DISQUS

GreenDreams · 5 months ago

I agree with everything except Leonidas's assertion that he wasn't a "family values" politician. Rachel Maddow played last night a campaign ad for his last election. Indeed, he did claim "honesty", religious and moral values as strong points of his character. Plus, he was a major player in the Clinton/Lewinsky impeachment, and an opponent of gay marriage moralizing about the sanctity of marriage.

“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]

“We ought to ask questions…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.” [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]

“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]

“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]

Here's the former chair of the SC GOP:

Dawson, one of the architects of South Carolina's GOP resurgence this decade and runner-up in the race to become RNC chairman earlier this year, said "character and integrity matter to our party."

"It's important to hold our leaders accountable, and Gov. Sanford has flunked that test."

As for the governor's 2012 presidential prospects, Dawson said, "he was a contender, and that’s over with."

GreenDreams · 5 months ago

That is such horseshit about perjury. It is now abundantly clear that the top officials in the Bush administration lied to Congress, a federal crime, time and again. And on MUCH more important matters than a blowjob. OK, let's put Clinton on trial (psssst. the GOP failed to convict), AND Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Yoo, Rice and the whole criminal, torturing, constitution shredding pen of pigs.

OK Leonidas?

BTW, I don't care if Sanford stays. The more tarnished, shamed Republicans facing election the better. "Circle the wagons"

kathykattenburg · 5 months ago

he has a noted fiscal conservative

I didn't realize that a "noted fiscal conservative" is someone who uses South Carolinians' tax dollars to fly to South America for an extramarital affair.

StockBoySF · 5 months ago

Well then, based on Sanford's previous statements that others in similar situations should resign, then I would expect to see Sanford immediately resign. Assuming he's not a hypocrite.

BTW: it doesn't count if he resigns because of any public outcry. He should resign because he has espoused these values. Doesn't matter what else anyone else believes. He either has principals and follows them or not.

shannonlee · 5 months ago

Personally, I think it is time to let it go. One day is enough. We have more important things going on in the world. Sanford is done at the national level. Let the people of SC decide what to do with him locally.

Rambie · 5 months ago

I agree, this has gone on long enough, time to move onto other important issues.

Leonidas · 5 months ago

What he does in his personal life is between him, his family and his mistress. He wasn't some "Family Values" politician who went around condemning others, he has a noted fiscal conservative, I don't see anything that changes that. He still has my vote for governor of my State.

TT · 5 months ago

I've thought about this a lot today. Political scandal is not something I usually find interesting, particularly if it involves their private lives. But with the constant cries of hypocrisy I thought I'd look it up the word to see what it actually means.

After reading what wikipedia says about it, I'd have to say that Sanford isn't a hypocrite. He does know that what he did was wrong, he isn't claiming beliefs that he doesn't have. He clearly believes that what he did was wrong since he has apologized and asked for forgiveness and seems quite sincere.

so, there you go - it's not about hypocrisy.


Here's what I found:

from Wikipedia:

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending that one has beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards that they do not actually have; this is usually done in order to mask their actual motives or feelings; falseness.

The term hypocrite is widely misused. Many persons state that hypocrisy is the action of 'not practising what you preach'. It is easy to see the resemblance, and completely understandable why there has been widespread confusion. However, this, like many others, is an incorrect definition. The following instance is a demonstration of a misuse

Father: You know, it's wrong to swear.
Son: You hypocrite!
Father: How so?
Son: You always swear.
Father: That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

The father is correct, as opposed to the son, who isn't. Had the father stated he doesn't swear, (assuming that the son is correct in saying he always swears) he would have been a hypocrite. Had he not actually agree with the statement, again, he would have initiating a hypocritical situation. The possession of the belief is what labels the situation, not the practice of the belief. Self-contradiction is not necessarily synonymous with hypocrisy. As Samuel Johnson remarked in Rambler No. 14:

"Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself."[1]

(there is more on wikipedia)

DaGoat · 5 months ago

I think Sanford should resign, but not because he had an affair or because of any hypocrisy. He bailed out on the people of his state without giving them a way to contact him. Whether he likes it or not his job his 24/7 and except for medical conditions he can't just walk away from it.

Leonidas · 5 months ago

Funny comment I saw elsewhere:

"If Mark Sanford had cheated on his taxes instead of his wife, he would have been a cabinet member by now."

Maybe I'll join the folkes calling for Sanford's resignation....but not until Geitner resigns first, and that guy who promised not to hire lobbyists.

D. E.Rodriguez · 5 months ago

Someone says, after one or two days of publicity about the Governor's "indiscretion":

"Personally, I think it is time to let it go. One day is enough. We have more important things going on in the world."

Someone else says, "I agree, this has gone on long enough, time to move onto other important issues"

How many months did we go on 24-7 about a certain president's indiscretion when so many more critical national issues were at stake? (Sorry, yes I know, it was about a president lying under oath about oral sex)

Leonidas · 5 months ago

BTW, as far as Sanford going after Clinton, seems to be based on Clinton lying under oath

“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]

Perjury is a crime, on the other hand Sanford broke no laws (see NPR story below)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st...

BTW I was against the Clinton impeachment as well, and defended Elliot Spitzer too. When any liberal friends try to say Sanford can't do a good job because he cheated I have to laugh. I then ask them what they thought of FDR and JFK's administrations.

kathykattenburg · 5 months ago

Green Dreams: You go, guy!

D. E.Rodriguez · 5 months ago

Greendreams hit the nail right on the head.

Let me paraphrase his comments:

That is such horse manure about perjury. You want to talk about lying? You want to talk about lying under oath? You want to talk about obstructing justice? Then, let's talk about breaking one of the most sacred oaths: The oath Bush took, twice, when he said "I, George W. Bush solemnly swear to..."

Iraq war based on lies, torture, illegal wiretapping, U.S. Attorneys firings,.... need I go on?

Leonidas · 5 months ago

Totally agree with all the comments of lying under the Bush administration. Definately a shameful time in our history with Constitutional violations that put it on par with the administrations of FDR and Abraham Lincoln. I would have been happy to have seen Bush impeached on Constitutional grounds, I think there was a solid case for it. Same with FDR and Lincoln. Unfortunately the Congress has been derelict in such situations and not used their power to uphold the Constitution via impeachment, too often working for their political agendas and not protecting the Constitution.

I look forward to the day we can have another leader like Grover Cleveland or Calvin Collidge who take their oath to uphold the Constitution with the utmost sincerity, and stay within the bounds of the powers granted to the President.

DLS · 5 months ago

"I look forward to the day we can have another leader like Grover Cleveland or Calvin Collidge who take their oath to uphold the Constitution with the utmost sincerity, and stay within the bounds of the powers granted to the President."

Do you realize this means not only not lunging into vastly more interventionism but in reducing the size and scope of Washington by two-thirds or more?

It's the right thing to do but it will never happen, sadly.