Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Sex scandals, le style Français

6.26.2009

Sex scandals, le style Français

The last few weeks have seen several high profile sex scandals among leading politicians -- nothing new, really. Both men whose philandering was revealed were conservative, "family values" Republicans, for whom the revelations have likely begun the slow bleed of political irrelevance. Again, as it has been said many times over, the weakness of the flesh for those in power is not anything new, and frankly, rarely has it much to do with one's ability to effective administer an executive or legislative office.

When I described the Sanford story to several French colleagues, disappearance and all, they looked nonplussed - "is that all?" they asked. The personal lives of French politicians, including fairly juicy sex-related tales, have been common knowledge for generations, they explained, but it rarely becomes serious political fodder.

The past three French Presidents, including current chef d’état Sarkozy, have each had one (or more) high profile sex scandals, but of the sort far beyond just run of the mill adultery and prostitutes. Indeed, they have usually been decades-long sagas that simmered beneath the surface of French political culture.

As put by British writer Philip Delves Broughton, however, "being discreet, French and worldly about adultery, unlike the sweaty-palmed Anglo-Saxons," the French political class keeps issues of sex and family scandal below the surface as much as possible, "out of courtesy, [and] respect for a statesman's private life."

Let's begin with former President Jacques Chirac, who led France for twelve years as President from 1995 to 2007, following a twenty year career as Prime Minister, Mayor of Paris, and Minister of Interior. Though once largely ignored by the French press, it is widely known that President Chirac has an illegitimate son, one that was for years supported with funds of the French state while being squirreled away in Japan. At the same time, even his wife has written and spoken publicly about Chirac's both visual and physical appreciation of the fairer sex.

His predecessor, François Mitterrand, also maintained a second family. While he had maintained many a mistress over the years, the revelation of a secret Parisian daughter named Mazarine in the mid nineties followed nearly twenty years of mum from those in the know. The outcry that followed her discovery by the public was actually related to her being hidden from the country and the cost to national purse, rather than her "illegitimacy". In fact, that Mitterrand’s illness in office was kept secret from the public until his death - he suffered from cancer for years, which eventually ended his life - angered the French people more than any sex-related issue.

The tradition of personal privacy for the French leadership has changed a bit in more recent years, though. In fact, Nicolas Sarkozy has managed to use his personal life to great political advantage in order to attract attention, maintain interest, and divert the public's attention from controversial issues and problems of governance. His high-profile divorce, romance with Carla Bruni, several marriages and multiple children have become political assets, in fact, such that the opposition has tried to play them down. "France doesn't give a damn about heart-broken political leaders. We have too many important things on our plate," declared Arnaud Montebourg, a Socialist party member of Parliament. Indeed, the recent exposé of IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn's in-office predilections has sparked amusement more than dismay among the French populice.

The difference in style between the American and French models has often been attributed to religiosity and puritanism, with middle class white Americans often shocked and dismayed at the mere public discussion of sex. It is true, though, as pointed out in our previous discussions here (Nate and myself), that dereliction of duty, perceptions hypocrisy and misspending of public funds associated with scandals of a sexual nature are often the more damning facets of a politician’s fall from grace. Though less sensational, a leader whose sexual escapades interfere with his (or her) ability to govern is likely far more dangerous than a rampant philanderer who manages to do a good job in office (see Kennedy, John Fitzgerald).

Perhaps in the end, the French and American models are beginning to coalesce a bit, with the French becoming more tuned into the sensationalism of political smut, and Americans slowly becoming more stoic about the whole thing. If nothing else, being described as "sweaty-palmed" is enough to make me want to change my ways.
---
Renard Sexton is FiveThirtyEight's international columnist and is based in Geneva, Switzerland. He can be contacted at sexton538@gmail.com

57 comments

shawnb said...

I think it's the hypocrisy more than anything, that really bothers us. An affair? Meh. But the fact that these are the guys first in line to condemn people without so-called morals, is the issue. They ride their high horse around town pointing their fingers at everyone who isn't as religious as they are, and then they are discovered flying down to South America without telling anyone. We Americans don't expect our politicians to be perfect, but at the very least we would like them not to be hypocrites.

Grant R. said...

I agree with shawnb a bit, but I really don't care much about that either. There are many 'crimes' I can forgive my politicians of as long as they are espousing the policies *I want.* Because that's their legacy, really.

Mark Ballard said...

I agree. I really don't care in general. It's when a politician has portrayed himself (and yes it's usually men) as "holier than thou" and a "family values" conservative, that I tend to start gloating.

Father said...

If Americans are becoming more "stoic," it is out of necessity, since the scandals seem so widespread.

Although the hypocrisy is certainly an issue, I myself am more concerned -- especially in the Sanford case -- with what you called "dereliction of duty." It is one thing to have an affair and even to lie about it, but quite another to disappear without notice (or a security detail).

Colin said...

As a French BA, I have to correct your title. It should be "le style français" with the masculine article and a lowercase 'f'.

Nice post.

woof woof said...

If you're going to do the pseudo-french thing, the least you can do is get it right: "la style française".

I agree with all this, but Sarkozy really didn't have a sex scandal per se. He divorced his wife, met somebody else, fell in love and remarried.

Sure, the US press would have vapors over it, but this is pretty ordinary behavior, something millions of Americans have done, and isn't something that anybody hides.

Juris said...

In modern American parlance, perhaps we should say that French male politicians believe in cap-and-trade -- of their women.

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

Since Republicans seem to view marriage as a man and a woman and another woman or a man and a woman and complete strangers in a bathroom or lastly a man and a woman and a page in the halls of Congress, does this mean their entire argument for traditional marriage isn't really much of an argument at all?

PapaScott said...

Don't forget that the Germans are at least as good at this as the French. Before becoming Chanellor Gerhard Schröder shared bunks on a Norwegian oil platform with a journalist while still married to wife number 3. That journalist later became wife number 4.

Currently Germany have a CSU party leader with an illegimate child, an FDP party leader and 2 governors who are openly gay, and a ex-CSU official who posed in latex for a national magazine and has proposed "temporary marriages" that expire after 7 years.

On the other hand, there is SPD party leader Muntefering who left politics for 2 years to care for his dying wife. And Chancellor Merkel seems to have no private life at all, as her husband is only very rarely seen in public.

John said...

Nate, you really need to point out the obvious here, at least one based on my readings of the 2 countries. It seems uncommon in France that a plitician bases his entire political platform on moralizing to others, so when he is shown to be a philanderer, it is regarded as far less an offense. here, we have a political party that's whole platform is based and steeped in morality, so they scream from the rooftops when someone like Bill Clinton does something like this, which in turn leads others to yel at them for being complete hypocrites. If it wasn't for the entire party platform being based on the "family morality" type of campaign, it would most likely be far less of an issue, even though the puritanical origins of theis countries founding may play a role as well. And again, this is further evidenced by your prior post, the reason Spitzer had the hardest go of it was his entire image was one of law and order and values, so when the image that he chose to publicly put forth was a lie, it ended his ability to be viewed as the leader that was elected. If we didn't have a party that chose to make this an issue, most Americans could care less, as evidenced by the people who were able to maintain a level of approval once it came out.

Jeff said...

I find this sort of Europhile nonsense embarassing. "Aren't they so much more sophisticated than we are?" No. They are more class bound and in many ways more sexist than we are. Hence they tolerate the demands placed upon "great men" by their uncontrolled appetitites.

The little nod to JFK in this post is typical of the genre. He didn't just have an affair. He was serially unfaithful to his wife and kids, consorted with women who were bascially "acquired" for him, had relations with the girlfriends of mob bosses, and with actresses who later turned up dead. Talk about deriliction of duty. But I forgot, he wasn't a "family values" guy.

You liberals had better watch out. You can nail a few pols for "hypocrisy" with that line, but the widespread implication that the Dems are less "family oriented" may hurt them as much if not more.

Jon said...

@Jeff

I have to give you credit, and I sort of fall closer to your view on this, though I am a progressive rather than a conservative. Is there no connection or relationship between personal morality and corruption? Why is it a bad thing to hold our politicians to high moral standards? The tone of this article made it seem like the French are somehow more enlightened, but I resent that insinuation. The Republicans are definitely hypocrites...but in theory the Republican emphasis on morality is in many ways a good thing!

matador said...

@Renard,
la style francais ?
Qu`est ce que tu pense de la style italien ?
we have a fascist Hooker in charge,a sexual maniac moron,look:

(english version)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/opinion/24dowd.htm?_r=1

...and nobody seems to care.
what a shame,wish to have Sarkozy in Italy...

ou revoir.

:)

beavis said...

The Republicans are definitely hypocrites...but in theory the Republican emphasis on morality is in many ways a good thing!

Since when did they emphasize morality?

There are the countless number of affairs with men and women, support of torture, support of unfettered greed, they don't care that people are starving, they don't care that people have to often choose between having a place to live and seeing a doctor, they support bombing innocent civilians as a way to settle disputes, racism is rampant in the GOP, etc.

That is a good thing?

They are like a fat ass doctor lecturing the patient on obesity.

Like a priest telling people to follow the ways of Jesus, as they rape little boys.

Nate, you really need to point out the obvious here, at least one based on my readings of the 2 countries.

Why do so many people assume Nate writes everything?

Josh said...

Ugh, really? I'd rather be "sweaty-palmed" than be a pig who runs around fathering bastards left and right. I find it remarkable that personal responsibility -- even basic things like using birth control when having an affair -- is just assumed to have nothing at all to do with political judgment. This is truly an astounding implication. But of course, as the first commenter noted, the French are on a higher plane of existence entirely than we are.

matador said...

@Doc,

beavis has the same right to say his opinion as you have.
For istance,I think He is a lot less insulting than you.

get a grip.

period.

Hayford Peirce said...

The title should be either:

"Le Style Francais", with a little squiggle on the "c" in Francais

or

"a la francaise", with an accent on the "a" and a squiggle on the "c".

Personally, I think that the second one would be better

Neil said...

The issue, in my mind, is the hypocrisy. You don't see Sarkozy grandstanding about family values. American conservatives, though, like to make such things political issues, so when they get caught with their pants down...outcry isn't unreasonable.

I think this is why Berlusconi's behaviour is a bigger story than Sarkozy's. Berlusconi's a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative.

matador said...

Neil said...
Berlusconi's a social conservative as well as a fiscal conservative.

June 26, 2009 3:43 PM

@Neil,
sorry.
How would you call someone who say shamelessly that:
"Mussolini was a good fellow " ???
berlusconi is a dangerous fascist.

Berlusconi is fascist.
h

Root said...

Sexton's attempt to be all-inclusive on the adultery front by throwing in an "or her" is ridiculous since the entire op ed in no way factors in the lop-sidedness of these affairs, among men in power. In fact, what is ironically not pc is that this whole piece manages to factor out the gender issue. Also, to romanticize the European style/version of not being able to keep your dick in your pants and promote that anyone who doesn't find this romantic (and upholds monogamy) has been retarded by puritanical socializing is for the too cool for school to bat around until they (hopefully) decide to grow up. I haven't done the research, however, based upon the micro, I believe that character and behavior do matter and ARE noticed, regardless of your citizenship.

matador said...

@Doc,
I don't back up (que lastima uh ? )and I don't give a rat'ass about what you can do.
And don't worry about me.
I like hitting wall.
For istance, I have in my house a big piece of the "Berlin's wall" I took it by my own hands in Berlin in 1989.

and don't troll around,stay on topic.

un beso,smack.
:)

Persuter said...

"As long as beavis carries around a hostile and mocking tone, I'm going to hound him and the comments section in an effort to paint him as an extremely bitter person and will continue to provide the backtype log as proof.

If you don't back up, I'll do something similar to you."

Pots and kettles oughtn't to fight.

Jeff said...

I don't know how many times people are going to comment that its not the act its the "hypocrisy". WE GOT IT ALREADY. If you're a religious conservative and you act immorally, it's bad because it's hypocrisy, whereas you're fine as long as you don't espouse morality of any kind. What a charming world of private amorality and license some of you would create. But I suppose you'll never run the risk of hypocrisy, which seems to be the only vice most of you recognize.

matador said...

@Renard,
You wrote:

"Nicolas Sarkozy has managed to use his personal life to great political advantage in order to attract attention, maintain interest, and divert the public's attention from controversial issues and problems of governance. His high-profile divorce, romance with Carla Bruni, several marriages and multiple children have become political assets, in fact, such that the opposition has tried to play them down."

ok.
correct.
I don't like particulary Sarkozy,(I would have voted Segolene for sure)but I'll give respect where respect is due,as far as I know:

-He had one woman at a time.

-He didn't cheat any wife.

-His wife left Him and THEN He met Carla Bruni, not vice-versa.

For me it's ok.

mbodell said...

I agree hypocrisy is the main problem. I also don't really care what a politician does in his private life as long as it doesn't interfere with the public life. A secret affair is a risk for blackmail, the way a public affair is not. But really if a politician was able to deliver universal health care, better education, end pointless foreign wars I'd barely really care that much if they beat their wife and molested a child or two since the positives would so outweigh even this incredible negatives. Ok, maybe that is overstating my position a little, but I'm closer to that than I am to "oh noes! an affair".

I think the more interesting question might be how many of the political women have had huge sex scandals? And how would the public react to that?

Mike in Maryland said...

My respect for a politician normally drops if I find that they are a philandering idiot. The amount of that drop in respect, though, depends on what they say before and after the philandering is discovered. A "Do as I say, not as I do" kind of politician (a description that perfectly fits a large number of GOOPers) doesn't have much probability of recovering any of my respect.

In Europe, you don't have a lot of the politicians moralizing from the political bully pulpit, but here in the US, it is a common practice, especially from the GOOPer side of the aisle.

For instance, Sanford called for Clinton's impeachment for 'immoral acts'.

Sanford called for Gingrich to remove himself from politics for 'immoral acts'.

Sanford didn't support Livingston for Speaker of the House, and called for his resignation for 'immoral acts'.

Sanford called for Mark Foley to resign for 'immoral acts'.

Sanford called for Vitter to resign for 'immoral acts'.

Sanford called for Ensign to resign for 'immoral acts'.

Then when Sanford was exposed for a philandering idiot, he tried to hide the act, then begged and begged for forgiveness. He was caught doing what he accused others of, an 'immoral act'.

Typical "Do as I say, not as I do" GOOPer.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Matt W said...

Renard,
I hate to play language cop, but your use of the word "nonplussed" is a bit of a pet peeve. "nonplussed" means "completely befuddled". It is increasingly being used, and almost always is used to mean essentially the opposite of its true meaning. See here:
http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19991221

Jeff said...

The more I think about this post the more it amuses and irritates me at the same time. For one thing, it consists of a common banality. Its a stereotype, really, and much of it is false (particularly the bit about American's being prudish).

But two other points. First, are we meant to emulate all of Europe's social patterns, including their apparent tolerance for affairs. Does this include aspiring toward collaping marriage and reproduction rates?

Second, will the extramarital sex dispensation work for all of us, or just for powerful men? Just asking.

Mike in Maryland said...

BEAVIS!!

I've taken the prize of "biggest asshole that ever lived" (well, at least Doc's such titled award) away from you!! And less than four hours after he tried to award it to you!!

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Mike in Maryland said...

Jeffy?

Over here, Jeffy.

Do we now have your attention, Jeffy?

Are you saying that Americans (or as you typed it "American's") are NOT prudish?

I guess if you compare Americans with the Saudis and most of the Middle East, you might have a point. Otherwise, you are as bat-dropping crazy as the Representative of MN's Sixth Congressional district.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Dwight said...


You liberals had better watch out. You can nail a few pols for "hypocrisy" with that line, but the widespread implication that the Dems are less "family oriented" may hurt them as much if not more.


Actually the implication is that they aren't less family orientated. When it comes down to the brass tacks of it it undermines the concept of the GOP being staunchly behind the misnomer "family values". When push comes to shove the rhetoric gets revealed as being more just a widely used name calling ploy. :/

P.S. But then you try to paint JFK being an over sexed man quietly banging a quite willing, although tragically depressed beyond anyone's understanding at the time, woman that took her own life as some sort of meaningful [Presidental] "dereliction of duty". So I guess you buy into the ploy, huh?

Jeff said...

Mike in Maryland,
You're very good at getting attention. Sort of like the turd in the punch bowl.

Americans are not prudish. We are a country of extremes. We may have more prudes than most of Europe, but we also have more wildly permissive, oversexed types. We are, after all, the porn producing capital of the world - as I'm sure you know Mike. We export a culture that is in many regards quite depraved. On the whole, I think the argument that Americans are more "prudish" than our more sophisticated European counterparts is a low-level bromide. Just your kind of thing Mike.

Jeff said...

No Dwight. The common line is that "they all do it", but conservatives are hypocrites. No one suggests that the Dems are quietly living out family values but just not making a show of it. Or perhaps you need an introduction to Mssrs. Studds, Clinton, Spitzer, Kennedy, etc. What distinguishes the Dems is their supposed failure to even espouse family values.

As for JFK, are you serious? "Oversexed"? That's the funniest excuse I've heard since Wade Boggs claimed he had a sex "addiction" (an ailment he seemed to think was uncommon). Marilyn Monroe was a very sad figure regularly used like a sexual toy by powerful men. The Kennedy brothers were among those men, to their undying disgrace, if not shame. And she was merely one of many.

Dwight said...

We may have more prudes than most of Europe, but we also have more wildly permissive, oversexed types.

You don't think the one is connected to the other? At the very least at the perception level, if not at the practical level?

Nothing quite sates sex drive like getting laid regularly. If it doesn't you should probably get that checked out.

Jeff said...

Dwight,
Of course. And by the same token, we'd have a lot fewer prudes if 1/2 of our popular culture weren't a pornographic sewer.

Dwight said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Dwight said...

Jeff said...

Dwight,
Of course. And by the same token, we'd have a lot fewer prudes if 1/2 of our popular culture weren't a pornographic sewer.


Which came first? Which is the natural unwinding of it?

Dwight said...

No Dwight. The common line is that "they all do it", but conservatives are hypocrites.

That is indeed the perception that Craig, Hoover, et al have managed to foster. *shrug*

No one suggests that the Dems are quietly living out family values but just not making a show of it.

Well I am suggesting that indeed some are. Or are you aware of some early 60's (or late 90's greyhair) pr0n work by Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter that isn't widely known?

But of course the name "family values" is just bullshit nebulous code words for "what my morales are". Sadly all too often hate is the real core of the "family values". :/ Because the rest is quite flexible, as events have shown. Witness the Palin saga (well she's getting married...well know she isn't...OK, she's a bit of a pothead...and we are all going to air our dirty laundry and be a pack of dickwads...etc). I frankly think it's silly to dwell on Bristol's life and her mistakes. Shit happens, kids (and yes, adults) screw up from time to time. But that's what has happened when your party makes a habit of picking up the moral high ground stick to beat on opponents.

Or perhaps you need an introduction to Mssrs. Studds, Clinton, Spitzer, Kennedy, etc. What distinguishes the Dems is their supposed failure to even espouse family values.

If by "wrap themselves in a fucking prudish flag", maybe. Although that's even quite questionable (see Tipper Gore vs video games).

As for JFK, are you serious? "Oversexed"? That's the funniest excuse I've heard since Wade Boggs claimed he had a sex "addiction"

An excuse? Where exactly did you get the impression that it was an excuse?

Michael said...

On JFK:

His sexual immorality was truly dangerous and should have been exposed (but wasn't, because the media were way too unwilling to do so then, whereas they have arguably gone too far now), because by screwing a Mafia moll, he risked - um - assassination! I believe that's one of the reasons he was murdered. And it also could have opened him up to blackmail. JFK is a very poor example of a "rampant philanderer who [supposedly] manages to do a good job in office."

Dwight said...

I believe that's one of the reasons he was murdered.

Is your "I believe" list also populated by aliens in Area 51, fake moon landings, and black UN helicopters?

Mike in Maryland said...

Surprise, surprise.

The person who calls themself "Michael" with a blogger ID of 15544297517349592034 has not made their blogger profile available to the public. I've found that that is a VERY typical behavior pattern of a lot of the TROLLs who infest this place.

It's starting to look like the person who calls themself "Michael" is a 'concern TROLL'. We'll just have to see how concerned "Michael" becomes, how much and how much "Michael" reacts when certain bills are introduced, debated in committee, debated on the floor, and/or then sent to President Obama for signature into law.

My prediction is that there will be a meltdown of pretenses within about three months (late September), although it could be a lot sooner.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Just John said...

A little ditty for the blog owner:

Nate, Nate.
Please moderate.
So much hate.
Poisons 538.
Thanks mate.

cheapseats said...

Just for information (for those who don't know or are not sure), Sarkozy is known, in private, as a "sauteur serial"... serial, as in serial killer... sauteur, as in jumper, as in will jump on anything.

It's even very discretely acknowledged that he's even got the JFK system with people on his staff lining 'em up for him when he's moving around (sans Carla, of course...).

Sarkozy, however, would never discuss personal sexual morality. If the French know anything, it's that life is complicated, marriages are complicated, and it's not just about someone getting their end in. Marital fidelity, passion, sex... these are adult subjects which make childish black and white, cut and dried, off the rack opinions.

What's puky about Sarkozy -- is how he protects the extremely rich, while moralizing about how poor people don't have a work ethic...

adrian mckinty said...

Nate

From the context of your piece I think that you think nonplussed means unimpressed or unmoved. A lot of people think that. However it actually means exactly the opposite.

Guys, correct Nate's French if you must but maybe we should get the English sorted out first.

cheapseats said...

OXFORD English Dictionary

nonplussed
/nonplusst/

• adjective 1 surprised and confused. 2 N. Amer. informal unperturbed.

— USAGE In standard English nonplussed means ‘surprised and confused’. A new meaning, ‘not disconcerted; unperturbed’, has developed recently in North American English, probably on the assumption that the prefix non- must have a negative meaning; this is not yet accepted as standard usage.

— ORIGIN from Latin non plus ‘not more’.

******************

In other words, Nate is just being American here...

Dan said...

Interesting post, but in this case the affair was practically an after thought in this case. The story started by people wondering where the Governor had gone. That is the story that caught the imagination of the country. There were no initial reports of an affair. The affair then explained the disappearance. If Mitterand had disappeared from office, I think people would have paid more attention to why. I enjoyed reading about French politics, but there isn't a great correlation or lesson to learn in this case.

Opus 132 said...

@ adrian mckinty

@ cheapseats


People,can't you read? Nate did NOT write this piece.Renard Sexton did.

Opus 132 said...

@ Josh

But of course, as the first commenter noted, the French are on a higher plane of existence entirely than we are.

The French,with everybody on universal single-payer healthcare and mandated 4-5 week annual vacations,most definitely are on a higher plane of existence than we are!

Hayford Peirce said...

The French also eat better, drink better, have better sex lives, and live longer. They *must* be doing something wrong!

Opus 132 said...

They also have a much lower percentage of the population that attend religious services regularly.So they're also more enlightened than we are.

Michael said...

Mike, I hope you're not referring to me as a "concern troll." There are several "Michael"s posting here, so I'm supposing you mean another one, because no reasonable person could think there's anything "concern trolly" about posting that JFK's dangerous liaison with a Mafia moll should have been exposed. I'm a social democratic-leaning liberal with strong civil libertarian leanings. Meanwhile, while I'm replying to you, I agree with a lot of what you post but totally reject your argument that "s/he did it first," when people try to call you on posting juvenile epithets about Republicans. Name-calling is dumb, regardless of what party anyone belongs to.

Mike in Maryland said...

Michael said...
I hope you're not referring to me as a "concern troll."

Hmmm, I click on your screen name, and get "http://www.blogger.com/profile/15544297517349592034"

In my post, I stated "The person who calls themself "Michael" with a blogger ID of 15544297517349592034"

Seems one and the same to me.

I ended the above paragraph with "has not made their blogger profile available to the public. I've found that that is a VERY typical behavior pattern of a lot of the TROLLs who infest this place."

That is still the case.

Am I missing something here? Something like maybe blogger has handed two different people the same blogger ID, and that they use the identical screen name?

Nah. Don't think blogger would do something like that. But even if blogger were to make such a mistake, what are the probabilities that two such different people would use the exact same screen name? Quite low, I would think.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Michael said...

Don't know what to tell you, Mike. I frankly have no idea what my profile number is, nor how to give myself a different identity on this site than my actual first name. And I have seen posts by "Michael" here that I didn't post - repeatedly, over a period of months (I've read and posted here since the latter stages of the primaries, if I remember correctly). My unsolicited advice to you: Your best bet is to react to the content of the posts. Don't expect me to react to further tendentious assertions by you on the basis of my blogger ID or profile.

Michael said...

Oh, just one more comment, for the hell of it. I keep my profile info private because I don't want any posters emailing me, for pretty damn obvious reasons. You're so confrontational that you probably enjoy getting crazy, threatening emails from right-wing trolls (I needn't mention names) here. I don't. I want people to address my posts on these boards here only.

wv: tacire, which is close to the Italian for "be quiet" (tacere)

Lynne said...

I don't like either the Republican reaction or the European reaction to politicians having affairs. Why not just say, yes it is wrong, it's a crappy thing to do to a person but marriage is a private matter and not the concern of the voters - unless of course there is dereliction of duty or hypocrisy. If we expect every politician to always be 100% honest in their personal dealings, never cheat, never have a secret bank account from one's spouse, never drink too much, never have a heated argument and say something rude, etc.- we will always be disappointed! They are not saints or superhumans - they are ordinary human beings who make mistakes..and if it's not an affair it will be something else. We elect them for a particular job - not to be some sort of role model for families to emulate! As far as I'm concerned yes politicians should apologize for being hypocrites but one who has an affair only needs to apologize FOR THE AFFAIR ITSELF to his wife and maybe kids. And if his wife forgives him, everyone else should butt out.

Lynne said...

Oh, I forgot to add that in the specific case of Sanford both the level of hypocrisy and his disappearing act make it understandable that people in SC want him to resign. I think we could have done without the apology for the affair, tho - that's something he needed to say privately to his wife! And the detailed emails being released? Really, that's more than I needed to know!

Steven said...

I have just one question.......it's THE question: Did Sanford fly first-class? .....if he did, that hits home stronger than all else.......it's also the best way to insure a resignation......Did Sanford fly first-class? I'd really like to know.....