Mark Sanford Returns from Argentina

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LowlyPion
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the controversy surrounding Mark Sanford's return from Argentina and the implications of his actions as the Governor of South Carolina. Participants explore themes of political accountability, media reactions, and the perceived hypocrisy of political figures, particularly in relation to family values and personal conduct. The conversation touches on the broader context of political scandals and societal expectations of public officials.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express surprise at the extent of the media coverage regarding Sanford's disappearance and subsequent revelations about his affair.
  • Others question the significance of the event, suggesting that taking time off should not be newsworthy.
  • Several participants highlight the potential implications of Sanford's actions on his political career, particularly in the context of family values espoused by the Republican Party.
  • There are claims regarding the hypocrisy of conservative politicians when they are caught in scandals, contrasting their public personas with their private actions.
  • Some participants reference historical figures and previous political scandals to contextualize Sanford's situation, suggesting that such behavior is not unprecedented.
  • Discussions arise about the varying reactions to scandals based on party affiliation, with some arguing that Republican scandals are treated more harshly than those of Democrats.
  • Participants debate the nature of hypocrisy in politics, particularly concerning personal conduct versus political representation of family values.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of opinions, with no clear consensus on the significance of Sanford's actions or the media's response. There are competing views on the implications for his political future and the nature of hypocrisy in political conduct.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note the lack of clarity regarding the expectations of public officials during personal crises and the potential impact on governance during emergencies. The discussion also reflects differing perspectives on the moral responsibilities of politicians.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those following political scandals, media coverage of public figures, and the dynamics of political accountability and hypocrisy in the context of family values.

  • #31
LowlyPion said:
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.

That's a definite. Both John Ensign of Nevada and Sanford can be considered former possible candidates.

Oh, wait a minute. Gingrich was having an affair while leading Congressional investigations into Clinton's affairs.

Delayed substantially, then; not eliminated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I caught a humorous remark by Christian Finnegan on MSNBC. It went something like

C_Finnegan said:
What was he [Sanford] thinking? Did he just think he could disappear for 6 days and no one would notice? He's the Governor of South Carolina, not the Chairman of the RNC.
 
  • #33
physics girl phd said:
I think most people thought John Edwards' affair was pretty damning.

I think the biggest part of that is that his wife has cancer and he was/is supposedly steadfastly standing by her side in her struggle. It just makes him seem that much more of a cad. He also got that girl pregnant.
 
  • #34
I caught a humorous remark by Christian Finnegan on MSNBC

:smile: :smile:

There seems to be an epedemic of politicians having mistresses. Well, I guess he really did take time off work to go for a booty call. :smile:
 
  • #35
BobG said:
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

Actually, Sanford is probably a little less hypocritical about what he did than several other past politicians in the same boat.

Did Mark Sanford admit to a sin worse than sex?

Which is more callous? Calling your sex partner a "lapse of judgement", "an error of judgement", "the worst thing I have ever done in my life", or calling your sex partner a "dear, dear friend", a "sparked into something more than that", "something real" at a heart level?

In fact, which is worse? Kicking your sex partner to the curb afterward in lies to save your own political career or having sex with women you actually feel that way about.

Or, probably the more accurate assessment, is Sanford just a lot more inept than the big boys at dealing with this sort of stuff?
 
  • #36
BobG said:
Or, probably the more accurate assessment, is Sanford just a lot more inept than the big boys at dealing with this sort of stuff?
Or, based on reading that article, he's more honest and sincere than those who had a 'lapse of judgement'.

According to an AP article, Sanford's wife kicked him out of the house two weeks ago after learning about his relationship with the other woman. So he took the opportunity to deal with the situation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_profile
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
Astronuc said:
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.

Which is bad, but presumably there is a lieutenant governor. So while this is not a Very Good Thing, and I can see the voters deciding not to re-elect someone who does this, I still marvel at all the coverage.
 
  • #38
Vanadium 50 said:
Which is bad, but presumably there is a lieutenant governor. So while this is not a Very Good Thing, and I can see the voters deciding not to re-elect someone who does this, I still marvel at all the coverage.

The coverage began nearly a week ago when the governor had apparently disappeared and no one knew where he was. That would presumably be why it has reached the level that it has. A governor seemingly vanished tends to be big news especially when it turns out he flew out of the country to see a mistress.
 
  • #39
Vanadium 50 said:
Which is bad, but presumably there is a lieutenant governor. So while this is not a Very Good Thing, and I can see the voters deciding not to re-elect someone who does this, I still marvel at all the coverage.

You have to admit that a man that was in the conversation for 2012, had been a consideration for VP last year ... at the very time of some of these prurient e-mails apparently, ... a social conservative ... getting caught in his own Jimmy Swaggart moment ... that's news.

At least it's more news worthy than John and Kate's 8 +1 +1.
 
  • #40
Vanadium 50 said:
Which is bad, but presumably there is a lieutenant governor. So while this is not a Very Good Thing, and I can see the voters deciding not to re-elect someone who does this, I still marvel at all the coverage.
Tabloid media frenzy. They want to sell, sell, sell, . . . and to sell they have to offer a tantalizing story.

If only he had simply mentioned that he's taking off for a week in Argentina.

He could have gone hiking in the Andes or Patagonia.


Meanwhile - Dating 101: Can Romantic Partners Have Friends of the Opposite Sex? :biggrin:
http://dating.personals.yahoo.com/s...tic-partners-have-friends-of-the-opposite-sex

Just say 'No!' to temptation. o:)
 
  • #41
Vanadium 50 said:
Which is bad, but presumably there is a lieutenant governor. So while this is not a Very Good Thing, and I can see the voters deciding not to re-elect someone who does this, I still marvel at all the coverage.
The Lt Governor was pretty ticked at not being informed of the governor's unavailability, and Sanford's unexplained absence probably gave his security detail a black eye, too. It's nice that his wife is willing to give the marriage another try. That's a tough position.
 
  • #43
Turns out the Mark Sanford Maria was apparently an on-air correspondent for a Buenos Aires station that reported about 9-11. See below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uphohZs9nuQ
 
  • #44
I can only add "what the hell was SHE thinking?" The guy is a known liar and is willing to abandon his family, so why would she give him the time of day?
 
  • #46
John McLaughlin used this as an intro to the story tonight and I found the words to be amusingly appropriate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrx5Ve7y0xM
 
  • #47
Mark Sanford admits to crossing the line with as many as half a dozen other women, that MSNBC was quick to point out were neither his wife nor Argentine mistress ... but he claims that he didn't have sex with them.

How Clintonian.

I'll be waiting to hear his novel definition of what constitutes having sex may be, followed of course by his definition of what "is" is.

How the worm turns.
 
  • #48
This guy is totally self-destructing.
 
  • #49
Ivan Seeking said:
This guy is totally self-destructing.

Yes I was struck at how he characterized his dear friend in Argentina as his soul mate at the same time he is in theory supposing to be reconciling with his wife of 20 years.

Call me a sentimentalist, but I'd think publicly proclaiming your soul mate is not your wife, is not exactly oozing with the kind of empathy for the situation that you would be putting your wife in. That kind of sensitivity makes one wonder how much more hurtful he is prepared to be to his family, and for that matter exactly how skilled a politician he wants others to believe he may be.

He's not handling his mid-life crisis all that gracefully.
 
  • #50
South Carolina Code of Laws
(Unannotated)
Current through the end of the 2008 Session

...SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.
Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #51
A review of travel and financial records showed that Gov. Mark Sanford did not spend public money improperly when he visited his mistress, the chief of the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, Reginald Lloyd, said this afternoon.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/us/03sanford.html?ref=us

Now, just who are these other half dozen women ...

And Jimmy Carter only just admitted to "lust in his heart". Those were the days.
 
  • #52
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

It remains to be seen whether any adultery occurred in South Carolina.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
It doesn't say that the crime must be committed in SC.

I think the last time this sort of thing was prosecuted in SC was something like 1909. :biggrin:
 
  • #54
Ivan Seeking said:
It doesn't say that the crime must be committed in SC.

I think the last time this sort of thing was prosecuted in SC was something like 1909. :biggrin:

South Carolina Courts don't have jurisdiction for acts outside South Carolina. US Courts have no jurisdiction for what took place in Buenos Aries.

For instance prostitution may be illegal for both parties in any number of states, but what happens in Clark County (outside the Las Vegas limits) stays there.
 
  • #55
Statement of Jenny Sanford today:
The last week has been very painful for me, my family and for the people of South Carolina. However, throughout this terrible ordeal, the incredible outpouring of kindness, support, and prayer I've received from countless friends and folks I have never even met has been truly uplifting. I appreciate that more than I can say. Please know that my sons and I are doing fine, given the circumstances. We are surrounded by friends and family, and we will make it through this. I believe it is how we respond to the challenges we face in life, and what we learn from them, that is most telling about who we truly are.

There is no question that Mark's behavior is inexcusable. Actions have consequences and he will be dealing with those consequences for a long while. Trust has been broken and will need to be rebuilt. Mark will need to earn back that trust, first and foremost with his family, and also with the people of South Carolina.

The real issue now is one of forgiveness. I am willing to forgive Mark for his actions. We have been deeply disappointed in and even angry at Mark. The Bible says, "In your anger do not sin." (Psalm 4:4) In this situation, this speaks to the essence of forgiveness and the critical need to channel one's energy into positive steps that uphold the dignity of marriage and the family, and lead to reconciliation over time. My forgiveness is essential for us both to move on with our lives, with peace, in whatever direction that may take us.

Desmond Tutu said "forgiveness is the grace by which you enable the other person to get up, and get up with dignity, to begin anew." Forgiveness opens the door for Mark to begin to work privately, humbly and respectfully toward reconciliation with me. However, to achieve true reconciliation will take time, involve repentance, and will not be easy.

Mark showed a lack of judgment in his recent actions as governor. However, his far more egregious offenses were committed against God, the institutions of marriage and family, our boys and me. Mark has stated that his intent and determination is to save our marriage, and to make amends to the people of South Carolina. I hope he can make good on those intentions, and for the sake of our boys I leave the door open to it. In that spirit of forgiveness, it is up to the people and elected officials of South Carolina to decide whether they will give Mark another chance as well.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gsqSYOlSiuCBbg2fm5I48Z6LucugD996H5700
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
The Sanford soap opera continues

Since this thread was last active, Sanford's wife and children have moved out of the governor's mansion to Charleston for the coming school year. His use of state-funded airplane trips for personal and political purposes has gotten a lot of attention. And yesterday, South Carolina's lieutenant governor, Andre Bauer, called on him to resign.

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/916839.html (from The State newspaper in Columbia SC)

It should be noted that although Sanford and Bauer are both Republicans, they are hardly allies. In SC, as in most US states, I think, the governor and lieutenant governor are elected separately and do not run on a common "ticket" as do the US President and Vice President. In fact, for a while during the '90s SC had a Republican governor and a Democratic lieutenant governor. (Or was it the other way around? I forgot...)

There have been rumblings about impeaching Sanford, even from prominent Republicans in the state legislature. However, the legislature doesn't convene again until January, so Sanford is safe until next year.

My wife and I first found out about this whole affair while we were traveling in Germany in late June / early July. While we were staying with friends and eating breakfast one morning, they showed us a front-page story in the local newspaper, about Sanford's reappearance after his trip to Argentina. "Hey, look what your governor has gotten into!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #57


jtbell said:
My wife and I first found out about this whole affair while we were traveling in Germany in late June / early July. While we were staying with friends and eating breakfast one morning, they showed us a front-page story in the local newspaper, about Sanford's reappearance after his trip to Argentina. "Hey, look what your governor has gotten into!"

What did they think about the importance of the story - say compared to the world economy - did they comment?
 
  • #58
A further update on the Sanford saga:

Sanford's wife has divorced him. I'm not sure if it's final, but only formalities remain, if anything.

A state ethics committee investigated his use of public money for travel for his affair and for other personal purposes, and decided that criminal charges would not be appropriate because state law regarding such expenditures was too vague. Look for a bill in the legislature to tighten up the wording. (Sanford did eventually re-pay the state for most or all of those expenses, anyway.)

Efforts to impeach him didn't get anywhere, but he's a lame duck anyway because he's served two terms and can't run for re-election this fall, according to state law.

And he admitted today that he's gotten together with his mistress again in an attempt to re-kindle the relationship:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/23531089/detail.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
jtbell said:
And he admitted today that he's gotten together with his mistress again in an attempt to re-kindle the relationship:

http://www.wyff4.com/news/23531089/detail.html
Those who suffer the consequences:
http://www.momlogic.com/images/mark-sanford-family.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator: