Is that John Edwards?

Could it be Gov. Spitzer?

I guess we've found some things in politics that will always be bipartisan- naive, love and lust.

As per the comments above:

Conservatives will gladly reach across the aisle when it comes to scandal.

It's one of the few areas where they try to be bipartisan.

First defense? Point a finger.

**********

The trouble with many people in the Republican Party is that they try to claim a moral high ground that they simply don't have.

Ed Shrock, Jim West, Bob Packwood all went out of their way to promote family values and were anti-gay in their politics. OK, so maybe all three aren't gay: they just like boys, gay porn and men's bathrooms.

Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston were very outspoken about Clinton's extramarital affairs, but were having affairs of their own.

PromiseKeeper Ensign...

Google Neal Horsley for an odd read.

The list of hypocrites goes on and on.

**************
Sure Bill Clinton was a cheater, but that was known before he was elected. And he didn't run his campaign on the moral high ground like so many Republicans.

Bottom line is: I don't care too much what you Republicans or Democrates do with your zippers, but keep your mouths shut about how moral you are.

Finally, unless Sanford actually abandoned his post, I don't think he should resign over this.

Lots of good points moonpie.

Regarding you're second post, If a fellow can not keep the oath he makes to his wife, how could we expect him to uphold his oath of office.

We can't.

Give him the boot.

Okay, I see 'good news' and 'bad news' here.
The 'good news' is that Gov. Sanford 'told' on himself, so now it's a 'non-news' story.
The 'bad news' is that Gov. Sanford 'told' on himself, so now this becomes a 'non-news' story.
Where, oh, where will all those dedicated 'pundits' and 'long-lensed' journalists go with what's left??
Every so often someone does something so stupid and then 'owns up' to it, that it temporarily confounds those who would be happier if they could have drug his or her name through the mud, forever and ever and ever.....
I have no idea how Sanford's family will deal with what's happened, but the citizens of South Carolina may have made a better choice than they thought.
Thank you for your time and attention,
Woody

Whoops, sorry Mr. Packwood. I just confused you for Senator Craig!

I guess we're all fallible.... DANG!

I agree that the affair alone should not be reason to resign. However, I have a feeling the resignation is resulting from not only shame, but also from the possibility that some taxpayer dollars were probably used to carry out the affair.

And another Republican bites the dust. LOL Pretty soon they wont have a candidate to run in 2012.

The first two comments were typical GOP responses. A Republican Governor gets caught with his fly open and all you can do is bring up the indiscretions of Democratic politicians? That's a pretty weak defense.

The offense here isn't infidelity- it's hypocrisy.

Republicans hold themselves up as being the party of family values and national arbiters of morality, so when a moral blowhard and 'promise keeper' like John Ensign gets busted for carrying on with a member of his staff (and wife of another member of his staff), it just reeks. Now, you have Mark Sanford, self-proclaimed 'man of faith' exposed as the charlatan he is.

Ask Billl Clinton or speaker-designate Mark Livingston how understanding Mark Sanford was of their transgressions.

The point is- so much of Mark Sanford is as a politician is based on being a judge of personal morality. When that is stripped from him by his own transgressions, he has little left to offer anyone.

As bizarre and somewhat entertaining as this story was, I am wondering why it became the lead story nationally. This morning a great deal of attention is being paid to it.

On a side note, when Fox News broke the story on it's network and aired the news conference where Governor Sanford fessed up to his whereabouts during the hiatus, he was identified on the chyron at the bottom of the screen as being a Democrat. The same thing has occurred in the past when Mark Foley, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Lamar Alexander, Pat Toomey, Ted Stevens, and Fema Director Michael Brown were in hot seats at the time. Is Fox News practicing subliminal messaging?

For some reason, people want to place political leaders on pedestals and whenever they are exposed for being human like the rest of us, a natural reaction is to be shocked and to call for their heads on a platter. Lately, it seems that every week or so, another political leader is coming out with a moral confession to head off the fallout of it being exposed by someone else.

My reaction to these revelations is to wonder if there are not issues that people could put equal amounts of time into that would be a little more important in terms of fixing some of the problems we have in this country. Exposing negative human behavior is rather low on my list of issues that deserve air time on a national level.

Okay, I get it. The man went AWOL for a roll in the hay with his mistress, something that had been going on for some time. According to some stories, he knew that the affair was about to be made public, and his wife was a champ for not blowing the lid off it when she could have this past week and instead ran interference for him. She was dealing with some rather immense feelings of her own in discovering that her husband was a louse. He doesn't deserve her.

But really, when it comes down to it, the only people who really need to be concerned with what the man has done, and discussing the implications of his acts, are the people of South Carolina, and of course his family who are obviously in a great deal of pain at the moment.

It deserved fifteen minutes, rather than the two to three days of the attention that will be spent discussing it over the airwaves and online.

I'm thinking that this is a bi-partisan issue. Heck! This has been going on since before out forefathers were born, and with our first leaders. Probably with women office holders, too, but you men are being gentlemen. Just guessing. Remember, women are human, too.

As always, the issue is, how are they honestly doing their job while in office.

Woody writes the following:

"Okay, I see 'good news' and 'bad news' here.
The 'good news' is that Gov. Sanford 'told' on himself, so now it's a 'non-news' story.
The 'bad news' is that Gov. Sanford 'told' on himself, so now this becomes a 'non-news' story.[. . . .]
Every so often someone does something so stupid and then 'owns up' to it, that it temporarily confounds those who would be happier if they could have drug his or her name through the mud, forever and ever and ever....."

You may need to revise that posting once you have read the full account, Woody.

Here is how Sanford's mea maxima culpa unfolded, and it was a very roundabout and evasive process.

His first explanation, once he returned from "writing" while "hiking" the Appalachian Trail:

'Sanford, in a brief interview with The State in the nation's busiest airport, said he decided at the last minute to go to the South American country to recharge after a difficult legislative session in which he battled with lawmakers over how to spend federal stimulus money.

'Sanford said he had considered hiking on the Appalachian Trail, an activity he said he has enjoyed since he was a high school student.

'"But I said 'no' I wanted to do something exotic," Sanford said "... It's a great city."

'"I don't know how this thing got blown out of proportion," Sanford said.

'Sanford said he has taken adventure trips for years to unwind. He has visited such places as the coast of Turkey, the Greek Isles and South America. He was with friends sometimes and sometimes by himself.

'"I would get out of the bubble I am in," Sanford said.'

Sanford met in Atlanta after returning from South America
http://www.thestate.com/154/story/838823...

Well, indeed--I see the logic--Argentina vs. Appalachia--at some time or another who has not wanted "to do something exotic"? (The politicians in DC have a leg up on the good old boys in SC--they just pick up a phone and order out.)

And then read on here for more unfolding:

Timeline: How the story unfolded
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/83...

E-mails detail intimate affair
http://www.thestate.com/sanford/story/83...

Biology is truth. We are better people when we leave off fairy tales and pretense and are open about our bodies and our needs.

alprova noticed, "he was identified on the chyron at the bottom of the screen as being a Democrat. The same thing has occurred in the past when Mark Foley, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Lamar Alexander, Pat Toomey, Ted Stevens, and Fema Director Michael Brown were in hot seats at the time. Is Fox News practicing subliminal messaging?"

Of course it was no accident, alprova. If it happened once, or twice, maybe you could give them the benefit of the doubt. But this has become a standard practice at FOX News. I think it just speaks to the fact that this 'news' network is nothing more than an organ of the Republican Party.

Considering the revelations about the Republicans lately, one doesn't have to wonder which organ they would be.

It also strikes me that Sanford falls something short of ranking as what Oscar Wilde called "one of the most advanced Bunburyists" known:

Algernon. What you really are is a Bunburyist. I was quite right in saying you were a Bunburyist. You are one of the most advanced Bunburyists I know.

Jack. What on earth do you mean?

Algernon. You have invented a very useful younger brother called Ernest, in order that you may be able to come up to town as often as you like. I have invented an invaluable permanent invalid called Bunbury, in order that I may be able to go down into the country whenever I choose. Bunbury is perfectly invaluable. If it wasn’t for Bunbury’s extraordinary bad health, for instance, I wouldn’t be able to dine with you at Willis’s to-night, for I have been really engaged to Aunt Augusta for more than a week.
[. . . .]

Algernon. Nothing will induce me to part with Bunbury, and if you ever get married, which seems to me extremely problematic, you will be very glad to know Bunbury. A man who marries without knowing Bunbury has a very tedious time of it.

Jack. That is nonsense. If I marry a charming girl like Gwendolen, and she is the only girl I ever saw in my life that I would marry, I certainly won’t want to know Bunbury.

Algernon. Then your wife will. You don’t seem to realise, that in married life three is company and two is none.

Jack. [Sententiously.] That, my dear young friend, is the theory that the corrupt French Drama has been propounding for the last fifty years.

Algernon. Yes; and that the happy English home has proved in half the time.

Jack. For heaven’s sake, don’t try to be cynical. It’s perfectly easy to be cynical.

Algernon. My dear fellow, it isn’t easy to be anything nowadays. There’s such a lot of beastly competition about.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/844/844-h...

We can accuse others of picking their battles selectively, but you can't say that Clay is ignoring the indiscretions of a politician (Democrat or Republican).

John Edwards cartoon: http://tinyurl.com/m9kr2m

Eliot Spitzer cartoon (this is one of my all-time favorite Bennett cartoons): http://tinyurl.com/nte2hh

I think the people of SC should ask for the Gov's resignation- not for his affair, but for his getting on national tv and babbling a confession that only his family needed to hear. All he really needed to do was a press release stating that he had taken some personal days off and was back in the office and on the job. Sure the press would eventually expose what happened, but at least he would have saved himself and the country the public humiliation.

As always, Inspector Bucket, I am ready to stand corrected or to be further enlightened on any subject, but in this instance I must harken back to part of what I said before.
Sanford 'told' on himself.
Not after months of denying some reporters questions. Not after the "National Inquirer" ran his story(?) next to that of some 'trailer trash' giving birth to a fully grown anteater or some such nonsense.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I have never stooped to saying "I told you so," whenever it comes to believing what most (yes, I said most) politicians say. And, Heaven knows, I will be at the front of the line for holding any politician's feet to the fire (especially those with a saintlier-than-thou attitude) whenever it becomes necessary.
However, I also believe in giving anyone the benefit of the doubt, and especially whenever what they have done has no 'real' effect on how they may do their particular job.
How, when and where Sanford made his mea culpa is only his and his family's business. He admitted to his wrong before taking a prolonged defensive posture, and I personally take offense at the notion that any news organization, least of all "Fox" "...broke the story...."
Let's give the man (because that is all that he is underneath it all) the benefit of the doubt and credit where credit is due.
Let's leave the cheap shots to those who get paid to do it.
Or, at the very least, leave the 'stone throwing' to those who are without any sin.
Thank you, again, for your time and attention,
Woody

That's funny Clay
Even funnier that Sanford claimed to be on the trail on "Hike Naked Day".

Not so funny that he was gone on Father's Day, but that's his definition of deep rooted faith and family values.

There's something about Maria.

Speaking from an impartial, apolitical, rational and historical point of view, I will commend the governor on his taste in mature, intelligent, and darkly beautiful women.

"Maria," it seems, was found neither in the intern pool nor in a bathroom stall at the international airport.

"Maria," it seems, is a rather fetching and formidable presence.

Escándalo político
Mark Sanford : ¿Quién es la argentina que enamoró al gobernador ?
http://noticias.terra.com/articulos/act1...

Sanford's Mistress Identified as Professional, Passionate and Beautiful Brunette
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/...

That the governor did not have the honesty to deal openly with his wife and his state is another matter.

Maria and Mark first met in 2001, the year he was running for the SC governorship. No doubt the lures of Power and his fawning promotion of "Family Values" proved to strong, and he found that he could respect neither woman in the mature, adult, and truthful way he should have.

"Maria" would have made a striking First Lady of SC, but the voters there are too small for such things.

Our politicians could learn from the French. Sarkozy also pursues smart, educated, and darkly beautiful women.

But please, please, not the Italians. Berlusconi seems to like them younger by five decades or so. (Forgive the ageist remarks.)

Hey, Woody--no worries--I do not need any correction &c from you. I always enjoy your posts, which add to the conversation here in a valuable way.

But you say:

"Sanford 'told' on himself.
Not after months of denying some reporters questions. Not after the "National Inquirer" ran his story(?) next to that of some 'trailer trash' giving birth to a fully grown anteater or some such nonsense."

That is just not true. Sanford tried his best not to "tell on himself."

He has been hiding this affair and lying about it for some time now. Read the State (SC) posts above, where he makes up elaborate excuses in the airport about his "trip" and its motivation.

I would respect him if he had told his wife and his state, "I am so sorry. You are going to think me a bastard. But I have to tell you the truth. I care about Maria more than you or SC, so I will ask you and SC to forgive me as I step away from being your husband and SC's governor."

Yeah, I know. Who among us could be that honest and truthful?

JohnnyRingo writes:

"Not so funny that he was gone on Father's Day"

Yes--what an odd, jarring detail.

That combined with his wife's false report that he taking some time off "to get away from the kids."

One thing, Sanford didn't lie about it while under oath...which is a bit more serious an offense. He publically disclosed it himself.

It is one thing for an elected official to commit adultery but it is an order of magnitude or three worse to lie to a judge while testifying under oath during a trial for sexual harrassment. The latter could even cost you your job.

So lets stop making that comparison...there is no comparing the offense of adultery with the offense of perjury.

I agree with rolando, actually.

However, technically, I don't believe Clinton was ever actually found guilty of perjury. He was charged with it. The House impeached him for hit. The Senate did not.

So he walked on that and other charges.

But we all KNOW he lied and was as guilty as sin.

No question about it, he had (or is that, has?) the morals of a $2 whore.

Still, I think that his public image suffered less from the scandal than do the people on the moral high ground. If nothing else that people on the moral high ground have further to fall.

It reminds me of some civil law cases in which the same "crime" is committed by two organizations but one organization had taken precautions to prevent this undesired outcome, and the other organization took no precautions. The group that takes precautions gets hit with higher penalties -- because the danger was foreseable and precautions were inadequate. Fair, no. Ironic, yes.

If this ha been going on for months by e-mail, and perhaps other person-to-person visits, I wonder if in his position, he thought about the possibility of blackmail. He was smart to admit the association.

As I said before, what matters though, is the question as to whether his actions impaired the responsibilities he had to his office.

Someone suggested that the fact he had not informed the Lt. Governor, or anyone else of his actual location, and failed to keep in touch, was sheer neglegence of duty.

Actually, moonpie, Clinton WAS convicted of perjury in a court of law. There were deals cut, of course. If memory serves, his criminal trial for perjury [or the sentencing] occurred AFTER he left office; his license to practice law was suspended [not revoked], which was a wrist-slap for a perjurious officer of the court. May have been a few more minor things, if there is such a thing. He, like the sitting Prez, could do no wrong in the eyes of the press.

The House successfully impeached him under the "high misdemeanors" clause; the Senate tried him but refused to remove him from office, their only real option other than no action. [I'm a bit hazy here on the use of "convicted" or "found not guilty" in re the Senate's trial action. Don't know proper usage. In any event, he retained his office -- much to his shame and the office's enduring loss of stature in retaining a soon-to-be-convicted felon in the Oval Office.]

Perjury is a serious, felonious offense...anyone else -- anyone -- would have been jailed.

Moonpie, part 2 -- In your civil law cases, I would say the outfit that took precautions knew they were doing something shady or outright illegal so premeditation was evident and harsher penalties were appropriate.

The other company could claim ignorance or non-intent to commit a crime -- no defense, of course, but certainly a mitigating circumstance for a sharp defense lawyer's use during the sentencing phase.

So Plan B for Company 2 was, if caught, show no premeditation and fall on the mercy of the court. Company 1 relied on a stand-alone, complex but flawed Plan A and brazened it out. Must be a moral there somewhere...

Today's NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26s...

Good news to the right wingers-
The GOP leader Rush Limbaugh just exonerated the Gov saying it was all Pres Obama's fault. Seems the Gov was despair over losing the stimulus fight, thought the country was going to hell so he decided to just throw up his hands and go out and have a little fun. So there you go, blame it all on Obama.

You guys crack me up. Rush Limbaugh isn't the leader of anything except his own fan club. No where did I hear him mention Obama. But, if an outfit with the stature of the Huffington Post says it's so, it must be true, Yeah right. I thought the country going to hell was all Bush's fault anyway.

Unless he used taxpayers' dollars ON her, I don't see how he did anything wrong in Argentina, besides have an affair, which is a personal issue. The taxpayers' dollars were going to be used anyway on things like his transportation and hotel and food, etc. Unless someone can prove he used that same money on HER, I just don't see a reason for resignation.
His track record in SC shows he's a fully competent leader. His personal life is separate from that. Can we really judge him on one singel act when he's proven himself to be good at his actual JOB? If we keep expecting our leaders to be absolutely PERFECT, there will be no one left...

He left his post!!!!!!!!!!!! and yeah your right there is no one left in the Republican party other than hypocrites. How can he be doing his job when he is consumed with lust in Argentina?

Actually, Sanford did use tax dollars to visit his squeeze in Argentina-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26s...

He's now scrambling to pay it back. This guy is toast. Forget about the marital indiscretion, he's to flakey to be governor. As for Rush Limbaugh's claim... Uh, didn't Sanford admit to starting up this relationship a year ago?

So how does a Goverenor who refuses stimulus money
to help schools in his own state 'get away' with "i will repay the money spent on trips'? Is this the new Sarah Palin model. You claim to be conservative but you spend taxpayers money on yourself and your family and when caught you repay the money????So how does a Goverenor who refuses stimulus money
to help schools in his own state 'get away' with "i will repay the money spent on trips'? Is this the new Sarah Palin model. You claim to be conservative but you spend taxpayers money on yourself and your family and when caught you repay the money???? Don't people resign for impropriety anymore?
FRAUD!!!!!!! He misused public funds what more proof do you need? RESIGN NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Conservative here piping in...a truly hilarious cartoon today...love it.

But, I can't help but ask the question...Was the same done with Edwards? My guess is...probably not. That was likely a situation where his privacy needed to be respected. Another double standard perhaps? Just curious.

Again...loved today's cartoon though...

I guess the big difference is that when Democrats get caught they simply resign.......when Republicans get caught they recite scripture. The guy is not only a liar...and uncapable of his duties but a out right thief.