Bingo!
Posted on 06/27/2009 12:19:28 PM PDT by Graybeard58
On March 13, 2008, we had this to say when then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, resigned after getting caught patronizing high-priced prostitutes: His fall "reminds voters that politicians comprise the last class of people worthy of the deification they are afforded. ... Mr. Spitzer's downfall underscores how politicians care less about public service than getting elected and re-elected, and amassing power with all its corrupting influences. It shows how the incessant flattery of journalists and regal treatment of subordinates creates egomaniacs who believe themselves entitled to special treatment and exempt from everyday laws. Most of all, it emphasizes that politicians are human beings with all the attending frailties. Deifying them merely sets worshippers up for disappointment; worse, it perpetuates government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians that constantly spawns the sanctimonious likes of Eliot Spitzer."
Much of that applies to Republican Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, whose extramarital affair is doubly disconcerting because he is a Christian and doubly disappointing because he's a conservative of some national stature and promise. Fifteen months ago, Mr. Spitzer quickly reached the inescapable conclusion that his turpitudes left him unfit for office. What say you, Gov. Sanford?
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this list, let me know.
There is one respect in which the Spitzer case is unlike that of Mark Sanford: Spitzer had always projected a holier-than-thou self-righteousness in his extortion of assorted businesses and businessmen in the name of “fairness” and full disclosure, and all the while he was consorting with the seediest of callgirls.
Mark Sanford never pretended to be the Second Coming, and had an affair based on at least his definition of “love,” illicit though it was.
Too fine a distinction for me - Sanford should go.
Perhaps. But all of it applies to Barack Hussein Obama.
To be a true cororarry... colorary... corollary (finally, “Spitzed” it out) this requires more than one tangent.
The differences are, of course, that Spitzer is a rich, liberal, populist, enforcer of all that’s public good, corruption fighter, and a loving husband Democrat.
While Sanford has made little of moral issues, has been separated from his wife for some time, and is a Republican.
Hypocrisy is lacking from a corollary. Only sex is in common, and even there, the difference between using and paying for prostitutes (sin of the flesh), rather than having an affair with the woman he may have intended to marry after divorce (if one is or was forthcoming) but in any case, had feelings for (sin of the heart), is immense.
The real question is that of judgment - the timing and the way Sanford went about this was an incredible lack of one, especially for someone potentially harboring presidential ambitions. I could see a corollary there.
My two cents, if Sanford wants to behave like a private citizen, he should be a private citizen, asap.
“Hypocrisy is lacking from a corollary. Only sex is in common, and even there, the difference between using and paying for prostitutes (sin of the flesh), rather than having an affair with the woman he may have intended to marry after divorce (if one is or was forthcoming) but in any case, had feelings for (sin of the heart), is immense.”
I’m surprised that no one is making the distinction that what Spitzer (the ex-AG) did was illegal, whereas Sanford has probably not broken any laws.
All that said, his lack of responsibility in not handing off his gubernatorial authority is probably sufficient reason for him to step down. He’s done on the national stage.
Gov. Sanford: Duuuuh, what's a turpitude?
America's Founders were wise about human nature. That's why they took such care to structure a national constitution of government which would limit or curb the human tendency to abuse power, knowing that the trust would be in the hands of imperfect people. "If men were angels . . . ," (Madison) limits on power would be unnecessary.
There is even a Samuel Adams statement which deals with such would-be political power holders as Ensign, Sanford, Edwards, Spitzer, and Clinton (among others). It is this:
"He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections." Samuel Adams
In Adams' view, "moral obligations" cannot be compartmentalized into "personal" and "public," because betrayal of trust violates an internal moral code that either exists, or it doesn't exist. Betrayal of trust is serious business, whether it is in "private connections" or matters of State. Once a leader has been found to have "lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections," his "public connections" must bear careful scrutiny.
I did not know this. I can see shouting God's name in vain and not feeling like you need to wander the desert for forty days, but cheating on the wife and destroying your family requires that you chuck your faith lock, stock and barrel. A pox on the man.
I’m surprised that no one is making the distinction that what Spitzer (the ex-AG) did was illegal, whereas Sanford has probably not broken any laws.
Probably because few believe or pretend that there really is any corollary between these cases, and because the illegality on part of Spitzer is what caused him to step down and be investigated, while Sanford is really only guilty of shirking some responsibilities to the people of the state and "borrowing" taxpayers money which I'm sure he will repay... and incredibly poor judgment in handling of the issue, making all the wrong moves.
All that said, his lack of responsibility in not handing off his gubernatorial authority is probably sufficient reason for him to step down. He’s done on the national stage.
True and true. Just to add, I am sorry that it happened, relieved that it happened now rather than later. Sometimes people in high places get a feeling of invincibility and self-delusion that their judgment is better than it really is, and blindly go on making things worse for themselves and everybody else.
Agreed. Sanford seems a bit unbalanced to me. Did he really think he could get away with this? And his blubbering press conference was a disgusting spectacle. One would expect a 6-year-old boy to carry on like that, but not a grown man.
Bud Light presents:
...(Real men of genius)
Today we salute you, Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian Bully
...(Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian Bully)
In your quest for higher political office and power you prosecuted everyone and ruined people in order to make a name for yourself...
...(You're an f'ing steamroller!)
Investment banks, research analysts, insurance companies, Native American tobacco retailers, $20 street hookers, jaywalkers, ticket scalpers, people who rip tags off mattresses, your mother
...(You're all going to jail)
The only person within a 500 mile radius you forgot to prosecute was yourself
...(Somebody convene a Grand Jury)
Other funny looking annoying rich men have to spend millions buying beautiful women condos, furs, BMW's, diamonds or proposing marriage in exchange for sex
...(where is the M3 convertible?)
You managed to get beautiful women by paying a miserly $80,000 for prostitutes over 10 years and risking criminal prosecution and public shame
...(Worth every penny)
Sure all pigs are created equal...but some pigs are more equal than others.
...(You're a special piece of pork!)
So crack open an ice cold Bud Light, oh $5,500 per hour call girl Governor...because the only people who were screwed here were the tax paying citizens
...(Mr. Power Hungry Hypocrite Leftist Authoritarian Bully)
Bud Light beer. Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Missouri.
Thanks for the pings to both articles Graybeard.
I did not see the press conference live, but later that day saw about all I could take of it - which was maybe a third of its actual run time. At that, I saw about 5x what you would have needed to see to form the correct conclusion that what you were seeing was a man who couldn’t decide what do. The subtext of this was that he was torn between two alternatives, and hadn’t decided to fish or cut bait. He should quit and his wife should divorce him.
According to Mrs. Sanford's statement, they had been separated two weeks, and the goal of the separation was to work toward repairing the marriage.
Yes, that's usually a stated goal, otherwise there would be no need for formal separation, people might as well proceed immediately to file for divorce. By the time of declaring a formal separation, marriage has been on the rocks or dead for a while, and reconciliation has not yet occurred. None of which is to say that they may not be successful in repairing the marriage, if that goal is real and not just a stopgap on the way to divorce.
Marriage is a social contract which, like many other contracts, sometimes fail through the fault of either party, both parties, more than two parties or through no one's fault. It just happens. People fail, marriages fail for many reasons. I don't know if people in politics or positions of high visibility are more susceptible to troubles in marriage or it's just more visible and talked about in the media and in public, but that's a matter of statistics and social studies, it's none of my concern.
It should generally be a private matter, including people in public life. Some couples with troubled marriages divorce, some stay in the loveless or pretend-marriage arrangement for various reasons including financial or commercial, political viability (e.g. Bill and Hillary Clinton, John and Elizabeth Edwards) or "for the sake of the children" etc. Some simply wait until they find someone they expect to marry before dissolution of marriage, with the understanding that marriage is already over.
These are or should be all private matters, even for people in public service. The problem with Mark Sanford is that he practically went out of his way to make it public, and at the worst possible time for family (Father's Day) and in the worst possible manner, by having his aides lie to the public about his whereabouts. I don't know if he used his work (state) computer for emails, but that would be incomprehensible as well.
I am not talking here about any illegalities, or about his private life or "hypocrisy" or "appearance of impropriety," however minor or perceived. I am talking about profound lack of judgment for a person long in public life, in putting, on his own, a private matter on a public display and in the worst possible light.
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.