sanford saga – i’m more interested in who brought him down….
By American Girl in Italy on June 25, 2009 at 7:06 PM in Current Affairs, Media Bias, Media Handling of Story, Presidential Candidates, Republicans, Sara in Italy
Love letters between Mark Sanford and his *secret Latin lady lover* were printed yesterday in The State. The South Carolina paper reported that they have been holding onto the emails for six months, and were provided by an anonymous source.
Who is that source? (And how gross is that to print 
personal emails like that? OK, yes, I read a couple of snipits from them…so, sue me. But seriously, that was gross.)
E-mails obtained by The State newspaper in December detailed an affair between Gov. Mark Sanford and Maria, a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
However, attempts to verify the e-mails — from an anonymous source — were fruitless, until Wednesday. Then, acting on another anonymous tip that Sanford would be on a plane returning from Argentina, the paper sent a reporter to Atlanta.
When Sanford got off a plane from Buenos Aires, he stopped an interview with The State when asked if he had been with anyone in Argentina.
Obviously at least one person at The State knew about the affair, per the emails. The person who provided the paper the emails knew about the affair. Someone on Sanford’s staff knew he went to Argentina – regardless of what they say. Someone knew. Someone booked his ticket. Someone cleared his calendar. Sanford named a few people that have been working with him, and his family during these difficult times. And someone tipped The State that Sanford was arriving from Argentina (an anonymous passenger on the plane? uh huh).
John O’Connor, the newspaper reporter who wrote the story about the e-mails, told CNN Wednesday afternoon that The State did not confront Sanford with the messages in December because at the time “there was little way to tell that these were authentic e-mails.”
The media basically ignored the John Edwards scandal, until it broke in the National Enquirer. (And then the MSM still ignored it). So, why the media fire storm over Sanford, who was, for all intents and purposes, on vacation for a few days? Why all of a sudden was the media acting like Dick F*chin’ Tracy?
There is nothing particularly sexy about this scandal – except the DUMB DUMB DUMB lie about where he was. Sanford had already told his wife about his Latin lady lover five months ago. He confessed the affair to his father in law. It was a private matter between husband and wife at this point. The Sanfords were working on how to proceed, as a family. He reportedly went to Argentina to end this relationship.
As far as anyone knew, he was on vacation, but within hours it became a firestorm. His wife wasn’t worried when asked about his whereabouts (she had already asked him to move out, so she was not privy to his schedule) but said he wanted to get some peace and quiet, and do some writing. His office said he was hiking. OK, a little mix up in detail, but no one on his staff, or his wife, was *worried* about his whereabouts. Why did the media become so concerned, all of a sudden?
The big political hoopla now is that Sanford left South Carolina unattended. A tragedy could have struck, and no one would have known where he was! Hogwash. People knew where he was. Had something happened, he would have been on the phone in a second. The Lt. Governor would have stepped in, just as they would if the Governor was on vacation, or out of state on business.
Yes, Sanford screwed up. He had an affair and he brought this on himself. This seems to be the M.O. of pols on both side of the aisle.
But, it seems to me that someone knew about it, and stoked the media firestorm with the intent to bring him down. Who? That’s the real story. Affairs, sadly, are a dime a dozen in Washington these days.
Perhaps whoever sent those emails 6 months ago has been waiting for the right time to bring him down? They obviously have known about this for quite a while. Did the source panic, knowing that Sanford went to Argentina to end the affair, and the window for opportunity was closing? Or have they been waiting for the opportunity to catch him in the act?
The only reason, in my opinion, this story got the coverage it did was because someone KNEW he was in Argentina, and forced this story to break. (and because he is a Republican.)
I’m not saying it should not have broken. I just want to know who did it.
State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Columbia, called for Sanford’s resignation immediately after Sanfords press conference. Perhaps he did it.
Or maybe a fellow Republican? A potential Presidential Candidate (Romney?) could have reason to want to bring him down. Sanford was gaining traction, and was a potential risk in 2012.
The Dems or Obama administration had reason to want to take him out – Sanford criticized the $787 billion federal stimulus law and was a big critic of Obama. Hey, would Obama have access to action on a passport?
Jenny Sanford is a potential suspect, a woman scorned and all that, but she is open to a reconciliation, so I don’t think she is an obvious choice.
Or it could have just been someone in his office, who had access to his computer….
Who else?
The Today Show covered this and Meredith’s opening remarks bugged me:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Sex scandal? How tacky, Meredith. A sex scandal is Larry Craig trolling for boy toys in the airport bathroom. This seems like an emotional love affair. And seriously, Sanford saw the woman three times in one year… this wasn’t a sex scandal.
At least the guy gave us the truth yesterday. No denials, or bullshit, just raw emotion. Yes, he was *caught* but he truly seems broken up. I think it’s kind of sad.
Do I think Sanford should resign? Normally I would say no. I didn’t think Bill Clinton should be impeached, either. Sanford did…so, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gov’nor.
Oh, and John Kerry said this:
“Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.’’
John Kerry can suck it.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Yes, Sarah Palin has done such horrible things to John Kerry to merit that kind of insult, I mean having the audacity to work on the gas pipeline from Alaska and all. Why, he should just take her into a room and only one comes out. He’s about as tall and big as Herr Olbermann, a BIG MAN, so he’d probably stand a good chance of being the one who came out.
What a jerk.
John Kerry is an arrogant, elitist boob. But we should feel sorry for the guy — after all, he can’t even deliver a joke properly. Remember, he was planning to run in 2008 as well, until he told some stupid joke about soldiers having to go to Iraq — he was finished then and there…
so I guess he needs to try to mine some cheap material wherever he can find it. I truly cannot believe he would say that about Palin. That is right up there with Olbermann’s comments on Hillary.
Let’s face it, we’ve got all kinds of people jumping out of the clown car on both sides of the aisle.
I don’t know about Kerry but Sarah can definitely take Olbermann the loudmouth lout.
Now you can understand why even his fellow swift boaters didn’t like him.
That being said, those fellow swiftboaters were turds, too. As a Veteran, I can only imagine what it was like to serve with back-stabbers like them. Irrespective of party affiliation, you don’t go after your brothers in arms.
Kerry served honorably–it should have been left at that by both parties.
To me it was the throwing of the medals… which is fine. But then to minimize Bush’s guard service. It is fine to disparage your own service, but not somebody else’s service. On the top of that the “reporting for duty” bit was just too much for me. If he hadn’t thrown the medals and disparaged Bush’s service record then it would be different.
I didn’t like the “reporting for duty” and the throwing of the medals was a bit much–but they were his to throw. I am inclined to criticize any politician I desire simply because I have served. I will grant Kerry the same luxury. One who has served his/her country can say whatever they desire (note: I said “say” and not “act”).
As for Bush–as far as I’m concerned, he did not really serve. Had I done what he did, I would have served time at Leavenworth and been dishonorably discharged. I was at my assigned post every day, come hell or high water. Bush did not. You do the real soldiers who fought and died a disservice by equating Bush’s “service” with theirs.
As I understand it, he didn’t actually throw the medals, but the ribbons, for what that’s worth…
AGII, EXCELLENT post. You have hit the nail on the head. There is something just a little too weird abt all of this. Yes, it was stupid for him to just leave, but SOMEONE knew where he was. How else did the State reporter know to find him at the Atlanta airport? She knew he had gone to Argentina, for pete’s sake, so I’m just guessing some other folks knew, too.
As someone pointed out earlier, if we are all focused on THIS, we’re NOT paying attention to what they are doing in Washington…
Docelder: so, Bush DIDN’T disparage Kerry’s service? And what exactly did Bush do that constituted service? All in one’s perspective, I guess.
I, too, found Kerry’s comments beyond the pale. And that’s my problem with all these so-called “scandals.” It doesn’t matter anymore which “Party” is involved–they and their representatives are more dispicable than the acts of infidelity or corruption being showcased.
What in the hell does Sarah Palin have to do with any of this?
The answer: nothing.
But Kerry can’t help himself–let’s take another stab at “the woman.” Let’s take the opportunity to slice the opposition.
And that doesn’t take the Repugs off the hook. Same old, same old.
We desperately need an alternative!
oowawa — Sarah Palin’s personal e-mails were leaked to the media in the hopes of unearthing something crooked to bring down the McCain Campaign. Palin was very outspoken against Obama as was Mark Sanford. Now I’m not saying it had anything to do with the administration but it is tempting to contemplate.
When will they ever lay off that lady its just sick…I cant wait until karma comes around to bite some of these people in the butt.
John Kerry continues to reveal why he was/is so unqualified for the job of president. Of course, lack of qualifications didn’t stop Obama. Another jerk.
Or Bush. Just saying.
Qualifications for the position are no longer required, otherwise the last 8 years would have only been a nightmare and HRC would be president.
Qualifications for the position are no longer required, otherwise the last 8 years would have only been a nightmare and HRC would be president.
Based on those qualifications then you should go back 16 years because Bush had the same experience as Clinton.
Don’t equate any past President with this fraud who never held a real job in his life. he was never a Governor and was never a U.S. Senator for more than a coffee break.
I, frankly don’t care what his credentials were for the job–he failed. Bush will go down as the second worst president, right after Obumble.
And don’t you equate your preference for Bush with the idea that anyone else agrees with you or that he was great because Obumble isn’t.
I didn’t like Bush; don’t like Obumble, and voted for McCain. You seem to suffer from the same malady that the Obamabots do–an unswerving devotion to your leader, irrespective of the fact that he is without clothes. Bushbot/obumblebot–a distinction lacking a substantive difference.
Oh, and by the way–WJC was a much better President than Chimpy McFlightsuit.
Which part of the WJC administration did you not like–the prosperity or the peace?
Good luck getting a lucid response.
LMAO. I expect the non-sequiturs to come a-flying at any moment from a lathered-up flapping jib.
How does one say Seig Heil in English/
Hello ____, I’m a ___bot and am at your service?
I am thinking it will devolve more into a chant that is repeated over and over until you get it… o-ba-ma…o-ba-ma…o-ba-ma. You know like the monks do it. Maybe do it while making an “o” with your hands. Yes, it will be enlightening. Maybe all those who demonstrate proficiency will can a validation tattooed on their forehead.
Doc, that mantra should be Om-bama, and it should travel up the chakras and finally sprout out the head of the meditator in a big happy-face lotus of hopiness . . .
The trouble with these versions is that they don’t take into account the demonstrable evidence that for every politician there are more bots-in-waiting than you can smack down in a normal evening of commenting on NQ.
THANK YOU FOR MAKING THAT POINT — Obama has less executive experience than either Bush or Clinton had. In fact, after his first (and hopefully last term) Obama will still have less executive experience than either of his predecessors had when they began their presidencies. Hating Bush, which is obviously a popular position here at NQ, should not blind us to the current disaster occupying the White House. Obama’s pathetic resume (community organizer!!!) coupled with his lack of character (ridiculing special needs children, Jessica Simpson, Nancy Reagan, etc. etc.not to mention all the promises he has already broken in just 4 months) added to his huge ego makes him far in the lead for the WORST president in our country’s history by a long shot.
I don’t hate either of those two pretenders. I just think they were/are both unqualified wretches who never should have had the opportunity to
servescrew the country.One was a marionette for the VP; the other is a marionette for the prevailing wind.
Hey now Ferd!… was that what I saw below me?
It had a funny clown suite on as it flew by screaming, “Obama broke his promise!!!”
LMAO, teak. That was no clown, that was everyvoter, who suddenly realized it had been conned. B,b,but he promised he’d pay my mortgage and make my car payment, and get me reparations for whatever suffering the ACLU can come up with.
Which way was the wind carrying him–left or right? It is sort of like reading tea leaves or flipping coins. We can get a fix on tomorrow’s spin if we know the direction.
Governor Sanford flew to Venezuela to rendezvous with his lover, and you point out, Senator Kerry complains, “Too bad if a governor had to go missing it couldn’t have been the governor of Alaska. You know, Sarah Palin.” Were the D’s always this mean-spirited and I just missed it? I transcribed this exchange between Howard Dean and Steven Colbert, in a discussion about BO’s health care proposal.
SC: “The point is, if I know I’m gonna get health care, why wouldn’t I go around just licking doorknobs everyplace?”
HD: “Isn’t this Larry Craig’s approach to health care?”
SC: “Is there any truth to the rumor that under this public option, surgeries will be performed by ACORN volunteers?”
HD: “Only on the members of the Senate who vote against it.”
The audience emitted mostly silence and a few groans. After HD’s first tasteless answer, SC immediately changed the subject, only to unleash the second nasty response.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/79312/the-colbert-report-tue-jun-23-2009
Wow — I just played that portion of the episode for myself and I cannot believe Howard Dean behaved that way. He’s a doctor for crying out loud. As to your comments wondering if the Dems were always this mean spirited and did you just miss it — I’m beginning to wonder the same thing.
I am happy to consider myself independent. Too many insults coming from both sides of the aisle for my taste.
That’s a really good question, jbjd. If you missed it, I sure missed it too. I think the general answer is “No–they weren’t.” But I think it’s something in the air nowadays, disseminated by the mean-spirited comedy we see in the media. I’m in political limbo: the dems have really lost me. This mean-spirited bullcrap has got to stop. Can’t they see how ugly it is!?!?
i think they were. (we were) I know i used to think certain things about the Right…
That is one reason I think FOX gets such a bad wrap, and is labled as evil – they came out swinging after taking so much liberal media shit for so long. people think they are so extreme, but ignore ALL the total crap and bias from the liberal media. they are pretty much one in the same, just have a different view, and those who complain about FOX prefer the liberal version of issues. but the liberal message is delivered the same, if not worse, than FOX. and sorry, but after watching them so much now, FOX is more balanced.
Hi Sara in Italy–another provocative story that has elicited lots of fiery responses. Thank you.
The word “liberal” was successfully demonized by conservative factions, and so I no longer feel comfortable using it. Maybe time will rehabilitate it to something like its original meaning.
In a nutshell: I used to hate Fox News; Obama adulation on the other networks drove me there. Now I watch no news at all on television.
Were the Dems always so mean-spirited? Just think of a roster of the Dem leaders from Harry Truman up through Bill Clinton, and perhaps you will agree that, whatever their faults, “mean-spirited” does not really apply. Kerry’s remark about Sarah Palin, on the other hand, was “mean-spirited,” and God knows we all suffered through months of mean-spirited Hillary and Sarah abuse.
I searched for the quote from an original source, but only found this mention in the CSM. I would still like to find a report from someone who heard the comment firsthand, because I wonder who was the audience, and what was their reaction. (The Monitor is published in Boston; the Comments to the article are all over the place.)
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/06/25/sanford-disappears-john-kerry-makes-sarah-palin-joke/
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20090624john_kerry_says_wrong_gov_missing_for_four_days/srvc=home&position=0
“The Democratic-centric crowd laughed.”
Thank you, AGI, for the Herald reference. (This is also a local paper, the ‘blue collar’ counterpart to the Globe.) The comments are definitely more skewed against JK.
Well stated, oowawa. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
So..do you think John Kerry would be where he is if not for Theresa Heinz? He is a loser big time. He is shielding Obamas aunt from charges of defrauding the federal government for her illegal misuse of HUD property. She does not qualify for the benefit of living there for 9 years because she is not a citizen..she should be in jail. What does Kerry do? He sicks his friend on Walpin to take attention off of his shielding of Obama in Massachusetts.
They will all steal theirs starting with Barney Frank and finally we will be sick of paying for the welfare ‘folks’ who-by the way-have doubled in numbers during the same period last year-thanks to Obama doing away with the “Welfare Reform Act’ on day two of his 128 day tenure.
Guess who is getting Walpins job? Michele Obama’s old friend and boss who made it very easy for Michele Obama to get the 200K raise she got from the hospital where they worked. PS Rezko hand picked the hospital board…they all stink.
Isn’t she an illegal alien in that she overstayed her visa–at least that’s my take “she’s illegal”
ANimal Control: she was married to John Heinz, Republican Rep. So, the illegal bit–not even funny.
What are you talking about? Of course he would and has been for quite some time. John Kerry had been a Senator for years when he met and married her.
It was incredibly tacky of one of the love emails to be read on Katie Couric’s news show last night. Whatever thoughts of Couric being an fair minded journalist are forever erased.
Any thoughts I had of Couric being a journalist of any sort were long ago dispelled. Dazzling teeth, though. Kind of like the Cheshire Cat.
Her critical thinking skills resemble the cats tale…fading slowly.
.
LOL, Teak. And soon CBS will gradually make her fade away, leaving only memories of that dazzling phony toothy grin . . .
I’m willing to bet it was his wife. The e-mails were leaked around the same time he confessed the affair. Whoever tipped off the reporter about Sanford’s arrival at the Atlanta airport obviously had to have known his itinerary. And Jenny Sanford is no shrinking violet. She’s as tough as nails. She’s also the one in the family with the money.
What strikes me as particularly odd is that her husband disappeared AND that he had called off his security detail, yet she was as cool as a cucumber. If my husband vanished for 5 hours and was incommunicado, let alone for 5 DAYS, I’d be hysterical. So I think she bided her time, took the high road and got her sweet revenge.
There’s no way she was going to be trotted out as a prop and face that public humiliation. She played a key role in his campaigns and didn’t deserve to be put through this nonsense. I hope it WAS her.
i thought it might be her, but then when she issued such a classy statement, and said they could possibly reconcile, I began to doubt. I also didn’t think she would want to embarrass her family that way. I would never want to release those lovey gooey emails, if I had children.
I thought the same thing, but then again if I had given up my job and my life to go to endless rubber chicken dinners and gladhand constituents and throw tea parties “for the wives” and my husband pulled this stunt after I had sacrificed so much for him I’d want to get my comeuppance. And she didn’t embarrass her family – he did. Publicly she took the high road all the way and for that I congratulate her. Besides, who else would have access to those e-mails and want to get the man in line? Leaking those e-mails served one purpose – to scare the man straight. He dodged a bullet when they weren’t published right away.
I probably would have done it. hahaa
Embarrass her family – I mean by publicizing the emails. I think it would be embarrassing for her children to have their fathers gushy emails published. I wouldn’t want to do that to my kids.
Lots of people have access to those emails! People forget that nothing is private in email!
As much as I might have wanted to, my mother side would have trumped my wife side. Boys in school can be as vicious as “mean girls.” All their lives, at some point, someone is going to make a joke about something thqeir father wrote in those emails. I wouldn’t do that to my kids.
I think this was all politically motivated, probably just some staffer with a hurt ego over something.
I’m keeping an open mind. I’ve met many a political wife on my time. Believe me, when push comes to shove they’re capable of some monster intrigues. And they see this as a way of PROTECTING their children. After all, it’s not the wives who created the stink.
I recommend the miniseries “The Politician’s Wife”. Check it out:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112126/
Looks like it could have been her!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/26/politics/main5116933.shtml
Katie Couric hasnt been a fairminded reporter since she asked Hillary if her high school nickname was refrigerator. She is disgusting. We need to look at every shread of her life and put it on the big screen and see if she likes it. She is deplorable!
Hey, would Obama have access to action on a passport?
I do believe the is MO is familiar. Recall that BO was involved with the “leaking” of his opponents divorce proceedings before an election.
I want to know who had the email and how was it obtained.
So much for the tan line. ewww.
One more thing: Sanford acted like an ass, particularly given his record of tsk tsking at other peoples’ foibles. But the key issue is that he vanished. He’s not the town dogcatcher. He’s the governor of a state. His behavior was childish and irresponsible in the extreme. He could have resolved this painful situation with the Argentine lady over the phone (NOT e-mail for God’s sake – don’t these people ever learn that if you put something in writing it will invariably leak?). If he was in love and going through some midlife crisis he should have swallowed hard and behaved like a grown man, not a lovestruck teenager running away from home. He’s a public official and should have known the risk he was taking in disappearing. Didn’t he think anyone would notice?
And by the way if I tried to pull a stunt like this at work – not showing up for days without calling in – best believe I’d be fired in a flash. So would we all I think.
Indeed. Sanford is a hypocrite of the worst sort. For all the blather about Clinton did this or Clinton did that, no one ever accused him of preaching about morality because he didn’t. How about that, neoconbots? You get the Golden Two-Faced Hyaena Award for excellence in hypocrisy.
if you put something in writing it will invariably leak.
Well perhaps he can get a book deal writing steamy romance novels…
DCMedia, Her name is Maria….( I just met a girl named Maria). Karma.
Another angle could be a person on her side that saw the email or had access.
Most of the time this is from weak passwords. All you need is to know the mail address, have access to the mail servers webmail function and hammer away by brute force at the password. If the password is weak and if there aren’t protections on the mail server to guard this, the account will be eventually compromised. This is what happened to Palin. Politicians should never use a public access mail server.
It would be a good idea to limit by hardware address the devices that can access these mail accounts and to log the ip and hardware addresses of rogue devices that attempt access. These could be tracked back to the device if needed.
he was a total ass.
Although, he didn’t disappear though – his office knew he was OOF. He was on vaca. I do not believe that no one knew where he was. He is covering for his office. Someone knew.
he shouldn’t have been such a dick about Clinton. Love happens. Shit happens. These idiots in WA need to quit jumping on each other and then turning around and doing the same thing. Good people make mistakes. But, they shouldn’t condemn others for their mistakes, either.
I don’t think he was wrong in going – he was wrong in having a lie for a cover story. He should have faced her to end it. He risked a LOT to face her….
AGII: His office knew he was off but as far as we know no one knew where he was. The LG certainly didn’t know and he was hot about it. Sanford told his security detail to stand down.
I don’t buy the theory that his staff knew where he was. How would Sanford have explained he was going to Argentina by himself? He wasn’t on state business and he didn’t take his family. So it’s possible that someone like the Chief of Staff knew, but as far as the rest go I think they were in the dark. If the staff had known, don’t you think the word would have spread? Political staffs are notoriously gossipy. If your boss abruptly up and leaves the country and the staff knew best believe they’d be talking about it to their friends.
As a politician that’s a horrendous thing to do to people who work for you. Their careers are totally dependent on your behavior. If you do something idiotic and end up having to resign or lose an election it’s the staff that ends up getting screwed.
i don’t think the whole office knew, but someone did. If the Chief of Staff knew, I would think that would be as good as the entire staff knowing.
I agree he screwed over his staff. Especially those who hoped to work with him on his Presidential campaign.
But, I do not believe for one second that NO ONE knew how to reach him.
American Girl, your title says it all.
For my money, the build-up of this latest scandal is the latest in a pattern — a distraction to take our minds off of Barack Obama’s falling numbers (see Rasmussen in the past week) as well as the weakness of Obama with regard to Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea and other missed opportunities to prove he is indeed a world leader and not just a Chicago punk.
Kerry’s remarks only show the Dems have indeed become the thing they said they hated. Somebody should tell big boy Kerry that he shouldn’t show the world how scared of Sara Palin he really is. At some point, don’t be surprised if she is not the next victim. They’ve already bombarded her with lots of “ethics violations” and generated a half million dollar legal debt as she is forced to defend herself. Nibbled to death by ants. The Chicago Way.
He is scared to death of the Sarahcuda. As well he should be, along with all the rest of the politicians who are manufactured people. Sarah is the real thing and there is no substitute for real.
I agree … she is genuine. And they’ll do everything they can to destroy her.
mandelay — Sen. Ensign of Nevada was also caught having an affair. He is a great Senator and was being considered for a presidential run in 2012. Sounds like all the stars in the Republican Party are being targeted.
You really need to check out the C-Street group. The house that Ensign, Sanford and several other congressmen were hanging out at was affiliated with a religious group called “The Family”. That group used to go by the name of “The Children of God”.
The rumor about that group was that they engaged in group sex and a practice known as “flirty fishing” which involved female members witnessing their faith via sexual contact, etc. Is that the group that these congressmen were hanging out at. One sidenote: the group is big in S. America and Argentina.
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/revealed_the_sanfordensign_connection.php
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/god-and-country/2009/06/24/sanford-cites-secretive-christian-groups-role-in-helping-confront-affair.html
http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/top/ts_multi/documents/02877355.asp
RE Sanford: The “Politics of Personal Destruction” meme has reached full fruition!
Neither party holds the high ground, one is as sleazy as the other. Neither deserves party-line loyalty from the rational element of the voting public.
As a life-long Democrat, until this year, I always thought “we” were above such. Looking back, and of course now living the present, I realize I was merely prejudicially blind.
Never again will I allow myself, to deceive myself. I am forever through with party affiliation, and a political identity other than “I/Me”.
All decisions will come down to what I think of an indiviual, devoid of labels.
However, I must honestly add that the so-called right is looking better to me, as a whole, than “my” so-called left.
What “my” former left/Dem. associates did (and continue to do) to HRC, Palin, and any women who did not bow down, and fall in line, is the most totally egregious episode in politics that I have ever seen.
I will never forget such, nor get over it!
I see the Sanford episode, and all other such sideshows, as mere distractions to the fact that we are being shafted daily by the very people that we once thought shared our values.
It is not about parties, but about individuals.
You are spot on, JustMe. My vote will have to be earned by the lesser (least) of the shysters running for a particular office. I will no longer be held captive by the two-party system. I’ll select the shyster of my choice.
Right On, Ferd. And rather than go to some health service like Kaiser where they assign you to a physician, I would prefer to select the quack of my choice!
LMAO, oowawa. Ain’t that the truth. He may be a quack–but he’s MY quack. The same can be said for shyster politicians.
I think his wife would be the only one who may have access to his private emails. Otherwise, someone in the federal goverment is email snooping on republicans.
They are taking them out one by one.
The IT person in his office has access to him emails. Anyone who can crack a password has access. Anyone who has access to his computer can access his email….
I don’t know what to say about wonder woman’s comment–it’s such a strange possibility, too weird for my mind to wrap around it.
I’ve czome to the conclusion that I liked the press’s attitude better before Gary Hart’s dare. If the pol is doing the job, leave the personal stuff alone. Think about FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, etc. We learned things about them only after. I commented this way in one of RRRA’s posts:
One woman I admired is the ex-wife of our ex-gov. This gov was also a family-values Republican. There was all kinds of pretty reliable information out there in early blogs about what the gov was doing on the side. Then his wife separated from him for a while. They had teen-aged kids. A little later, the papers annonced a reconciliation, she moved back in and stayed until his term was up. He couldn’t run again because of term limits. The minute he was out of office, she divorced the hypocrite.
This happened shortly after the Clinton scandal. It was a source of anger for some in the know that the newspapers and t.v. news never reported the affair, especially after having to hear non-stop about Clinton’s.
In the long run, though, I’m glad they didn’t for the sake of the children involved, his wife’s and the other woman’s. And I just got a kick out of imagining the deal his wife got for agreeing to go along with the farce. She’s doing pretty well now on the social philanthropic circle. We don’t read much about him, though.
I’m pretty sure enough people knew, so the guy knows his hypoczritical ass was bared. He didn’t get away with much, and he earned the anger from some in his party after because before he left office he worked across the aisle to do the right thing for the state on an important issue.
I share your disillusionment. I realize now that the values I thought we shared…we didn’t. I feel duped. I can’t see myself ever registering as a Democrat again. My Republican husband has declared himself an Independent, something I never thought I’d see. I have no idea if I can align myself with either party in the future. And Howard Dean? He makes my skin crawl…what an appalling statement to make – this from someone who was the head of the DNC. Yuk.
Thanks for the response Texas Mirth. Both your, and your husband’s, take on reality totally coincides with mine.
I will never even consider becoming a Democrat again. However, that does not mean I would not vote for a Democrat again if I could establish a true connection to my values.
I am still unabashedly a social liberal, I still do not know exactly what the hell a progressive is, other than someone who does not want to be called a liberal.
Personally, I am a fiscal conservative in regard to my own finances, and would like to see the same from my government. Bill Clinton, (and, giving credit where credit is due, along with a Rep. Congress) managed to pull off both socially and fiscally responsibile governance, but I fear we will never see such again.
As to voting and candidates, I am totally repulsed by eliteism, and will choose humilty over pomposity anyday. That, plus sheer intellgence and an ablity to genuinely relate, is what endears the Clintons to me. It is also what doomed HRC, she is too real for “the ruling class”.
Based on the above, I would vote for S. Palin tomorrow. She is the most “real” candidate I have seen, other than the Clintons. She is humble, but tough. She does not think she “knows it all”, but is confident she can learn. And, though I disagree with some of her views, I believe she is fair, pliable, and most importantly “one of us”.
By “us”, I mean everyday, tax-paying, fair-minded, basically middle-of-the-road, American voters who truly desire a government that governs for all of this nation. Each and every one of us, regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or financial status.
As previously stated I can only see such governance coming from a person truly “of the people”.
*With apologies to you Texas, and all, for the verbosity.
eeewww- i am soooo mad!!! john kerry is a P.O.S! out here in the south, where i come from, a gentleman would never say that about a lady, where are we in afghanistan? where men can treat a lady like crap and it’s just ok? all i would need is just 5 minutes with that lanky wusshead and i would whoop his ass! he just needs an ass whoopin! P.U.M.A.!!!!
If some POS takes you into a room “and only one comes out,” I’d be betting on you, texaslatina!
Oh come on. Sarah Palin is a politician. She was tough enough to take on the good ol’ boy establishment in Alaska AND she’s a crack shot. She’s not a shrinking violet. And no, we’re not in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan women aren’t allowed to go to school and live completely at the mercy of their relatives/in-laws/husbands/tribal elders. Alaska is not Afghanistan. Stop with the inappropriate analogies. It just cheapens the plight of women who live in cultures where they have little or no recourse.
American Girl
Great post! What a bunch of hypocrites and liars in the Democratic party. How about Larry Sinclair and Obama? The press went awol with this story.
The name of the man who brought him down is Mark Sanford.
Now CentralMass, that rather casts a pall over the neoconbot spin.
LMAO
who sent his emails to the press?
Since The State was unable to verify the emails, what do they do? They publish the emails.
they published them after the affair story broke.
Ladies and Gentlemen! You see I have three cups here and a little ball. I will place the little ball under this cup. Now, watch carefully, I will move the cups (quickly) like so, like so, like so and like so. Now…please, can you tell me under which cup the little ball is located? …Ooooh, too bad. Better luck next time! Thanks for playing our game!!
What about the possibility that Mrs. Sanford leaked the emails (anonymously) to the newspaper hoping to force her husbands hand in breaking up with his mistress? Remember she’s known about the affair for months but it was only this past week that he broke up with his girlfriend. That means for months she has watched her husband carry on an extra marital affair and finally she had enough and told him to move out. Maybe the leaking of the emails to the paper was a back door way of forcing the Governor to end the relationship but instead the paper just sat on them until it was convenient for them.
If the paper did approach Sanford months ago and threatened exposure but he didn’t end the relationship immediately, that tells me he was in love with his mistress. It also tells me that his wife knew and that still wasn’t enough for him to end the relationship with his girlfriend since the affair in some form continued the past 5 months. So I think the paper never approached him when they first got the email evidence and Sanford only came clean and broke up with his girlfriend when the affair was going to go public. Which is a scumbag thing to do. Mrs. Sanford must be sick knowing he wouldn’t end the relationship once she found out and probably asked him to, but he would when the public found out. OR quite possibly, the mistress had enough and kicked him to the curb the past few days since she didn’t want to deal with it any longer and then he had no choice but to go crawling back to his wife all teary eyed and sorry. If he really valued his marriage and made a mistake and was truly sorry, he would’ve ended the affair as soon as his wife found out, not months later.
AGI
This a very simple story as old as time itself. No grand conspiracy theories needed. It was an idiot man who flaked out on his family and went to the arms of his mistress on fathers day.
The Greeks wrote plays about the action of people like Sanford, they were called tragedies.
then who sent his emails to the media?
who tipped the media off to his arrival from Argentina?
I agree the situation is typical, man cheats on wife. Yawn. What I think is interesting is who is behind outing him – and even if you don’t believe this *where’s marko* situation was elevated because someone *knew* what was up, it still doesn’t explain who sent the newspaper his emails….
These guys are pitiful. It definitely is time for the women to take the reins of power. Men seem to be unable to control themselves and think with their crotch, to put it nicely. I can’t remember hearing of any type of big scandal with a woman in power unable to control her sexual urges. The men talk about women losing control when they have a menstrual cycle. But these same men can’t control themselves anytime. What is it? Ego? Immaturity? Fear of aging? What beautiful woman would want with these old farts is beyond me. Seems these men are easily controlled and manipulated
The story really isn’t about this jerk’s transgressions, or shouldn’t be. It is about his hypocrisy, or should be. You barely allude to it with “what’s sauce for the goose.” This guy was one of the people demanding impeachment of Clinton. I have come to the conclusion that Bill Clinton should have done what shrub Bush did, tell them he wasn’t going to testify and ignored them, even if subpoenas were sent. Every time one of these jerks who demanded impeachment of Clinton is exposed, I cheer.
As far as your complaint about what Kerry said regarding Palin….Here is a prediction: Sarah Palin is going nowhere in politics. If she were governing a state with the kinds of issues that average states have, she would already have emerged as a disaster as a politician. You don’t like that because you are married to the idea that Palin is a woman being attacked. I suspect that the people who would be most likely to attack a politician because she is a woman support this particular female politician. I think she is attacked by others because she has made such a fool of herself.
That is just being blinded by hate. She is a governor, and was a candidate for Vice President already. As for Kerry, he is a manufactured man and chattel of a wealthy woman. No wonder he hates Palin.
dcmediagirl- are you kiddin me? get a freakin life! i am expressin myself and i am damn angry! sarah might be a politician, but, that doesn’t mean she should be a verbal punchin bag and you don’t EVER EVER tell me what to write or not to write understand?
No I’m not “kiddin you”. I personally don’t give a damn that you want to make a fool out of yourself on the Internet. Go ahead and express your anger. You don’t need my permission for that. But since we’re all about free expression here and not telling one another what to write, let me express what I’m feeling – you obviously know nothing about Afghanistan and how women live there. To compare a strong, independent female governor to a woman living in Afghanistan is incredibly ignorant and insensitive to women living in Afghanistan, not to mention patronizing in the extreme to Sarah Palin. But hey, it’s a free country (here, not Afghanistan), so knock yourself out commenting!
Oh, and you might want to brush up on your grammar. Just trying to help.
One last thing: TYPING WORDS ALL IN CAPS doesn’t advance your argument.
So running a State is easy?
Regulating the energy industry. Dealing with problems specific to having the largest oil shipping port in the US. Dealing with two foreign nations on a fairly regular basis because they surround you on three sides. Keeping emergency services running in a state that has winter about 9 months per year. Dealing with volcanos erupting and earthquakes …
I Love your sarcasm!
Oh come on. Because he’s a REPUBLICAN?? Are you kidding? Try telling that to Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, Gary Condit, Barney Frank…the list goes on and on.
This “just because he’s a Republican” excuse reminds me of a Fox “News” talking point after impeachment, when the conservatives were still scratching their heads trying to figure out why Bill Clinton survived. Fox concluded that it was because the media were hopelessly biased in his favor. Riiiiight….24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 12 months a year of non-stop negative coverage — even more negative (incredibly) than the press he got right after entering the White House in 1993. But God forbid that they faced the fact that people didn’t want Bill Clinton thrown out of the White House…
If you don’t see any difference in how the media covers Dem scandals vs Repub scandals, then there is no reason to continue discussing the issue with you. You see what you want to see. I was a Dem my whole adult life, until this year. I see the bias.
NBC and other networks covered for Clinton as long as they could. The MSM wouldn’ touch Edwards. The liberal media conceals labeling a scandal whenever it is a Democrat, yet gleefully, repeatedly labels Repubs.
At the end of the day, they WILL report on a scandal, because they get off on the firestorm, and they have to, but the way they handle the stories varies greatly.
I imagine conservatives WERE befuddled that Clinton escaped virtually unscathed. They knew about the charges of rape and affairs that surrounded him for years, and then Monica broke, and he still got away with it. Meanwhile, a Conservative caught in a scandal…?
“But God forbid that they faced the fact that people didn’t want Bill Clinton thrown out of the White House…”
I’m sure they were shocked.
They hammered him and his wife relentlessly throughout his presidency and allowed every kook and weirdo with a hairbrained accusation on the air (Clinton Death List, anyone?).
Oh, you mean like the Republicans exposed in the Flynt Report? Were you aware of all those stories about sexual hijinks involving those members of Congress? No? And why is that? Because although those stories were widely known, sometimes for year, the MSM didn’t report them. All Republicans. All conservative. Not a word. Hell, everyone in DC knew that Newt Gingrich was running around with another woman (who’s now wife #3) for YEARS, yet it was never printed until a reporter from Vanity Fair alluded to it (and didn’t mention the woman by name). I knew about it because she used to work for a member of Congress who lived up the street from me.
For every story you’ve read about a sexual indiscretion on the part of a Republican there are at least 2 – 3 more that are widely known and discussed but have not been printed, including revelations about well-known conservatives who are gay and yet strongly oppose civil rights for gay people.
So no, I don’t see what I want to see. I see what’s there.
I have to say the handling of the Edwards story convinced me without a doubt about media bias. Compare their reluctance to cover it as opposed to the front-page-above-the-fold NYT article implying McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. While there was never a shred of evidence of McCain’s affair, the National Enquirer had the goods on Edwards AND STILL the media dragged their feet, giving the lamest excuses like “it’s the Enquirer’s story”. Then there’s the whole Bristol Palin saga, compared to Joe Biden’s daughter being arrested and his son accused of fraud.
I think “handling” is the key word here. Yes, eventually some media cover every scandal, but it’s WHICH media, timing, content, placement, etc. that reveal their bias.
BTW Bill Clinton’s accusers like Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and Kathleen Wiley CHOSE to go public and were very vocal, giving the media no choice but to cover them.
I agree with AGII – the real story may be who brought him down, if it was politically motivated.
BUT at this point, I’m inclined to think it was the girlfriend. She had the emails and she knew he was going to be in Argentina.
First of all, something’s fishy about this “friendship”. I’ve read that it started when she sought his advice about her divorce, way back when. This alone is suspicious to me. For one thing, as a wife, I know I’d be very wary of a divorcee seeking counsel from my husband. I have a feeling this “friendship” was at least a flirtation of both parties from the get go. So, whether there were sexual relations or not, IMO at least an emotional affair has been going on for a good part of, if not all of, the reported 8 years. The girlfriend also told the gov he had a younger rival in an email, which sounds to me like it could’ve been a manipulative ploy to keep his interest.
Bottom line: while it may very well be that a political rival or foe leaked the emails, etc., until I know more I’d be willing to bet the jilted woman is the culprit.
Oh, and another reason I suspect her is that the emails were leaked to the press around the time the governor and his wife began marriage counseling. A girlfriend’s hopes of a future with a married man could certainly be dashed by this fact.
The timing of all this seems to fit better with the goals of a scorned woman than a political rival, who would benefit more if the scandal were revealed closer to 2012.
I rule out the wife because as a wife myself, the world being able to read such romantic correspondences between husband and mistress would possibly be the most humiliating and degrading aspect of the whole ordeal.
What is up with the number of men lately who are so selfish as to put their love interests ahead of their families? It is childish and disgusting.
I don’t condone the Sanford’s behavior, but don’t fall for these WDT’s (Weenie Distraction Tactics) employed by both political parties with the help of the media. There is so much other more important news that deserves attention. In the grand scheme of things, is it really that important when, where, why, with whom, or what he did with his weenie? It seems that politicians get in far more trouble this way than with how they vote on issues.
Politico has a 2001 video snippet of the mistress. Seems she used to be a television news reporter in Argentina.
I really don’t care who brought him down. If he hadn’t been messing around, this would not have happened to him.
It’s always the reporters, no? (John Edwards, Villaraigosa)
dcmediagirl- you are one pathetic person. i am willin to bet you have no life and no friends and bore everyone to death! and is that the only thing you know how to do is criticize what everybody writes and then comment “oh come on”? loser.
The three network morning shows on Thursday devoted a staggering 18 segments to the revelation that South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford was having an affair with a woman from Argentina, adding up to over 54 minutes of coverage. NBC’s Today show spent the most time on the subject, highlighting the infidelity with six segments and 25 minutes of air time.
Co-host Matt Lauer even talked to disgraced former Governor Jim McGreevey to get his thoughts on the matter. (However, while NBC made sure to label Sanford a Republican, the Today anchors failed to do so for the ex-New Jersey governor who resigned under a cloud of scandal.)
ABC’s Good Morning America touted the sex scandal for 17 minutes and 26 seconds, featuring seven stories on Sanford. (It should also be pointed out that GMA came within seven minutes of Today’s total, despite the fact that the NBC program is four hours, double the time of ABC’s show.) During one such segment, Sam Donaldson insisted that it’s hard to forgive Republicans who get involved in sex scandals: “They thump the Bible. They condemn everyone else, and when they- human- they don’t have much credit in the bank for forgiveness.”
CBS’s Early Show had the least amount of coverage, offering only five segments over 11 minutes and 44 seconds. As the MRC’s Kyle Drennen noted in his June 25 posting, all three morning shows repeatedly identified Sanford as a Republican (100%). However, during the first week’s coverage of former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer and his prostitute scandal, he was labeled a Democrat only 20 percent of the time.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/06/26/morning-shows-devote-almost-hour-hyping-sanford-story
dcmediagirl- just checkin in. no comment? where are you with your all knowin, pompous, totally off the mark self? waitin for ya mama.