Posted on 06/24/2009 11:55:36 AM PDT by ianschwartz
Gov. Mark Sanford admitted to having an affair with a woman from Argentina at a much anticipated Tuesday afternoon press conference. Sanford said he and his wife are trying to work through this. Sanford called himself selfish. Gov. Sanford is also chairman of the GOP Governors' Association. He said he will tender his resignation.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
You should ask the author of #5 what he was talking about, as that is the comment I was responding to.
As mentioned earlier, you should ask #5, as I was responding to his comment.
So, you are telling me that you posted a response to someone but you didn’t have a clue what they were talking about (and didn’t ask)? OK, thanks for telling me. I will then consider your post not worth thinking about.
I thought it appropriate to include the person being talked about in this post.
OK I see your point.
I was thinking how funny this would be if it was a Romney caper. Cuz I was thinking this is good for Palin. Then I thought Romney probably thinks it’s good for him too, but I don’t think he has a chance. Then I remembered him being involved in some shady ops missions, or people connected to him anyway.
If someone with GOP ties did this to Mr. Sanford, I hope they can/will attack the Dems with the same viciousness and voracity.
LOL!!!!
This thread needed a bit of humor - thanks!
Amen Toots...Er, Auntie!
I’ll support impeaching him when the Dems retroactively convict Slick Willie of impeachment. Until then, Sanford should be allowed to stick around for the rest of his term. No double standards for RAT politicians!
__________________________
Clinton should have been gone. SO should Mark Sanford. I won’t let Democrat hypocrisy EXCUSE the wrongdoing of people on my general side of the aisle.
Sorry Cap’n — I guess I’m just an old-fashioned Bible thumper. A man who will lie to his wife, lie to his staff, make THEM lie for him (perhaps without their knowledge), use government property for personal pursuits and under false pretenses, and disappear without a means for contact for 5 days in dereliction of one’s Constitutionally required duties — not to mention that he committed adultery — is enough for me to say he should resign, and failing to do so, he should be IMPEACHED.
You got any evidence Sanford resorted to the kind of tactics Clinton did to cover up HIS affair (namely lying under oath, obstructing justice, bombing foreign countries to distract attention away from his sneazy behavior) and I'll be more than happy to call for Sanford's head.
If you don't, then you must have drunk the Dem kool-aid that Clinton's impeachment was "all about sex" and not about the fact he was a lying treasonous criminal scumbag.
You got any evidence Sanford resorted to the kind of tactics Clinton did to cover up HIS affair (namely lying under oath, obstructing justice, bombing foreign countries to distract attention away from his sleazy behavior, etc.) and I'll be more than happy to call for Sanford's head.
If you don't, then you must have drunk the Dem kool-aid that Clinton's impeachment was "all about sex" and not about the fact he was a lying treasonous criminal scumbag.
When? The second you write the Family Values related bits out of the GOP platform, anger all the SoCons and send them packing.
I'm not suggesting that, only saying that that is the answer.
Until then, it's a live by the sword/die by the sword sort of thing, isn't it? If the GOP wants to win by advertising Family Values, this is the result when they stray from them.
I was one of them, but as of yesterday afternoon, I'd pretty much had it.
He's writing.
He's hiking.
He's spending some alone time. The evolving excuses were getting silly.
Last night I went to bed hoping that he'd slipped off for some plastic surgery or something similar, even though that doesn't explain abandoning his post.
There were a few here, got their panties in bunch defending him. I told the wife, if I disappear for 4 days and say I was hiking , um I am lying.
My husband and I discussed this yesterday. Mrs. Sanford's words about not knowing where he was didn't sound right. If she really didn't know, shame on him for being a weasel. And if she did, saying she didn't brought the whole thing down on him, because it piqued the interest of reporters.
The whole "woman scorned" thing, I guess.
I think you would probably find many atheists (not to mention religious folks) who disagree with you on this point. I'm not one of them (not an atheist), but know several, and "atheist" doesn't translate to "anything goes". Many adopt the Golden Rule as their motto, and what Mark Sanford did was as far from that as possible. There's nothing honorable about treating your kids that way, regardless of everything else.
As a previous Mark Sanford supporter, I will say that he showed shockingly bad judgment and a willingness to take unnecessary risks with the trust bestowed on him by the people of South Carolina that makes him unfit for office.
And no, to others reading this, conservatism isn’t necessarily confined to your church.
Of course it isn't. But Conservatism places a high value on doing what is right. Religious and non-religious people alike can agree that what Mark Sanford did was wrong.
Even I agree that what Sanford did was wrong, that isn’t the point.
None of us can live up to the principals within scripture, Alinsky and the left knows that. But, we advertise ourselvesas we can by throwing out any candidate who may err, regardless of how well they may have reprsented us or performed in their office.
I neither condone nor approve of what Sanford did, but isn’t it best left between he and his wife and then the voters in South Carolina?
In the meantime, like I keep saying, Dems circle the wagons and retain their candidates who represent their view well and we end up where we are, under Democrat rule, completely.
At a recent Excutive board meeting of three county party’s I attended, I was embarrased that a lady got up and stated she was reluctant to nominate or front candidates from her district because they were Mormon, as she was.
She mentioned the reaction from Evangelicals towards Mitt Romney (who I don’t support, but not because he is Mormon).
This attitude is what I mean, that candidates must fit into someone’s perceived church, or do not apply.
Be it because of religion or some transgression, we eleminate our own best people because they don’t live up to standards the left says we must adhere to because we claim “family values.”
And, what do we do but accomodate them by throwing out our own people?
He resigned from the National Office he held and should he and his wife reconcile, it is no one else’s business.
Should he not resign from the governor’s office, bet your bottom dollar Democrats and Evangelical Republicans will line up against him, regardless of how well he preformed in office.
Don’t be surprised to see the Democrat win and sell the state down the drain afterwards.
What is so hard for evangelicals about “Judge not lest ye be judged?”
OK, sounds great.
My response to my liberal boss who railed that it’s “always Republicans in this type of mess”? Even if EVERY Republican in the US had an affair, Socialism would still fail every time, all the time. Not much said after that.
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.
