been, in some circles, a case of gleeful Schadenfreude.
It's an article that really got me thinking last night. Hopefully this makes sense.
I and many other bloggers and political commentators were making a big deal out of the Sanford saga. At first, though, it was rather easy to. The man upped and disappeared, ditching his security detail and not even telling his family where he was going over Father's Day weekend. Plus, it seemed like his office was lying, or that he'd been lying to his staff. (His wife said he was off writing. His staff said he was hiking. Surely there was inconsistency there.) And then there was the not-so-small matter of a sitting governor just leaving. It all seemed rather weird, and I think it was only proper to ask questions.
Which is the point that many observers were making, myself included: There were more questions than answers. What was needed was answers.
Well, the answers came yesterday, in an awkward and uncomfortable press conference, a confession in front of the press, and, yes, Sanford revealed himself to be... a human being -- deeply flawed, perhaps, or perhaps even broken, but much like the rest of us all-too-human human beings.
And, yes, I do feel sorry for him. (He and his wife, Jenny, have separated. Read her statement here. I have been through too many personal difficulties of my own over the years not to be sympathetic. I do not envy them.)
Here at The Reaction, there was a difference of opinion with respect to whether even to cover the saga in the first place (with me writing extensively on it, prior to Sanford's return, and Carl arguing yesterday that Sanford's philandering is simply not "within bounds").
The saga remains a huge story, though, and so we continue to cover it, but, now that we know what happened, more or less, we can acknowledge that it's really none of our business. Sanford's personal troubles, I mean. He will have to live with what he has done, and his family will have to try to recover. It doesn't seem quite as funny, though it remains rather disturbing, that he took off for Argentina while his staff, clueless or covering up, put him somewhere on the Appalachian Trail.
Where there is an issue, though, is with the hypocrisy of conservative Republicans who talk family values but don't live up to the talk. It's an old story, yes, and there are many of them: Vitter, Foley, Ensign, Gingrich, etc.
To me, that is the story, or a big part of it, and it is what separates liberals from conservatives. Liberals and Democrats have, to be sure, found themselves at the center of media storms over their philandering: Clinton, Edwards, etc. But neither Clinton nor Edwards was a moralist or a theocrat. They revealed themselves to be flawed human beings, but they didn't promote conservative "family values." There was no hypocrisy.
"The State has no place in the bedroom of the nation," said Pierre Trudeau, one of Canada's greatest prime ministers, and, to me, that applies to all of us. The nation -- the people -- has no place in anyone's bedroom, unless there is harm being done, unless there is just cause to intervene.
In this case, we have no place in Sanford's bedroom, or in the middle of his family. What he did in private, in Argentina or elsewhere, is his business -- and his family's. But what he did in public -- the executive of a state using state property, and temporarily leaving the state on personal business without, it would seem, informing all those who needed to know, as well as what he has said and the policies he has supported as an elected official, namely, the moralism of the right -- well, that's the people's business, too, especially so in a democracy.
Liberals, in particular, should respect the public/private divide and give Sanford space. It makes no sense, and it is just plain ugly, to gloat over the very human failings of another human being. But I think we are right to point to the hypocrisy, and to marvel at the arrogance of one who forces his morality on everyone but himself.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Governor Gaucho!
By J. Thomas Duffy
The 1927 movie, starring the great Douglas Fairbanks (and Lupe Velez), The Gaucho, carried this riveting teaser:
If Fairbanks was the prototype swashbuckler, then South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford takes the crown for being the seminal "swashbumbler."
We really wanted to stay away from this story as it exploded on the World Wide Web over the past two or three days.
It was clear, from the get-go, that this madcap adventure by Governor Gaucho was FUBAR all the way.
And we do want to give props to Larisa Alexandrovna, who was on-the-money early today -- before Governor Gaucho's pathetic press conference -- with "Did Gov. Sanford go on vacation with a mistress?":
Yes, Governor Gaucho was "vacationing with a lover."
I will speculate that Team Governor Gaucho would have stuck to the story, that he was out hiking the Appalachian Trail, if only it didn't surface that the first day of summer, this past Sunday, when Governor Gaucho was said to be on-the-trail, happened to be National Hike Naked Day.
Story not credible?
How's this endorsement from his wife, yesterday, as Team Gaucho Governor still was running with the intrepid hiker line:
What Was Rory Gilmore Doing At Governor Gaucho's Press Conference?
So, all the whispers ended today, when Governor Gaucho stood up to do a rambling press conference (and yes, he has separated from his wife, so, thankfully, we didn't get the Mrs. David-Vitter-Tammy Wynette-Stand-By-Your-Man, Bad-Politician's-Wife-Theater), perhaps attempting to stay ahead of this strengthening tsunami-of-a-story, and the hometown paper that has, and will be printing (drumroll, please), EMAILS!
Good call there, Governor Gaucho, don't go there ...
And one more thing about the press conference:
You can watch it HERE (via MSNBC), and, shortly after it starts, behind Governor Gaucho, and, also, a man in a white polo shirt, is a young woman, who uncannily looks like Rory Gilmore.
Was the Yale Bulldog covering this?
Roland Hedley Aiming For A Pulitzer
One of Gary Trudeau's amazing characters, Roland Hedley, on his Twitter account, has been pounding the pavement on the Governor Gaucho story -- thankfully!
A sample:
Lastly, another bizarre, ironic twist to the Tale of Governor Gaucho:
http://twitter.com/Will_Bunch, who pointed to this article, from earlier in the month:
Sanford touts individual readiness ... Governor urges residents to have evacuation plans, emergency kits with proper supplies
We will be hearing, in the days, weeks, and months ahead, all about Governor Gaucho's "individual readiness."
Olé - Bonus Governor Gaucho Riffs
Zachary Roth: Sanford Press Conference Leaves Unanswered Questions
Will Bunch: No one would ever look for OUR governor on the Appalachian Trail!
Blu Gal: Dear Mrs. Sanford
Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo: what is it with these repressed republicans?
Think Progress: Will Republicans ‘Ask Questions’ Of Sanford, Rather Than ‘Circle The Wagons For One Of Our Tribe’?
Joe Gandelman: Two Reasons Why Mark Sanford’s Political Career Is Now Dead
(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)
The 1927 movie, starring the great Douglas Fairbanks (and Lupe Velez), The Gaucho, carried this riveting teaser:
A glorious tale of gay adventure and romantic daring on the wild plains of South America!Saints and cutthroats! Shrines and robbers' lairs! A madcap mountain lass and a bandit chieftain---the Gaucho! A fiery tale of the most picturesque adventure beyond the Andes!
If Fairbanks was the prototype swashbuckler, then South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford takes the crown for being the seminal "swashbumbler."
We really wanted to stay away from this story as it exploded on the World Wide Web over the past two or three days.
It was clear, from the get-go, that this madcap adventure by Governor Gaucho was FUBAR all the way.
And we do want to give props to Larisa Alexandrovna, who was on-the-money early today -- before Governor Gaucho's pathetic press conference -- with "Did Gov. Sanford go on vacation with a mistress?":
Now, if I remember correctly, Argentina has phones and televisions. Why could his staff or anyone else not reach him for nearly a week? Moreover, his security detail was not with him. So unless the guy actually was in rehab all this time, the only other logical explanation is that he went on an unplanned trip or lied about a planned trip and wanted to keep it secret, to the point of causing national hysteria regarding his disappearance. The only reason to be that secretive is if you are taking a trip with a special friend.
I should note that I am speculating and have absolutely no proof that Sanford was vacationing with a lover. Yet as an investigative reporter I can tell you that his story is not credible.
Yes, Governor Gaucho was "vacationing with a lover."
I will speculate that Team Governor Gaucho would have stuck to the story, that he was out hiking the Appalachian Trail, if only it didn't surface that the first day of summer, this past Sunday, when Governor Gaucho was said to be on-the-trail, happened to be National Hike Naked Day.
Story not credible?
How's this endorsement from his wife, yesterday, as Team Gaucho Governor still was running with the intrepid hiker line:
A CNN reporter tracked down Jenny Stanford at her Sullivan Island vacation home. Sounding less like the wife of a 2012 presidential contender and more like America's favorite reality TV star announcing her separation from her husband, she said: "I am being a mom today. I have not heard from my husband. I am taking care of my children."
Jenny Stanford had helped stoke the story yesterday when she told the AP she didn't know where her husband was.
It's unclear why hiking the Appalachian Trail would be something Sanford would keep from his wife.
What Was Rory Gilmore Doing At Governor Gaucho's Press Conference?
So, all the whispers ended today, when Governor Gaucho stood up to do a rambling press conference (and yes, he has separated from his wife, so, thankfully, we didn't get the Mrs. David-Vitter-Tammy Wynette-Stand-By-Your-Man, Bad-Politician's-Wife-Theater), perhaps attempting to stay ahead of this strengthening tsunami-of-a-story, and the hometown paper that has, and will be printing (drumroll, please), EMAILS!
Two, mutual feelings ... You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night's light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details ...
Good call there, Governor Gaucho, don't go there ...
And one more thing about the press conference:
You can watch it HERE (via MSNBC), and, shortly after it starts, behind Governor Gaucho, and, also, a man in a white polo shirt, is a young woman, who uncannily looks like Rory Gilmore.
Was the Yale Bulldog covering this?
Roland Hedley Aiming For A Pulitzer
One of Gary Trudeau's amazing characters, Roland Hedley, on his Twitter account, has been pounding the pavement on the Governor Gaucho story -- thankfully!
A sample:
Prearranged for me to ask second question at Sanford presser. Will be reading question from Argentinian hiker.
Haley Barbour waits 4 mins, then elbows past Ensign, steps over Sanford: "Excuse me, y'all. Comin' through. Excuse me..."
Just terminated 14 email relationships. No more direct messages, please.
Children, elderly banned from Sanford presser over concerns of possible Full Monty.
Sanford story checking out. Campers in Ecuador, Bolivia, Paraguay report sightings of fast-moving, naked hiker.
Lastly, another bizarre, ironic twist to the Tale of Governor Gaucho:
http://twitter.com/Will_Bunch, who pointed to this article, from earlier in the month:
Sanford touts individual readiness ... Governor urges residents to have evacuation plans, emergency kits with proper supplies
We will be hearing, in the days, weeks, and months ahead, all about Governor Gaucho's "individual readiness."
Olé - Bonus Governor Gaucho Riffs
Zachary Roth: Sanford Press Conference Leaves Unanswered Questions
Will Bunch: No one would ever look for OUR governor on the Appalachian Trail!
Blu Gal: Dear Mrs. Sanford
Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo: what is it with these repressed republicans?
Think Progress: Will Republicans ‘Ask Questions’ Of Sanford, Rather Than ‘Circle The Wagons For One Of Our Tribe’?
Joe Gandelman: Two Reasons Why Mark Sanford’s Political Career Is Now Dead
(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)
Sanford and sun
By Carl
Unlike many of my fellow bloggers (not just here but Blogtopia (©Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo) wide, my attitude towards this story is "I don't give a flying fuck."
Here's why:
1) I believe that in order to fix the very real problems facing this nation, we have to beat the bastards on substance.
2) I don't believe that a person's humanity is within bounds. It wasn't for Clinton and while we had great sport with hypocrisies at that time, that was a different era. There, the Republicans were attacking the very foundation of the nation over a blow job. What's at stake here? Not a goddamned thing.
3) As an erstwhile philanderer myself, I can guaran-damn-tee you this his hurting his wife more than him, and we ought to respect that, unlike the Republicans who went after John Edwards after he dropped out of the race.
Now, issues of substance have been raised, both here and elsewhere. Let me address those.
1) Sanford ditched his sworn duty to the people of South Carolina. Possibly. That takes into account the stories that his staff and his wife "did not know his whereabouts" and then made up a story.
That is a very, very VERY large assumption on our part. Which is more likely: a high profile governor "abandoning his post", or his staff covering for a very public (his wife admits she'd known for months) affair?
Occam's Razor and all.
2) Sanford jeopadized his state. What if an emergency had happened? Now, here is a truly substantive point that has no defense, and should be brought up.
But let's face facts: it's small beer and hardly worth the left getting all giddy over. The state will handle this and that should be all we need to cover.
By the way, now we know why he was able to refuse the stimulus package...
Unlike many of my fellow bloggers (not just here but Blogtopia (©Skippy, The Bush Kangaroo) wide, my attitude towards this story is "I don't give a flying fuck."
Here's why:
1) I believe that in order to fix the very real problems facing this nation, we have to beat the bastards on substance.
2) I don't believe that a person's humanity is within bounds. It wasn't for Clinton and while we had great sport with hypocrisies at that time, that was a different era. There, the Republicans were attacking the very foundation of the nation over a blow job. What's at stake here? Not a goddamned thing.
3) As an erstwhile philanderer myself, I can guaran-damn-tee you this his hurting his wife more than him, and we ought to respect that, unlike the Republicans who went after John Edwards after he dropped out of the race.
Now, issues of substance have been raised, both here and elsewhere. Let me address those.
1) Sanford ditched his sworn duty to the people of South Carolina. Possibly. That takes into account the stories that his staff and his wife "did not know his whereabouts" and then made up a story.
That is a very, very VERY large assumption on our part. Which is more likely: a high profile governor "abandoning his post", or his staff covering for a very public (his wife admits she'd known for months) affair?
Occam's Razor and all.
2) Sanford jeopadized his state. What if an emergency had happened? Now, here is a truly substantive point that has no defense, and should be brought up.
But let's face facts: it's small beer and hardly worth the left getting all giddy over. The state will handle this and that should be all we need to cover.
By the way, now we know why he was able to refuse the stimulus package...
Sanford comes clean
By Creature
The curious case of Governor Sanford has been solved. He admits to having had an extra-marital affair with a dear friend in Argentina. As usual, I really could not care who's sleeping with whom, but when it's a conservative, family-values Republican it's certainly worth noting the hypocrisy.
Along those lines, Josh Marshall reminds us that "none of us deserve to be known or remembered only for our worst moments." He's right. So, instead, I'll remember Sanford as the heartless governor who rejected Obama's stimulus money only to score presidential-political points at the expense of the people in his state. That's an image worth holding on to.
And, speaking of images worth holding on to, here's FOX News labeling the governor with a big "D" after his name. Seems like everyone is showing their true stripes today.
The curious case of Governor Sanford has been solved. He admits to having had an extra-marital affair with a dear friend in Argentina. As usual, I really could not care who's sleeping with whom, but when it's a conservative, family-values Republican it's certainly worth noting the hypocrisy.
Along those lines, Josh Marshall reminds us that "none of us deserve to be known or remembered only for our worst moments." He's right. So, instead, I'll remember Sanford as the heartless governor who rejected Obama's stimulus money only to score presidential-political points at the expense of the people in his state. That's an image worth holding on to.
And, speaking of images worth holding on to, here's FOX News labeling the governor with a big "D" after his name. Seems like everyone is showing their true stripes today.
The Sanford saga takes a weird and "exotic" turn
By Michael J. W. Stickings
It's just getting weirder and weirder.
The State is reporting this morning that Sanford was not hiking the Appalachian Trail (as his office claimed), nor writing (as his wife claimed), but amusing himself in and around Buenos Aires, Argentina. He may even have taken a cruise. "I wanted to do something exotic," he said.
Okay, fine. So he went to Argentina for a short, "exotic" vacation. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not really the point. What is the point is that he lied to his family and staff, or they have been lying. Why not tell them where he was going? (Or why have they been covering for him?) Why ditch his security? Why go away over Father's Day weekend -- is he not a family man? And is it not a problem, to put it mildly, that a sitting governor snuck off for several days, leaving even those close to him, not to mention the media and the people of his state, in the dark?
Something's just not right here.
And what exactly does "exotic" mean? From what he said, it wasn't just that he went to an exotic location, it was that he actually did something exotic. (Use your imagination.)
As I said a short while ago, there are many more questions than answers here.
Well, it's time for some answers.
It's just getting weirder and weirder.
The State is reporting this morning that Sanford was not hiking the Appalachian Trail (as his office claimed), nor writing (as his wife claimed), but amusing himself in and around Buenos Aires, Argentina. He may even have taken a cruise. "I wanted to do something exotic," he said.
Okay, fine. So he went to Argentina for a short, "exotic" vacation. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. But that's not really the point. What is the point is that he lied to his family and staff, or they have been lying. Why not tell them where he was going? (Or why have they been covering for him?) Why ditch his security? Why go away over Father's Day weekend -- is he not a family man? And is it not a problem, to put it mildly, that a sitting governor snuck off for several days, leaving even those close to him, not to mention the media and the people of his state, in the dark?
Something's just not right here.
And what exactly does "exotic" mean? From what he said, it wasn't just that he went to an exotic location, it was that he actually did something exotic. (Use your imagination.)
As I said a short while ago, there are many more questions than answers here.
Well, it's time for some answers.
More on the Sanford saga
By Michael J.W. Stickings
(See my first post on the strange, disturbing saga here.)
Wait. Did Sanford go hiking... or not?
CNN is reporting that Sanford's SUV was found at the Columbia airport.
TPM is reporting, citing WYFF-4, that Sanford was seen boarding a plane in Atlanta -- without security.
There was contradiction already: He was hiking, his office said. He was off to do some writing, his wife said. Was he writing while hiking the Appalachian Trail? Really?
Now, though, it seems that there may be more to the story than the "official" story. He may have contacted his office yesterday morning, but his wife, Jenny, apparently still hasn't heard from him: "I am being a mom today," she said, "I have not heard from my husband. I am taking care of my children." Okay, but this is her husband. How is she so dismissive of his sudden and prolonged absence? Or is she just putting up a good front? (Maybe she's come to expect this sort of thing, whatever it is.) And why hasn't he gotten in touch with her? Doesn't that seem odd?
So where is he? And where has he been?
He's expected back today. He'll be up to his earlobes in spin, but, at this point, there are many more questions than answers.
(See my first post on the strange, disturbing saga here.)
Wait. Did Sanford go hiking... or not?
CNN is reporting that Sanford's SUV was found at the Columbia airport.
TPM is reporting, citing WYFF-4, that Sanford was seen boarding a plane in Atlanta -- without security.
There was contradiction already: He was hiking, his office said. He was off to do some writing, his wife said. Was he writing while hiking the Appalachian Trail? Really?
Now, though, it seems that there may be more to the story than the "official" story. He may have contacted his office yesterday morning, but his wife, Jenny, apparently still hasn't heard from him: "I am being a mom today," she said, "I have not heard from my husband. I am taking care of my children." Okay, but this is her husband. How is she so dismissive of his sudden and prolonged absence? Or is she just putting up a good front? (Maybe she's come to expect this sort of thing, whatever it is.) And why hasn't he gotten in touch with her? Doesn't that seem odd?
So where is he? And where has he been?
He's expected back today. He'll be up to his earlobes in spin, but, at this point, there are many more questions than answers.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Sanford & Sanity: The strange, troubling saga of Gov. Mark Sanford, AWOL
By Michael J.W. Stickings
So apparently Mark Sanford, the AWOL Republican governor of South Carolina, is hiking the Appalachian Trail.
(UPDATE: Sanford staff is now saying that the governor will be back in the office on Wednesday. Still, it's all very, very troubling.)
So, case closed, right? Story over?
Well...
For all I know, Sanford may very well be hiking. And he may very well have been hiking these past several days. Perhaps it all came about quite suddenly, like a trip to Vegas with your buddies. Maybe one of his Palmetto pals called him up out of the blue, swung by the mansion, and, before you knew it, a whole group of would-be hikers was speeding from telephones, computers, and civilization as we know it.
But... HE'S THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA. HE HAS SECURITY. HE'S NOT JUST SOME REGULAR DUDE. HE CAN'T JUST LEAVE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE... WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING... CAN HE?
Well, he did:
Really? Not concerned? Your husband just picks up and leaves, without telling you anything, and that's fine with you? His phones are off, he's gone for several days, over Father's Day weekend, and you're not worried at all?
Huh.
As Josh Marshall put it, "something seems a tad fishy here."
His wife says he's off writing a book -- he apparently "wanted some space to get away from the kids." But... on Father's Day? Really? And how is he writing a book while he's hiking?
His office says that he's "taking some time away from the office this week to recharge after the stimulus battle and the legislative session, and to work on a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside." (Maybe he's stressed out after screwing the good people of South Carolina out of all that stimulus money. Maybe he's lost his mind and flipped out defending the indefensible (namely, right-wing Republican ideology). Who knows?)
His spokesman says that "he let staff know his whereabouts and that he'd be difficult to reach."
But then why all the concern? How did this -- his disappearance -- become such a story in South Carolina? Was there no attempt to let the media know? Or anyone outside his inner circle? Apparently not. But why not?
And what about this claim from several people "familiar with the situation" that neither his office nor security knew where he was or could reach him?
If he just wanted to get away, even over Father's Day weekend... fine. That's his business. But then why not just say, why not just tell those who need to know, and should know, "I'm off for a bit to do this or that. No worries. Here's where you can find me if you need me"?
Politicians take vacations all the time. This seems... different.
I mean, what if there had been an emergency? Was he really reachable? Did his office really know where he was, or is still?
And who was in charge while he was AWOL?
Chris Cillizza notes, in an update, that his office still doesn't seem to know exactly where (on the Trail) he is. Even the lieutenant governor couldn't get through to him -- "that request was denied because the Governor's chief of staff does not know where the Governor is, and has not communicated with the Governor since he left South Carolina last Thursday." That according to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer himself.
Cillizza again: "Given the decided lack of concern from Sanford's office, it would appear as though there are no fears that the governor is in danger. Still, pulling a disappearing act like this -- whatever the reason -- is a decidedly odd move for someone who is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2012."
Well... yeah. No kidding.
It's all very, very strange. And there is good reason, it would seem, to question, if not (yet) his sanity, at least his judgement.
Enjoy the hike, Governor. You'll have a few questions to answer upon your return.
So apparently Mark Sanford, the AWOL Republican governor of South Carolina, is hiking the Appalachian Trail.
(UPDATE: Sanford staff is now saying that the governor will be back in the office on Wednesday. Still, it's all very, very troubling.)
So, case closed, right? Story over?
Well...
For all I know, Sanford may very well be hiking. And he may very well have been hiking these past several days. Perhaps it all came about quite suddenly, like a trip to Vegas with your buddies. Maybe one of his Palmetto pals called him up out of the blue, swung by the mansion, and, before you knew it, a whole group of would-be hikers was speeding from telephones, computers, and civilization as we know it.
But... HE'S THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CAROLINA. HE HAS SECURITY. HE'S NOT JUST SOME REGULAR DUDE. HE CAN'T JUST LEAVE WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE... WITHOUT ANYONE KNOWING... CAN HE?
Well, he did:
Neither Sanford's office nor the State Law Enforcement Division, which provides security for governors, had been able to reach Sanford since he left the mansion Thursday in a black Suburban SUV assigned to his security detail, said state Sen. Jake Knotts , R-Lexington, and three others familiar with the situation, but who declined to be identified.
Joel Sawyer, the governor's spokesman would not disclose where on the trail the governor was hiking, nor would he reveal whether Sanford was hiking alone.
Sanford's last known location was near Atlanta late last week. A mobile telephone tower there picked up a signal from his phone, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Since then, the governor's state and personal phones had been turned off, and Sanford had not responded to phone or text messages, a source said. Most mobile phones cannot be tracked if they are turned off.
First lady Jenny Sanford said Monday her husband has been gone for several days over Father's Day weekend and she did not know where.
She said she was not concerned.
Really? Not concerned? Your husband just picks up and leaves, without telling you anything, and that's fine with you? His phones are off, he's gone for several days, over Father's Day weekend, and you're not worried at all?
Huh.
As Josh Marshall put it, "something seems a tad fishy here."
His wife says he's off writing a book -- he apparently "wanted some space to get away from the kids." But... on Father's Day? Really? And how is he writing a book while he's hiking?
His office says that he's "taking some time away from the office this week to recharge after the stimulus battle and the legislative session, and to work on a couple of projects that have fallen by the wayside." (Maybe he's stressed out after screwing the good people of South Carolina out of all that stimulus money. Maybe he's lost his mind and flipped out defending the indefensible (namely, right-wing Republican ideology). Who knows?)
His spokesman says that "he let staff know his whereabouts and that he'd be difficult to reach."
But then why all the concern? How did this -- his disappearance -- become such a story in South Carolina? Was there no attempt to let the media know? Or anyone outside his inner circle? Apparently not. But why not?
And what about this claim from several people "familiar with the situation" that neither his office nor security knew where he was or could reach him?
If he just wanted to get away, even over Father's Day weekend... fine. That's his business. But then why not just say, why not just tell those who need to know, and should know, "I'm off for a bit to do this or that. No worries. Here's where you can find me if you need me"?
Politicians take vacations all the time. This seems... different.
I mean, what if there had been an emergency? Was he really reachable? Did his office really know where he was, or is still?
And who was in charge while he was AWOL?
Chris Cillizza notes, in an update, that his office still doesn't seem to know exactly where (on the Trail) he is. Even the lieutenant governor couldn't get through to him -- "that request was denied because the Governor's chief of staff does not know where the Governor is, and has not communicated with the Governor since he left South Carolina last Thursday." That according to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer himself.
Cillizza again: "Given the decided lack of concern from Sanford's office, it would appear as though there are no fears that the governor is in danger. Still, pulling a disappearing act like this -- whatever the reason -- is a decidedly odd move for someone who is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2012."
Well... yeah. No kidding.
It's all very, very strange. And there is good reason, it would seem, to question, if not (yet) his sanity, at least his judgement.
Enjoy the hike, Governor. You'll have a few questions to answer upon your return.
Friday, November 21, 2008
In the year 2012, the Republicans...
By Michael J.W. Stickings
If you're already thinking ahead to 2012 -- and, honestly, who isn't? -- check out Chris Cillizza's post at The Fix on "ten Republicans to watch."
The big names, of course, are Palin, Romney, and Huckabee, but only Romney makes the list, and rightly so. As I have said before, I think Palin's star will fade markedly over the next few years. Huckabee will continue to be a leading figure among the theocrats, but I suspect Republicans will go for old-fashioned pro-market economics in 2012, not radical social conservatism. Romney has the business-oriented bona fides, but of course he just isn't all that trusted among Republicans, and certainly not among conservatives, as we saw in the primaries. He'll have the will, the money, and the organization, not to mention the Mormon Church, which proved its influence in the Prop. 8 vote in California, but I think both the party establishment and grassroots activists will look elsewhere.
There are some interesting names on the list, but, to me, the stand-outs are Eric Cantor, Mark Sanford, and John Thune. Jindal, a party celebrity, is at the top of the list, and conservatives certainly seem to like him, but he strikes me as one of those figures who will always be the future of the GOP, never the present (to borrow that fantastic line from The Contender: "You're the future of the Democratic Party, and you always will be," President Evans (Jeff Bridges) tells Governor Hathaway (William Petersen)). Given how Republicans like to scare up public fear of the Other (e.g., Obama as somehow un-American), it would be interesting to see how they would respond to a serious run by Jindal, but they're likely to go with someone more typical, not a "new face."
Cantor, being Jewish, is an Other, too, but, as I wrote back in August, he's got a lot going for him. Meanwhile, Sanford and Thune are solid conservatives who have already made names for themselves on the national scene. Thune, like all senators, will suffer from being just one of 100, while Sanford is the new chair of the Republican Governors Association. (Note that Bush had the solid support of Republican governors for his 2000 run, as this 1999 article by Margaret Carlson at CNN.com shows. It helps to have them behind you, and, in a few years, if not already, they may prefer Sanford to Palin.)
Others will emerge, of course, but, as of right now, I'd say Cantor, Sanford, and Thune are the ones to watch (with Sanford most of all). That is, when you're not still watching Palin.
If you're already thinking ahead to 2012 -- and, honestly, who isn't? -- check out Chris Cillizza's post at The Fix on "ten Republicans to watch."
The big names, of course, are Palin, Romney, and Huckabee, but only Romney makes the list, and rightly so. As I have said before, I think Palin's star will fade markedly over the next few years. Huckabee will continue to be a leading figure among the theocrats, but I suspect Republicans will go for old-fashioned pro-market economics in 2012, not radical social conservatism. Romney has the business-oriented bona fides, but of course he just isn't all that trusted among Republicans, and certainly not among conservatives, as we saw in the primaries. He'll have the will, the money, and the organization, not to mention the Mormon Church, which proved its influence in the Prop. 8 vote in California, but I think both the party establishment and grassroots activists will look elsewhere.
There are some interesting names on the list, but, to me, the stand-outs are Eric Cantor, Mark Sanford, and John Thune. Jindal, a party celebrity, is at the top of the list, and conservatives certainly seem to like him, but he strikes me as one of those figures who will always be the future of the GOP, never the present (to borrow that fantastic line from The Contender: "You're the future of the Democratic Party, and you always will be," President Evans (Jeff Bridges) tells Governor Hathaway (William Petersen)). Given how Republicans like to scare up public fear of the Other (e.g., Obama as somehow un-American), it would be interesting to see how they would respond to a serious run by Jindal, but they're likely to go with someone more typical, not a "new face."
Cantor, being Jewish, is an Other, too, but, as I wrote back in August, he's got a lot going for him. Meanwhile, Sanford and Thune are solid conservatives who have already made names for themselves on the national scene. Thune, like all senators, will suffer from being just one of 100, while Sanford is the new chair of the Republican Governors Association. (Note that Bush had the solid support of Republican governors for his 2000 run, as this 1999 article by Margaret Carlson at CNN.com shows. It helps to have them behind you, and, in a few years, if not already, they may prefer Sanford to Palin.)
Others will emerge, of course, but, as of right now, I'd say Cantor, Sanford, and Thune are the ones to watch (with Sanford most of all). That is, when you're not still watching Palin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
