Posted on 06/25/2009 12:18:52 AM PDT by bruinbirdman
Edited on 06/25/2009 12:26:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
If I understand this correctly, they started their ‘affair’ online? He said it started with some emails and grew from there?
So this yutz throws away a family and possible Presidency over a chick he met online???
Wow, stupidity knows no culture or wealth barrier does it.
Sanford has not lied under oath, for that you are correct. But please note the hypocrite’s words regarding Clinton.
““I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign]… I come from the business side,” he said. “If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”
On top of that, he took THREE tax funded trips to Argentina which under the light of new information seems more than fishy.
So yes, comparing him to Clinton seems appropriate. And even though it’s a technicality, look up the definition of sodomy. Clinton didn’t sodomize Monica with a cigar.
I'm not sure which shows poorer judgment: Sanford's inability to keep Mr. Winky inside his zipper, or your suggestion we should accept and forgive this abuse of taxpayer trust and funds.
Translation: someone local we bunged $100 to cos we're too cheap to fly a reporter down.
I thought about this and I first thought that this is Sanford’s business and Sanford’s problem.
Upon some further thinking, Sanford needs to resign or this will become a media circus that Obama uses to distract the public while he fast tracks more socialist changes while the public isn’t looking.
There's luck, there's bad luck, and then there's Appalachian-Argentina-Honey-Trap bad luck. There may be a point at which people might want to start rethinking this whole Viagra thing for aging politicians.
Looks like another victim of multiculturalism. He heard about this "Wise Latina" thing and...thought it was worth probing into.
“Maria. . . I just met a girl named Maria . . .”
Great post! Thanks.
The 5-hour Sexual Energy marathon weekends, in the wrong hands, come with unfortunate side effects. Looks like poor judgment in this case. He just saw John Edwards torpedo himself out of national politics. Not exactly like he could say he wasn’t warned.
He should have bought a fast car. I am much less concerned about the affair than the abuse of taxpayer funds and being AWOL for nearly a week. I confess—his, “I cried for the past five days in Argentina” comment really sent me over the edge. Eeeeesh.
I’m not circling the wagons! Get real. I’m just talking about the timing of exposes of rotten Republicans.
There’s probably plenty of lefties who could be exposed for the same thing - right now - but it won’t happen. Republican affairs and exposures of them are just so convenient to distract the reality-show addicted masses from the big stuff going on in Washington.
Sanford is a fool - and wow! - he sure serves a purpose for the high and mighty leftists.
“current events?”
Nice way to justify spreading gossip and sticking your nose in someone else’s business.
Then again, perhaps some need to feel titilated as they look down their ‘better than you’ noses at someone they are condemning.
+1. We know he had an affair. Those who want to satisfy their prurient interests by reading his personal notes are no better.
And that's natural. Sanford has struck the God-given feminine Security Nerve.
There is an important lesson here about the nature of men and women. It started with the Fall. Women recevied this judgment:"Your desire will be for your husband..." (Gen 3:16). The apostle Paul was later inspired by the Lord to specifically command Christian men to meet their wive's inherent need for emotional security: Husbands, love your wives. (Eph. 5:25).
But ladies, take special notice of what he says immediately afterwards:"...the wife must respect her husband." He does not say "love" your husband here, but "respect".
Why? Because just as love is at the top of the list for women's emotional needs, respect is at the very top of men's emotional needs. Love is a little farther down their list. Even secular psychological studies have showed that to be true. Google it.
Here's the punchline: Women marry for love, but men marry for repsect. They don't just want sex; they want a fan, somebody to encourage and appreciate them as they face the day to day struggle to compete. Sex is important to men, but we don't want a wife who is just "avaliable"-- we want to be desired and admired as a man (even in sex). If Sanford's emotional needs in that regard were being fulfilled, he wouldn't have gone elsewhere.
Ladies, if you want to improve or even save your marriages, you had better learn this basic fact. Most American women are not taught this truth. Women often think if they just "love" their husbands as they themselves want to be loved, they've done their job as wives. Wrong. Men do not marry for romance or security. Warm feelings mean nothing if the man is taken for granted or worse yet criticized. Such a marriage is headed for the rocks, every time.
I don't know the details of the Sanfords' marriage. But anyone who thinks his 8-year relationship with his mistress was all about sex is naive. If it were that, it would have been a one-night stand with an acquaintance or prostitute. Instead, this was a long relationship in which the other woman was obviously meeting an emotional need that Mrs. Sanford was not. Mark worked hard and accomplished a lot in his life. How did Mrs. Sanford, treat him-- like her hero, as she should have, and as he naturally needed? The other woman certainly did. And that's exactly why there was another woman. Mrs. Sanford may well have "loved" him, as many wives do while treating their husbands as the schmuck who forgot to take out the trash. Nothing is as emasculating as a wife who fails to show respect and admiration.
Mrs. Sanford's public letter was revealing. She said she was willing to take him back "if he is truly humble". She wants to see him humiliated before her. It's not going to happen. She doesn't know and won't ever know this, unless she takes a long and honest look at herself, but he's had enough humbling from her.
I came across a book a while back that confirmed this reality about men and women. It is based on some research that shocked both the lady who wrote it and the women who participated in the studies. It's called "For Women Only", by Shante Feldman. Ladies, do your marriage favor, and read it.
Sanford struck ALL the nerves. He has not only NOT loved his wife, he's also managed to embarass and humiliate his wife and sons in the most public way possible with his poorly executed pursuit of another man's wife.
Yes, men want to be treated like heros, but sometimes they actually need to act heroically. You seem to want to excuse his epic fail by hinting he had unmet needs. The truth is, there is never an excuse for this betrayal of vows and abandonment of his sons (because he preferred this woman to them).
No, he’s not excused, but the obvious point is that the wife is not some special, blameless deity. These kinds of things can often be avoided with less selfishness on BOTH sides.
Nope, I’m not buying the perennial bleat that men cheat because their wives don’t understand them.
Men cheat because they can, because they lack the intrinsic conviction and manly character to just say no.
Then I hope you’re not female, and I hope you’re not married.
Let me put this another way: “Love” is not a magic word a wife can throw around and pretend she’s met her duty to her husband. Real love is sacrificial. If a wife doesn’t even care to learn what her husband needs, it’s not really love she’s feeling but something else, something self-seeking— security? comfort? Her selfishness will not excuse his own. But nor will his excuse hers. Character means he will stay and tough it out, and yes, perhaps suffer while doing so. He didn’t, so he doesn’t have it. But his lack of character and his guilt doesn’t mean J. Sanford should be revered.
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.