The story on South Carolina governor Mark Sanford is now out:
After going AWOL for seven days, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he’d secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he’d been having an affair. He apologized to his wife and four sons.
Some in the media are urging that this is not really a story. It could have happened to anyone, which is true. And when it happens to most politicians it isn’t much of a story in my opinion. On the other hand, it’s not every politician who preaches sexual purity, “family values.” The Republicans have been thumping their chests and claiming moral superiority and that’s a valid reason for skewering cheating Republicans. Andrew Sullivan points out the hypocrisy:
The party that has gone on and on and on to prevent me getting married, and prevent my own marriage from being recognized by the federal government is the party of David Vitter, Mark Sanford, Rush Limbaugh and Larry Craig. It’s like taking lessons on sexual maturity from the Vatican. And, yes, Sanford was a dedicated opponent of gay couples being allowed to marry.
Gov. Sanford is one of a continuing group of GOP "family values" fakers whose willingness to trash others' values is only exceeded by his ability to not practice what he preaches.
Is an instance of a Republican caught in a heterosexual sex scandal a sign of the apocalypse? That offense is what Democrats get nailed for.
Republicans are supposed to stick to fiduciary and ethical felonies with which to embarrass themselves. Or maybe the occasional homosexual encounter with strangers or underage employees.
Please leave the private extramarital peccadilloes to the Donkey crowd.
I'm not surprised by members of either party doing things for their own selfish interests.
When the heart of man grows restless for approval it will seek it in nearly anyplace at anytime.
What's the deal with saying members of either party are suppose to have their own characteristic vices, as if they are more prone to one than the other.
I know you've heard of many liberal/democrats who have done dispicable things in financial dealings and other things besides sexual mstters.
People are people, party lines don't make them immune from themselves.
Karl has pointed out my painting with a broad stereotype brush. I thought it was broad enough for anyone to see as such. Shoulda used a smiley.
Karl writes:—"What’s the deal with saying members of either party are suppose to have their own characteristic vices, as if they are more prone to one than the other."
It's not so much that Republicans are doing anything that Democrats aren't likewise doing, but when a group of people make their careers based on the elevation of a moral highground and "family values" and harangue the country about sexual license—which far more Republicans do than Democrats—and then they get caught doing exactly what they condemned in others, well, the stench of hypocrisy is getting just a might thick. I don't really care who these people were diddling. What I do care about is them telling others who they can and can't diddle and under what circumstances, then going off and acting like their words don't apply to themselves.
LOL, Dan, you are so right! Repubs never take the moral low road when it comes to relationships. Silly governor. Obviously his party loyalties are in grave question – as evidenced by FOX News, already labeling him a "D" in their graphics!!!
Good comment, Dan, I understood what you meant the first time 😉
It's really sad when any family is broken up by infidelity, and the pain the offended spouse is left holding.
I must ask, I never really thought the Republican party to be claiming "moral superiority." Sure they talk about sexual purity, but everyone does. The only difference is that people disagree about what is and isn't pure. The problem isn't that they promote sexual purity, but that many Republicans have a differing definition than others. Morality is about making lines in the sand (and I know that is often troublesome given the ethical gradient of some issues) and having a notion of good against competing ideas, and can we agree that EVERYONE makes lines in the sand?
Morality also has to do with a sense of "ought," which is often not what "is." For this reason, someone acting hypocritically and selfishly does not mean that what that person thinks is moral and right really is not. It just servers as one more illustration of the human condition. To call this governor's values and ideas wrong because of his infidelity is to create an ad hominem argument.
This guy having an affair doesn't mean that marriage is not good and right (which I know is not what this article is saying). But I guess I'm wondering what this article really IS saying…
Danny, you are right. But what I see the article saying is that to hear those who are opposed to gay marriage rant on and on about "preserving the sanctity of marriage" and then recuse themselves from the sanctity of their own marriage . . . well, it screams of hypocrisy. To put it bluntly: How would you like to be told you can't marry solely because your intention is to put your penis somewhere a politician doesn't think it should go, thus slathering an ugly stain across the sacred face of marriage – only to find out that very same politician spat on his own marriage vows by inserting his own penis somewhere it most certainly was not supposed to go – per those same vows?? But he can say that your monogamous, faithful relationship is "worse" than his violated, tattered marriage and affair, because of his lack of understanding parading around as raging homophobia. Reasonable? No.
It is the "sanctity of marriage" argument that gets under my skin, and, I think, is what Andrew Sullivan is pointing out. How, when he is guilty of NOT preserving the sanctity of his own marriage, can any man define that sanctity for another? He can fall back on the Bible all he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that he has no right to throw stones, shall we say. Yet throw he has.
It would have been interesting way back in the day if the Clintons had come clean and simply said "We have an open relationship." How far would they have gotten politically? Given how little fuss Hilary made over Bill's activities when he was governor, I have no doubt this was the case…
But would the country have stood for electing a president whose wife didn't care about his sleeping around? Even, perhaps, abetted it? The practicalities of politics would indicate "no, people won't buy that." Kind of a bind.
But it does seem that the more strident certain politicians are about the whole Family Values issue, the more they seem to fall into this trap. It's as if (and I'm being satirical here…but only slightly) they want to keep sex confined and "dirty" lest they lose interest in it. I mean, part of the fun for them must involve the whole cheating aspect. What good is having an affair for which you have your spouse's permission?
The fact that Sanford had the extramarital affair proves him human, for sure, but the further fact that this was going on while his publicly announced values condemned what he was doing says far more about his beliefs than words can convey.
It has seemed to me that this hypocrisy creates a credibility gap for Sanford. That similar hypocrisy is often exposed among Republican politicians causes many to question the credibility of the entire party. I think many of the party members are honest in their beliefs along the Republican platform, but when high profile members get caught with their pants down doing something they publicly and vociferously denounce, several things may be implied.
First it marks them as liars, particularly bald-faced liars at that. This leads one to think, "What else are they lying about?" Politicians are generally considered to be professional liars, but they should avoid the really obvious lies.
Next, it hints at a sort of political elitism, where the ruling class makes laws that apply to everyone but themselves. This attitude just don't cut it in a nation where elected officials are expected to represent the needs of the many.
Third, it adds credence to the notion that politicians are corrupt and undermines the people's confidence in their government.
Yes, I know Democrats have gotten caught in similar situations, but they generally aren't the ones proclaiming themselves as the morality party.
I suspect, however, that the type of person who possesses such hypocritical behaviors and power lust are drawn to the Republican Party because that helps them get elected.
The real offense of this guy lay in lying to his wife.
Jackie K, Hillary C, and many other other high profile political wives helped to cover their husbands trifles as they rose through the ranks over the last couple of centuries.
If you read the account of the two tablets Moses brought down from the mountain in Exodus 20 & 21, you see marital fidelity is defined as: Don't deprive your first wife of anything to which she is accustomed as you accumulate your subsequent wives.
Concubines, for which you take no contractual responsibility, don't even count.
Another day, another Republican caught with his pants down and another reason to view the GOP's endless claims to moral superiority with increased skepticism, if not outright scorn (not to mention pointing and laughing)!
The elephant in the room for the Republicans and their endless stream of apologists & deflectors is Sanford being an opponent of gay marriage. How exactly would a gay marriage be any more of a threat to Sanford's marriage than his own overindulged penis? How many other politicians out there are publicly trying to 'protect' the apparently sacred institution of marriage from The Gay Agenda while simultaneously undermining their own?
Democrats aren't saints and you'd be a fool to claim they are. But Democrats don't make a habit of campaigning to keep gays off marriage registries using Mormon money, paranoid terror-speech and terms like "sanctity".
Mark asks –
"What good is having an affair for which you have your spouse’s permission?"
If it done because he/she understands and wants such to happen, like with Abraham and Hagar that their business. THis didn't work out well either, but at least Sarah couldn't blame anyone but herself.
Most misguided sexual relationships are of a different nature.
The problem comes from our thinking we can find acceptance, love and approval by who, what, where, when, how or why we have relationship with other people. This mostly stems from our not maintaining a loving caring relationship of honor to and love from our parents that brought us into this world.
People can look for love in all the wrong places, and can often eventually find the type of relationship that suits them so they think they have the ideal arrangements, when all they have is someone who agrees with their own ideas of what a relationship could/should be.
The reason Bill and Hillary stayed admired by Americans was because of how they worked at their relationship, whatever you may have perceived it to be.
The moral high ground is to admit your deceptions and to decide to look and ask for help in dealing with the matter immediately at hand. This Mark Sanford has done, as did Elliot Spitzer. We have no right to sit around casting stones at someone who claims to have standards and falls short of them.
No, its much easier to ridicule and state the standards are pointless because of the weaknesses and stupidity of people who look for love and acceptance in places where they shouldn't. If we agreee there's nothing wrong for those who have no standards in these regards, life would sure be a whole lot less filled with people seeking for love and acceptance from the father that never loved them. Love and acceptance is something hard wired into the nature of man, if it isn't found in the nuclear family, we often look for it anyplace its potential crops up.
I believe you will find that most people who are unfaithful in their own marriage, do not honor or respect either one parent or both or their parents and really have more trust in their friendships than their own parents. This is the real core of many of the frustrations most people face in life.
Call me strange, but that's the way I see it.
Karl,
While I don't especially disagree with anything you said in that last post, I think you overcomplicate the issue for many people.
Basically, people cheat because they get bored.
Now, this goes directly to the love, honor, and respect part of the relationship, the working at it part. I think a lot of people, even those with the best of intentions, at some point let the relationship coast, let it run on autopilot. Because let's face it, life is complicated and busy and there's just not enough time for everything. So, the romance goes out it. The fires die down. we forget to pay attention. Needs stop getting met. Or even stated.
Boredom.
Not in all cases, certainly. Some are matters of pathological behaviors, etc. But I'd wager most affairs begin and continue entirely on the basis of a certain set of needs that used to be met within the relationship that no longer are. For whatever reason. Time, indifference, etc.
But that's just my opinion.
I think affairs happen for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes it's boredom. Sometimes, monogamy just doesn't fit. Sometimes people believe that an affair is a "better" option than divorce, because at least they aren't ending a marriage. Of course, eventually, the affair may do that. Sometimes, people really do grow apart and sometimes, love simply fades away. People can work and work on broken relationships, and sometimes, the relationships can't be repaired. Those people either divorce or stay together-but-not-really, for the kids or out of fear of change or because financially it would be too difficult.
I think blaming every affair on a lack of parental love is waaaay oversimplifying things rather than complicating things. I am certain that comes into play many times, and what we *didn't* get from our parents can play out in a million different ways in relationships – but it doesn't always mean an affair, and affairs don't *always* mean mommy or daddy didn't love you enough.
Actually, I don't really care a heck of a lot about his views on gay marriage as it relates to this incident. What sets my irony meter on overload here is that he was one of the first to jump on the bandwagon that eventually got Clinton impeached for, well, cheating on his wife, since that was all they could really find. He was all about marital infidelity being an undeniable marker of moral deficiency back then. Now he's sorry, and says he and his wife will work on their marriage. Where are all the voices calling to throw the adulterer out of office now, I wonder?
No kidding, Alison. I'm just on a bit of a crusade, I suppose, to get past the hypocrisy in the gay marriage debate, so I tend to bristle in that direction.
But you're right – I'd forgotten what the part he played in the Clinton impeachment process. Hmmmmm … I hope someone directly questions him on why he deserves to be treated any differently. He also apparently spent taxpayer money on at least one trip to Argentina. At least Bill just invited Monica to the White House – not nearly as expensive.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/06/25/ma…
If a blue dress Gov. Sanford's semen did reach, the South Carolina Legislature must impeach!!!
Here's Alec Baldwin's take:
Now is a wonderful opportunity to show the country what Democrats/liberals/progressives/unaligned learned from the Clinton era. Whatever personal problems that public officials deal with privately, leave them alone. This could happen to anyone, in any state, regardless of party. Why make the voters of South Carolina suffer while Sanford is skewered? If he wants to resign, so be it. If not, let him deal with it in private.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alec-baldwin/dont-t…
This must be what people on the religious right are thinking about when they accuse homosexuals of trying to destroy marriage. Apparently they think that if homosexuals are permitted to marry each other, it's going to cause happily married men to fly to places like Argentina to meet with their mistresses while leaving their loving families back here in America to wonder about the true meaning of Father's Day. At least, that's how I imagine religious crackpots think about this. How else could homosexuals 'destroy' marriage?
No, grumpy…they're thinking, "Hell, if we let gays get married, we won't have a leg to stand on when it comes to making straights feel GUILTY about having sex!" Leverage, man. Gotta think in terms of leverage.
I would agree with Eric concerning most politicians personal probems, as long as the public isn't financing them and providing an above the law mentality that provides for onging opportunities for the fulfillment of those personal problems.
As these cases so often do, they usually end up going back to the money trail.
And now, the brilliant :::cough, cough::: Rush Limbaugh finally gets to the bottom of Mark Sanford's lapse of judgment. Sanford snapped because his efforts to move the country in the "right" direction have been undermined, nay, completely derailed, by our evil president. OF COURSE the governor needed comfort in the arms of a paramour. Who wouldn't?? It's Obama's fault!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/limbaugh…
Except that it isn't, and I think Maureen Dowd sums it up best:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28dowd….
Maureen Dowd DOES hit it well when she talks about Mark and his alter-ego, Marco:
And my only problem with her piece, and with the mindset it mirrors, is that last bit about sinning liberally, as if "real" conservatives are the fighters of evil and liberals are out there sinning away and fighting only for our right to do so.
What "Marco" did to his family and state was despicable, and while I understand her play on words, using "liberally" in the sense of "amply," she still insinuates the obsolete meaning of "without moral restraint."
Even though according to the dictionary, that meaning is obsolete, it remains the meaning neo-cons love to have equated with their non-conservative brethren, and it annoys me to no end.