Posted on 06/28/2009 5:51:59 AM PDT by Abbeville Conservative
How Mark Sanford's affair blew up
Governor's missteps, others' reactions painted him into a corner
By RODDIE BURRIS, LEROY CHAPMAN JR., CLIF LeBLANC, JOHN O’CONNOR and GINA SMITH - The State Newspaper
The first was Sanford himself.
Long a loner, Sanford refuses to issue a public schedule, for example, and then vanishes. He also disdains and evades his security detail. Thus, he thought he could vanish again to Argentina to see his mistress.
Then there was Jake’s revenge.
Last year, Sanford and his wife, Jenny, tried to defeat Lexington state Sen. Jake Knotts — an ally of Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer — and failed. Knotts, who settles old scores, made Sanford’s most recent vanishing act public.
When that happened, Jenny Sanford launched her revenge. Long her husband’s best political strategist, Jenny Sanford could have tamped down the “Where is Mark?” questions.
Instead, she said she didn’t know where her husband was and wasn’t worried about it. She said she was busy: Raising their sons.
The second-term, lame-duck blues also took their toll on Sanford.
After 6½ years in office, Sanford has lost key advisers — including Jenny Sanford and former chief of staff Tom Davis — to other causes. Jenny Sanford largely stepped away from politics, letting her husband hire a political consultant for his second gubernatorial campaign. Davis was elected to the state Senate.
The Sanford staffers who remained or had been elevated weren’t up to the task of either controlling Sanford or covering for him. It’s a typical second-term problem. But staffers’ explanation that Sanford had disappeared to hike the Appalachian Trail was quickly disproved.
Finally, there were the anonymous revenges.
A Dec. 30 e-mail planted the seeds of believability for a Tuesday-night phone caller who said Sanford had flown to Argentina.
Those anonymous tips led The State to have a reporter at the Atlanta airport to interview Sanford. Then, in rapid succession, the paper told Sanford’s aides and a key ally, Davis, that it had e-mails describing an affair between Sanford and a woman in Argentina, and a free-lance journalist knocked on a door in Buenos Aires. A woman at that address initially answered to the name on the e-mails, Maria, then said Maria wasn’t at home.
But the damage was done.
In eight short hours, the combination of the two anonymous tipsters and three actions — Sanford’s arrival at the Atlanta airport, unveiling the e-mails and finding Maria — took Sanford from would-be president to disgraced adulterer.
‘IF YOU WANT’
Sanford has run away from his security detail since the moment he was elected governor in November 2002.
“Look, I’m going to drive my car,” Sanford told SLED agents who waited to drive him to his Sullivan’s Island home as the governor-elect emerged from his 2002 election-night victory celebration in Charleston. “You guys can follow if you want.”
From that moment, security staffers have been chasing behind a maverick chief executive who resists protection.
During his two terms, Sanford, a physical-fitness buff, has jogged alone at night in the neighborhood surrounding the Governor’s Mansion, leaving agents unaware or to follow him in a car, officials familiar with gubernatorial security say.
Sanford also hops into a SLED vehicle to run errands or to drive alone to his State House office, said the sources, who insisted on anonymity.
Sanford’s aversion to security and success in evading it is important because it explains, in part, his ability to disappear and fly to Argentina to see his mistress.
Compared with his predecessors, Sanford’s security detail has about half as many officers.
Sanford’s testy relationship with security officers makes it difficult for police and others to stay in touch as events may require and exposes the governor to dangers, critics said.
Security for S.C. governors has been an informal arrangement for decades.
Nothing in the law required protection for either the governor or lieutenant governor until mid-2007.
That’s when legislative leaders — frustrated by Lt. Gov. Bauer’s two run-ins with traffic police — passed a budget proviso requiring a security detail for Bauer, who is second in the state’s line of chief-executive succession.
During the 2008 legislative session, a proviso was enacted for the governor. But it requires the chief executive to agree to the degree of security.
“Any governor can stand down his protection,” said SLED director Reggie Lloyd, who reports to Sanford. “He can walk away from it. There is no requirement he has to accept it at any given time.”
Neither SLED’s Lloyd, Public Safety director Mark Keel nor the Natural Resources agency —the three agencies that provide officers for Sanford’s security detail — would discuss specifics about security measures.
But Sanford and Bauer have entirely differing views of security.
Bauer pressed for a security detail from the moment he was elected, officials said. Sanford is blunt about his disdain for security officers, they say.
On June 18, Sanford ditched his security detail and drove his state-owned car to Columbia’s airport, where security cameras recorded him walking to a plane.
THE SHOT THAT MISSED
If it weren’t for Sen. Knotts, R-Lexington, Sanford might have gotten away with his secret Argentine trip, at least for a while longer.
After he learned the governor had driven away in a state vehicle without his security detail, Knotts alerted the media Monday to the missing governor.
Knotts said he was concerned about the governor’s safety.
But some say the senator and ally of gubernatorial hopeful Bauer, also a Republican, had a political motivation as well.
Last year, Sanford endorsed Republican candidate Katrina Shealy in the GOP primary race for the Senate seat that Knotts has held since 2002. Sanford also appeared in commercials, endorsing Shealy.
“I’m supporting Katrina in this race quite simply because I believe she’s committed to the conservative ideals of lower taxes and limited government that people I talk to in Lexington County believe in very strongly,” Sanford said in his April 2008 endorsement.
“I believe Katrina will be a real leader in terms of working to make South Carolina a better place to do business, work and raise a family, and to that end I’m pleased to endorse her.”
Knotts was upset with the governor’s involvement. He gave an impassioned speech on the Senate floor shortly after his victory over Shealy, criticizing Sanford for actively campaigning against him.
Friday, Knotts held a press conference, calling for Sanford to resign.
Knotts said that call was not based on a personal or political vendetta. Instead, it’s about restoring credibility to the highest office in the state, Knotts said.
“(South Carolina) needs to move on,” Knotts said. “We need to get this behind us.”
HE WANTED SOME SPACE?
After Knotts went public with Sanford’s disappearance, the one person who could have politically saved the wandering governor was his wife.
She didn’t try.
For seven days, South Carolinians didn’t know the whereabouts of Gov. Sanford. But they knew where first lady Jenny Sanford stood, without a doubt.
With her husband missing for four days, Jenny Sanford sent a message through her first public comments, just as Sanford’s whereabouts became a national mystery that led to the uncovering of her husband’s adulterous affair.
“He was writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kids,” the first lady told a reporter Monday at the couple’s Sullivan’s Island beach home, where she was staying with their four sons.
Father’s Day weekend had just come and gone, and Jenny Sanford said the family had not heard from her husband. She went on to tell the reporter she didn’t know where Sanford was and was not concerned.
All across the state, when residents read that remark, their reaction was much the same. If your husband or wife is missing for four days, and you don’t know where they are, but you’re not concerned, it’s probably painful.
By the following day, officials across the state and, increasingly, around the nation were paying attention to Sanford’s absence.
Monday night, the governor’s office said it finally had heard from the missing Sanford. He would return to work Wednesday, his office said.
Jenny Sanford, who has been married to Sanford for 20 years, still hadn’t heard from Sanford, however.
It was revealed later Jenny Sanford had known for five months that her husband was having an affair with a woman in Argentina. She also had asked Sanford for an informal separation — to maintain her dignity, she said — though she said it wasn’t her place to disclose that fact out of respect for Sanford’s public position.
When Sanford had said he might go away over the Father’s Day weekend, Jenny Sanford said, she said that was fine: Just don’t go to Argentina. But the public did not yet know that.
Approached by the media once Sanford’s office said it had heard from the governor, Jenny Sanford again made her position clear.
“I am being a mom today,” the first lady told a CNN reporter. “I have not heard from my husband. I am taking care of my children.”
Chatter within the blogosphere and on the street again interpreted Jenny Sanford’s remarks in a similar fashion: The first lady was being a mom; Sanford was not being a father.
Sanford returned to South Carolina from Argentina six days after he left, confessing to being unfaithful to his wife.
Jenny Sanford, described by many as the governor’s best political adviser, was not with him. Instead, she issued a statement.
“I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage,” one sentence read. She said her husband had earned the chance for a reconciliation.
The day after Sanford’s confession, Jenny Sanford told CNN she would be fine — with or without Sanford.
“I have great faith and great friends and great family,” she said. “We have a good Lord in this world, and I know that I’m going to be fine and not only will I survive, I’ll thrive.”
A day later, Jenny Sanford said she had been hoping that her husband indeed had been hiking on the Appalachian Trail.
That he had dared to go to Argentina to see the other woman left her stunned.
“He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her,” she told the Associated Press in a strong, steady voice. “I was hoping he was on the Appalachian Trail. But I was not worried about his safety. I was hoping he was doing some real soul-searching somewhere and devastated to find out it was Argentina.
“It's tragic.”
NO ONE KNEW; NO ONE COULD SAY NO
Among the many betrayals committed by Gov. Sanford this week, his deception of his staff raised warning flags among reporters that this was no typical post-session wind-down by the governor.
At first, Sanford staffers had no answer as to where the governor was despite a cell-phone tower providing his last-known location as being near Atlanta. Then — nine hours later, late Monday — in an effort to squelch speculation, staffers said Sanford was hiking on the Appalachian Trail.
Sanford’s taste for adventure and need for solitude initially made a hiking trip on the Appalachian Trail seem plausible.
But in explaining his absence, two critical questions were left unanswered: Why would Sanford have been near Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport Thursday, as his cell phone had indicated? It is 80 miles from the Appalachian Trail.
And if he were really hiking as his staff said about 10 p.m. Monday, then why would he not be back in the office until Wednesday, 1½ days later? His absence had caused a public stir only he could calm.
The next day, staff and Sanford allies said the governor’s still-mysterious trip was a harmless excursion. Then, late Tuesday night, Sanford’s SUV was discovered at Columbia’s airport, completely unraveling the story.
By Wednesday morning, when The State met Sanford’s Delta flight returning from Argentina, it was clear Sanford’s staff had provided few, if any, facts all week.
Sanford admitted he had not told his staff the truth about his trip.
“The first key moment was the inability of staff to know ... where he was,” said Gary Karr, whose former boss, former Gov. David Beasley, once called a press conference to debunk a rumored affair. “If you don’t know, you just can’t say you know.”
Former Sanford spokesman Will Folks said false statements by staff turned the disappearance into a story.
“I don’t think any of this would have ever blown up” had there not been false statements made, Folks said. But, he added, “You can’t blame people on the staff for being misled.”
Sanford, the loner, always has had trouble trusting friends and colleagues, Folks said, and no one knew enough to grab the governor by the shoulder and ask him to think twice.
Or was strong enough to stand up and do so.
In part that’s because older, more seasoned aides — Jenny Sanford and Davis — have gone on to other things, as is typical in the waning years of a governor’s second term.
Wednesday morning, for instance, Sanford’s fellow Furman University grad Davis — a relative graybeard when it comes to the governor’s youngish staff — raced to Columbia from Beaufort to speak to Sanford before his press conference.
Sanford’s current spokesman, Joel Sawyer, defends the governor’s current staff.
“Every bit of information” issued by the governor’s office during the debacle was “believed to be true at the time,” he said.
“There’s obviously a lot of disappointment on the staff’s part,” Sawyer said Friday. “We believe in the larger ideas of what he’s trying to accomplish, as we always have.”
THE DESPERATION SAMBAS
Sanford’s long, strange absence — and Jenny Sanford’s chilly public statements about the governor’s whereabouts — had suddenly cast in new light copies of five e-mails purportedly between Sanford and a woman in Argentina.
The e-mail exchanges, pasted into a single e-mail, had arrived Dec. 30 at The State in an account for letters to the editor. The subject field read, “This is your governor.”
The e-mails were from the personal e-mail address of Gov. Sanford to a woman in Argentina named Maria. Those e-mails outlined a sexual affair.
The editorial page editor who retrieved the e-mail replied to it, asking who the e-mailer was.
There was no response.
When the e-mails were sent to the newsroom, a reporter and editor there both e-mailed the AOL account in the United Kingdom, asking questions. There was no response.
Then, the reporter e-mailed Maria. Again, there was no response.
Attempts to electronically divine whether the e-mails were genuine also failed to produce results.
With the S.C. Legislature in session and a battle over federal stimulus money escalating, the e-mails went in a drawer.
Then, Knotts announced Sanford was missing.
Staffers initially said Sanford was doing previously postponed work. His wife said he was writing something. Then staffers said Sanford was on the Appalachian Trail, but they did not know where. They added he would be back to work Wednesday.
Inside the newsroom, the trail story was questioned.
Why? In part, the e-mails.
Operating on the chance Sanford was in Argentina, reporters began looking at flight schedules Tuesday. There had been a flight out of Atlanta on June 18, the last day Sanford’s cell phone was tracked. The soonest flight from Argentina would be arriving in Atlanta at 6 a.m. Wednesday.
The question was whether to go to the Atlanta airport? It was answered quickly by an anonymous call to reporter John O’Connor.
The caller put Sanford on an airplane Thursday, June 18. The destination? Argentina.
Reporter Gina Smith grabbed her digital audio recorder and digital camera and headed to Atlanta. If the governor hadn’t already returned from Argentina, he could be arriving back in the United States on Wednesday.
Shortly after 5 a.m. Wednesday, Smith went to the airport. Shortly after 6 a.m., she met a surprised Sanford. Smith was the only media member there.
Sanford said he had just arrived from Argentina. He also said he had not been on the Appalachian Trail.
When asked who he had been with in Argentina, the governor cut off the interview.
By 7:30 a.m., thestate.com had broken the news that Sanford had not been on the Appalachian Trail, but in Argentina.
In their morning meeting, State editors decided to immediately inform the governor and his inner circle about the e-mails. .
A reporter called a Sanford staffer, saying the paper had e-mails that outlined an affair between the governor and Maria. Unless Sanford would address the issue privately, The State would have no choice but to ask him — with TV crews filming — if he knew Maria at his press conference that afternoon.
The names of two other women tumbled into the newsroom.
Fearful Sanford’s staffers did not get it — that the paper would ask publicly what Sanford’s relationship was with Maria — a State editor called Davis, Sanford’s former chief of staff.
Davis, a Beaufort lawyer, recently had been elected to the state Senate. When called, he quickly said he no longer worked for Sanford.
The editor said he knew that but wanted to talk with Davis. Sanford had landed from Argentina, and the paper had e-mails about an affair with a woman in Argentina.
The editor told Davis why he thought the e-mails were genuine. They mentioned Coosaw, the Sanford plantation, and Sanford’s love of digging holes; they quoted Bible verses and contained details about Sanford’s known schedule.
And more names of women were coming in over the transom. The total was at three and counting.
“Women?!” Davis responded, sounding incredulous. “Women?!”
The editor repeated that the paper would ask Sanford publicly about Maria with TV cameras running. Jenny Sanford and the couple’s four sons should be spared that image, and it was up to Davis to ensure Sanford’s staffers “got it.”
Davis, who said he was in Beaufort, promised to call Sanford’s staff and call back.
When he called back, Davis said he was driving to Columbia.
Within minutes, a Columbia Web site operated by former Sanford staffer Folks, which regularly promotes Sanford’s agenda and Davis’ political prospects, was reporting The State had e-mails about a Sanford affair.
Meanwhile, an editor in the Washington bureau of McClatchy Newspapers, which owns The State, volunteered to arrange for a freelance journalist in Argentina to go to Maria’s Buenos Aires address, contained in the e-mails.
A woman there initially said she was Maria, but then said Maria was not there when the freelancer said she was a reporter.
Sanford’s press conference was scheduled to start at 2 p.m. It was delayed until 2:30.
Sanford opened the press conference by asking where was The State reporter who had met him at the Atlanta airport. Then, over the next 18 minutes he thought out loud, eventually saying he had been unfaithful to his wife. He apologized to his mistress and, later, his wife.
Subsequently asked to authenticate the e-mails between Sanford’s personal e-mail address and Maria, Sanford’s press spokesman declined. But Sanford would not dispute their authenticity, he said.
Later, Sanford said he had been unfaithful to his wife only once, with his lover in Argentina.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
Some questions remain unanswered.
• Where did the e-mails come from?
The State’s staffers suspected Maria or a friend of hers.
Friday night, The New York Times reported that, according to an Argentine source, the e-mails had been sent by a jilted boyfriend of Maria’s.
Her e-mails refer to another boyfriend. But, Maria wrote, she did not love him, only Sanford.
That unnamed boyfriend discovered the Sanford-Maria e-mails and decided to lash out at “your governor,” the Times reported.
When Maria found out her e-mails had been sent to The State, she ended the relationship with the unnamed boyfriend, the Times said.
• How did Maria find out her e-mails had been shared?
By The State e-mailing her, as it tried to authenticate the e-mails?
That’s a possibility.
• Maria knew her e-mail traffic with Sanford had been compromised, according to the Times. But did she tell Sanford?
If so, his trip last week to Argentina was even more reckless.
The most important question may be this: Would Sanford have confessed to the affair Wednesday if a State reporter had not met him when his Argentine flight landed, if the paper had not said it would publicly discuss the e-mails and if a freelancer had not been able to find Maria at the address in her e-mails?
BIKING AT THE FORT
Friday night, Sanford called Smith, The State reporter who had met him at the Atlanta airport.
Earlier Friday, some legislators and GOP powers called on Sanford to resign. He says he won’t. Others want an investigation of his activities and use of state money. Sanford has said he will pay back a portion of the $8,000 in public money spent for his trip to South America last year, which included a two-day visit to Argentina. His wife remains on Sullivan’s Island.
Sanford thanked Smith for being professional.
Then, he said he was going biking at Fort Jackson. He liked to exercise, he said.
I’m not defending Sandford at all, but I hate to see Republicans turning on each other and giving the dems an issue like this. Pubs will never understand the concept of solidarily. Make that - the pubs never understood the concept - the two-party system is on its way to being over now.
Keep in mind that there are many scandals which Democrats cause as well. Of course, the GOP rarely runs with those. It is because of that, and not because conservatives expect more of their leaders, that the GOP is in the rut in which it currently finds itself.
Well, here’s the punch-line, quoting Sanford’s wife, Jenny...
“He was told in no uncertain terms not to see her,” she told the Associated Press in a strong, steady voice. “I was hoping he was on the Appalachian Trail. But I was not worried about his safety. I was hoping he was doing some real soul-searching somewhere and devastated to find out it was Argentina.
That Sanford was suicidal, it seems, in terms of his family and his career...
Well.., if the GOP didn’t “pander” to these “values” that the voters have, but that they don’t “personally” have — there wouldn’t be this problem you mention...
Women are no different, only treated as such.
Sanford is damaged goods and should step down, IMHO.
The people of SC are too independent and genteel to be lead by broken trust and scandal.
Sanford did not like security because he likes his privacy to do ?. I have a feeling Maria is not the only or first affair. If the press cares to continue, more dirt will come out.
The Sanford incident has led me to speculate; if the MSM leaves a conservative alone, they have “dirt” on him / her to dredge up at the right time - two days before the election.
The MSM hate for and constant putdowns of Palin is because there is no “dirt”.
Lesson to self “never support a conservative the press ignores”.
It’s so easy to read your cheating spouse’s email with
E-Blaster.
You only have to have access to Cheater’s computer one time to install the program.
After that, the program emails all of Cheater’s computer activity directly to your email account.
So....even if he uses multiple computers, once you find out the password to Cheater’s email, you can read his email to your heart’s discontent.
That’s probably how his wife found out about the affair. So easy...and economical, too.
Sanford put himself in the middle of the road, but it appears from this article that fellow republicans in the state like Knotts were more than happy to drive the bus over him. I hope the voters remember this next election.
I’m most fascinated by the way Mrs. Sanford has handled herself and this affair.
I’m glad there’s at least one prominent wife out there who won’t allow their husband to humiliate her and the children along with himself.
I plan on sending Knotts a contribution!! Sanford tried to screw him over and as they say, paybacks are a bitch.
Which is another reason why Sanford should have been more prudent in his judgement. As soon as anyone gives his enemies ammunition it should be no surprise that such a gift eventually returns to him.
If it had been Bill Clinton who had done this the Republicans would have been in an uproar ... and rightly so. I don’t want to defend the indefensible even if it my own party.
If it’s wrong, it’s wrong!
This an amazing piece of journalistic digg. What would happen if this same kind of talent was applied to our Traitor-In-Chief’s history?
It is time.
Wow, the press can really dissect and analyze the facts about Republicans. What about Obama’s whereabouts/affiliations/place of birth/college records?
“Last year, Sanford and his wife, Jenny, tried to defeat Lexington state Sen. Jake Knotts — an ally of Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer — and failed. Knotts, who settles old scores, made Sanford’s most recent vanishing act public.”
This is what I was referring to. Republicans and/or conservatives aren’t sinless and we shouldn’t claim to be, but at how we sacrifice one another. When the Lewinsky affair happened, I don’t think a single democrat strayed from the party line that this was just sex and it was a personal issue. But here, the republicans beat themselves up trying to be first in line to throw sandford under the bus. It always happens this way.
Having said that, Sandford knew his life would be under a microscope. The affair should be between him and his wife, but he should’ve known it wouldn’t be. He really has let his party down.
Clinton had a history of womanizing, and the public knew it and didn’t care. With Lewinsky, he was engagng in sexual harrassment (because she technically worked for him), and the public still didn’t care. The public would never have even known about John Edwards if the tabloids hadn’t made an issue (eventually) of his shenanigans. Even then, there was very little public outrage. Why is that? I think first, because the press is left-leaning and they witch hunt Republicans. Second, because the Republicans offer up their own on a silver platter. Why won’t they say it’s a private matter between Sandford and his wife? They won’t they at least try to take the issue off the front page instead of putting it there themselves?
It’s indefensible. Period.
I don’t care what the media says. I don’t care what the Democrats say.
I plan on sending Knotts a contribution!! Sanford tried to screw him over and as they say, paybacks are a bitch.
******************
Before anyone gives Knotts money, be aware that he has worked hard to defuse or kill efforts in SC for gun owners to have complete reciprocity with other states. The fatman doesnt want to lose his instructor fees and other benefits of being a gun trainer.
Knotts seems DIRTY.....he has NO empathy for people....he seems mean and little. I have NO love for Sanford but he needs prayers.
Knotts comes across as a behind the scenes backstabber. And with his sneaking calls to the media to rat on Sanford, he proves it. As for Sanford, for his familys sake, he rights his ways.
Women make incredibly stupid, reckless, self-destructive choices in the romantic area, too. Some of them also destroy families for the sake of sex and love. But (a) they do not do it at near the rate men do it, and (b) so far no female political figure has been caught doing it, while many male politicians have been caught.
I'm not suggesting that women are morally superior to men in this regard. I think the difference is caused by the nature of the successful woman politician vs the nature of the successful male politician. A woman politician has to be extremely focused and willing to make sacrifices in her personal life; she cannot allow time for self-indulgence of any sort.
Which is not to say, of course, that some woman politician will not be caught in sexual stupidity, as more of them enter public life.
What I think is that there are a couple of reasons:
i) The press, as you correctly stated, is on the aggregate Left-leaning. Thus, candidates on the Left tend to get some modicum of space, as long as they don't push too hard (e.g., Edwards and Clinton were put front and center by the press, but that's because no editor would have allowed such a story to pass by. Take Obama ...say the birth certificate issue reached a point where it can be proven that there is a whole steaming mess under the carpet, and that it is about to come out anyways ...then you'd see the press scrambling over each other to report the issue, since the scoop would be so big that letting it go would be unthinkable). Thus, the press will attack the left, even though the press is left leaning ...the story just has to be big enough, and about to come out.
ii) The second aspect is that it is always better to go after someone who claims to be for something, but just caught doing something else. An example ...let's say you see (let's assume we are in a small town) the local town tramp up and about doing her normal nightly activities. Well, that's 'normal' for her, thus no attention is paid ....it will NOT be breaking news in the morning. Now, imagine if instead of the local tramp it is the local pastor's wife seen mucking about in the weeds with Johnny and Tucker, having a whole orgy of a time! Again, same act like the town tramp was doing, but suddenly it just became smoking dynamite in terms of news. This is why a Republican said to be allegedly soliciting for sex in public toilets will always have a greater news component than a Democrat who is known to be gay, and why a Republican who took a moral stance yet was cheating on his wife across OCEANS will always have greater weight than a Democrat who is caught smoking ...erm ...cigars. Same despicable acts, but if one group claims to have the higher moral ground, and still gets caught mucking about, then (just like the preacher's wife vs the tramp) the news will have different weights. For instance, say a picture came out of Obama slouching in some dark corner smoking a cigarette ...it would definitely make the papers, and the evening tongue-waggers at CNN/Fox/name-it would be discussing it. However, imagine if a picture came out of Sarah Palin doing the same? It may seem like bias (and it is in many ways), but there is some semblance of reason ...if you claim to be of higher moral fiber, then it will definitely be a much greater shocker if you are caught flying thousands of miles to some foreign country to sleep with someone.
iii) The public loves to tear down people, and will consume such news reports like cotton candy given out free during a county fair! Look at what happened when the Edwards story came out ...the guy went from darling to dispose in a few days and lines of print. Same thing with Sanford ...to be honest I AM SO GLAD HE GOT CAUGHT. Why? Well, if he hadn't, this would have continued (with more and more people knowing about it). Sanford would have been one of the fore-runners in the 2012 election, and may have even been Palin's running mate (either with his name as vice, or his name above hers ...who knows). At that precise point, this story would have come out and deep-sixed the entire shebang. Even worse, what if it didn't come out, and the two had won? The mess would have been huge ...and not just because of infidelity (that would NOT have been the issue then) but because of the risks that the president/vice is compromising with a foreign national.
Anyways, any person seeking public office owes it to him/herself, as well as to his/her PARTY, to ensure that there are no issues that could discredit all concerned. Take Edwards ...that infidelity was known, it just didn't come out until it did. Just because your dirt is not out there doesn't mean someone doesn't know about it and is waiting for the most opportune time to unleash it. Same thing with Sanford.
All pols, Dem and Repub, should know that they are so in the public eye that anything and everything they do is, or will be, known.
There are many reasons why Sanford should step down (e.g. not just infidelity, but possible abuse of tax payer money, definite abuse of office, and putting himself in a position where he could be compromised or blackmailed) ...but in my book the foremost is that he is dumb to have put himself in such a position!
Amen to this !
http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2009/06/28/why_adultery_is_political_suicide
…Why not? Because adultery, unlike a frisky bachelor lifestyle, connotes a reckless dishonesty at odds with our basic notions of integrity. Because it shows a lack of respect for the most important commitment that most of us will ever make. Because it indicates that the adulterer will always place his selfish desires above those who depend on him…
…Yet here we are again, disqualifying a possible White House aspirant because he couldn't keep his pants on. After two decades of high-level political sex scandals, we seem to have reached a consensus that marital fidelity is actually pretty important in a leader. Given the choice, we would prefer peace and prosperity to presidential rectitude. But we really want all three, and we think we can have them….
No, that’s not the way she found out. He had asked her to look for some financial documents at his State House Office. She found a letter, not an e-mail, in a folder. This was in late January. She has known since then. She said so.
I missed that. Well, I still provided folks with important info on how to spy on a cheater. ;)
Thank you for taking the time to put all of that into words, especially point ii.
His PARTY??!!! Are any of you people paying attention? This is not a *private matter* between spouses, a sitting governor lied to his staff and security detail and abandoned his post, he left the people of his state vulnerable to any and all in order to leave the country, regardless it was to boink some bimbo or something else, dealings with foreign operatives, meeting with a cartel of some kind ... all manner of things could have occurred in Argentina, AND NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA WHERE HE WAS. There are some things that only a governor has the authority to deal with, only a governor may sign off on, what Sanford did is worse than irresponsible. He shouldn't *resign for the good of the party*, the state legislature ought to have impeachment articles prepared immediately.
It is the People of the State of South Carolina who have been betrayed here, not just his wife and family. They have every right, nay obligation, to hold him accountable for his actions.
Sounds like he had a political death wish, doesnt it?
I’m joking on giving him money. Besides I’m in Georgia now.
Knotts may be dirty. I don’t know him. The fact of the matter is that Sanford started the feud with actively campainging against Knotts. It looks like Knotts had the final word.
How? He doesn't say, most reports have been saying that the head of security (appointed by Sanford) initiated the search and then the cell phone tracking and then notified state leaders that they may have a problem with a missing governor who's car was found at an airport.
There’s a surprise, since you always hated Sanford and supported the RINO big-spending trash in SC.
Now you see what I’ve been talking about for 7 years. Welcome to reality. Your boy is a freakin loser. Told you so.
No, he’s a sinner. You’re the loser.
Which RINO spending trash would that be? Care to name them? Or do you want to continue to make a fool of yourself on here?
Forget the sin. That’s not the issue. Dereliction of duty and spending government funds to arrange to see his mistress. That’s the issue. Your boy is a fraud but I’ve been trying to tell you that forever.
The anti-Sanford contingent. That would be people like you who have badmouthed him from the day he took office. There’s no excusing adultery, but his performance in the job was still exceptional, despite your constant attempts from the time you signed up to attack him.
“Dereliction of duty” ? Horsecrap. Since you’re so excited to nail him to the cross, as you have been from day #1, why don’t you get your local legislator to impeach him ? That way you can have your closet-job RINO Bauer to sign off on all the big spending you’ve been wailing about for so long. After all, doesn’t SC need another scumbag like Charlie Crist leading it into the ground ?
I financially supported for him in his first primary and general election so I voted for him twice. His inability to provide leadership and move the state forward using conservative principals like Sarah Palin is why I despise the man. It’s about spending money in the right places while cutting it in others in order to make your state a better place to live and work. The man has no vision of how to be a conservative leader that makes his state a better place. Just saying no to everything is not leadership. Reagan didn’t do it and neither has Palin. Maybe one day you will wake up and realize that. I’m done with you.
I hate freaking Bauer. Maybe you should real all my posts and you would know that.
If you hate Bauer, why are you so anxious for him to be Governor ?
Saying no to most everything government-expanding/tax-hiking/perversion-proliferating politicians propose today is not only leadership, it is revolutionary, and revolution is needed now more than ever. It is saying "yes" to everything that is destroying our country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.