Mark Sanford Returns from Argentina

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
58 replies · 9K views
LowlyPion
Homework Helper
Messages
3,127
Reaction score
6
Well, the mystery about Mark Sanford's whereabouts has resolved itself with today's press conference.

Instead of being away on the Appalachian Trail, possibly even nude hiking as has been tongue in cheek suggested, on National Nude Hiking Day, Mark Sanford has returned from Argentina, after flying off to be ... with another woman.

As he stands answering questions, near to tears overflowing, his chance at the Presidency has clearly just evaporated.

Egads. I guess the Republican Party mourns another standard bearer lost at the altar of family values.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't think I can remember anything quite like this happening before. He actually left the country and no one knew where he was!

It was somewhat amusing to watch the CNN anchor, Kyra Phillips, comment on the story. She was fuming and wanted to slam Sanford and barely kept her composure.
 
I wonder if this has anything to do with John Ensign (R-Nev) coming forward with revelations about his affair with a person on his campaign staff and who is married.

But he apologized - after he got caught - well after he turned himself in - because apparently the woman's husband was planning to come forth. :rolleyes:


And this is the party that represents family values?
 
Vanadium 50 said:
I'm a little confused. Why is this even news? So the guy takes a couple days off. What's the big deal?

He is the Governer of a State and no one knew where he was. What if there was a State emergency? His whereabouts have not been known since last Thursday. State officials have been trying to find him since last Friday.

Not to mention that he was cheating on his wife [on Father's Day, no less!]. That alone is enough to end a political career. At the least we can rest assured that he will never be President.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
He is the Governer of a State and no one knew where he was. What if there was a State emergency? His whereabouts have not been known since last Thursday. State officials have been trying to find him since last Friday.
Besides the fact that apparently his wife didn't know where he was.


Taking a few days off to collect one's thoughts is a great idea, but disappearing so that family, friends and co-workers have no idea is troublesome. If I take days off from work, I have to let people know in advance, unless it is an emergency, in which case, I am still supposed to call in so that the company can adjust schedules.
 
Astronuc said:
And this is the party that represents family values?
Yes, which is why it is such a big scandal when a Republican does it. For a Democrat, not as big a deal.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
I don't think I can remember anything quite like this happening before. He actually left the country and no one knew where he was!
It is common, or used to be where the history is open. Teddy Roosevelt for instance used to skip town all the time.
 
Last edited:
Ivan Seeking said:
That is a crackpot claim.
Given, e.g., the years of highly public serial philandering by Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank's Gobie episode with little or no impact on their ability to maintain support in the Democratic party or even impede a run for President, this response is crackpot.
 
Why do people care if the governor had sex with a woman from Argentina? I don't.
 
To Sanford's credit, he was at least having an affair with a woman (as far as we know), unlike Foley (homosexual pedophilia) and Craig (soliciting anonymous homosexual sex in a public restroom), though compared to Pastor Ted (paying a male hooker for sex AND Meth), they might not be all "that" bad (unless you count the pedophilia). As MIH pointed out, it is (and should be) considered more hypocritical when conservative Christian do-gooders get caught doing the same stuff that they rail against.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
He is the Governer of a State and no one knew where he was. What if there was a State emergency? His whereabouts have not been known since last Thursday. State officials have been trying to find him since last Friday.

Not to mention that he was cheating on his wife [on Father's Day, no less!]. That alone is enough to end a political career. At the least we can rest assured that he will never be President.

Honestly, I don't think South Carolina missed him. I rather think if there was a disaster, they would be better off without him. They had to sue the fellow to take the stimulus money that he was refusing.

I think the Lieutenant Governor that was interviewed was lobbying for the position for the next election. I doubt there was any real concern that he would be needed.

He says his family already knew of his affair five months ago. It looks like his wife wasn't missing him.

And for sure the late night comedians weren't missing him.

Now it looks like Republicans won't be missing him either.
 
turbo-1 said:
To Sanford's credit, he was at least having an affair with a woman (as far as we know), unlike Foley (homosexual pedophilia) and Craig (soliciting anonymous homosexual sex in a public restroom), though compared to Pastor Ted (paying a male hooker for sex AND Meth), they might not be all "that" bad (unless you count the pedophilia). As MIH pointed out, it is (and should be) considered more hypocritical when conservative Christian do-gooders get caught doing the same stuff that they rail against.

It is considered more hypocritical when conservative politicians get caught doing the same things they try to discourage using political means.

Clearly, from a religious perspective, Kennedy is at least as hypocritical as Sanford, Foley, Craig, or Haggard, but how they balance their personal lives and their religious beliefs is nobody's business but their own and their church.

In fact, from a religious perspective, Kennedy would be more hypocritical, as he has consistently supported political policies that clearly violate the religious polices of his church.

The difference isn't the amount of hypocrisy, but that Kennedy is a politician and not a preist.
 
Math Is Hard said:
Why crackpot? Isn't it true? Isn't it viewed as more hypocritical when a conservative gets caught cheating on his wife?

I think most people thought John Edwards' affair was pretty damning. And we all know about Elliot Spitzer (although what he was doing was illegal in the state he was doing it in).

The problem is most politicians (from either party) tend to represent themselves as having traditional family values. When revealed to have violated those traditional values in some way, then it is obviously hypocritical.

On the other hand, if you've run as an openly gay candidate, openly revealed your relationship as non-exclusive, etc., perhaps that hurts your numbers in an election (especially if you're running in the Bible-belt), but if you win, at least you don't risk some media disclosure of hypocrisy. These candidates do tend to be blue, not red... probably because they're better able to get through the primary process, since those who vote blue probably don't hold traditional family values as exclusively sacred... although they might hold honesty as sacred.
 
It's a valid point. If he is going to represent those who value honesty, fidelity, family values, good conduct, and screws off as bad as he has, then he is a sham. If he is was a Democrat that didn't reperesent those values, then we don't care. He would just be doing what we would expect.
 
Actually, I'm not even sure a person struggling to live up to their own standards is hypocrisy. Is Obama signing a tobacco bill hypocrisy or just a lack of success in kicking a bad habit?

hypocrisy - a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion

Actions speak louder than words, but sometimes the actions are just human failings instead of hypocrisy.
 
Good point about the honesty physics girl phd. There is a guy I have known now for about 35 years. His business requires him to travel, and I found out about 10 years ago that when he would come to Maine, he would tell his wife (a sweet, intelligent woman) that he was staying with me and my wife, when actually we often wouldn't see him at all because he was having an affair with a local woman (or two). When his lies started unraveling, his (now-former) wife thought that I was complicit in his lies and it really ticked me off. He has not been welcome in my home since I became aware of his double-dealing. Even now, his ex-wife doesn't call, though she and I had been friends since the time that he met her.

If you can't keep the most simple basic promise to your spouse or partner, you have a character flaw that is pretty damning. If you implicate friends and acquaintances in your lies and damage reputations and mutual friendships in the process, you are scum. I can't be bothered to wonder who is straight or gay or who is in an "open" marriage or who is having affairs. What really grates is the holier-than-thou people with political or religious authority that act all contrite when they are caught, saying "I let down my friends and family, and I hope my God can forgive me". I would be more sympathetic if they apologized to gay people, drug-addicts or adulterers that they had demonized before their own demons were exposed.

An old friend (he's long dead now) was a non-religious farmer/woodcutter/brick-mason (all in season), and he used to tell me "A liar will steal and I hate a thief." My wife and I were renting an old farmhouse in the area, and he and his wife gave us a couple of acres of land to try to keep us in the area, after I spent all my spare time one summer helping his youngest son build himself and his new wife a stone house. Jealousy from other family members made that neighborhood untenable, so we sold the place to one of his grandsons. We still remained very close to him, his wife, and his youngest son. I often think back to my friend and his back-woods definition of ethics, and I can't help but think how much better the world would be running on those standards.
 
Set the Way Back Machine to 1998 Sherman. Maybe it's a different Mark Sanford?

Here is the curious case of Bob Livingston (R,LA)
... Livingston instead found himself informing his colleagues that a Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call, was about to publish a story saying that he had been unfaithful during his 33-year marriage. At the end of his short speech, Livingston reportedly looked into the silent gathering and said, "My fate is in your hands.'' His colleagues gave him a standing ovation. There was at least one voice of dissent. Rep. Mark Sanford, R-S.C., said: "The bottom line is that he still lied. He lied under a different oath, an oath to his wife. I'm going to be struggling with this in the next few days.''
http://alamo-girl.com/02720.htm

And then subsequently of Bill Clinton's infidelity ... The Post and Courier, 9/12/98
"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."

What about having a Governor facing admissions of infidelity I wonder?
 
Ivan Seeking said:
That is a crackpot claim.
Lol, Ivan, don't you remember that prominent Democratic politician who cheated on his wife that we weren't supposed to be too upset with?
 
BobG said:
Actually, I'm not even sure a person struggling to live up to their own standards is hypocrisy. Is Obama signing a tobacco bill hypocrisy or just a lack of success in kicking a bad habit?

Actions speak louder than words, but sometimes the actions are just human failings instead of hypocrisy.
I don't see the difference, though I'm not sure Obama is the best example of it, since he's at least somewhat open about that failing.
 
Math Is Hard said:
Why crackpot? Isn't it true? Isn't it viewed as more hypocritical when a conservative gets caught cheating on his wife?
Agreed, it is, but perhaps more to the point, it seems to me that both the OP's and Astronuc's comments were intended to be exactly that type of jab.

You can look at the issue from the Republican side or the Democratic side and it and it looked to me like the Republican side had been covered and the Democratic side not: if it is more of a problem for a Republican (and it is), then that means it must be less of a problem for a Democrat!
 
McClatchy apparently has copies of e-mails between Sanford and his Argentina Maria:
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/839350.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The point I see everyone missing here is that he couldn't be reached by his own staff.

The fact that he boinked another women is irrelevant.
 
Cyrus said:
The fact that he boinked another women is irrelevant.

Not entirely irrelevant when he is saying things like this about another Congressman being unfaithful in a marriage.
Sanford said:
The bottom line is that he still lied. He lied under a different oath, an oath to his wife.
 
LowlyPion said:
Not entirely irrelevant when he is saying things like this about another Congressman being unfaithful in a marriage.

Who cares, he was no where to be found by his staff, and worse: out of the country. He's going to be booted out of office for that: a real reason to be fired. That's like the 911 operator going to get coffee and do shopping and lucking out that no one called 911 during that time.


The only reason why we care about him cheating on his wife is thanks to Christian beliefs.
 
Cyrus said:
The point I see everyone missing here is that he couldn't be reached by his own staff.
Ivan mentioned that point in post #2, and I added the fact that apparently not even his wife knew where he was. In terms of his job, he disappeared for a period of time without prior notification and without information as to how he could be reached.

The fact that he boinked another women is irrelevant.
Except for the fact that this is the reason he disappeared. If he hadn't been having an affair, then he would have had to disappear to Argentina, ostensibly to break off the relationship or resolve the breakup with the other woman.
 
Cyrus said:
Who cares, ...

The only reason why we care about him cheating on his wife is thanks to Christian beliefs.

Among the voters in his party the Christian Right is pretty much in control. I'd say those are the judges to whom his admission will carry the most damning consequences. The unfolding tableau of political suicide is of course newsworthy like a train wreck.

Do I care that he obsessed about the tan lines of a woman not his wife? Not a bit. The newsworthiness of the fact of his debauchery is not from my sense of moralizing, but rather for what it means to his future on the public stage, in a position of trust, abandoned by a support base to whom that kind of thing does matter.
 

Similar threads

News What Impact Will Mark Sanford's Baggage Have on Today's Special Election?
  • jtbell
  • · Replies 5 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
News Falklands Dispute: Views from Argentina and Beyond
  • Ryan_m_b
  • · Replies 31 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
31