The ever more bizarre tale of the disappearing South Carolina governor has had a even more fascinating twist now. Apparently, Sanford spent his time "away from the kids" in Buenos Aires with a "dear, dear friend from Argentina," with whom he was having an affair.
While he has already resigned his post as chair of the RGA, the full political fallout is yet to be seen.
Sanford has long campaigned as a strong conservative (over 90% rating from the American Conservative Union over his career), though has made headlines more in the economic/fiscal realm than on social issues. Like fellow Republicans Rudy Giuliani and David Vitter, he came out relatively quickly to acknowledge his infidelity, and will be looking to quickly move out of the spotlight to revamp his image.
The two big fish that have gone down on this issue in the past eighteen months, Eliot Spitzer and John Edwards, both seemed to be punished more sharply for their hypocracy and attempts at cover ups than for the scandals themselves. Ironically, both Spitzer and Edwards are Democrats, the party which theoretically could be more forgiving to this type of behavior.
Bottom line for Sanford: fess up, get back to work, and try not to look like a hypocrite, because that seems to be the thing that sinks people in the American voters' eyes the quickest.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com
6.24.2009
Sanford's "Hiking" Affair: Spitzer/Edwards, or Giuliani/Vitter?
@ 4:42 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
84 comments
This is the most bizarre story this year. I wonder what other twists this story will have.
Also ANOTHER FIRST FOR e3323!
Hypocracy????
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hypocracy
Seems to fit anyway!
Remember the "OMG! Fraud in Iran" graph that circulated? Well I've done further analysis using real time US Election data and the trend holds in several US States with HIGHER R^2 values.
I've also posted the real time presidential result for Kentucky, Virginia, Michigan and Pennsylvania if anybody is interested in further analysis.
Source: VoteForAmerica.net
He's done. He loses the middle class audience he was gaining with the conservative message. Every time he speaks on the national stage you'll hear about the affair in some form.
Won't run again for governor and enters the world of lobbying after quietly divorcing.
I can't figure out why Vitter is still around. The folks in the bayou are much more forgiving than those in NY.
This is all good news ... for Governors Sarah Palin (AL-R) and Mr. Rogers (LA-R).
To Nate or other stats minded bloggers here:
I'd be interested to know if there are differences between the two parties in how often infidelity is admitted to, and once admitted how often it results in the end of a public career.
My suspicion is that Republicans may get more grief over these sorts of events, but that the rate of infidelity is probably fairly similar between the two parties.
Vote?
Care to tell us why your comment on voting patterns is posted on a thread discussing a member of the "Party of Values" having an affair, and the possible consequences of that affair?
Vote?
Trying to drag the topic off course so early because you don't want the topic discussed?
Vote?
Could it be that you are TROLLing?
Vote?
Might not your comments be more appropriate on this thread:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/another-iranian-oddity.html ???
And Vote?
What comments do YOU have about Mark Sanford, his little weekend jaunt, and/or his political future (the topic of this thread)? If so, those comments might be appropriate on this thread.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Of course with Spitzer he was engaging in criminal behavior and as a former muckraking attorney general is lucky not to be in jail.
Speaking of Father's Day romps, in addition to not taking the family to church on Sunday (how sad for his children to have such godless parents), Obama did have a foto op with his kids, feeding them ice cream (how he must have had to fight Michelle over those calories and sugar!!) and then spent the day golfing with his buddies.
Some rag actually put him on the cover of their magazine's Father's Day edition!
The Presidency is a demanding and lonely job. You would think on the day designated to celebrate his paternity of his girls Obama would have actually devoted more time to them.
Perhaps he was too busy shagging something or someone in the rough to think about his paternal affections. And how very country club of him. He is more and more approaching that caricature that Karl Rove so trenchantly painted of him during the campaign.
What a loser you all admire!
petekent01 (on twitter)
Another hypocritical conservative bites the dust.
Self-loathing seems to be a requirement to be a proper member of the GOP.
It is different from a Bill Clinton, since these pathetic GOP types spend their time beating the "family values" drum.
The suggestion that the cases had different impacts isn't quite accurate. Giuliani wasn't a family values Republican and the affair didn't really change perceptions of him. He still bombed in the GOP primaries, in part because he couldn't appeal to the holier-than-thou crowd. Vitter has yet to face re-election and had the good fortune to get caught (and he really has never come clean about everything) early in a 6 year cycle. I don't think he has greater ambitions than Louisiana, and no one outside of that state knows him for much other than his affair and being a right wing douchebag.
For Edwards, by comparison, the timing was a killer. Plus, being a sleaze was so counter to type that it was a real "feet of clay" revelation - especially since his wife is facing cancer. It came out of left field, as did the revelation that the crime crusader Spitzer liked to do the nasty with a call girl while
Sanford only had a year left to govern SC, and needed that time to position himself at the front of the GOP pack to have a shot at the nomination in 2012. The allegations are too close to the critical time and too contradictory to his whole life story (Colbert called him the most boring guy he'd met) for him to just take the hit and soldier on. Plus, the lengths he went to hide what he was doing and the bizarre recent incident is the kind of stuff that gives a normal sex story legs, since any opponent can claim it isn't the sex but the poor judgment that concerns them (while really bringing up the sex).
PK,
You are an idiot. You are going to compare a sleazebag like Sanford to an intelligent, devoted family man?
Really?
That is low, even for a pathetic moron like you,
Hi guys,
good news for everybody
(I mean for those who are still here and didn't follow Petey on twitter) :
confederation cup (soccer-south africa)
-amazing and almost incredible-
half-final
USA-SPAIN 2-0
(McCain surge !!! )
Spain (4-4-2): Casillas; Sergio Ramos, Puyol, Piquè, Capdevila; Fabregas (23' st Cazorla), Xavi, Xabi Alonso, Riera (33' st Mata); Villa, Torres. coach: Del Bosque.
USA (4-4-2). Howard; Spector, Onyewu, Bocanegra, Demerit; Dempsey (43' st Bornstein), Clark, M. Bradley, Donovan; Davies (24' st Feilhaber), Altidore (39' st Casey).
coach: B. Bradley
Referee: Larrionda (Uruguay)
goals:
26' Altidore; nel 74'Dempsey
I watched the match:
USA'players were really impressive.
congratulation.
:)
The suggestion that the cases had different impacts isn't quite accurate. Giuliani wasn't a family values Republican and the affair didn't really change perceptions of him. He still bombed in the GOP primaries, in part because he couldn't appeal to the holier-than-thou crowd.
being pro-choice and spending taxpayer dollars to fund his affair doomed him.
Of course having nothing of substance to say and his exploitation of 9/11 for personal and monetary gain didn't help much either.
I'm with Berkeley Bear - party wasn't the relevant independent variable that split up the Vitter/Giuliani/Edwards/Spitzer outcomes. Specifically, ah, well, just what Berkeley said. . .
Beavis,
Let me tell you something a "devoted family man" does not spend Father's Day playing golf. Only a selfish, egotistical heel does that.
petekent01 (on twitter)
matador-
Good to hear we kicked yer azz!
It's been far too long since we avenged the Maine!
petekent01 (on twitter)
@Rock - I don't think he's done. He's got time until the election and I think plenty of voters understand the difficulties of fidelity, even (if not especially) the conservatives.
@Mike in Maryland - Yeah, Vote is a trollbot looking to cannibalize the readership of 538. He (it?) won't see your comments. :(
@Pete Kent said Of course with Spitzer he was engaging in criminal behavior and as a former muckraking attorney general is lucky not to be in jail.
That's a good point. If anyone else gets caught in illegal activities, don't they face prosecution no matter how much they've suffered by being caught in the first place? I agree that this is not the same thing.
As for your comments about what a terrible dad is, you're once again making a mountain out of a mole hill, presumably because there is no mountain. It's not children's day, it's FATHER'S day. We honor vets on Veteran's day, we don't expect them to honor us.
PK,
I didn't go to church on Father's Day, either. My wife let me sleep in for a change, and offered to let me get off the leash for a while. Instead, I took my kids to an arcade and later ate ice cream cake with them. I must be a horrible dad, too. Or you could yet again be showing yourself as an ignorant spouter of nonsense.
Most fathers celebrate father's day by getting a break from their chores, maybe doing something for themselves like fishing or golf or poker, and spending some fun time with their kids. It's like how most mothers get taken out to eat on mother's day (although since I do the cooking that's not such a gift for my wife) and often are given spa days as gifts. Its not an indictment of your parenting skills to want a break and some me time - its actually very normal.
Getting in a round of golf and generally goofing around for a day, though, is a far cry from abandoning your job and family for a week to go to Argentina to see your lover, you loser.
Matador,
The game was truly amazing, given how poorly the US side looked against Brazil and late against Italy (though down to 10 men both times).
Altidore is truly a special player, with phenomenol strength to hold off a defender at the top of the 18, turn and fire like that. Perhaps Villareal will be able to find playing time for him now?
Dempsey's goal was a little lucky, but Donavon created good conditions with his run. For a change, the US also played strong central defense with Onyewu and DeMerit. I hope those guys get paired up more in the future.
Fernando Torres played well, as always, and that one strike from 10 yards that was put over the post was truly scary. I have no doubt that out of 10 matches, your side would take at least 8 on neutral fields. It was really nice to be on the right side for a change, though.
Now a likely re-match with Brazil, unless the Lions of South Africa pull off a second unlikely upset.
First of all, it's sort of insulting to insinuate that somehow Democrats are more "ok" with infidelity.
Second, the reason Edwards and Spitzer took more heat wasn't from the cover-up or lies or whatever...it's because Republicans attack relentlessly, demonizing them.
Anytime a politician screws around, they ask for privacy...the difference is that Democrats (on a whole) are much more respectful of that privacy. Republicans don't care, and gladly politicize someone's personal life.
so the family man was caught with his pants down ???
mmmmhhhh...saddest day for his family:
http://www.pressomatic.com/sanfordforgovernor/upload/Sanford%20Family2.JPG
could he recover ?
hope so for the kids.
I think the Sanford story is a bit afield from 538's mission.
Unless you've got a poll about it.
Pete Kent-
Please explain the difference between Gov. Spitzer's crime, and Sen. Vitter's 'non-crime'.
Thank you.
Berkeley Bear in Illinois said...
Matador,
"...I have no doubt that out of 10 matches, your side would take at least 8 on neutral fields..."
@berkeley
is not "my side".
I am italian,(ashamed for my soccer team)I just watched the match because I love soccer and good players not caring about if they are in "my side" or in the "opposite side"
"...It was really nice to be on the right side for a change, though..."
Yes,I like when the designate victim survive.
good night to all of you.
:)
Robert said...
I think the Sanford story is a bit afield from 538's mission.
Unless you've got a poll about it.
June 24, 2009 5:57 PM
p.s.
@Robert,
here is the poll:
Is Sanford an huge asshole ?
yes:98%
no :1%
still no opinion:Doctor Who.
:P
@Mike in Maryland...
Care to tell us why your comment on voting patterns is posted on a thread discussing a member of the "Party of Values" having an affair, and the possible consequences of that affair?
The possible consequences of that affair are: He loses, the GOP loses and SC loses.
Trying to drag the topic off course so early because you don't want the topic discussed?
No. Perhaps I'm dragging the topic off topic because I thought people would be interested in the work I did regarding the Iran graph.
Could it be that you are TROLLing?
Yes I'm trolling by providing an analysis that NOBODY has made.
Might not your comments be more appropriate on this thread:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/another-iranian-oddity.html ???
Probably, but if I'm going to leave a comment in a day old post, I might as well print out an 8x11 and staple it to a telephone poll. Same exposure.
You want to point me to another place on the internet that used real time election data? I'm simply trying to make people aware of the work I have done. If you don't like the way I went about it, I frankly don't care.
I'm beginning to think that Sarah Palin will be the default candidate in 2012 - she's the only one who can keep her pecker in her pants.
C'mon 538, I think Nate is at tool because he only believes in experts but this is pathetic.
Spitzer got cashiered because HE MADE HIS CAREER OFF PROSECUTING SLEEZY GUYS JUST LIKE HIMSELF.
Any word if the "dear, dear friend" is a man?
From what I read, Sanford avoided using pronouns.
At least he is against those scary gay people destroying the sanctity of marriage.
MN -
Same question as I posed to PK - how is what Spitzer did any different than what Vitter did? Vitter made his career off pretending to be a family man and promoting 'family values', Spitzer made his career off prosecuting criminals.
Is Spitzer more of a criminal than Vitter? Is he more of a hypocrite?
@Vote
I like cake, especially chocolate cake. Though lemon meringue really rocks. Mmmm...
@Matador
I just finished re-reading a novel by Margaret Atwood titled Cat's Eye. It was really good.
Anyway, as far as the topic of the post... ummm.... what was the topic at hand?
I don't remember, oh, well.
Must not have been important.
@Robert "I think the Sanford story is a bit afield from 538's mission... unless you've got a poll about it."
Harumph, good sir! And what business has the Christian Science Monitor writing on the embassy in Syria? That is not Christian, scientific, nor does it have anything to do with a flat panel LCD display!
Fortunately there are headlines on 538. This isn't TV where you're a 3-minute captive whether you're interested in the story or not.
I'm here for politics, and this is politics.
@Vote ...if I'm going to leave a comment in a day old post, I might as well print out an 8x11 and staple it to a telephone poll. Same exposure."
Not so. Many (most?) of us have comment subscriptions turned on. We'd all see it in our email instantly. No biggy, just a heads up for next time. Might want to post it there too. Thanks for bringing something new though. Analysis is what's needed.
@Shap - Spitzer IS more of a criminal (prostitution is illegal), and slightly more of a hypocrite because he lived by anti-corruption, but was corrupt. Vitter is pro-family, but it's not his one-and-only goal.
Don't get me wrong, both are sleazeballs, but in different ways.
Republicans in general have an easier time when revealing this sort of thing because they have a powerful weapon that Democrats, on the whole, don't have: the tearful confession. In Pentecostal, Evangelical and, to a lesser extent, Fundamentalist circles making a tearful, public confession (with or without subsequent laying on of hands) leads to redemption. It would be considered un-Christian to not accept someone's confession, if it's accompanied by true contriteness.
OTOH, in the Democratic party and in liberal culture in general, there is no similar ritual. I suppose maybe doing the talk show circuit for an extended round of public pop psychotherapy might come close, but that just doesn't have the same power.
Now, not every religious conservative here in SC is going to give Sanford credit for true contrition, and even before this there were many, many, many people gunning for him politically from within his own party. But, overall, it's not in the best interest of any faction of the SC GOP to have Andre Bauer, the lieutenant governor, ascend to the governorship.
Bauer has made no secret of his desire to run for the post, and if Sanford resigned or if the state legislature gently asked him to stop being Governor... we are far too polite here for anything so unpleasant as the public spectacle of an impeachment... it would basically rule out a primary fight over the Governorship. Given the overwhelming power of the Republican party here, that would guarantee that no politically ambitious person besides Bauer could be Governor over the next 8 years.
And that would be that, exceeeeeept... that Bauer has certain.... ummm... aspects of his private life that could hinder his ability to run for Governor here, or anywhere for that matter. So, the GOP can't oppose him in the primary for reasons of party loyalty (and if they did, incumbency is a powerful advantage), but are afraid that he could actually lose in the fall.
I miss when this state had simple scandals, like when an aristocratic state treasurer turned out to be a drug dealer on the side.
Vote,
So all you are admitting is that you are grabbing attention any way you can, and not even trying to discuss the topic at hand.
Not a question, just my observation.
But since you admit your post was off-topic, you are admitting that your post was, in effect, the post of a TROLL.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.
And you assume that people will not go back a day or two worth of threads to see what, if anything, has been posted. I presume you made that assumption based on your own posting and reading patterns, not on any reality-based observation. And as such, that also defines your post as the post of a TROLL.
As to the topic at hand on this thread:
The 'Party of Moral Values' seems to have a lot of members who don't follow the sermon they spout out to others. And when they don't follow their own advice, they seem to have a penchant for saying 'OOOOOOPsie', DEMAND that people forgive them, then carrying on as if nothing happened.
It seems as if the Democrats who stray from the path are more apt to hold themselves to the consequences of their acts, and don't DEMAND forgiveness, but ask for it.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Mike in Maryland - I'm going to defend VOTE on this one. I called him a troll at first, but I take it back. I think he just made an error in judgment. I don't want to discourage anyone from constructive additions to the conversation.
I'm sure he's feeling plenty chastised already, and now he knows people can still see comments on older stories.
As for your comments on the topic at hand, I agree with both. I do think Dems "ask" for forgiveness, rather than demand it (or assume it). The right also likes to blame their poor choices on the ethos ala "I don't know what happened!"
Clinton v Dole, both men were as honest as their options, just that Dole didn't have any until he left office and got on Viagra.
SANFORD-ENSIGN 2012!
First of all, while liberals might be more comfortable with sexual variety, they are also generally feminists, and so are going to come down hard on men who cheat on their wives. Open relationships are one thing, but sneaking around behind your spouse's back is quite another.
Second, the loudest moral police in this country are the right-wingers, and they are more likely to criticize Dems and make excuses for Republicans, at least in public. So naturally Dem cheaters are attacked more than GOP cheaters.
Nosimplehiway said...
. . . if it's accompanied by true contriteness.
Except what I see all the time is the 'shamed' giving an act of appearing to be contrite, but not truly being contrite. The fundies are more apt to look at the act than the actions following, then to move to the 'forgive and forget' stage, and thus no one suffers.
It would be 'un-Christian' to be judgmental, wouldn't it (they wouldn't be judgmental of ANYONE would they?)? And seeing through the act of appearing to be contrite (but not truly being contrite) and commenting on that act, would be appearing to be judgmental, therefore the 'true Christian' must assume that any act of 'contriteness' is genuine, and not be judgmental, even if they see through the act and comment on the act, and so on and so on in a circular manner.
Short version - the fundies become hypocritical by trying to not appear hypocritical.
Really sad (to me) that they can't see themselves for the sorry, hypocritical, judgmental people they actually are.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
10kZebra said...
I'm going to defend VOTE on this one.
I could see your point on defending Vote...
EXCEPT
This is not the first time Vote has pulled this stunt.
This is not the first time Vote made an assumption based upon his own actions, and projected his assumptions on others.
And saying "no one would read it" is NOT an apology in my book, but a "LOOK AT ME!! GO LOOK AND COMMENT ON MY BLOG AT http://www.xxx" type of post, IMO.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Scott Hill…
I would emend this comment of yours, if I can—
“[T]he loudest moral police in this country are the right-wingers…”
—only to add until they are caught at the end. Remember the sanctimonious family-values pose Sarah Palin struck until it turned out that her own unmarried daughter was distributing her favors (without protection I might add) under Palin’s very roof? Then the chorus instantly shifted to “Oh isn’t it wonderful—the girl is going to have her baby and then raise it herself!”
The astute will also notice that no mention has come from the AK Exec mansion on the topic of Bristol still being unwed long after having become a mother.
The GOP—defenders of [trailer-trash] family values….
I personally do not care.
I live in Washington State and focus my energy on politics in my state (WA) and city (Seattle) and in national politics.
If people in another state want to elect political representation that is corrupt, sleazy, or incompetent I don't really care. I am sick and tired of these people that elect these clearly crooked politicians and then they want to complain about it when the person get caught.
Who cares that this guy had an affair. I don't.
This guy was dumb enough to get caught, by not telling his staff where he was, and not setting up an arrangement for if he was unable to reach who would be the acting governor (if there were a national disaster, prison riot, etc....) That was pretty foolish...If he just did those things he would be fine....
This guy is really not politically savvy....Governor is a political position..You should be politically savvy...
Pretty strange...in one week two people who were probably in the top 6 to be the GOP nominee for President in 2012 both get caught having an affair (him and NV Senator Ensign).. Ensign was #4 in GOP Senate Leadership...This guy was head of the GOP Governors Association...wow...
So only 4 of the 6 top candidates for 2012 GOP nomination don't have sex scandals?
Well....Charlie Crist, FL GOV it is pretty well documented he is gay.....Lindsay Graham, also of SC, Senator, is unmarried which would really disqualify him from getting the nomination...
So besides the returning cast from 2008 (Romney, Palin, Huckabee, Paul?) the only real newcombers might be UT Gov Huntsman (waiting to be confirmed as China Ambassador) who might not run, and....?
I personally don't care about this guys personal life...I care that he went AWOL on his state, didn't tell anyone, and there was no plan on who would make decisions if they couldn't reach him...and that nobody could reach him...
I hope this guy just apologizes and moves on....I really don't want to see the "theater" of him saying he is a born again christian....That is an insult to christians...
oh...I forgot..one newcomber will be Newt Gingrich..will run in 2012..he has had many sex scandals...and possibly Bobby Jindal who the GOP's think his ethnic background will make him their version of Barack Obama. Great.
Why does this guy have to go all the way to Argentina to have an affair? I don't get it? Does this woman not have a green card or something, can't get over here...It seems like he is going really out of his way....
SC politics are screwed because they are the only state with two reps running for GOP nominee for President in 2012...Senator Lindsay Graham, and this guy, Gov Sanford...
That means instead of working for the people of SC they will spend tall their energy trying to defy Obama (like on the stimulus) to get attention, instead of trying to help the people of their state...
Mike,
I don't think Vote is trolling. Spamming, maybe, but at least it's somewhat relevant. I'll take a hundred Votes over Pete Kent any day.
In other news: who becomes RGA chair now? The current Vice Chair is Haley Barbour; is there a succession chain, or will they hold a special election?
-Jon
Any chance of a statistical analysis of how many other Governors, Senators, and Congressmen are cheating?
-Jason M. Bryant
codeguy:
Probably not. It's tough to poll infidelity in general (number range from 15% to 75% of married individuals having affairs), but for political figures, only those who have come out and admitted it will ever be included in such studies.
Still, the number of governors and congresspeople who have been caught or coerced into confession in the last decade or so... that could be an interesting read.
-Jon
wv: gethe - as in: Mark, they're onto you; gethe hell out of Argentina!
Oh, and re: my own question. Barbour just took over as RGA chair.
wv: busitini - a classy drink for the executive on the go.
@10kzebra:
@Shap - Spitzer IS more of a criminal (prostitution is illegal)...
Um...what do you think Vitter's infidelity was? Hint: Wikipedia says "In July 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey's prostitution service in Washington, D.C."
So, please do tell us why Spitzer was "more of a criminal."
wv: resser: please give us the resser the story.
Matt said Um...what do you think Vitter's infidelity was? Hint: Wikipedia says "In July 2007, Vitter was identified as a client of "D.C. Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey's prostitution service in Washington, D.C."
Mea culpa, I was confusing him with 80% of the others just like him (not the 20% who did it illegally.)
I miss Ted Haggard. He did so much to advance atheism.
@10kzebra:
re. Clinton v. Dole: Dole had already screwed around and dumped his first wife. This was the woman who'd literally nursed him back to health after his WWII injuries.
Nice.
Dole enjoys a "good guy," "noble fighter of a tough cause" image with many. I'll never forget how he treated his first wife; nor will I forget that he had a well-earned reputation as a "hatchet man" in the Senate.
wv: gontu: the Senate's gontu the dogs, with lots more hatchet men than ever before.
There is a fundamental difference between the Sanford thing and all the other cases mentioned in this story: Sanford's actions simply weren't rational. There is zero chance that the sitting governor of a state can fly to Argentina for no official reason and disappear for a week without getting caught. Either he didn't care at all that he was going to get caught or he totally lost his mind. Neither of these things would point to an ensuing political recovery.
Or to put it more succinctly, at least most politicians at least make some reasonable attempt to hide their naughty behavior. Sanford didn't give a damn. That's a serious sign of issues.
Sanford must resign - not because he is a hypocrite (he's not a notable "family values" politician), but because his behavior is reprehensible. It shows a lack of self-control, a deep narcissism, and a fundamentally immaturity.
I say this as a conservative. My question is this: do the liberal readers of this blog agree with my reasoning? This is the second time in a week that a major GOP figure has gone been exposed in this way. I'm horrified by the behavior, but also at the deeply nihilistic moral relativism of commentary on this blog.
Jeff said Sanford must resign... because his behavior... shows a lack of self-control, a deep narcissism, and a fundamentally immaturity... My question is this: do the liberal readers of this blog agree with my reasoning?
I'm a liberal, and I agree. I earlier said it wouldn't hurt his political future, but I have to agree with your points. I think you're right about him, and I think his opponent would do well to point out these facts to voters.
Jeff -
I don't know whether he should resign from being governor (at least, not solely on the grounds of marital infidelity). A man's sex life can exist quite separately from his ability to govern. From what I've seen, he hasn't been a very good governor either, but that's... only somewhat relevant:
I'm more swayed by his horrible attempt at discretion, and the obvious political tension that manifested when Sanford "disappeared" without telling anyone how long he'd be gone or where he was going. When you lead something as big as a United State, it's pretty standard practice to make sure that your second-in-command knows how long you'll be gone, etc.
Having enemies within your own administration isn't necessarily a sign that you should resign, but it's a better indicator than marital fidelity.
Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
-Jon
There are several factors involved:
1). Party support: If your party will support you despite your ...uh... unfortunate choice, you probably will remain in power. Spitzer and Sanford have a lot of enemies in their parties. Vitter and Ensign are too important for the Republicans to toss under a bridge.
2). Executive vs. Legislative: Executives are much more "moral leadership bound" than mere legislators. Executives are suppose to run the state. If a legislator brings home the pork, the voters will forgive them even if they feast on puppy blood in their spare time.
3). Hypocrisy Factor: New Yorkers could have forgiven Spitzer for his affair with a call girl (legal or not). There would have been some complaints, but New York is a pretty liberal state in that sense. (Sure he was screwing a call girl. Hey, better than screwing us!).
But, Spitzer was Mr. Clean AG. He fought against these types of call girl rings. He went after people who laundered the money the way he did. It completely affected his entire image.
Giuliani, however, didn't have that reputation. He never presented himself as a believer in the American Family. His reputation was that of an asshole who'd do what was needed to get things done. Cheating on his wife? We expected that.
Sanford, on the other hand, had presented himself as a "values oriented" politician. He was against gay marriage because it would destroy the American family. He voted to prohibit gay adoptions, prayer in the public schools, and the display of the Ten Commandments. (Note to Sanford: Read Commandment #7).
I don't think the future looks bright for Sanford. The SC Republican Party is about to throw him under the bus. He looks like a hypocrite, and he was suppose to be the leader of South Carolina.
Also remember he used a State car and gas for his little romp. I wouldn't be too surprised to see other state expenses on his little adventure either.
It's going to be AWFULLY hard for him to come off without looking like a hypocrite in the eyes of the voters when it becomes more widely known that when he was in Congress in 1998, he voted to impeach Clinton, at one point saying that even if Clinton weren't lying under oath per se, he lied on the oath he took to his wife. He also made some comments about the values people should expect. He's also made comments about why he's an anti gay marriage person referencing his role as a devoted father to his young children. Stick a fork in him, he's done. Well, unless Fox News has anything to say about it, they apparently messed up yet again (gee, wonder why this KEEPS happening to them) when their ticker listed him as a Democrat while they were breaking the story.
Jon,
The disappearing act is deeply relevant to whether he should resign, but misses my point.
My point is this: martial infidelity is narcisstic and appetite driven. It's deeply juvenile, whether its committed by a republican or a democrat, a "family values" GOP hypocrite or not. 10kZebra seems to agree, and would presumably agree whether or not the pol in question was a republican, a family values type (not the same thing), or a Dem.
In other words, the issue isn't just, or even primarily, hypocrisy. It's adultery, and loss of self control.
This is just a big misunderstanding. Neither Sanford or his staff lied. Everyone in South Carolina knows that "taking a hike on the Appalachian Trail" is a euphemism for committing adultery.
@NATE: It ain't hypocratical, it's hypocritical. It ain't hyprocracy (rule by the hypos??), it's hypocrisy (being hypocritical, a hypocrite).
Jeff-
My point is this: martial infidelity is narcisstic and appetite driven. It's deeply juvenile, whether its committed by a republican or a democrat, a "family values" GOP hypocrite or not. 10kZebra seems to agree, and would presumably agree whether or not the pol in question was a republican, a family values type (not the same thing), or a Dem.
Eh, I'll agree to disagree there. A simple affair alone wouldn't cost my vote (provided he didn't pay for the affair with state money), but I wouldn't have been voting for Sanford anyway. Just posting an opinion because you expressed interest in what the liberals on this site thought.
I see your points, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I might be in the minority with that opinion, though. So be it.
-Jon
Trust me, Mark Sanford will be punished severely for his infidelity. He also sounds like an asshole. He skipped father's day with his wife and sons to be with his mistress in Argentina. That's a dick move. He may have used state funds to fly to Argentina to visit his mistress. That's illegal.
@Samuel,
In Italy a man like Sanford would be elected as prime minister:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/opinion/24dowd.htm?_r=1
we are doomed.
:(
Jeff, The reason Sanford is toast is straightforward. He skipped his state unannounced. Beyond that all is detail. It's not what you want out of your states chief executive, let alone the nation's! Can any South Carolinians give us any insight to how much pressure there might be on Sanford to step down now? Without that he may well hold onto the governorship, but any real hopes of 2012 should have gone up in smoke.
here you are the poll,a real one:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/121253/Extramarital-Affairs-Sanford-Morally-Taboo.aspx
92% say it's morally wrong.
"Hypocrisy," Nate.
Though given the extent of it in government, hypocracy is a nice coinage.
My liberal father said he wouldn't vote for Teddy Kennedy for president because he'd apparently panicked during Chappaquiddick, and you can't have a panicky person with his finger on The Button. (We talked like that in those days.)
Similarly, moderates and probably some conservatives won't trust Sanford with that level of executive power. I suspect that they won't trust him with state-level executive power, either.
On another note, Nate or any of the other writers: do you have any polling or insights re. the constitutional crisis in my state, New York? I'm guessing that a poll would show that over 99% of the public thinks that the NY Senate is full of dickwads. I don't know if Quinnipiac is asking the dickwad question just yet, however.
news about Sanford echoes even in Italy:
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/esteri/governatore-fedifrago/1.html
the artlicle says His wife won't forgive Him.
@Matt,
I have been in NY state last month for 2 weeks-Glen Falls up north-close to Adirondak park.
I visited lake George,nice place.
I enjoyed the people, very friendly folks...not knowing about NY senate'e people...I'll trust you.
bye
:)
I live in Charleston, SC, and this is what I hear around town:
Of course Sanford is crazy. They knew that when they voted for him. Fritz Hollings isn't exactly normal, but he was uber-popular.
Of course, he had a woman on the side. So did Thomas Jefferson. Get over it.
Of course leaving the state without telling anyone is bad form, but then the whole point of small government conservatism is to make politicans unnecessary. More than a few Southern states have part-time legislatures. I bet if someone argued we don't need a Governor at all, it would be seriously considered.
The other comment that keeps coming up is that he was busy ruining the state before all this and will continue to do so. This from both Republicans and Democrats. (Oh, and people also wonder why he said "y'alls" in his speech. No one, absolutely no one here says that. Especially MBAs from Sullivan's Island.)
When Mark disapeared, the Democrats (all 42 of us) were just hoping no one noticed he was gone, so no one would send out a search party. But, in SC there isn't much in the way of Democratic elected officials anyway, especially at the statewide level. So, the normal factionalism takes place among the GOP. When he went poof last week, half the GOP were hoping he wasn't shacked up somewhere, the other half (including Lt Gov Bauer) were hoping he was.
Which brings us to Sanford's relationship with Andre Bauer. They don't always see eye to eye on things. (Which is polite Southern speak for, "If the two of them were at the Grand Canyon, someone's getting pushed. That someone will be okay with it, because it means he can grab a pantleg on the way down, so he has company on the trip.")
If Sanford resigns, Bauer becomes Governor and is a shoo in for the Gov's race in 2010. Not gonna happen. No, really, Sanford would sooner see Ted Kennedy as Governor.
Plus, the GOP power structures here (the plural is not a typo, there are several) can't openly move against a sitting Governor, which Bauer would then be, but can't just stand by and watch him actually be elected Governor. He has a private life that needs to remain private, as far as the GOP is concerned. Protocol will preclude them from fighting him in the primary, but he will either go down to defeat in the general, or be a true historic first in this country... something the SC GOP want nothing to do with.
As an aside, I have heard more than one person in Charleston refer to the following video as absolutely nailing Southern culture's view of eccentricity:
http://buzzardbilly.blogspot.com/2008/01/front-porch-crazy.html
Governor Sanford has handed Obama a great gift, a wonderful distraction from the economic malaise the country is mired in and a welcome respite from having to defend his health care plans which are failing to gain traction in the Congress.
Just as it was with Rush Limbaugh, the AIG bonuses, Jim Cramer or Rick Santelli, Obama needs something to distract us from his lack of success and the apparent failure of his economic policies.
We are now over 4 months into his Presidency, he has been given the gift of a nearly $800 billion stimulus package and yet jobless claims came in today over six hundred thousand again. Obama seems incapable of creating jobs. Worse the price of milk and gas keeps rising, with oil prices now up over 50% since the beginning of the year.
Obama promised that if we passed the stimulus bill, unemployment would not hit 8%. Well, now its 9.4% and rising. Yesterday he admitted at his presser that the rate will top 10% this year. Match this with the fact that our stock market has declined some 40% in the past year and home prices and sales have collapsed and you have a nation hanging on by a thread, a people who cannot afford another trip to the Mall, let alone one to Disneyland!
Of course, to listen to the media, you would barely know this is going on. The statistics are at best dryly reported, but no sense of the calamity is coming through. All you hear about are “green shoots”. Well, if you ask me we have been looking at those green shoots for several months now and with jobless claims remaining over 600,000, it appears more and more that those shoots are weeds, not flowers, and our economic garden is far from ready to bloom.
Don’t believe me? Well, Obama’s friend and advisor, Warren Buffet, declared yesterday that our economy is in “shambles” (http://tinyurl.com/meudda ) and that a recovery will take years.
On what then are we spending trillions? What are we getting for our money?
Obama lied or was incredibly mistaken about his stimulus bill and its impact. Now we are supposed to trust him and his promises about healthcare reform? There, too, the numbers do not add up. Universal coverage remains a pipe dream and the cost is still in the trillions. Fictive cost savings are said to pay for a part of it, but everyone knows massive tax increases will be necessary to close the gap.
Okay, let’s say he only taxes the “rich”. What do you think that will do to near term economic activity? Again, this massive shift of wealth to the feds would do little to promote job creation and ingenuity and will cause us to be further mired in recession. And saddled with a new entitlement program that will be broken from the start and no progress having been made in dealing with the 32 TRILLION DOLLAR Medicare shortfall that the nation faces!
You have to wonder why he is doing all this to us.
In any event, you can be sure that these are questions the President does not care to answer and you can be sure he is very grateful to Governor Sanford for yesterday’s revelations about his bizarre behavior.
As a people we should not allow ourselves to be distracted from the very real problems we face and the misery that Obama is presiding over in this country.
petekent01 (on twitter)
It's going to come to the point where the GOP is going to require its political leaders to have vasectomies to prevent stuff like this from happening.
Matt-
You can still have sex (and, by extension, an affair) if you've had a vasectomy.
-Jon
wv: aunal - It wasn't cheating because we only did aunal!
PeteKent said...
"...and you can be sure he is very grateful to Governor Sanford for yesterday’s revelations about his "bizarre" behavior..."
June 25, 2009 9:19 AM
@Petey
"bizarre" behavior ???
what amusing definition You find out.
While I don't deny that sometime I also post randomly,
May I say that your posting ALWAYS on Obama whatever is the "topic" from 538'staff is "bizarre" ???
Why don't You start a "bizarre" blog if you want to talk "ALWAYS" about Obama ???
I am sure people here will follow you massively...
"As it turns out, Sanford explained Wednesday that he decided to do “something exotic” and take an extended trip to Buenos Aires."
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24146_Page2.html#ixzz0JSDjVajV&D
AHAHAHAHAHA This is at least a fully true statement. I know from experience how exotic Argentinian women tend to be, so Governor Sanford definitely was "doing something exotic" so to speak.
I wonder what our good friend Strom Thurmond is thinking.. regarding Mark Sanford for committing Adultary.
PeteKent does a service today -- most out of character -- when he notes that Spitzer violated the law while ignoring the fact that fellow right-wing whack job David Vitter did, too. Point being: to a significant extent, attitudes about infidelity comes down to whose ox will be gored. Thanks, Pete.
The same right-wing media that demanded Spitzer's resignation are silent on Vitter. Like Pete, they don't give a fuck about morals. It will cost them and theirs MONEY if Vitter is replaced with A Democrat, so he gets a pass.
What I think needs explanation is why liberals are so much more willing to throw their leaders under the bus than Republicans. Had they rallied behind Spitzer, the present circus in Albany would be much more unlikely, because Spitzer would have been able to demand the respect that Paterson no longer does and force the parties to get their act together.
Similarly, Edwards is no longer a serious option for dog catcher, whereas Gingrich, who went through a divorce and remarriage while his wife was suffering from cancer, still has a seat reserved for him on Fox News rant shows and apparently is taken seriously as a 2012 candidate to oppose Obama.
What seems to shine through all of this is that EVERYBODY fucks around -- left or right -- and the only difference is that the right says it is a defining issue, but doesn't carry that through in the pinches, while the left says it isn't, but is quick to discard its people when they get caught.
Interesting conundrum. Any explanations from this august body?
Ahh, the smell of desperation in Pete Keunt's posts is great today. First, he tries to equate traveling to Argentina to commit adultery with not going to church on Father's Day. A circus contortionist couldn't stretch that far.
Then suddenly, it's how the poor economy is Obama's fault. Funny, I seem to recall that the recession in 2001 was called "the Clinton recession" by people like PK. So how is it that a President who's been in office for all of 5 months is to blame for a recession that started before he was even elected?
Thanks for the laughs, Pete. Sometimes I need to read an intellectual lightweight like you flailing about desperately.
"More than a few Southern states have part-time legislatures"
Actually, almost every state has a part-time legislature. So what? How many states have part-time GOVERNORS? Hint: zero.
Obama owns the economy now. He made an 800 BILLION DOLLAR down payment with his stimuless bill.
He promised that he would arrest unemployment at 8% and now it is 9.4% and climbing.
Believe me by Christmas this will all be Obama's fault -- just in time for resentment to build for the following November’s midterm elections.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Pete, I'm sure you have been totally consistent in this, and in 2002 you were disagreeing with fellow republicans who blamed the recession on Clinton.
I am also confident that when the economy recovers, as it inevitably will, that Pete will be as quick to credit Obama as he is to blame him now.
Looks like Gov Sanford used taxpayer money for some of his rendez-vous in South America. Brought to you by the GOP: The Party of Family Values and Fiscal Responsibility.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24164.html
PK wrote:
"Believe me by Christmas this will all be Obama's fault -- just in time for resentment to build for the following November’s midterm elections."
Yes, let's rank this with your other insightful predictions:
- Palin's accent means that McCain will win MN.
- Palin's hunting skills means that the West goes to McCain, slam dunk.
- Hidden voters (presumably registered while hidden, and cleverly distributed in swing states) will turn out in 11-08 and make the pollsters look foolish.
- Americans are too patriotic to vote for Obama during a time of war.
There are so many others, too. Please tell us all about the Bradley Effect again, for example.
So when you say "Believe me...", followed a prediction of any sort, hilarity can only ensue.
And once again, any "resentment" of Obama that may or may not materialise does NOT mean good things for the Republicans. Simply because I may not like how an inebriated man might drive does not mean I would hand the keys over to a blind man. Only in your fevered brain could a nation disillusioned with Obama turn to a Party that proposes starting a THIRD simultaneous war, embraces radical Randian "every man for himself" economics, supports the idea of shoving fundamentalist Christian theology down the throats of Americans who apparently are too stupid to figure these complex religious issues out on their own, and a Party that has two solutions to every problem: tax cuts and scapegoating.
PK, the Republicans have already called more than half of the country "traitors" for failing to support Bush strenuously enough. That isn't a good move, particularly when finding a Republican who admitted voting for Bush or ever supporting him is quite difficult. I guess it isn't treason if Republicans don't like Bush; only if Democrats or Independents don't.
Here's my prediction: by this time next year - when Obama's police state has failed to materialise and the concentration camps for wingnuts are still only imaginary - you will claim that the horrible nightmare scenarios you anticipated were prevented by the waving of teabags in some kind of magical/political ritual that only you can fully grasp.
Todd,
It will be very difficult for the party in power to win re-election when unemployment is at the highest level since the 30s.
I suspect the people might even turn to an old, right wing, nut job, a washed up actor whose party's previous standard bearer was hounded from office in disgrace.
It happened to Carter. I can easily happen to Obama and his cohorts.
petekent01 (on twitter)
Pete Kent said... It will be very difficult for the party in power to win re-election when unemployment is at the highest level since the 30s.
This is a valid point, and one worthy of serious consideration. Did Carter inherit an economy already in failure as Obama did? Does it matter? Will people remember the waste and excess of the booming Bush fiscal orgy? It remains to be seen.
I still suspect, even if things go very badly (which economists do not predict) Obama will would win handily on charisma alone. The GOP haven't brought up a star since Reagan, and frankly, it would take a Reagan to unseat him... my belief only, not a presupposition of fact.
Careful with your predictions though, you bat far below a toss of the dice, so maybe Barnum it up a bit, or dare I say consider getting out of the sooth-saying business, what with your lackluster prediction track record.
"Obama will would win handily on charisma alone"
How sad that Zebra (above) has such a low opinion of our electorate.
What a stupid Kool-Aide drinker.
Obama may have inherited problems, but now he must fix them and not make them worse.
Even Obama's freind and advisor this week said our economy is in "shambles" and will take years to recover.
Everything Obama is doing is calculated to amke things worse not better. And that is why he will lose.
Obama is starting to seem quite insufferable, so "perfect", the Martha Stewart of the Beltway.
The mood of the country can turn.
petekent01 (on twitter)
PeteKent said... "What a stupid Kool-Aide drinker."
For those of you unfamiliar with this attempt at insult, "drinking th Kool Aid" is what the radical right says to imply that the public hais been deceived.
To republicans it means that democrats are as hoodwinked as the victims of the Jonestown Massacre.
To democrats it means you're talking to right wing fucknut with whom there is no chance of rational discussion.
As a registered republican myself (really and truly, even gave money to McCain Wednesday for his re-election... don't ask how much) I think it's in self-defacing distaste to draw such a comparison. Futher, since it has no effect, it just makes the espouser look ridiculous.
I think somebody on this site needs a little man-on-man scandal so he can let his issues go once and for all.
Post a Comment