Obligatory Sanford Post

by hilzoy

Well, someone has to write one.

I watched his news conference, and I thought he looked at or near the end of his rope. I admire him for taking responsibility for what he did, though I don't at all admire what he did, either the 'betraying your wife and four kids' part or the 'leaving your state in the lurch and putting your staff in a completely untenable position' part. 

I wonder who leaked the emails? And why? And why did the paper hold them for months?

I think about his sons. The youngest is ten. This has to be excruciating for them. I hope they don't have the kinds of horrible classmates who might make the next weeks and months a misery. 

Strangest Sanford-related fact I've seen: he digs holes "to unwind".

Quote I wish he wishes he'd either borne in mind or not said in the first place:

"But I think the Bible says, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father that's in heaven." Hopefully, by the way in which you act. The way in which you make decisions. They’re going to see that something’s there. (...) If you have a religious view, it's incumbent upon you and it’s real to have that. The Bible talks about the fruit of the spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control. There ought to be certain things that are clearly observable by your actions."

The two silliest defensive responses from before he fessed up:

"It is refreshing that Mark Sanford is secure enough in himself and the people of South Carolina that he does not view himself as an indispensable man." (Erick Erickson)

And:

"Are [Cassie] and I married to the only real men left in the entire freakin' country? Do we only want Momma's boys or Daddy's girls in the White House from here on out? Teddy Roosevelt is doing backflips in his grave right now: apparently no one is allowed to go on a writing retreat, take a road trip, or hike, hunt, or fish if they have any political ambitions at all. Unbelievable." (Little Miss Attila)

Mark Sanford: secure enough in himself to to leave his state without a governor, his wife without a husband, and his sons without a father; enough of a real man to willfully torpedo his closest relationships. Family values in action.

Discuss.

Comments

[mythago]

I think I misread that. You admire him for, when he gets caught going AWOL to go on an international nookie run, getting up and admitting it with the I'm Very Sorry song?

Damage control is not "admirable".

[hilzoy]

Well, yeah, but it was hard to watch it without feeling some compassion for the guy, as well as some relief that he didn't do the usual squirmy thing.

[hilzoy]

I just made the textless other version of this vanish. .....

[apistat]

Obviously his political career is over he needs to resign; I can't think of anyone who can go AWOL for a trip to Argentina for a week and expect to keep their job when they get back, and I don't think a governor should be any exception to that.

However, like you said before it does seem like he's sincerely distraught over it all and that press conference was more than just the obligatory public shaming that usually happens when these things occur. There's obviously the bit of enjoyment of seeing a moralizing, family values preaching politician get caught in his hypocrisy, but I think in the end you have to realize he's human and a line should be drawn somewhere.

The big motivator for writing this was flipping through channels and seeing Olbermann mockingly reading those emails on his show. Regardless of what someone has done that is a real dick move on his part. I can understand publicizing the fact that he had an affair, but this stuff does nothing but further embarrass him and his family. This is especially true now that we know he separated from his wife two weeks ago and the disappearance is looking less like getting caught skipping work for an international fling and more like a stressed out, desperate guy just trying to get away from his life.

To their credit, most of the serious liberal blogs I read have been much more mature about things and focused largely on the hypocrisy and going AWOL from his state.

[Warren Terra]

Strangest Sanford-related fact I've seen: he digs holes "to unwind".

Maybe it's an homage to Gladstone?

And why did the paper hold them for months?

Honestly, I'm very glad they did. An extramarital affair that doesn't involve obvious exploitation, cruelty towards their family (beyond the betrayal of marital vows, of course), or flagrant disregard of public duties is arguably none of our darned business. I'm impressed that the paper had highly quotable evidence of the Governor's torrid affair and didn't run it until other aspects of his behavior made it a more legitimate issue. Perhaps the hypocrisy of Sanford's aggressively "pro-family" politics would in any case have made the subject fair game, but such hypocrisy has become practically de rigeur, so I'm not really sure it was newsworthy.

I'd rather live in a world in which politicians can behave like human beings, and that's only possible if their private lives, however tawdry, have a chance to remain private.

[mythago]

Well, yeah, but it was hard to watch it without feeling some compassion for the guy, as well as some relief that he didn't do the usual squirmy thing.

YMMV, clearly. I felt a lot of compassion for his family. It strikes me that the only thing worse than knowing your husband of 20 years or your father is writing high-school-grade mash notes praising his mistress, is having the entire country read them too.

He is not doing anything noble. He's exactly following the script to make this go away as quickly as possible - appear contrite and say what a bad, bad boy you've been, because there are only so many times your critics can say "We agree" before it gets tiresome.

Yes, the guy is human and not a monster, but I truly don't understand the urge to run and give him a big hug. He's human. Humans can be assholes. As Sanford exemplifies.

[Tony P.]

"God's laws are designed to protect people from themselves", said the pious adulterer as he verbally swirled around and around before plunging down to his "bottom line".

I have nothing against piety; I have nothing against adultery. The combination, I can do without.

Not that I don't feel pity for Sanford. He sounded like a man actually in love, which is often a debilitating disease. But a real mensch gives up the British throne first and runs off with Wallis Simpson afterwards, not the other way around.

--TP

[hilzoy]

Mythago: obviously, I feel more for his wife and kids. Especially the kids: this would be tough enough even if you weren't ten or twelve.

Agreed about Olbermann. -- I mean, who among us has not tried to put down how we feel in words that are worthy of it? And who among us has not, in the cool light of day, thought: oh dear God, I wrote that?? (Even remembering why you wrote it, and liking the original impulse better than cool stingy craftsmanship or whatever the alternative is: still.)

[Gary Farber]

"Obviously his political career is over he needs to resign; I can't think of anyone who can go AWOL for a trip to Argentina for a week and expect to keep their job when they get back, and I don't think a governor should be any exception to that."

I'm still wondering why Elliot Spitzer had to resign, but David Vitter did not; if Sanford has to resign, why doesn't John Ensign?

Generally speaking, I'm for resignations all around here; I'm just wondering why the exceptions for, so far, Vitter and Ensign. And, of course, Larry Craig got to hang in, as well.

David Vitter is running for re-election to the Senate after having numerous, regular, rendezvous with a number of hookers. He's still in a leadership position in the Republican Caucus in the Senate, as a deputy whip.

So what's the system here? Apparently having regular hook-ups with hookers is fine, if you're a Republican, and you can hang on to your job as a Senator if you plead guilty for sexual solicitation in an airport bathroom, if you're a Republican, but if you're a Democratic or Republican Governor, you have to resign if you have see hookers or have an affair? Governors are held to a higher standard? Or what?

(To be sure, Sanford has yet to resign, so maybe he can call Rod Blagojevich for some tips.)

"And who among us has not, in the cool light of day, thought: oh dear God, I wrote that??"

[points to self] Guilty, guilty, guilty!

[apistat]

I'm still wondering why Elliot Spitzer had to resign, but David Vitter did not; if Sanford has to resign, why doesn't John Ensign?

Generally speaking, I'm for resignations all around here; I'm just wondering why the exceptions for, so far, Vitter and Ensign. And, of course, Larry Craig got to hang in, as well.

I have absolutely no idea how Vitter is still there, except as a shining example of Republican hypocrisy.

If the stories about Ensign hiring/firing/paying off his mistress and her husband are true he should definitely go. I pretty much base the grounds for resignation on whether or not the affair had any relevance to their public duties. If it did they should go, if it didn't it will be in the hands of the voters next time they're up for re-election.

[Jesurgislac]

Plainly, he shouldn't have dropped out of touch with his staff when he went to Argentina, nor should he have gone away without giving his wife some idea of where he had gone and when he would be back: and both staff / family should have known how to get in touch with him if there was an emergency.

The rest is a big ol' nobody's business, and the faux-concern expressed for his children while making sure that his children's classmates and acquaintances are most likely going to be fully acquainted with what happened, is particularly sickening.

[liberal japonicus]

Jes, there is a wrinkle that you might have missed to this. Mrs. Sanford was his campaign manager, so when she was asked where he was, she gave an answer that seemed to be like red meat to the press. With these sorts of flameouts, it is difficult to know what kind of emotion is appropriate, and I find myself torn between all sorts of emotions, so I'm not disagreeing with what you state, I'm just wondering if, when an obviously savvy political wife makes a statement like she did, are people supposed to look away and ignore it.

I also have to marvel at the urge to self-destruction that seems to be part of the current Republican DNA. It is really amazing.

[Jesurgislac]

I'm just wondering if, when an obviously savvy political wife makes a statement like she did, are people supposed to look away and ignore it.

I have no idea what Jenny Sanford said to the press: I've vaguely gathered there was a political firestorm brewing over the disappearance of the governor of South Carolina, but it's not as if he was important to me before he disappeared, and it's not as if his disappearance was (a) criminal (b) inexplicable (c) permanent. Though clearly he matters a terrible lot to more people on this blog than I would have imagined.

Is there any reason beyond a media firestorm why the general public - not his constituents - should care? (I concede the point right away that the people of South Carolina have a clear interest in not having a governor who leaves the country for several days without notifying his staff.)

Is there any reason why anyone outside South Carolina should care more about Mark Sanford than about Dan Choi or Angie Zapata or the whole gay marriage issue, which may - as far as Hilzoy is concerned - be just yesterday's news, not worth blogging about, but which strikes me as of more importance than where the governor of South Carolina went last week, and certainly of far more legitimate public concern than what Mark Sanford's wife or his children might think about him.

[novakant]

Should politicians resign because of infidelity? And if so, why?

[liberal japonicus]

Ah, I see you are going to bring in lots of other extraneous stuff, so I'll point out that Sanford was leading the charge against Obama's economic stimulus, so he was on the national stage.

And as far readers of this blog go, I only responded to your comment, and I don't see a lot of the regulars hurrying to put their oars in.

I'll also point out that we don't know who passed on those emails to the local press several months earlier, which is probably what prompted so much pressure, whereas if they had no inkling that he was screwing around on his wife, they might have let it go.

[DecidedFenceSitter]

My question on emails is this: They are dated July 2008, and obviously into the affair. It is supposedly a 5-month affair, and thus July through November 2008. But he only goes to break up with the mistress in June of 2009?

Am I missing something in the time line or do the numbers just not add up?

[Jesurgislac]

so I'll point out that Sanford was leading the charge against Obama's economic stimulus, so he was on the national stage.

Oh, well, that does make national attention a bit more explicable, if still not exactly justifiable.

[Brett Bellmore]

"And why did the paper hold them for months?"

Because if you're a newspaper reporter, you hold onto that sort of thing until you see some point in destroying the person you've got it on. Journalism isn't about informing the public anymore, it's about informing the public about things that will drive public opinion in the right direction. If he'd been leading the charge in favor of Obama's economic stimulus, he'd be just fine right now.

The news industry probably has enough dirt in it's files to bring down a quarter of the nation's office holders. But it wouldn't have much effect on public opinion if they just released it indiscriminately.

If I were still young and politically active, I think it would be fun to put together a nation-wide organization that did nothing but dig up dirt like this on politicians of all parties, and release it as fast as we found it. Just to take away the media's policy leverage...

[DecidedFenceSitter]

Or Brett, it could have had nothing to corroborate the story, so thus sat on it until corroboration occurred.

[cleek]

it's about informing the public about things that will drive public opinion in the right direction

tell that to Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and Tim Geithner.

[Brett Bellmore]

"so thus sat on it until corroboration occurred."

Yes, that is the excuse they'll usually resort to. Of course, if it's something they really don't want to report on, all they have to do is avoid looking for corroboration.

[apistat]

Wow Brett, that's pretty amazing. Only a true believer can convince himself that the fact that they had this story for months and didn't run it is somehow proof that the evil liberal media is out to destroy him.

[russell]

To be fair to Sanford, Argentines are a pretty sexy crew. I've known more than one head to be turned by someone from the land of the tango.

That said, leaving the state without telling anyone where you're going and without providing for an orderly transfer of power is pretty irresponsible. He should probably get the boot for that.

Beyond that, Jes said it all:

"The rest is a big ol' nobody's business"

Amen to that.

"Should politicians resign because of infidelity?"

No. OK, maybe if goats are involved, otherwise no.

"Strangest Sanford-related fact I've seen: he digs holes "to unwind"."

I had a dog like that once.

[Ed Hainesa]

Let's see: if I had taken off for a week while in command of my military unit, would my commander upon my ultimate return have given a damn where I had been or what I was doing, or would he have relieved my during my absence and taken further punitive steps upon my return?

[KCinDC]

Digging holes to relax doesn't sound any stranger than clearing brush -- though I wonder how much brush clearing Bush is actually doing nowadays, since he's abandoning the Potemkin ranch that was only bought for the 2000 campaign.

[KCinDC]

I haven't heard any suggestion that there's any legitimate public interest in the content of Sanford's e-mails, any more than there was in Kwame Kilpatrick's text messages. Publishing that sort of thing crosses a line.

[Stephen Frug]

I hope they don't have the kinds of horrible classmates who might make the next weeks and months a misery.

Kinds of horrible classmates who would do this? You mean, like ten-year olds?

I suppose it's possible they might not have classmates like that. They might be homeschooled, for instance, and have no classmates at all.

But I doubt Sanford's kids will emerge unscathed (although obviously I'd like to be wrong). Kids are very cruel.

SF

[John Miller]

HAve to agree that Brett's explanation flies in the face of all logic and reality.

Anyway, Jes is right in that there is too much attention focused on this, particularly concerning the affair. Although I moderately like Olberman and really like Maddow, they both spent too much time on the affair aspect and Keith's reading of the e-mails (particularly in the manner he did it, was obnoxious.

I think Letterman had the most cogent comment last night. After a couple obligatory jokes, when he got to his desk he said that Sanford had two main responsibilities at this point in his life: First to his family and then to the people and State of South Carolina. He ignored both. End of sentence.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's why I think that the media shouldn't sit on stuff like this, waiting for the guy they've got dirt on to become a bit more prominent, so it will be a bigger story when they take him down. They should just expose them right away.

[G]

"you hold onto that sort of thing until you see some point in destroying the person you've got it on . . . If he'd been leading the charge in favor of Obama's economic stimulus, he'd be just fine right now."

Really? Then why wouldn't this come out at about the time Sanford was actually in the news leading the charge against the stimulus, as opposed to months later?

And whether or not the newspaper published this, having disappeared from his office for a week without explanation, and having destroyed his familiy, Mark Sanford would not be "just fine right now." Or did the liberal media push him to do those things too?

[John Miller]

"When they take him down"

How is the media taking Sanford down? Isn't it a case of Sanford taking himself down? The e-mails don't do anything further to take him down. Just perhaps,the reason they held on to them is that they didn't think it was anybody's business until everything else came out.

I think the paper's holding on to them showed a sense of responsibility rather than something far more malevolent.

If they had wanted to bring Sanford down, the emails would have been enough, particulalry since he was using his Governor email account instead of a personal one.

[Jadegold]

Missing the point re Sanford's emails.

Sanford took a very public stance during President Clinton's Lewinsky scandal; he said Clinton must resign. Sanford has said the idea of gay marriage destroys hetero marriages. And his career has been about kowtowing to the 'family values'-types.

Look, when you set yourself up as the champion and arbiter of moral values, you'd better exemplify those values.

[Jesurgislac]

Jadegold: Sanford has said the idea of gay marriage destroys hetero marriages.

Oh, well, that explains his trip to Argentina, then: he flew there on the idea of gay marriage.

[Tony C.]

My favorite comment on Sanford's debacle comes from Gawker:

In all fairness to his aides, "I'm getting some Argentinian tail" sounds a lot like "I'm hiking the Appalachian trail"...

[Pawthorn]

Spoiled little rich prick Mark Sanford was eager to turn down the stimulus funds due his state by invoking libertarian principles. He is above community and compassion.

[Anarch]

For me, it's both what JadeGold said, and Sanford's sheer disregard for his gubernatorial duties in skiving off for a week to play footsie with his Latin lover. The affair is just garden-variety Republican hypocrisy, but the latter... it beggars my imagination, it really does.

[Hartmut]

Oops, Fox did it again! They put a 'D' next to Sanford's name where an 'R' should stand instead.

[Anderson]

Or Brett, it could have had nothing to corroborate the story, so thus sat on it until corroboration occurred.

The paper says that they had the e-mails from an anon source, but couldn't authenticate them.

And of course, Brett and his ilk would be the very first yelling about the Evil Librul Media if they'd run the e-mails story and then had them turn out to be forgeries.

[Peter K.]

"How is the media taking Sanford down? Isn't it a case of Sanford taking himself down? The e-mails don't do anything further to take him down. Just perhaps,the reason they held on to them is that they didn't think it was anybody's business until everything else came out."

Guys like Sanford, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Blagojevitch, John Edwards (always guys) , don't just let down their families, they damage "their side" and let down all of those people who worked for them.

[JanieM]

Should politicians resign because of infidelity?

No. But I do agree with apistat: how many people can go awol from their jobs for a week and not face consequences? That has nothing to do with the infidelity part as such.

[Jay C]

BTW, Brett: you might have bothered to check out the main journalistic source for the Sanford disappearance/junket/affair story: The State of Columbia, SC: it hardly seems to be a bastion of the Biased Liberal Media you sounded off about: probably quite the opposite.

And FWIW, given the nature of online polls, The State's on whether or not Sanford should resign is currently running 68-32% in favor - in favor of resignation, that is.

[JanieM]

Has any one of these "arbiters of moral values" (per jadegold) in a situation where it has been revealed that their moral values are only for other people to live up to, ever said, "I learned something here ... we're all only human ... Other people's lives are their own business ... and no one deserves second class citizenship because I disapprove of their so-called 'lifestyle' ... I'm sorry I worked to make other people's lives miserable from my moral high horse, and I'm going to climb down and stop doing that."

Not that I recall. As long as they don't say that, I don't have a lot of sympathy. For their families, yes. For them -- well, I wish Sanford no harm, but until I hear that he has stopped wishing me harm (and working toward ensuring it), his inhumanity in one direction sort of cancels out his all too obvious humanity in another.

[Eric Martin]

Guys like Sanford, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Blagojevitch, John Edwards

Vitter, Craig, Ensign and Gingrich too!

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"Sanford took a very public stance during President Clinton's Lewinsky scandal; he said Clinton must resign. Sanford has said the idea of gay marriage destroys hetero marriages. And his career has been about kowtowing to the 'family values'-types."

Jadegold nails it on the head why all of the dirty details are relevant. Sanford is a hypocrite on the first order, a true Do As I Say, Not As I Do Republican with a short memory. This is why his political career is over.

The reason his governship should be over is, to my mind, he abdicated his authority when he went AWOL. In the real world, they call that job abdonment.

Furthermore, if he really is such a staunch proponent of family values, and as troubled as he seems, doesn't he have enough personal matters on his hands without taking on the people's business as well?

Also, I'm not sure if I am reading Jes right on this one. The Sanford affair -- the continuation of a laundry list of Republican hypocrisy on their longheld No. 1 social issue, family values -- underscores why the GOP seems to be beyond embarrassment in judging the merits of gay marriage. I'd stack up Lt. Choi's character next to Governor Sanford's any day.

[cleek]

Vitter, Craig, Ensign and Gingrich too!

DKos has a nice list of GOP sex scandals.

[mythago]

I'm still wondering why Elliot Spitzer had to resign

He was putting people in jail for providing the kind of services he happily bought. It's a glorified level of a cop busting hookers at the same time he goes cruising for 'free favors' when the mood strikes him. You don't see any problem there?

Jes, Sanford disappeared without any kind of chain-of-command or delegation of responsibilities, which is what got everyone going in the first place; finding out that the governor blew off his job and left everybody wondering "okay, who's in charge?" so he could go on an overseas nookie run?

[Eric Martin]

You don't see any problem there?

I think, by that standard, at the very least Vitter should have resigned as well.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

Call it morbid curiosity. But I tuned in to the midnight replay of Hannity, who makes me sick, to see how he would play the Sanford story.

Now I can only can conclude that Hannity has no self-respect as a broadcaster: He bandied the story about at the top of the hour with Karl Rove for a few minutes -- more or less giving off the impression that we should give the guy a break, and that was it. That embarrassing segment was followed by a blaring promo on Michele Obama, like her husband, having teleprompter issues!

No wonder the GOP is in trouble when one of their leading voices refuses to recognize the party has flaws.

[John Thullen]

testing

[Peter K.]

Eric Martin:

Guys like Sanford, Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, Blagojevitch, John Edwards

Vitter, Craig, Ensign and Gingrich too!

via Ezra Klein, David Corn makes a good point:

"Whoever had those emails had been in a position for six months to pressure--or blackmail--Sanford. An enquiring newspaper person might want to know more about that. Had Sanford even been aware that someone possessed these emails? If so, did he take any actions based on that realization?"

But sure, let's be masochistically open-minded.

[Peter K.]

"Now I can only can conclude that Hannity has no self-respect as a broadcaster: "

Hannity is a blatant liar and should be ignored.

[Peter K.]

E. Martin, do you see everything through a Democrats vs. Republican prism?

[bedtimeforbonzo]

By the way, by recognizing that the dirty details of the Sanford story are valid, I don't excuse Olberman for making fun of them, the emails in particular (after which I heard him read one, tuned out, and have not read any others).

I have said since the primaries that Olberman has become the left's blowhard version of Hannity and Fox's other GOP asslickers.

---

A final note: As the father of a 10-year-old son -- Sanford's four boys are ages 10 through 17 -- I found it particular cruel that he took his latest foray to Argentina over Father's Day weekend. Those boys of his are obviously being put in a position to grow up fast.

[Eric Martin]

"E. Martin, do you see everything through a Democrats vs. Republican prism?"

No, but it seems like you do. I'm not sure why else you would pass over so many of the recent high profile sex scandals that involved GOP pols to back Sanford up with a list of only Democrats (going back to Clinton?) - one of which wasn't even a sex scandal (Blago). It seemed strained.

But if it was pure serendipitous happenstance, then all apologies.

[dnfree]

Jesurgislac says "The rest is a big ol' nobody's business, and the faux-concern expressed for his children while making sure that his children's classmates and acquaintances are most likely going to be fully acquainted with what happened, is particularly sickening."

I think the people expressing concern for the children and the people making sure the classmates are going to be fully acquainted with what happened are not the same people.

I agree that the details are nobody's business, and I'm sorry the emails are getting so much publicity. The facts are more than sufficient without adding the emotional content.

[John Thullen]

Random musings:

Maybe the guy is in love. I have a soft spot for conservative hypocrites who fall in love (or lust, even). There is something so .... human... about it.

And sexy. Like the tango.

Granted, the sheer extravagant pageantry and spectacle of Republican hypocrisy is something to behold, but somehow it makes the humanity of it even more touching, if not celebratory.

It reminds me of the droids in the "Alien" series of movies, who end up seeming more human and capable of empathy than the rest of the crew.

At Redstate, the estimable Strieff took time off from rogering Erick Erickson's beleaguered goat (they share a goat in a rare bow to socialism, I think it's called) to announce Sanford's admission.

Then I scrolled down a mere two posts to find David Vitter haranging the assorted denizens about something or other, probably the noxious influence and influx of Argentinian immigrants into the country.

So much adultery and perfidy, and it's all accomplished without a single government subsidy, which gives one renewed faith in individual initiative and the free market.

When Sanford is impeached, I recommend he receive his alloted unemployment benefits and whatever extension the federal stimulus money provides. He should also have the option of a public health plan to tide him over until he finds another job.

Not deserving, some will say, but I believe his basic humanity puts him in the same class as the rest of us, so why should I deny him what I believe is the right thing to do.

Family values: a ruse. It's very simple. The Republican Party doesn't want to pay taxes. But a little warm fuzzy in the direction of the family accompanied by some paranoid demonizing of assorted different-looking folks put them over the top for a while in this great country of ours.

A more accurate explanation than expressed above for the press witholding Sanford's emails might be that the newspaper and broadcasting folks are businessmen and women always looking out for the bottom-line and shareholder value.

They had product. They had to decide how and when best to market the product, when to trot it out for introduction, to maximize the number of consumers who would buy the product with their eyeballs.

It's amazing how the free market absolutists always forget how the free market has infected everything in the country, when they are the carriers of the virus (normally a benign virus, but in journalism, healthcare and a few other areas, it mutates and does odd things to the host).

[mds]

Sanford took a very public stance during President Clinton's Lewinsky scandal; he said Clinton must resign.

He also voted in favor of the articles of impeachment, being in the House of Representatives at the time. From which perch he also voted for the (disgustingly overwhelmingly-supported) DOMA and banning gay adoptions in the District of Columbia to protect the traditional definition of family. The impeachment panty-sniffing fest alone makes his current call for a "zone of privacy" risible.

I guess the biggest question for those of us wanting to acknowledge his humanity is: What will Sanford have learned from this? Because right now, all I'm seeing is the usual boilerplate about God and sin and forgiveness that social conservatives use as their "get out of jail free" card when they're caught violating their loudly-held precepts. If this teaches him compassion for human frailty, though, more power to him. Because he'll have broken the usual pattern of mild self-flagellation followed by a return to championing the imposition of a judgmental empathy-free moral code on everyone else.

[Sebastian]

I think maybe the most fascinating thing is that a governor can disappear for a week and really it isn't a big deal. Perceptually it was a big deal, but in terms of actual impact on the state it wasn't. I'm sort of heartened by that, I think.

[John Thullen]

That's why governments (and businesses) have a bureaucracy and an infrastructure -- to keep things running while the temporal, elected arrangements of democracy come and go.

Well, in Sanford's case, go and come.

I think I'll leave work unannounced and indefinitely right now and see how heartened my boss is. ;)

[(The Original) Francis]

who takes five days to break up a long-distance relationship? Doesn't South Carolina have telephone service yet?

As best I can tell, he went south for some nookie, despite having been in counseling for five months. His wife got p*ssed off and got quoted saying something to the effect of "I don't know where he is and I'm not worried". That's a really odd thing to say, so the press started paying attention.

The public apology only came when he was met at the airport with some hard questions, like "Where've you been?" and "Are these e-mails yours?"

[dnfree]

Sebastian, those of us in Illinois had been HOPING Rod Blagojevich would disappear for a long time! Sadly, the state of our state has not necessarily improved since he left.

[mckinneytexas]

Republicans can't continue to ride their personal morality high horses and not expect to take the harder hits when found to be out of bounds. As often as I disagree with many of those who post here, the criticism of Olbermann says a lot for the integrity of this site. As for Hilzoy's main post, watching someone in pain, selfishly self-inflicted, and knowing the inevitable ramifications for family, friends and supporters, produces exactly the kind of response Hilzoy describes. Intensely unpleasant to watch and to contemplate.

And, yes, Eric pretty much sees everything in a Dem v Repub light. At least, that is my take on it.

[Eric Martin]

"And, yes, Eric pretty much sees everything in a Dem v Repub light. At least, that is my take on it."

Yes yes, and in order to conceal my cheerleaderism, I spend my time writing posts that criticize Obama and other Democratic leaders for their positions on torture, civil liberties, Af/Pak, Iraq, the bank bailouts, GLBT rights, etc.

The better to throw readers off the scent. And if wasn't for you meddling kids mckinneytexas (non-partisan) and Peter K (unbiased) I would have gotten away with it too.

[David]

Reading through those emails, I actually found myself feeling sorry for Sanford for the first time. It's true that he's hurt his wife and family, and it's true that it was completely irresponsible of him to disappear in that way, but, honestly, so what?

I live in South Carolina, and I have been exasperated by Sanford's political grandstanding and ridiculous antics (like releasing pigs in the state legislature to protest "pork") over fiscal policy from way back. I think he's made and tried to make policy decisions that have substantively hurt people in South Carolina. Most recently, he's fought tooth and nail to refuse stimulus money in a state whose unemployment figures are among the highest in the nation. When a caller on a radio show who was long-unemployed and getting desperate pleaded with him for help, all Sanford could say was that he would pray for him. And the media has treated all this as if it were meaningless.

Apparently, you can steal from tax-payers, launch illegal wars that pointlessly kill hundreds of thousands of people, formally implement torture as a state interrogation tactic, detain people without charge for eight years on an island prison, or, to return to Sanford's case, further impoverish an already poor state for your own political ends, and CNN will cover it all as totally respectable policy choices if they mention it at all. But if you get caught having an affair, all of a sudden they get Dr. Drew and sex addiction therapists to blather on endlessly about your private life and you're publicly shamed.

[John Thullen]

Francis, people always go south for nookie, if you think about it.

I've never heard of anyone heading east or west for nookie.

Maybe north, but I think that is a hemispheric thing like the rotation of hurricanes.

[Peter K.]

"Yes yes, and in order to conceal my cheerleaderism, I spend my time writing posts that criticize Obama and other Democratic leaders for their positions on torture, civil liberties, Af/Pak, Iraq, the bank bailouts, GLBT rights, etc."

Yeah you criticize them from the "left" or "antiwar" position (which isn't always "left"), but in and Republican vs. Democratic issue we can safely assume which side you'll bend the fact towards.

[hilzoy]

Jes: "the faux-concern expressed for his children while making sure that his children's classmates and acquaintances are most likely going to be fully acquainted with what happened, is particularly sickening."

As you are not in this country, you might not know that this has been getting wall-to-wall coverage on cable news (and for all I know, network news) for the past day. The likelihood that anything I write -- which wasn't much in the way of details -- will in any way affect how much anyone knows seems to me to be, um, pretty remote.

[Eric Martin]

but in and Republican vs. Democratic issue we can safely assume which side you'll bend the fact towards

For example? Or is this evidence-less assertion day here at ObWi? First Larison is an anti-Semite based on...Peter K's accusation!

Now I'll always take the Dem side over the GOP side (even when I don't personally believe in the Dem side) and bend the facts and we know this...because PK and MCKT agree! Cites? Links? Evidences?

Anything?

[Peter K.]

"No, but it seems like you do. I'm not sure why else you would pass over so many of the recent high profile sex scandals that involved GOP pols to back Sanford up with a list of only Democrats (going back to Clinton?) - one of which wasn't even a sex scandal (Blago). It seemed strained.

But if it was pure serendipitous happenstance, then all apologies."

I did include Sanford who is a Republican if you remember. I just think partisan liberals use occasions like this to excuse Clinton (who was a President) and the others like John Edwards, Blaogjevitch, Spitzer, etc. But yes Republicans are more hypocritical b/c they go on about family values.

Regarding Blago, my point if you read my post closely and paid attention at what I was getting at was about the narcissim of these politicians who are damaging their own side by their selfish arrogant behavior.

No doubt opponents of the stimulus hate Sanford right now.

[Eric Martin]

E. Martin, do you see everything through a Democrats vs. Republican prism

followed by

Yeah you criticize [Democrats] from the "left" or "antiwar" position (which isn't always "left")

Can you see how the second statement kind of undermines the first? Come on, I know you got it in you.

[Eric Martin]

I did include Sanford who is a Republican if you remember.

Well, seeing as he is the topic, that would have been really awkward. I also mentioned that you included Sanford.

I just think partisan liberals use occasions like this to excuse...

So, then, you're saying that you included all Dems to make a partisan point, but me picking up on that and mentioning it means...I see everything through a GOP vs. Dem prism? Interesting.

[John Miller]

First of all, cites for people excusing Clinton, Edwrads, Spitzer, Blago, Jefferson, etc, etc. One thing about this cite as opposed to many, is that you get very little reflexive defense of certain behaviors, no matter who was the perpetrator.

Secondly, although some have made a case, the two largest criticisms of Sanford are his leaving the state and being a hypocrite. The affair is not, in and of itself, criticized.

[John Miller]

oh, and regarding Eric seeing everything through a Democrats vs Republicans prism.

Eric tends to view things not based upon party, per se, but more through a progressive vs conservative prism. The fact that more often than not this leads him to support policies of the Democratic Party is pretty much preordained.

[3legcat]

hilzoy,

i took jes to mean sandford's faux-concern for his own kids, not your concern as what is sickening

[Margarita]

Mark Sanford: secure enough in himself to to leave his state without a governor, his wife without a husband, and his sons without a father ...

This seems unduly hyperbolic (though I get the context of its responding to the Erickson quote). Sanford didn't kill himself; he stepped out. It happens. The state was never in danger. (No, really.) His wife doesn't need this particular husband after all. And his sons were never fatherless.

This was not admirable behavior. Leave it at that.

[Peter K.]

"E. Martin, do you see everything through a Democrats vs. Republican prism

followed by

Yeah you criticize [Democrats] from the "left" or "antiwar" position (which isn't always "left")

Can you see how the second statement kind of undermines the first? Come on, I know you got it in you."

It doesn't undermine it, it modifies it. In all Democrat versus Republican encounters you will bend the facts to the Democrats favor. Good to know.

But truth-teller that you are, you will somtimes criticize Obama and the Dems from the ultra-left or "antiwar" position."

"I just think partisan liberals use occasions like this to excuse...

So, then, you're saying that you included all Dems to make a partisan point, but me picking up on that and mentioning it means...I see everything through a GOP vs. Dem prism? Interesting."

I wasn't making a partisan point. Obviously most people who read this blog think the family values Republicans are hypocrites. I was making a nonpartisan point that these guys like Sanford, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Blagojevitch are just damaging their own side. And they you defend the Democrats by saying but, but, but ... the Republicans do it also. Seems like you are partisan.

[Eric Martin]

And they you defend the Democrats by saying but, but, but ... the Republicans do it also. Seems like you are partisan.

So, again, you repeat your initial assertion with absolutely zero evidence to back it up, and then pat yourself on the back and finish with "good to know" - good to know your original assertion! Brilliant.

And the[n] you defend the Democrats by saying but, but, but ... the Republicans do it also. Seems like you are partisan.

But that's not what I said at all. I didn't defend any Democrats. Not one. Zero. So, good point.

[gwangung]

This seems unduly hyperbolic (though I get the context of its responding to the Erickson quote). Sanford didn't kill himself; he stepped out. It happens. The state was never in danger. (No, really.) His wife doesn't need this particular husband after all.

And this state doesn't need this particular governor, after all.

A "divorce" seems appropriate in both cases.

[Gary Farber]

"Seems like you are partisan."

People have political views. Film at 11.

[John Thullen]

If the people of South Carolina divorce Mark Sanford, will they owe him alimony and maintenance?

And, will he have visitation rights with the people on his jaunts back from Argentina?

Maybe, occasionally, for old time's sake, he and the people can have a roll in the hay in case he experiences that "sparky" feeling with his former spouse/constituents.

[russell]

"E. Martin, do you see everything through a Democrats vs. Republican prism?"

Ah yes, you want room 12A. Just along the corridor.

"I've never heard of anyone heading east or west for nookie."

John, you need to get out more.

[Slartibartfast]

Eric is bound by contract to be completely politically neutral. I have it in writing. In blood, even.

[Slartibartfast]

John obviously sees things in a North-South vs East-West prism.

Northwest-southeast and Northeast-southwest don't stand a chance.

[Eric Martin]

they're rationed right now, on a "whoever can pay cash" basis.

OK. If we agree that they're rationed right now, then bringing up the specter of rationed benefits in the future loses some of its bite. If those are the terms of the debate, then I agree with your point. As I continued:

How is this different now? Are you suggesting that private insurers will cover what the govt doesn't? If so, why not just keep the private insurance then? It would be your choice.

[Sebastian]

Is there a reason we can't, this month, extend Medicaid to the uninsured?

[Marty]

Can't help it, I gotta say, Sanford and Spitzer and Clinton are NOT the same thing. Defending none of them:

Clinton had sex with an intern (essentially) in the White House with no relationship except sex. Not even a hint of any other kind of relationship.

Spitzer hired high class prostitutes, which I presume was illegal and again, not a relationship.

Sanford developed a reelationship with a woman and showed poor judgement by allowing it to happen or not dealing with his marriage appropriately first.

Dumping all infidelity into the same bucket is really silly, and I believe that what Clinton did abused his power in a way that any Womens Rights group would crucify a Rep for, rightly so.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

"E. Martin, do you see everything through a Democrats vs. Republican prism

followed by

Yeah you criticize [Democrats] from the "left" or "antiwar" position (which isn't always "left")

Can you see how the second statement kind of undermines the first? Come on, I know you got it in you."

It doesn't undermine it, it modifies it. In all Democrat versus Republican encounters you will bend the facts to the Democrats favor. Good to know.

Yes... it modifies it. When confronted with an example of Eric failing to see everything through a Democrat versus Republican prism, your categorical assertion that he does so is indeed "modified". This is only reasonable and rational; your assertion, which had been built up, had a rather large chunk of its support removed. If your assertion was an edifice, you could say that a portion of its foundation had been dug out from below it. I suppose you could even say that putting forth the latter statement was like the act of mining out the rock under a building you'd erected.

[Nell]

Well, someone has to write one.

Why?

[Eric Martin]

Dumping all infidelity into the same bucket is really silly, and I believe that what Clinton did abused his power in a way that any Womens Rights group would crucify a Rep for, rightly so.

What about Ensign? Wasn't his mistress on the payroll too? Are said groups readying the cross and nails?

[russell]

"Is there a reason we can't, this month, extend Medicaid to the uninsured?"

OK with me. I think I'll call my rep's office and ask what it would take to make it happen.

"Well, someone has to write one.

Why?"

If that's what it takes to get Thullen to post, I say it's a small price to pay.

[jonnybutter]

Spoiled little rich prick Mark Sanford was eager to turn down the stimulus funds due his state by invoking libertarian principles.

Hate to sound cold, but this pretty much sums up my feelings about the guy. I appreciate that he gave a *relatively* straightforward account of things at that press conference, and that he didn't drag his wife or children out onto the stage (god, that is repulsive). Marriages have a lot of moving parts, so I won't even presume to feel sorry for his wife (though she probably deserves feeling sorry for). The kids are obviously completely innocent, and I do definitely feel bad for them.

I can't summon either compassion or anger that the Gov had an affair or because he left the state as he did - which was more stupid than dangerous. The best thing I can say for him is that despite his best efforts to successfully be the worst kind of politician, he failed.

good riddance.

[bedtimeforbonzo]

". . . or, to return to Sanford's case, further impoverish an already poor state for your own political ends, and CNN will cover it all as totally respectable policy choices if they mention it at all."

Name any news organization, CNN included, name any political blog, this one included, and they all covered Sanford's strong stance against his state receiving stimulus money: Sanford made it a huge deal, talking to any microphone that would pass his way.

If you're displeased with this aspect of his performance, I'd suggest you should direct your anger at Sanford and those who voted him in office twice, not CNN.

Also, I feel bad for the man's children. But blaming news covering of his indiscretions for the pain they will feel is equally misguided. Their father's actions caused them any pain they will feel.

Sanford is a public figure, a governor, a governor who took a leadership role within his party, a governor who championed family values and chastised others who, in his eyes, did not live up to them (or, in the case of gay citizens, could not live up to them). By any fair accounting, he has brought this on himself.

---

I've never been one for espousing family values, figuring the way I act as a husband and father speaks for itself.

Talking and making a big deal about family values strikes me as a convenient, clumsy way to hide one's shortcomings in this or other areas.

Nevertheless, if family values are of such huge importance to the GOP, I imagine Republicans must be huge fans of the way President Obama and his family conduct themselves in this virtue. I cannot think of a better example of a loving, caring -- public -- family.

[someotherdude]

No doubt, politically, I say "LOL"

But as a husband and father (and having an extended family in which, every ailment in society finds its representative) I just shuddered. There, but for the grace of God, go I….that family is going to go through some wrenching emotional pain for the years coming.

[Peter K.]

"Sanford developed a reelationship with a woman and showed poor judgement by allowing it to happen or not dealing with his marriage appropriately first.

Dumping all infidelity into the same bucket is really silly, and I believe that what Clinton did abused his power in a way that any Womens Rights group would crucify a Rep for, rightly so."

They're all setting themselves up for blackmail. Same with Ensign, Larry Craig, Newt, etc. (happy Martin? There I criticized Republicans too.)

I mean you have to call into question their judgment, not on a moral basis, just on the basis they were deluded enough to think they couldn't get caught. Blagojevitch is nuts for instance. Sanford left the country and thought no one would notice? Clinton too.

[mckinneytexas]

Proving Peter's point, Eric writes:

"Dumping all infidelity into the same bucket is really silly, and I believe that what Clinton did abused his power in a way that any Womens Rights group would crucify a Rep for, rightly so.

What about Ensign? Wasn't his mistress on the payroll too? Are said groups readying the cross and nails?"

Uh, Eric, I am pretty sure Ensign didn't lie on national television for more than a year, right up until he had no other choice, lie under oath, etc. You know, just for context's sake. And Clinton, unlike Tower and Thomas, to name two, was enabled by left-of-center women's groups, not gutted, as he should have been. The hypocrisy was and remains palpable.

Now, Republicans rightly take more grief about their infidelities because they are so quick to judge others. No problem there. Leading with the chin is never smart and doing so continually is a sure sign of a very real pathology.

But, Eric, that doesn't mean you aren't reflexively Dem v. Repub/left vs. right/progressive left vs. moderate left. You are on the left, pretty consistently, of each of these oppositions. It's not a moral judgment and it's an easily demonstrable proposition: simply enumerate the issues on which you are to the right of the Dems or to the right of progressives on anything. To the extent you are able to do so, I will gladly concede the point.

[Gary Farber]

"But, Eric, that doesn't mean you aren't reflexively Dem v. Repub/left vs. right/progressive left vs. moderate left."

Absent being a mind-reader, how do you know how "reflexive" versus thoughtful Eric is about his positions?

Is there some similar standard by which people could objectively determine whether or not your political views are "reflexive" versus thoughtfully considered?

[dr ngo]

Jesurgislac: Is there any reason why anyone outside South Carolina should care more about Mark Sanford than about Dan Choi or Angie Zapata or the whole gay marriage issue, which may - as far as Hilzoy is concerned - be just yesterday's news, not worth blogging about, but which strikes me as of more importance than where the governor of South Carolina went last week, and certainly of far more legitimate public concern than what Mark Sanford's wife or his children might think about him.

Ah, if only Jesurgislac had her own blog, in which SHE could blog about things that strike HER as important. To which readers who cared about such things, and wanted to read Jesurgislac's views on them, could flock in great numbers.

That, perhaps, would let Hilzoy off the hook for failing to conform to the Approved Agenda of important things to blog about.

Oh, wait . . .

Jesurgislac does have a blog. (Actually, she calls it a "journal," but it's not bad reading, on her chosen issues.)

So tell me again what the problem is?

[Eric Martin]

"Uh, Eric, I am pretty sure Ensign didn't lie on national television for more than a year..."

But the question was about how women's groups would treat a republican, so I asked about Ensign! Lying on national TV has nothing to do with whether or not a woman's group should take particular issue with the infidelity in question. Women's groups don't make an issue about adulterers who lie or adulterers who don't - as a general rule.

Not sure what your point is, since I'm not defending Clinton's behavior. Just how women's groups would treat each. The exact opposite of Peter's point.

"And Clinton, unlike Tower and Thomas, to name two, was enabled by left-of-center women's groups, not gutted, as he should have been. The hypocrisy was and remains palpable."

There were different behaviors involved, and different treatment. I don't defend what Clinton did or the reaction to it because it was wrong. I'm asking about the double standard.

[russell]

"But, Eric, that doesn't mean you aren't reflexively Dem v. Repub/left vs. right/progressive left vs. moderate left. You are on the left, pretty consistently, of each of these oppositions."

Gary beat me to it, but I'll chime in anyway.

It's quite possible to be consistently left, or right, without being reflexively so.

Given that Eric generally provides a pretty thorough accounting of his thought process here, IMO he deserves the benefit of the doubt as regards "thoughtful" vs "knee jerk".

[bedtimeforbonzo]

"But, Eric, that doesn't mean you aren't reflexively Dem v. Repub/left vs. right/progressive left vs. moderate left."

Yet Eric outlined criticisms of President Obama upthread (criticisms I happen to share).

So maybe his reflexes aren't that reflexive after all. Or something like that. (Maybe he is just more open-minded than you give him credit for being.)