It really wasn’t Mark Sanford’s fault
This is a copy of the Appalachian Trail map that my sources say was given to Gov. Sanford for his hike. So his confusion is perfectly understandable. I’m also told that the source of the faulty map was a South Carolina Capitol reporter, which of course makes this entire mess the media’s fault, as many have suggested.
UPDATE:
Sanford just had his press conference, in which he confessed to cheating on his wife and apologized to all who had faith in him. He handled it about as well as could be expected, explaining a classless act in a pretty classy fashion.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
289 comments Add your comment
I rule Andy
June 24th, 2009
4:47 pm
No…, I weep for you. You’re the one defending it. Not excited at all, not even mildy suprised, are you?
mike
June 24th, 2009
4:47 pm
Paul –
“Take all the ‘don’t do this’ sex stuff out of the political platform. Don’t have to advocate, just don’t address it.”
You mean take out all of the views that you don’t personally agree with. Well, I vote that the Democrats take out all of the policies out of their platform that I don’t personally agree with
I rule Andy
June 24th, 2009
4:48 pm
Where is that rascal Andy?
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
4:48 pm
getalife–Am Vet sez you from Louis-anne…Earl?
Paul
June 24th, 2009
4:49 pm
getalife
you have a weird idea of ’sadly.’
Like I said this morning, that was a great pitcher, only a freshman, pitched all 9 innings.
I’m sure LSU will win their 6th National Championship.
Just not tonight!
GayGrayGeek
June 24th, 2009
4:49 pm
mike, I suggest you live in a state where the Governor, running for re-election, uses you and your mate as his Whippin’ Boys in order to gain said re-election. As my husband and I did in 2006 in South Carolina. Once you’ve lived thru that experience, check back in with us about the level of Schadenfreude you might feel at said “morals and family values” Governor’s downfall.
electrician
June 24th, 2009
4:49 pm
mike..please define ‘fundamentalist christian’ do you know what it means? or are you just repeating what someone else told you?
mike
June 24th, 2009
4:49 pm
I rule Andy –
“No…, I weep for you.”
Why weep for me? I could not care less one way or the other?
“You’re the one defending it.”
What am I defending?
“Not excited at all, not even mildy suprised, are you?”
Nonsense. You are clearly thrilled with your childish taunting and applauding.
Am I surprised that a politician cheated on his wife? No.
mike
June 24th, 2009
4:51 pm
electrician –
“please define ‘fundamentalist christian’ do you know what it means? or are you just repeating what someone else told you?”
I do know what it means and I am repeating the quote recent post from NJ.
What is your point?
Paul
June 24th, 2009
4:52 pm
mike
Has nothing to do with what I agree with or not.
It’s a tailor-made issue to continue causing the Party grief. People can state standards to aspire to, but in this arena, when they fall short, it’s target and distraction time.
Face it: if they want to attract people who’ve never had sex outside of marriage, they’d get about… what…. 3 percent of the voters?
And of those 3 percent, two thirds are gonna register Democrat anyway.
It’s a loser issue with no upside.
mike
June 24th, 2009
4:53 pm
GayGrayGeek –
“mike, I suggest you live in a state where the Governor, running for re-election, uses you and your mate as his Whippin’ Boys in order to gain said re-election. As my husband and I did in 2006 in South Carolina. Once you’ve lived thru that experience, check back in with us about the level of Schadenfreude you might feel at said “morals and family values” Governor’s downfall.”
Uhh, why is this silly diatribe directed at me?
Are you going to answer my question from before? As you are so interested in this story and you are also so concerned with consistency, you must have considered the Clinton infidelity a big deal. Why are you so interested in the private lives of others? Unless of course you didn’t think the Clinton infidelity was a big deal or you are inconsistent.
Mrs. Godzilla
June 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
there seems to be a possibility that the taxpayers or SC paid for that
little walkabout…..
Midori
June 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
Hi, Paul
heading out to the Farmer’s Market…
RW-(the original)
June 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
Geez…An Argentine babe took out Sharapova today too.
electrician
June 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
mike ..the point is define fundamentalist christian if you are going to use that label.
Kayaker 71
June 24th, 2009
4:54 pm
Clinton, Je$$ie, Edwards, “Cold Cash Jefferson”, Foley, that jerk in the men’s room tapping his foot, Gingrich, O’Reilly, Ensign, all of the Kennedy family…. where does it end? Our elected officials and others in the public eye make a mockery of our trust placed in them to hold them to somewhat of a higher standard than the average guy/girl. Now Sanford. I take back everything I said in my earlier post…. I was mistaken to try to stand up for this guy. But please quit trying to place blame on a particular political party. It is unfair to do this, no matter what party you belong to.
mike
June 24th, 2009
4:55 pm
Paul –
“Face it: if they want to attract people who’ve never had sex outside of marriage, they’d get about… what…. 3 percent of the voters?”
Is the party running on a new “no sex outside of marriage” platform? Nobody told me about this.
Paul
June 24th, 2009
4:55 pm
Mrs Godzilla
walking wasn’t the problem….
Midori
In season, local produce: yay!
RW-(the original)
Not Sharapova, too!! Now even the tennis circuit has a morality clause?!!?
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
4:56 pm
mike–just playing devil’s advocate here, but public figures give up their private lives or at least here in the good ole USA
GayGrayGeek
June 24th, 2009
4:56 pm
Since Sanford went to Argentina to cry, this video seems So So Incredibly Apt today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-XrAyCuXGs.
mike
June 24th, 2009
4:56 pm
electrician -
“mike ..the point is define fundamentalist christian if you are going to use that label.”
Uhh, I was asking NJ to back up the label that he used.
If one must “define fundamentalist christian if you are going to use that label”, why are you not asking NJ who called Sanford a fundamentalist Christian?
getalife
June 24th, 2009
4:57 pm
joseph,
Born in Vegas and staying down here on the coast (major global warming today) until can sell this house then back to Vegas.
Paul,
LSU was flat last night.
Remember, they thrive on drama.
RW-(the original)
June 24th, 2009
4:57 pm
Paul,
She didn’t take Sharapova down quite the same way.
Mrs. Godzilla
June 24th, 2009
4:57 pm
Ensign and Sanford…..AND the “C” Street Foundation and “The Family”
hhhmmmmmmm….interesting…..
Paul
June 24th, 2009
4:58 pm
mike 4:55
Seems to be the issue time and again, doesn’t it? Don’t believe me? Just ask the board if they can name, without Googling, a couple of Republicans who’ve made sex only among married to each other folks an issue, who’ve then not followed their own pronouncements.
But don’t. I don’t believe the AJC has enough storage space on this blog to accommodate the flood….
Cindy
June 24th, 2009
5:00 pm
Dems aren’t really outraged over Sanford’s regression….we just remember the Clinton witch hunt. We’re more outraged over the hyprocrisy of it all. Gopers trouncing on poor Bill and none any better.
Definitely JFK and Marilyn.
DoggoneGA
June 24th, 2009
5:00 pm
“where does it end? ”
Get used to it…it doesn’t
Mr. Snarky
June 24th, 2009
5:01 pm
Man those republican politicians love the ladies! Too bad they can’t let go of the whole puritanical “family values” facade…then they could be like Silvio Berlusconi or Sarkozy and have some fun with it. Instead, the egomaniacs have to sneak around and cheat on their wives. Then the wives have to pretend to support them through the scandal…oh the humanity!
Not that democrats are unfaithful, but they generally don’t try to corner the market on morality.
Paul
June 24th, 2009
5:01 pm
RW-(the original)
Oh, whew. Thanks. One more fantasy intact.
getalife
Well, tonight they’ll flourish. But the Texans are more of a ‘we’ll get down, but then we’ll counterattack and overwhelm.”
Had chicken fried pork chops last night. A salute to both states.
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:01 pm
Paul –
“Just ask the board if they can name, without Googling, a couple of Republicans who’ve made sex only among married to each other folks an issue, who’ve then not followed their own pronouncements.”
I’ve got an easier one. Name me some Republicans ” who’ve made sex only among married to each other folks an issue” this decade. Considering that you are so confident, you should have plenty of answers on the tip of your tongue.
GayGrayGeek
June 24th, 2009
5:02 pm
mike – Abstinence-Only Sex Education. Which, as we all saw, was a roaring success in the case of Bristol Palin.
Oh, and as to your demands – this is Jay’s blog. If you want to dictate who everyone is to talk and write about, start your own blog.
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:03 pm
Cindy –
“Dems aren’t really outraged over Sanford’s regression….we just remember the Clinton witch hunt”
Republicans were not “outraged” either. They were just taking the kind of political cheap shots that the left is taking at Sanford.
If Sanford is a hypocrite, than so are his critics.
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:04 pm
GayGrayGeek
Looked like an Obamita rally to me…jus’ sayin’
RW-(the original)
June 24th, 2009
5:05 pm
Paul,
I would have thought this news would have sparked a new fantasy or two.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you people really think the investigation of Clinton began with Monica? If he had cooperated with the original investigation it would’ve been over before Monica got out of grade school.
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:06 pm
mike:
“If Sanford is a hypocrite, than so are his critics.”
Couldn’t agree more!
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:07 pm
GayGrayGeek –
“mike – Abstinence-Only Sex Education. Which, as we all saw, was a roaring success in the case of Bristol Palin.”
Knew that was coming. Many Republicans want abstinence taught as a birth control method, not as a code of conduct for adults. That’s like saying that a Democrat who had unprotected sex is a hypocrite. Nice try.
“Oh, and as to your demands – this is Jay’s blog. If you want to dictate who everyone is to talk and write about, start your own blog.”
Easy. I dictated nothing. All I asked was if you were going to answer my question, as I answered yours when you chose to engage me. Your failure to answer is answer enough.
Paul
June 24th, 2009
5:07 pm
mike
You’ve got me, there. There aren’t any. Republicans this past decade don’t talk about sex outside of marriage. At all.
‘cept for abstinence only.
‘cept for homosexuality.
‘cept for the Republican Platform making marriage an issue.
AmVet
June 24th, 2009
5:07 pm
“I’m a bottom-line kind of guy. ~Mark Sanford
It just keeps getting better and better…
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:10 pm
AmVet
“It just keeps getting better and better…”
Don’t it just!
Paul
June 24th, 2009
5:11 pm
RW-(the original)
Make that TWO fantasies intact!
mike – good comeback on abstinence only.
So, I’m mistaken… So you’re saying Republican politicians and their constituents don’t give a fig about whether or not they mess around?
@@
June 24th, 2009
5:12 pm
IRA @ 4:38:
I wasn’t wrong — just disinterested. Innocent until evidence to the contrary can be delivered.
It WAS entertaining to see you guys so eager to share in his sexual escapades. Envy?
That’s something I wouldn’t know about but you libs……..
Hilarious!
Chris Salzmann
June 24th, 2009
5:12 pm
At least we can say that Gov. Sanford is an expert in foreign relations, off-shore drilling and not against all stimulus
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:14 pm
Paul –
Lame responses.
“‘cept for abstinence only.”
Again, Republicans want abstinence taught as a birth control method. It has nothing to do with making a moral value on “sex outside of marriage”.
“‘cept for homosexuality.”
The only thing that the GOP talks about relative to this is about the gay marriage. it has nothing to do with making a moral value on “sex outside of marriage”.
“‘cept for the Republican Platform making marriage an issue.”
The only thing that the GOP talks about relative to this is about the gay marriage. it has nothing to do with making a moral value on “sex outside of marriage”.
If this is your evidence that the GOP has made an issue about sex outside of marriage, you have made no case.
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:15 pm
Chris Salzmann @ 5:12
“At least we can say that Gov. Sanford is an expert in foreign relations, off-shore drilling and not against all stimulus ”
The best one yet!
AmVet
June 24th, 2009
5:17 pm
So the guy disappears for days on end. His staff concocts a farcical, lamebrain story or two. And the most gullible sheep on the planet – the neo-conned – think it is all harmless.
Geez, no wonder they keep getting annihilated every other November…
I'm ruled by Andy
June 24th, 2009
5:18 pm
Ok, ok, I admit it, I’m really Mrs. Sanford.
Mark was a good and honest man that waited until after the marriage to take my virginity and on our wedding not, he discovered that I was a he/she.
He said eewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Haven’t seen him since.
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:18 pm
Paul –
“So, I’m mistaken… So you’re saying Republican politicians and their constituents don’t give a fig about whether or not they mess around?”
I’m not saying that. I am sure that some Republicans look at them with less respect, just as some Democrats look at John Edwards with less respect.
I am guessing that Republican politicians would be in more trouble with their constituents than a Democrat politician would be.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
June 24th, 2009
5:18 pm
Mrs. Palin, your table is ready.
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:20 pm
“Geez, no wonder they keep getting annihilated every other November…”
Yeah, for two whole elections now. Whoopee.
electrician
June 24th, 2009
5:20 pm
mike..guess I’m out of the loop a little here, not a real blog pro, anyway ..I’ve been a christian for about 40 years and neither myself or any of my many christian friends use the terms fundamentalist,right wing or conservative christian to describe ourselves, these terms are usually espoused by someone who is connecting them to criticisms of Christians in general,
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:20 pm
The Unmentionable just came in from talking to the cross-the-street neighbor out working in the front yard. Asked her what she was doing out there in the heat of the day, Said she just wanted to make sure we knew it wasn’t her. She’s Argentine…
@@
June 24th, 2009
5:21 pm
It’s kinda odd that jay would write three Sanford columns based on pure speculation. Now that facts are in evidence, he’s silent.
No doubt he’ll come in to tell us he’s “been busy”.
Paul
June 24th, 2009
5:26 pm
mike
to piggyback on my 5:11 in light of your 5:14:
You you’re saying this whole sexual morality thing attributed to Republicans is mistaken? Granted, the discussion early on went down the ‘only within marriage’ thing, which was likely misleading but understandable, in light of all the recent Republican politicians committing adultery, but again, to clarify…
On further reflection, I’m holding off on the ‘good one’ for abstinence comeback. Why do Republicans want abstinence taught as a birth control method if they don’t care whether or not someone who isn’t married has sex? Seems abstinence only is trying to impose no sex on those who aren’t married (sex outside marriage doesn’t mean only for married couples – it means sex outside the institution of marriage).
Republicans don’t have any angst with gays and how they live as long as they don’t go for marriage?
I suppose, for me, anyway, is for the guy who runs as the Republican candidate to replace the governor, is to have him say:
What gays do is their business. I don’t care. As long as they don’t want to get married, I’m fine.
Abstinence only is only a birth control issue. It has nothing to do with morality. If that means oral sex, manual stuff, hey, I’m fine with that.
Maybe for good measure he could advocate repealing sodomy statutes. Those apply to married hetersexuals, too, you know.
Maybe a clear statement that “Sex outside marriage is not a political issue and I won’t discuss it.”
Think he’d win? Think he’d even get nominated?
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:26 pm
Whoo-whee, folks, git on upstairs, Jay’s on a roll today!
DoggoneGA
June 24th, 2009
5:26 pm
“No doubt he’ll come in to tell us he’s “been busy”.”
More likely: he’s laughing to hard to type coherently.
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:27 pm
electrician –
“.guess I’m out of the loop a little here, not a real blog pro, anyway ..I’ve been a christian for about 40 years and neither myself or any of my many christian friends use the terms fundamentalist,right wing or conservative christian to describe ourselves, these terms are usually espoused by someone who is connecting them to criticisms of Christians in general,”
I totally agree and was actually calling out NJ to back up his sneering use of the term. Trust me, I am definitely with you on this subject.
Mrs. Godzilla
June 24th, 2009
5:27 pm
No good will ever come from outsourcing nookie!
What’s wrong with a mistress from the good old U S of A?
Why does Sanford hate American hussies?
DoggoneGA
June 24th, 2009
5:31 pm
“Why does Sanford hate American hussies?”
The jokes just write themselves, don’t they?
Paul
June 24th, 2009
5:31 pm
Mrs. Godzilla
Maybe it has something to do with the exchange rate -
I’m going upstairs -
AmVet
June 24th, 2009
5:33 pm
“…outsourcing nookie!”
Oh, Mrs. G, you do make me laugh!
No matter the topic, the conned here are always outwomanned…
suck my thumb
June 24th, 2009
5:34 pm
“Size 16 is Sexy” uh sorry it ain’t!! Unless your trying to uplift someones self image. Otherwise it’s FAT!!!!
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:35 pm
Mrs. Godzilla
“No good will ever come from outsourcing nookie!
…Why does Sanford hate American hussies?”
That’s TOO good!
DoggoneGA
June 24th, 2009
5:35 pm
“Otherwise it’s FAT!!!!”
You have a LOT to learn about size 16s
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
5:37 pm
suck my thumb
“Size 16 is Sexy” uh sorry it ain’t!! Unless your trying to uplift someones self image. Otherwise it’s FAT!!!!
Well, as my brother with a taste for the zaftig says, “if you want to sleep on a bed of nails, don’t let me stop you,,,”
suck my thumb
June 24th, 2009
5:38 pm
No I don’t think so. Movin layers to get to the sweet stuff is not my idea of FUN! But to each ………..
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:44 pm
Mike –
“You you’re saying this whole sexual morality thing attributed to Republicans is mistaken?”
Not entirely. What I would say is that socially conservative people are a big block of the Republican party. In order to get elected in some of these conservative districts, you need to support the policies that represent the will of those voters. Whether or not a particular politician does things that are inconsistent with those positions is not a big deal in my mind. Much like I don’t have an issue with Obama signing anti-smoking legislation when he still smokes. Just because he does it doesn’t mean that he doesn’t believe it is dangerous and it doesn’t mean that voters don’t generally support the legislation.
Now guys like Sanford and Craig are in trouble with some conservative folks, but as the base’s continued support of flawed people like Newt and Rush shows, even the most hardcore conservative is able to overlook an individual flaws, much like the most hardcore liberal call overlook Ted Kennedy’s adventures. The fact that he got away with manslaughter and is still a leader in the Senate does not mean that the Democratic party or Democratic voters don’t really care about justice.
“Why do Republicans want abstinence taught as a birth control method if they don’t care whether or not someone who isn’t married has sex?”
Well, it is a birth control method. Not one which I was inclined to use when a teen, but a method nonetheless.
Some Republicans believe that promotion of contraceptives encourages underage sex. Not my view, but that is the position of many. The difference is the focus on underage as opposed to extramarital. The fact that many conservatives don’t want contraceptives to be taught does not mean they are against the adult usage of them.
suck my thumb
June 24th, 2009
5:45 pm
Obviously no one here knows that a size 16 is BIG!!!! Does Martin Lawrence’s “BIG MAMA” ring a bell???? (slight exag)
Copyleft
June 24th, 2009
5:47 pm
Show some tact and decorum, people. After all, when John Edwards confessed his affair, the conservatives were respectful and considerate…
No, wait a minute.
Never mind. Carry on!
suck my thumb
June 24th, 2009
5:50 pm
Copyleft-I agree the same treatment should be used on all. It’s all good. If your scum your scum regardless of political affiliation.
Paul
June 24th, 2009
5:52 pm
mike
That’s decent.
But I would submit, the reality is, the Republican base is quite sexually conservatively traditional. In theory. And that conflicts with the practical reality.
But as you point out, they’re going to get elected by reflecting those values. Whether they agree with them or not.
So it seems to me, even if not officially stated, that the de facto position of most Republicans is along the lines of a a big, big consideration of sex within marriage for married couples and all that other stuff.
suck my thumb
June 24th, 2009
5:54 pm
One other thing about size 16. The only time that it would’nt be considered BIG, is if she is 7 FRICKIN FEET TALL!!!!!!!!!! People
mike
June 24th, 2009
5:59 pm
Paul –
“So it seems to me, even if not officially stated, that the de facto position of most Republicans is along the lines of a a big, big consideration of sex within marriage for married couples and all that other stuff.”
Well that’s a bit of an extraplolation. There are really only two sex-related policies that the Republicans take. They are opposed to abortion and they are opposed to same-sex marriage. I don’t think they care a bit about sexual relations between consenting adults. I consider myself a conservative and I think adultery is wrong, but a pretty common offense committed by lots of good people. I don’t really care about what anyone else does. I think that position is a lot more common among conservatives than you would believe.
GayGrayGeek
June 24th, 2009
6:14 pm
Mrs. G – I almost want to ask you to marry me. Well, except for the fact that I’m already married. And Gay. And the fact that you’re already a Mrs., as well…
GayGrayGeek
June 24th, 2009
6:16 pm
Hehehe. A dear friend of mine just posted this over on FaceBook:
So let’s see…we have David Vitter, Senator Wide Stance Craig, John Ensign and NOW Governor Sanford. How’s them Family Values? I guess they valued family so much they wanted more than one.
Andy the Welcher
June 24th, 2009
6:35 pm
Damn the luck I was in stall next Mr. Stanford just tapping my foot like crazy, then I tried the extra wide stance, now I know why he wasn’t going for it, he had some tasty Argentinian trollup already lined up…
ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
josef nix
June 24th, 2009
6:48 pm
GayGrayGeek
Can’t ever have too much of a good thang’s what I always say!
Responsible Reporting
June 24th, 2009
7:04 pm
If you are looking for more informed and relevant opinions in Georgia and the United States please see
http://www.boortz.com
http://www.drudgereport.com
Stop reading this guy because he should not be allowed to put food on his table for his family after writting this.
Hilarious
June 24th, 2009
7:04 pm
ROFLMAO!!!
Kayaker 71
June 24th, 2009
7:31 pm
What the hell is wrong with size 16? There’s just more there to love.
Andy the Welcher
June 24th, 2009
9:17 pm
writting is not a word moron.
Yankee
June 24th, 2009
10:07 pm
I now understand why Gov. Sanford (R) SC did not want the Stimulus for South Carolina. He was already getting HIS Stimulus.
ghostwriter
June 25th, 2009
6:20 am
Her Whiner,
Do you remember Reagan’s Iran policy? Sending a bible inside a chocolate cake! Trading weapons for hostages! Please!
How about his slobbering over Marcos in the Philippines after he stole the vote? How about the smear campaign he tried against Cory Aquino? That was a real profile in courage.
How about blaming the Carter Administration for the deaths of 241 Marines after the barracks bombing at the Beirut airport 3 years after Carter left office? Lay off Obama. Your hero was a loser!
JSS
June 25th, 2009
8:01 am
Boortz??? Mike Drudge??? Are you kidding me? No rational person still listens to those fools… Good luck to you if you get your information from those clowns… Just imagine where we’d be with that national tax scheme right now, Bankrupt like GM!!!
RLJ
June 25th, 2009
10:01 am
A family and marriage are hurting because of this man’s hypocrisy. Can we lay off the jokes?
Copyleft
June 25th, 2009
10:13 am
Certainly. I remember the respectful silence given to John Edwards and Bill Clinton, for example.
N.J
June 25th, 2009
12:22 pm
I am not referring to Sanford himself, but to the religious right and the absurd inconsistencies in their religious ideology
And one can be a FUNDAMENTALIST without being an EVANGELICAL. Sanford repeatedly gave statements which were based FIRMLY on Fundamentalist, literalistic interpretations of scripture. One CAN be a FUNDAMENTALIST and an EPISCOPALIAN
There are some who liken Sanford to a New Barry Goldwater, rather than a new Reagan, or more like Ron Paul.
But he was rather involved with the South Carolina branch of Focus on the Family and similar groups.
N.J
June 25th, 2009
12:39 pm
The biggest hypocrisy is that one of the loudest mouthed politicians screaming for Clinton’s impeachment was John Ensign another one of these hypocritical Republicans. No one would give a rats ass if these guys simply left the entire issue of who sleeps with who outside of the political arena, and especially left the entire issue of RELIGION out of the electoral process completely. Listening to the European media comparing American politics to Iranian Politics has been very enlightening, because in the last three decades, most political candidates to national office have had to pass muster when it comes to asserting their “Christian” faith. No one who asserted they were an atheist, or agnostic could actually meet the religious test that is now necessary to even get close to a nomination. There is both legal and constitutional precedent for removing such considerations from the election and campaign processes.
What is most ironic is that during the FIRST presidency, a member of Washington’s cabinet, Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, was brought to court on morals charges for having an affair with a married woman, the assertion being that this somehow made him unfit for high office and the courts ruled in Hamilton’s favor. That ones personal life should NEVER be used to make a case for their performance in public office, and it was illegal to use it to remove a person from office. Nor should it ever be used in a line of questioning with regard to an elected or nominated official.
Of course this was ignored in the questioning of Bill Clinton. In effect, such a line of questioning was made illegal by the courts well over 200 years ago. The entire Lewinsky issue was legally beyond the scope of the special counsel.
Again the issue is not who sleeps with who to anyone of a progressive leaning. What is the issue is the hypocrisy followed by the varied forms of “mea culpa,.mea maxima culpa” that follow quickly upon the heels of one of these stories.
The statistics are pretty firm. One in two people in this country have such peccadilloes. Half of all those Republicans dribbling virtue out of the corners of their mouths are extremely likely to be getting some on the side, if they are the average sort of family guys they claim to be.
Most Democrats wouldn’t care at all about Mark Sanford of John Ensign if the didn’t play the “holier than thou” game that Republicans play with religion.
N.J
June 25th, 2009
12:42 pm
Don’y Cry for me Argentina…does anyone remember Wilbur Mills and Fannie Fox?
The difference is that after Mills got snagged with an Argentinian stripper, his DEMOCRATIC constituency re-elected him with 60 percent of the vote.
N.J
June 25th, 2009
12:52 pm
And to be honest, I am not at all worried about how much Sanford’s family is hurting. His policies have left a lot of people hurting a lot more where it counts. Joblessness, homelessness, people losing their houses, and a governor who rejects all efforts to actually do something about it. Everything that occurred in Sanford’s case here is relatively minor compared to a lot of other forms of hurt. Certainly neither he nor his family will ever want for their basic needs.