Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Republican Infidelity
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 24, 2009 at 11:14 pm #591336
HMC RichParticipantTwo affairs come out in two weeks. Shame on them for cheating on their spouses. Their careers are toast for the most part.
If there are any politicians reading this and you are having an affair, maybe you ought to end it so you won’t damage your career and the public’s trust.
I know people make mistakes but if you are married, there is a responsibility to your spouse and family to not cheat.
I wonder if this news will trump Jon and Kate?
Sorry, I meant to put this in the Politics section.
June 24, 2009 at 11:21 pm #670512
JenVMemberThe sanctity of his vows were threatened by same-sex marriage… :P
June 25, 2009 at 12:06 am #670513
JanSParticipantHMC Rich…the word that immediately comes to mind is…”hypocrits” – they talk family values, but don’t live them. They are adults, and they have choices, as we all do; it’s what life is about. Do they really think they won’t get caught? Oh, please.
June 25, 2009 at 12:16 am #670514
c@lbobMemberAround the time of the Presidential address to Congress, Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Mark Sanford were stoking the media fire about 2012 Presidential candidates for the GOP.
They represent the cream of the Republican crop? I think the grand old party had better start bio-engineering some better seeds.
June 25, 2009 at 12:48 am #670515
JoBParticipanti don’t think infidelity is political…
unless you are making a political cause out of the sanctity of marriage…
June 25, 2009 at 12:52 am #670516
cjboffoliParticipantI actually know Mark and Jenny Sanford. I worked on Mark’s first campaign for US Congress in the 1st District of South Carolina (long before he ran for governor). And I still get a Christmas card from the Sanfords every year.
The breadth of my experience working in politics in my early 20’s left me pretty jaded about the process. But to date I can honestly say that Mark Sanford was one of the few politicians who gave me hope that politicians with integrity could exist. For that reason, today’s revelation is all the more shocking and disappointing. But it is ridiculous to suggest that marital infidelity has anything to do with political parties.
Elected officials, like the citizens they govern, are flawed. They make mistakes and have human weaknesses. This situation is a huge personal tragedy for his family. And on top of the tremendous public service the Sanfords have given the citizens of the State of South Carolina for the better part of 15 years, now they have to endure dealing with a very private situation in a very public way.
I really hope Mark can hang on to his governor’s seat. He made a horrible mistake but he is a good man and a positive force for change in South Carolina.
From the December 2008 Christmas card:
June 25, 2009 at 1:00 am #670517
JoBParticipantpower corrupts
absolute power corrupts absolutely
June 25, 2009 at 1:32 am #670518
mom2sorenMemberIt’s the hypocrisy that I can’t stand. The “religious right”, the dominant force in the Republican party, has infused politics with arguments about morality & claims to take the higher ground. As if they speak for God.
OK, so maybe Sanford isn’t part of the religious right, but he’s moralistic and judgmental. I like libertarian leaning politicians, but Republicans of this persuasion are often very controlling on social issues (& cave to the religious right).
He likely used taxpayer dollars to fly to Argentina, but without a doubt a lot of resources were used to search for the missing governor over the past week. And he wanted Clinton to resign during the whole Lewinsky thing b/c the president lied to the public and broke its trust. And now he does the exact same thing. THAT’S why this is now everyone’s business, and part of the political discussion.
The Republican party is imploding.
June 25, 2009 at 1:43 am #670519
mom2sorenMemberJune 25, 2009 at 1:48 am #670520
cjboffoliParticipantMark Sanford is about the farthest thing from a right-wing Republican that I can think of. In fact, when he was running for Congress he got criticized constantly by the religious right in SC who claimed he was a Democrat in disguise.
Clinton got up there on national television and lied. And he was prepared to continue lying and to write off Monica Lewinsky as an unstable, loose cannon until a bit of preserved DNA on a certain GAP dress forced his hand. Mark Sanford just got up there today and took responsibility for what had been going on.
I doubt public funds were used for his recent trip to Buenos Aires, though I expect Sanford’s political enemies in SC may look into it. Mark and his wife are independently wealthy so he’s got more than enough of his own money to fund such things.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jenny Sanford so I’m not trying to minimize what he has done. But in the 15 years he has held public office he has definitely been one of the good guys…fighting to turn around an often backward and corrupt Red State with a lot of entrenched interests.
Whether or not people hate right wing Republicans or feel the Republican party is “imploding” doesn’t really have a whole lot to do with Mark Sanford in my mind any more than the long list of Kennedy family sexual indiscretions (and the list is long) has to do with diminishing all of the public service that family has devoted to our country.
June 25, 2009 at 2:00 am #670521
mom2sorenMemberMark Sanford was the potential Republican presidential candidate for the next election. So yeah, the party is imploding. Who do they have left? Palin, Limbaugh, Coulter?
His voting record on social issues is far from either the democratic or libertarian stance: he’s anti-abortion, believes marriage is only for a man-woman pair (obviously he is a beacon for the sanctity of marriage), bans gay adoptions, wanted to prohibit needle exchange programs, against medical marijuana, and is fine with the 10 commandments being displayed in a classroom (& teacher-led prayer).
And he wanted 2 prominent politicians impeached for lying to the public about marital infidelity.
So maybe I would agree with him on economic issues (and some others), but its that whole moralistic thing that I can’t stand. Politicians from the left and right have cheated on their spouses, but those on the right tend to be publicly & loudly vocal in judgment and criticism of those same “sins” they commit in private. That is the definition of a hypocrite.
June 25, 2009 at 2:33 am #670522
mom2sorenMemberBut to be fair, Edwards was the democratic counterpart to your guy. Equally disappointing.
June 25, 2009 at 2:46 am #670523
cjboffoliParticipantJust because pundits speculated that Sanford would be a 2012 Presidential candidate doesn’t mean he necessarily had any interest in the job. We’re talking about a man who self-imposed three terms in Congress because he didn’t believe in people moving to Washington to become career politicians. Not the most ambitious politician in the world.
Sanford didn’t even rent an apartment in Washington during his entire tenure, preferring instead to camp out in his Rayburn office as a means of staying outside of the establishment and affirming that South Carolina was his home not Washington DC.
Though I don’t agree with Mark Sanford’s voting record on social issues he answers to the people of South Carolina for cripes sakes. And just because I don’t agree with what most of the people of South Carolina want doesn’t mean that I’m right and they’re wrong and that they don’t have a right to vote for whatever they believe in. We are, after all, a vast country of 300 million people. Folks are gonna disagree.
Politics and government are obviously complicated. Things aren’t always black and white. Is a CEO a villain for laying off 5,000 people? Or is she a hero for saving a factory that employs tens of thousands more? Is Sanford evil because his voting record doesn’t demonstrate an enlightened view regarding gay rights and a woman’s right to choose? Or is he a force for good for turning around a corrupt state which as recently as 1986 had the FBI raid its legislature and bust a majority of legislators for corruption and influence peddling?
Sanford’s most recent controversy was in refusing to automatically jump on the gravy train and accept $700 million in bailout money from the US Treasury (funded no doubt with Chinese debt that our great-grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying off with their livelihoods). Most politicians wouldn’t even question it. Sanford did only to lose and fortify his political enemies.
And now this. The press loves it because it is salacious and it will sell news. Sanford’s enemies love it because he is a change agent and that is threatening to them. People who hate Republicans love it because they can attach a label to Mark Sanford as a further badge of how wrong Republicans are.
This is the state of politics in our country. And we wonder why so few of the best and brightest seek public office. We deserve what we get.
June 25, 2009 at 2:51 am #670524
JoBParticipantIf you publicly state that you believe the oath made to a wife is one of the most important..
that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman..
and you cavalierly take off for a week’s vacation to Argentina with your mistress…
you can expect to be pilloried by the press…
even when you take touching family photos.
June 25, 2009 at 3:36 am #670525
bluebirdMemberI think Sanford was the one who made this “news” when he held a press conference to confess.
For myself, I feel the same way about him as John Edwards or anyone else. None of our business, it’s between him and his wife. And his wife has already stated she knows about the relationship and wasn’t concerned about his absence.
If Sanford has pushed some form of legislation criminalizing affairs, then it’s our business because he would have politicized the issue.
If I was SC resident, my only concern would be his lack of informing the lieutenant governor of his whereabouts and how to get a hold of him for official business. A lot can happen in 5 days. You can’t just disappear when you are responsible for a state.
June 25, 2009 at 4:02 am #670526
WesCAddleMemberAccording to FOX news, Sanford is a Democrat. In fact, often times when a Republican messes up FOX likes to “accidentally” label them as Democrats.
http://www.theproverbialtundra.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/foxnews1.jpg
June 25, 2009 at 5:05 am #670527
JoBParticipantbluebird..
Sanford held a news conference because his absence was already news.. his version of a GAP dress.
He did push some kind of legislation criminalizing marriage between anyone but a man and a woman because it devalued marriage.
Does an affair devalue marriage?
Does it have more or less value if your wife is aware of your mistress?
Does serial monogamy makes philandering ok? ..
oops.. contradiction in terms:(
if philandering is a serious enough issue for the taxpayers to pay big bucks on special prosecutors when the politician is a democrat.. then it is probably just as serious when they are a republican.
you might say it was about the fib…not about the sex.. but if not for the special prosecutor spending his time looking into Clinton’s possible sexual dalliances … there would have been no lie.
Personally, i think the republicans would have been a lot smarter if they hadn’t looked under that particular rock…
and even smarter if they hadn’t been so self righteous when they called for blood.
and even smarter if they had looked to their dogs for unconditional love…
as it is.. not so smart…
June 25, 2009 at 5:40 am #670528
jamminjMember“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]
“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]
Sanford has also been an opponent of same-sex marriage, saying in 2004, “As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we’ve always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.” [The Post and Courier, 2/11/04]
guess what he meant was a ‘marriage was something between a man and a woman… and a woman’.
this is the kind of cr@p that the left is tired of from the right. The moralistic high ground that you THINK you stand on.
Stop dictating marriage to people – can you at least stop arguing that same sex marriage ruins a heteros’ marriage when you have people like this flying internationally just to have some booty, in spite of his wife and children.
June 25, 2009 at 7:46 am #670529
HMC RichParticipantFirst. I wonder if she was HOT!!
Second, Many Republicans and Democrats do walk the walk when they preach morality. If you don’t like it you don’t have to feel guilty about your turning away from your own sins or indiscretions. It is your life. Why do you let it bother you? Does this mean you have less or lower standards? Personal Responsibility is one of the harder standards to achieve. I have certainly failed quite often. I learn from those mistakes too. Funny how we can usually remember more bad things than good.
Everyone has their version of morality. People preach all the time whether it be from the “Religious Right” or say Enviro Nazis. I don’t know anyone from either group but I am certain many Democrats believe in the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy just like plenty of Rightees believe in some left wing political conspiracy machine.
WTF does same sex marriage have to do with this? Now if Maria turns out to be a guy, then maybe you can draw a parallel.
Since it was brought up I will broach the subject. I do not mean to offend. Someday same sex marriage might be legal. I find it interesting that many people on the left want federal power for many things but are using individual states to try and legalize same sex marriage. How about we abolish Roe v Wade and let the individual states decide that issue? Nevermind, we have argued that one already. There is plenty more to chat about.
Before condemning all Christianity please try to remember that Marriage for Love is a by product of the Judeo Christian ethic. Marriage for love is a relatively new part of marriage equation. Marriage has had many forms but mostly to have children.
I am not saying I am against same sex marriage but I am also not ready to endorse it. I know people regardless of sexual orientation feel love. I am not gay so there may be certain areas I cannot fathom but we are all human and there are feelings, wants and desires that we feel. We can all make choices. I could as a straight man decide to go out with Gay men but I would not be true to myself. Gay men could decide to go out with straight women but that would not be true to their desires. The choice can be made that is all.
Please, do not misunderstand me when I say this next statement. Being hetero is the general norm of society. Being Gay is not. Being Gay is not wrong either in my opinion but it is not the norm sexually speaking. Both sides are human. It is part of the human experience. Why this is I do not know. From my point of view, In essence, same sex marriage would be a special right for people who want a “normal” institution granted to them. My gay friends do not talk about this. I tend to be less political around them for fear of hurting their feelings. For anyone it is an interesting question and one that will take a long time in deciding.
Back to Sanford and Sons, People should have high standards but they are not always achieved. Ensign and Sanford fell flat on their faces. Many of the statements they made were before their affairs and they truly believed them. Then the fell prey to their humanity. Anyway, they made a mistake and are now stepping up and facing the music. They know that their political enemies will make hay with this. I know I will when another politician screws up in the future. They can be considered hypocrites for now. They have dishonored their families and constituents. They should leave public office and get their lives in order. It will happen again unfortunately.
Now as far as standard bearers for the Republican Party… Palin and Jindahl could be standard bearers in 2012. The party is reorganizing and now some of the possible contenders have become chaff. Others will pop up. Don’t rule out Palin or Jindahl. Two bad television appearances and they are branded losers (mostly by the left wing media and pundits)? Bill Clinton had a horrible speech in ’88 and recovered quite well I think. Ask David Lettermen about mistakes. Sarah Palin is going to haunt you!!!!!! You attack her because you are afraid of her. I guess only the left can have strong independent women? How judgemental. Jindahl actually was correct when he argued that certain spending earmarked for stimulus did not make sense. Earthquake monitoring equipment makes sense but not as a stimulus.
I would like to hear from the opposing side what is wrong with Jindahl. I have heard plenty about Palin but at least her state is solvent unlike this one.
Bottom line, I will call out any Republican who is not behaving. I need my party to clean up their act. I follow the party of Lincoln. I follow the classic liberals of which our founders were many. Funny how the left stole the term “classic liberal”. I hope my left leaning friends will call b.s. when their politicians aren’t behaving either.
June 25, 2009 at 2:46 pm #670530
WSMomParticipantI keep wondering if “she” is really a “he”.
June 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm #670531
TrickParticipantJune 25, 2009 at 3:34 pm #670532
JenVMemberHMC Rich: “WTF does same sex marriage have to do with this?”
It has to do with the religious right GOP hypocrites denying rights to same sex couples, touting the “sanctity of marriage” as a reason – while all these assholes run around on their wives, have gay sex in airport restrooms, molest their congressional pages, etc.
capiche?
June 25, 2009 at 3:56 pm #670533
WSratsinacageMemberPeople are unfaithful and against gay marriage regardless of politcal party.
June 25, 2009 at 3:59 pm #670534
JoBParticipantLOL… you two (WSMom and Trick) make me giggle…
HMC Rich…
what does same sex marriage have to do with this?
Well… if you are going to treat marriage as primarily a religious sacrament and use it’s sacredness as a justification for denying legal rights to those who don’t fit your religious ideal of marriage… it would seem that marriage should mean more to you. and if it doesn’t, you should be called on your hypocrisy.
Do politicians who profess faith get a by on personal responsibility because it is assumed that they are trying while those “outside the faith” even if they are members of a christian church.. are held to higher standards of morality?
because that is what this whole man/woman only marriage thing is about.. morality.
if a couple commit to one another and mingle their finances and make their life decisions together and possibly adopt children together… they should be entitled to the full protection of our law for committed partners. That protection is called marriage.
When you hold marriage up to some higher ideal and use that ideal to deny other people basic human rights.. such as the right to be with their loved ones when they are hospitalized… then you should be expected to live up to that ideal.
WTF does it matter if she (or he) in Argentina was hot?
My guess is that is not the question your wife would ask before the frying pan descended on your head should you ever be so foolish…
I am confused about marriage for love being a byproduct of christianity since marriage for love didn’t really appear except as an aberration (and thus a romantic fantasy) on our social horizons until the last century. Until romantic marketing got hold of it.. marriage was more about building and controlling family resources (wealth) than about love…
The arrangement of dowrys and the question of which family group or tribe could lay claim to the resources of the newly married couple were the primary legal issues in marriage.
And they are still the primary legal issues when it comes to the subject of same sex marriage.
Loving one’s chosen marriage partner may have been part of the christian ethic.. but my guess is that you would have a hard time making the case that love in marriage is a christian concept since there are love sonnets to husbands and wives in ancient literature that predate Christianity.
and if love is the central sacrament of marriage and you concede that same sex partners might love one another.. then from a christian perspective… wouldn’t it be better to have that love sanctified in a christian home rather than vilified as unnatural?
As for heterosexual love being the norm for society.. it think you would have to specify that heterosexual love is the norm where theology has become either societal norm or actual codified law. Prior to the militant spread of the Christian and Muslim religions, heterosexual love was not the only accepted societal norm… just the only one in which children could be conceived. Thanks to modern medicine.. that is no longer true.
As a Christian, i resent the narrow interpretations and myths perpetrated by those who use my religion for political gain… whether from the pulpit or governing bodies.
You talk about choice.. if i had to make a choice about Christianity based on the religion as it has been portrayed by those on the religious right… i would have to disavow Christianity.
Thank God i don’t.
As for the rising stars of the Republican right… i will wait to see how they pull themselves out of the hogwallow they have been bathing in.
I would find a new claim for Palin though. Even a democrat could balance their state budget in a state with that much oil revenue and such low expectations… After all.. outside of major urban areas.. most of Alaska still thinks septic systems are a step up ;)
**** edit added*****
Before i get jumped.. i am referring to the lack of infrastructure provided by the state government in Alaska.. not to the backwardness of the people of Alaska.
Most of my homesteading friends there have embraced green technology… (and yes.. there is green technology even when it comes to pit toilets) …
which makes sense when you are living where you have no choice but to rely on your own resources… something most of us would be unable to do here even if we were willing to do the work living on our own resources entails…
comparing the budgets of Alaska and Washington… with the added economic resources and lowered expectation for services in Alaska… and attributing the fiscal health of Alaska to a less than one term governor just doesn’t make sense.
June 25, 2009 at 4:00 pm #670535
JenVMemberWSRats: this is true – not saying Dems don’t do stupid crap like that – hell, Bill Clinton practically wrote the book. But it’s the religious right GOP who specifically and most vociferously are against same-sex rights, hiding behind their religious beliefs…but apparently their god thinks it’s perfectly fine to violate their marriage vows.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.