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?
Wednesday, June 24
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(1987)
-
▼
June
(148)
- Retort of the day
- "Thanks for Sharing, Governor. Now Shut Up."
- Religious views of sex
- The worst is behind us
- And then there were sixty
- Quote for the day
- Health benefits and WWII
- Debating the public option
- Obama's speech to gay rights groups
- Ricci and judicial politics
- Neocon humor
- MSM whores
- "Terrible precedents"
- More on the latest Mankiw-Krugman spat
- "The Arbiter of Ignorance"
- "Forgive Mark Sanford"
- American and Iranian nationalism
- "Sorry sir, but this sewer is catch and release on...
- Credit where credit is due
- American Imaginer
- Krugman bashes a strawman and takes a short-term v...
- Amateur hour
- A more interesting take on Sanford
- How are those bailouts comming?
- Bloggy takedown of the day
- The pitfalls of the public option
- Leaving bad enough alone
- Some choice you're giving us, lady
- King David didn't resign after his sex scandal, so...
- Missing the logic of recognizing his own would-be-...
- Guilty pleasures
- A tragic life
- Iran's Assembly of Experts
- Against mandates
- A different perspective on Iran
- Unbreakable no longer
- The more things change...
- 40% of income on healthcare in 2100 isn't so bad, ...
- In the shadow of the mountain
- Why the obsession with Sanford?
- Dick Van Patten explains why Jesus Christ is God
- Reponding to events in Iran
- Keeping quiet
- Detainee rights
- Blame the demons
- Rawr
- Israeli settlements are illegal
- Iran election tracker
- Recount
- Line of the month
- UAW jumps the shark
- Moore Award nominee
- Redneck nerdery of the week
- The first nerd presidency of the modern era
- Roger Cohen in Iran today
- Escalating violence in Iran
- Bravo, Ron Paul
- Wow
- The importance of local legitimacy
- PETA bait
- Pictures of Israeli settlements
- The professor vs. the fighter pilot
- Lesson in democracy for neocons
- About those smoking bans
- "Administration's Reform Plan Misses the Mark"
- Stage of denial
- Prophetic quote of the day
- Worldwide protests
- A genuine rally photo
- Potemkin rallies
- Manufactured controversy watch
- "The Laffer Curve of the Left"
- Tweet of the day
- The revolution will be twittered
- The minimum wage
- That Iranian "election"
- Favored constituency watch
- Quote of the day
- Ranking the public plans
- Punblic health insurance option, ctd.
- Quote of the day
- U.S. auto industry doing well
- Quote of the day
- Tipping the scale
- Procedure over innocence
- Nanny state cometh
- Freedom and responsibility
- Paging Dr. Gore
- Obama reconsiders domestic agenda
- The next Iranian president?
- One for the (neoconish) rightists
- 29 Democrats needed
- Public health insurance, antitrust, and price cont...
- Back to work
- A stock market primer
- After gay marriage
- Joe Scarborough
- Americans care about smaller government
- How stupid do they think we are?
- Misunderstanding markets, school vouchers edition
-
▼
June
(148)
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.