I've lost count of the number of articles and blog entries about Mark Sanford, the Republican governor of South Carolina, that I've skipped reading.
As I understand the story, he disappeared for a while, flying to Argentina, where he continued an affair that had been going on for about a year--which he's now admitted to.
Presumably he will not immediately go the way of Fmr. New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, because prostitution is illegal—whereas having affairs is not.
So why is everyone talking so much about Sanford's personal life? Why do they care?
Looking For The Rocks
-
Hard times
The post Looking For The Rocks appeared first on Ordinary Times.
1 hour ago
very simple: "family values" hypocrisy. if he was just some random politician who didn't go out and beat the FAMILY VALUES drum against sinners and gays [etc...], I wouldn't have much of a beef. if he wasn't a public moralizer who jumped onto his soapbox to condemn other politicians for THEIR indiscretions, then I wouldn't be all worked up.
ReplyDelete“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
“We ought to ask questions…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.” [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]
“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 has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage, saying in 2004, “As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.” [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]
Yes I noticed those quotes on your blog earlier, but Clinton did perjure himself and that's why he got into actual trouble.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that because Sanford obsessed over Clinton's personal life (the lying to his wife part) that we should obsess over Sanford's?
This isn't an issue of hypocrisy. Does not the fact that Sanford's bloviating about Clinton was distasteful mean we should refrain from making an issue of his? Or are we operating on an eye for an eye basis?
And I'm not sure how his belief that civil marriage should be restricted to opposite-sexed couples bears on the issue of infidelity.
I think it's getting so much attention because he just disappeared without telling anyone anyone where he was going. So first you had the whole: "where is Mark Sanford?" thing. There was already a bunch of attention focused on him. And then he dropped the affair bombshell.
ReplyDeletePlus he's been talked about as a potential presidential candidate, and this blows that idea out of the water. The implosion of a major politician always attracts a great deal of interest.
i'd hope the issue of hypocrisy was clear enough on its face. especially on the gay marriage front. after all, he and his fellow travelers have been crying about how the gays will ruin marriage, when they're out there porking mistresses on the side.
ReplyDeleteon one particular point, i think your characterization of this as "obsessing" is unfair. the guy was missing for a week and just popped up today. if we're still talking about it in a few weeks, then the word "obsessing" might be appropriate.
You're right, obsessing is the wrong word--castigating, maybe.
ReplyDeleteI suppose "disappearing" for a week helps explain the story's traction.
But I still don't see how having some idealized vision traditional marriage (restricted by sex) bears on the infidelity issue. Is it because fidelity is also of "traditional" concern? Because I reject that notion--I think fidelity can be just as important for gays as straights, so to me it's an entirely separate consideration from the gender of the partners involved.