Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditHere in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, the famed "redneck Riviera," the death of the King of Pop has taken second place to the adultery of the Governor in the local news. But it's the comments posted online at South Carolina daily newspapers that suggest something about local sentiment on this issue. I guess I should not have been surprised by the number that blamed the woman, especially after the media identified her as Maria Belen Chapur, a journalist for the Argentine TV station Canal America.
In the Myrtle Beach Sun News [all quotes verbatim]: "Like most married men, he got caught involved with a woman of ways who seduced him. . . His biggest mistake was getting involved with a woman that when he tried to end it, sent copies of emails to his wife and the press anonymously and all knows she did it"-- tooclassy4you.
"This gal is having the time of her life. She's enjoying a sexual encounter with a governer in the US, AND most likely has another local stud on call for quickies. WOW! Ladies and gentleman this gal is a professional COUGAR" – ibshagn.
At the Charleston Post and Courier, blaming the woman was also a theme in the online comments: "She is a jaded divorcee and a gold-digger, a climber. Sorry mr Sanford, she "loved" you as much as she loved other "strong" men, not afraid to get close to mafia, in Argentina" -- AnaLaura.
And in Columbia at The State, where enterprising reporter Gina Smith staked out the Atlanta airport and confronted the governor when he stepped off the Buenos Aires flight, some of the online comments were even wilder: "I can't help but wonder how much information this lady might have been able to obtain from Sanford during their affair. Furthermore, with all the terrorists threats around the world, I hope someone is extensively investigating this woman's background. If Sanford was going to have an affair, he should have at lease chosen a woman who was a US citizen"--Kimmy.
Of course there's another woman who can be blamed: back at the Sun-News: "let me remind everyone a man strays because he is not being taken care of at home"--China2.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Well, certain immutable laws of human behavior are involved here.
In this case, namely, the age-old maxim that the hotness of the chicks a male can attract varies directly with the potential or actual relative thickness of the male's wallet.
That's how it works: money, fame and power.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/26/2009 @ 6:01pm
It all started when Adam blamed Eve for the apple incident.
Some things do not change....
Posted by wearyvoter at 06/26/2009 @ 6:26pm
I think that happens because women are the moral core of a community. They have the ability to do more damage when they forsake their families. It's not the case here, but universally true, hence the predisposition to blame women for the wrong. Either way, that guy is a clown shoe.
Posted by Milhaus at 06/26/2009 @ 6:44pm
Ok, so why more blame on the woman? Well, I would put 40% on the man and 60% on the woman.
Women are the foundation of family. They understand that children need to be cared for and nurtured.
Children are damaged when a parent is gone, uninterested in them, and not nice to the other parent.
The other woman, Maria, is a mother, and should have understood that THERE ARE CHILDREN INVOLVED, and it is not all about HER AND HER NEEDS.
Men, lets face it, are scum, and have no true understanding of raising and caring for children.
So, the outrage falls on this other woman, who really ruined 4 little boys' lives forever.
Maria is a mom and she should have known better.
Hopefully, she will rot in hell.
And the Governor, missing his Father's Day with his four "precious sons", will be in hell with her. Perfect.
I only wish he would leave for Argentina tomorrow and give the U.S. citizens a break and stop spending our money.
Posted by TheTruthShallSetYouFree at 06/26/2009 @ 7:38pm
I am sorry, but saying that 60 percent of the blame falls on the woman simply because "men are scum and have no true understanding of raising and caring for children" is ABSURD.
This is not a 5 year old boy. He is a grown man in a position of power who, ostensibly, is perfectly capable of tying his own shoes, feeding himself, and oh yes....knowing right from wrong. Releasing him of any accountability based on the antiquated and erroneous idea that men are only one step away from apes reeks of the gender bias that has kept women second class citizens for hundreds of years.
They both have families, and BOTH should have known better. If anyone has extra culpability however, it is HIM, since he is the one in the position of power and therefore had much more to lose.
Sorry, but "men are scum and have no understanding" is a cop out I liken to "she wore a short skirt, so she had it coming."
Posted by mikntrav at 06/26/2009 @ 9:00pm
Misogynist level 1: Blame woman 1, the seductress
Misogynist level 2: Blame woman 2, the hag wife who let herself go, couldn't keep him satisfied
Misogynist level 3: Blame woman 3, the Governor's mom who raised a moral coward...
Posted by winyahn at 06/26/2009 @ 9:02pm
Mikntrav - this is a man who missed FATHER'S DAY WITH HIS 4 BOYS TO SPEND IT WITH ANOTHER WOMAN... Sorry, that is scum.....
And say that I am penetrating stereotypes.. but women care for children for a reason. Watch any Dad in any city - generally clueless.
Sorry, a woman really should have a SISTERHOOD with other women and care about all children. It takes a village...
A sisterhood where you don't ruin other people's families.
I find it inexcusable that a woman, A MOM HERSELF, could ruin a small child's happiness, or in this case, 4 children.
And to Winyahn - not the mom's fault... usually, it is the dad who cheated on the mom and the boy grows up and acts it out....
Posted by TheTruthShallSetYouFree at 06/26/2009 @ 9:40pm
"I find it inexcusable that a woman, A MOM HERSELF, could ruin a small child's happiness, or in this case, 4 children. "
Oh and it's more excusable that a man would ruin the lives of his own 4 children? Give me a break. This is tripe.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/26/2009 @ 10:01pm
<i>Posted by TheTruthShallSetYouFree at 06/26/2009 @ 7:38pm </i>
Have you ever lied? Ever stolen? I think we have to realize 2 things:
1) They both did something wrong. Both of them could and should have done otherwise, and both of them should have known the consequences that would come. Neither of them should be able to foist that, either in whole or in part, on the other person and away from themselves. That said,
2) They are both human beings. This is not to say that what they did was all right or that we should just ignore it, but to say "she should rot in hell" or even "they should rot in hell" seems incredibly unforgiving. People screw up. It seems like the best thing they can do is acknowledge they did wrong, seek reconciliation with those they have hurt, and seek to move on. That seems like the most gracious (or perhaps more precisely, grace-filled) response. That isn't a cop-out; I'd argue that it's even harder than just calling for retribution or anger.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2009 @ 10:19pm
My goodness, the first four postings agreed the woman was to blame, and some of them seemed to be by people who flew in out of nowhere to post them. If this is the readership liberal magazines get, I'm really scared about the conservative ones.
Posted by chessw at 06/26/2009 @ 11:09pm
"If this is the readership liberal magazines get, I'm really scared about the conservative ones."
Completely agree. With the exception of Katha Pollitt, the staff at The Nation lacks the backbone to challenge patriarchy. Jon Weiner's article lacked moral courage. He never admitted that it was misogynistic to blame the woman. He never insisted that men take equal responsibility for their sexual behavior.
Posted by ktrig at 06/26/2009 @ 11:53pm
<i>Jon Weiner's article lacked moral courage. He never admitted that it was misogynistic to blame the woman. He never insisted that men take equal responsibility for their sexual behavior.
Posted by ktrig at 06/26/2009 @ 11:53pm </i>
Really? So he picked these four comments that all blame the woman because he agreed with them? Or do you refuse to accept that he disagrees with these comments until he states it in plain language rather than letting people make intuitive rational deductions about his position?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 12:34am
Does not surprise me. The "blame it on the woman" concept is of course a core conservative idea that blames on third parties (specially women) as the "sinners" that intrude and brake the sanctity of marriage!!
From there to oblige women to wear head covers or not getting them out to the streets to "avoid the temptation of men" there is just a tenuous difference.
And there is this other one concept: national leaders -specially conservative- are always essentially good....it is foreigners who are treacherous and corrupt!! I can't help remembering how the conservative press went after Mr. Kerry's wife like rabid dogs. Her sin: " she was opinionated, and a foreigner."
Please, to the public, specially Southerners, do not condemn anyone, specially don't use the categories of "foreigner" or " lonely and sinful woman" to make lapidary judgments.
As Jesus Christ said: "Who is free from sin, throw the first stone..." All the humanity is made out of the same fragile clay, and all we can do is love with extreme intensity, because if we do not do so, we will still try to love but too little and too selfishly.
Posted by Frank42 at 06/27/2009 @ 02:35am
Really? So he picked these four comments that all blame the woman because he agreed with them? Or do you refuse to accept that he disagrees with these comments until he states it in plain language rather than letting people make intuitive rational deductions about his position?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 12:34am
Sometimes I guess people need it spelled out in the old ABC's before they can understand it. You would need a brain to do that.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 05:18am
It's those damn tan lines, everytime, just crying out, "Lick here." Now what redblooded man can resist? That's why the Southland gave birth to the blues. Or something like that.
Posted by sloper at 06/27/2009 @ 07:14am
Truly sad.
And when 4 others how up to repeat the sad droning of the Neanderthals I wonder if it is being driven by the bloviators.
But, the good news out of this disaster is that once again we have clear evidence that the Family Values conservatives should not be allowed anywhere near the law making machinery. However, by reading these comments it is also clear that their tripe will continue to sell to a large portion of our electorate, many of whom will use the phrase "personal responsibility" and "Good Christian man" when stepping into the voting booth to elect another phony.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2009 @ 08:10am
Posted by TheTruthShallSetYouFree at 06/26/2009 @ 7:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
misogynist crapola
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 08:50am
This article is tripe. It doesn't matter what the people on the street day or what a lefty writer says about the Gov affair. Obviously the author is tickled by the incident because it may take this guy out of the Predidential race. And that's because the Rep fire or by pass those types who have picadillos. On the Dem side this is a resume enhancer and is to be celebrated .
The real point, ignored here completely, is what the Gov said unscripted .... He took responibity for his actions publicly....
Something the left views as a fault and a reason for dismissl, hence the glee in the tone if the article.
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/27/2009 @ 09:49am
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/27/2009 @ 09:49am
How bizarre.
The people on the street are also known as "voters". Many of those voters are not taking the Gov at his word, they blame the femme fatal.
If the Good Family Values Real Conservative Governor had really taken responsibility, he would have been home on Fathers Day.
Another failure of the DOMA. Damn that homosexual agenda.
"On the Dem side this is a resume enhancer and is to be celebrated . "
If it makes you feel better.
When is the last time you checked Newt and Rush's ratings and popularity? Is John Edwards being "celebrated" and is his star rising?
Don't let reality stop you from seeing the "left" as the danger it is, though. The steady march of liberal socialism could lead to perceived threats being held in jail in perpetuity, like in Iran and Cuba or China.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/27/2009 @ 10:23am
YourJomamma
why you would defend a slime ball like that is incomprehensible to me.
the gov is toast, by the way. he will not live this down politically.
there is a Dominican herbal liqueur named mamajuana.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 10:26am
<i>Posted by YourJomamma at 06/27/2009 @ 09:49am </i>
This is a valid point; taking responsibility for your actions does count for something, and even if it didn't, he's still ultimately a human being.
If we can know that Michael Jackson molested children without rhetorically consigning him to the pits of hell, why can't we do the same for a governor who betrayed his marriage?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 11:03am
the gov ain't got rhythm, and he can't moonwalk.
Michael was never convicted on a child molestation charge. what happened to the presumption of innocence?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by DP in TC at 06/27/2009 @ 11:07am | ignore this person | warn this person
misogynist jerk. tell it to your mother.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 12:04pm
If we can know that Michael Jackson molested children without rhetorically consigning him to the pits of hell, why can't we do the same for a governor who betrayed his marriage?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 11:03am
I think some of us can and some of us can't. I think the core of the problem is the king of pop is a musician and not an elected official. People for some reason expect their elected officials to be more than human, which we all know is not possible.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:10pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 06/27/2009 @ 09:49am
What is with you folks on the right an sounding more and more like partisan idiots with no real point beyond bigotry? Why don't you just go out and start screaming I hate everyone who is on the left. I think that will make you feel better than coming here and posting BS.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 1:11pm
Maybe they fell in love? Maybe that's not so bad.
Posted by mikecope at 06/27/2009 @ 2:00pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 11:10am </i>
Legal standards and practical reasoning aren't synonymous. The standard for conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's not the standard for practical reason.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 2:12pm
People v. Jackson (full case name: The People of the State of California v. Michael Joseph Jackson) was a 2005 child sexual abuse trial involving recording artist Michael Jackson. The alleged victim was a boy, Gavin Arvizo, referred to as "The Accuser". Arvizo was 13 years old at the time of the alleged crimes. Michael Jackson was indicted for four counts of molesting a minor, four counts of intoxicating a minor, one count of abduction, and one count of conspiring to hold the boy and his family captive at his 2700-acre Neverland Ranch compound.[1] He denied all counts and asserted that he himself was the victim of a failed extortion attempt. On June 13, 2005, the jury found Jackson not guilty on all charges.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 3:14pm
Does that mean OJ for sure didn't kill his wife? I mean he DID write that book If I Did It or whatever.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:37pm
Also the court did force him to pay fees to the family. So which court was right? The that found him not guilty of murder charges or the one who forced him to pay the family?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:38pm
Posted by wearyvoter at 06/26/2009 @ 6:26pm: It all started when Adam blamed Eve for the apple incident.
Some things do not change....
It was the start of the "oldest profession"
Posted by pyeatte at 06/27/2009 @ 3:38pm
Thrawn is right, just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they are in fact not guilty. Just like if someone is found guilty it doesn't mean they are in fact guilty. How many people have been found not guilty after they have already been convicted as guilty?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:39pm
<i>Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:39pm </i>
Also true, which is why we need to pay very close attention to our justice system. If we're going to lock people away for many years, we'd better be sure they're not innocent.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 3:44pm
Agree with mikecope--love is not bad. Hypocrisy is. Personally he must make a decision, the result of which is none of our business. But this is another example of what family values conservatives are all about, telling everyone else how to live.
Posted by framiller at 06/27/2009 @ 3:45pm
Also true, which is why we need to pay very close attention to our justice system. If we're going to lock people away for many years, we'd better be sure they're not innocent.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/27/2009 @ 3:44pm
Mistakes will be made though. The problem with our justice system is sometimes the prosecutor is just better than the defendants lawyer. Then it isn't about who is innocent or guilty it's just about who can prove the case better. I wonder if we could track how many cases of innocent people were proven guilty because of lack of a quality defense lawyer.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 3:59pm
y'all know a better system of justice?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/27/2009 @ 4:30pm
No. Just hypothezizing.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/27/2009 @ 4:44pm
Guess I got here late. So truth "all men are scum?' Clue less about raising kids? Your bigotry and hatred sure does come shining through. Since we men are just one step away from being apes and can hardly be expected to control our animal instincts it is up to the woman, the more evolved and intelligent one to make good decisions, this is your point? I wonder at the source of all this contempt and hostility toward men. Could you be a woman who has made some singularly bad choices in you life in regards to men so you assume that "all" men are like the losers you have chosen? Are you capable of entertaining the possibility that maybe just maybe not all men are like the ones you have encountered or like the ones on TV? For you information I am a single dad of a fourteen year old boy. We have been on our own since he was seven months old. He is a happy and well adjusted boy who has a 3.26 GPA (we are working on that) is involved in the Band, Boy Scouts and helps out at the Boys and Girls Club. He has friends his age but he can comport himself in an appropriate manner with adults or his peers. I cannot take all the credit for the person he is turning out to be, he really is a great person but I dare say I have something to do with it. So you see trueth will set you free the truth really is that not all men are like the ones you know. You should get out more.
Posted by bascaville at 06/28/2009 @ 12:58am
Posted by framiller at 06/27/2009 @ 3:45pm | ignore this person | warn this person We got your "family values" regressive liberals right here lets see husband and wife tag team Conyers!
Meanwhile looks like "the powers that be" have made a trade with Congressman Conyers! He will NOT be investigating ACORN accussed in 14 lawsuits in various states with voter fraud. Just to messy and embarassing I guess because;
"City Councilmember Monica Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic Congressman John Conyers, pleaded guilty Friday to accepting cash bribes in exchange for supporting a sludge contract with a Houston company.
Conyers, 44, was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit bribery in connection with accepting two payments from a Synagro Technologies official in late 2007, including one in a McDonald's parking lot.
She entered her plea before Judge Avern Cohn at 10 a.m. with her attorney Steven Fishman.
Conyers was solemn in court, having to be asked three times by the judge to speak up.
Fishman declined to comment on the specifics of the case outside of court.
"You saw her in court, report what you saw," Fishman said.
Conyers is facing three to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines.
Fishman said it will be up to the judge to decide how long Conyers will be in prison.
No sentencing date has been set."
The Demoncrats just keep getting their orders wrong from the Obamanation that makes desolation!!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/28/2009 @ 01:15am
Posted by BigPasture at 06/28/2009 @ 01:15am
Did Monica run as a Family Values candidate?
she is more of a nut than Mr. "See my piglets" Sanford, though.
I guess we actually missed his point when he brought those pigs into the halls of congress. He was really trying to hint that he was just a rutting pig.
Rep john Conyers has not a hint of scandal attached to him.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2009 @ 07:25am
BP, did you know that Sanford used public money to chase pubes? Maybe he missed the "l" in public when he was filling out the expense voucher?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/28/2009 @ 07:28am
It appears that some of the posts here are no better than what the article speaks of in the first place, although in a degree 180 from the article itself.
Fact: it took two to bring this about, both hold equal "guilt" if that is the situation people are looking for. The baseline reality of the aftermath though is quite simple, the cover-up, as always, is worse than than the original act.
Hypocrisy is the issue, and the boldness of Sanford at using his "religion" as a justification for his remaining as governor and attempting to make this all appear trite. He has shown himself to be a miserable specimen of someone who claims the moral highground for everyone other than himself. How many times have we seen this before, and the "perpetrator" get away with it?
Sanford is a despicable person, not because he had an "affair", but because he has condemned others for exactly what he did, there lies the crux of the situation, there lies the "sin".
For every Sanford or Ensign, there are tens of thousands who respect their wives and SO's, (and let's not forget that plenty of married women "fool around" as well). With these clowns, it is the overt condemnation of others while they have their covert affairs...it is all about the brazen hypocrisy, that should be the issue that should be in the forefront.
Sanford should look more closely at his religion, hypocrisy is decried far more often than sexual acts, guess he hasn't figured that out yet; his arrogance will not allow him to comprehend just how much of an ass he is.
Posted by rasputin195 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:00am
Posted by rasputin195 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:00am |
Well said, your monkness.
I could care less that the 'Desperate House-governor' was indiscrete, but it would have been better to divorce the wife before 'Faulk-landing' his mistress.
Three guesses why he didn't want, as a 'Family Values' Republican, to take that honorable route and the first two don't count.
But the lying and the hypocrisy of his sanctimonious bullsh-it stink to high heaven, pun intended.
Posted by snowball777 at 06/28/2009 @ 08:47am
On the Dem side this is a resume enhancer and is to be celebrated...
Something the left views as a fault and a reason for dismissl, hence the glee in the tone if the article.
--YourJomamma at 06/27 @ 09:49am
Oh oh, someone is apologetic to the point of gushing lactation over Sanford.
As is typical of JOMAMMA in particular, and Bozo-esque RepubliClowns in general, there is no factual basis to inform what he says. Just drivel. Total fluff. Embarrassingly adolesent fantasies of what constiutes a "Republican" and a "Democrat". And as completely removed from any facts on the ground as this typical JOMAMMA outburst of fluffy drivel would be if they came emerged from an inpenetrably insulated bubble on Micheal Jacko's ranch.
"A resume enhancer and is to be celebrated"?
Even by JO's Bozo standards, we have to ask: Is this dummy for real? Are to we assume from this characteristically pompous, trite and totally ass-backwards phrase that JOMAMMA has been working the phones tirelessly for years now to induce Sen. David "John" Shitter to step down, with a recently initiated campaign directed at pious and solemn "Promise Keeper" Ensign?
What is it about these dime-a-dozen, self-pitying pathetic RepubliCreeps thrashing in a moral tiolet (to JO's wildly lactating approval) that makes them they lack the decency of an Eliot Spitzer when caught in the act?
"Something the left views as a fault and a reason for dismissl, hence the glee in the tone if the article"?
Just too rich, blindingly beyond even the most brazen stupidity. It's like these rightwing zombies lack the self-awareness to even recognize themselves in a mirror.
Umm, JO, can you even recall what occurred in 1998-99 to a certain studly Dem office holder at the hands of the FecalRepugs?
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/28/2009 @ 09:37am
Why do normal people detest sicko conservaLosers? Scott Horton:
"Why was Paul K. Charlton, the man appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 as U.S. attorney in Arizona, fired from his job in the immediate wake of the 2006 election? Charlton was pursuing a corruption investigation into G.O.P. Congressman Rick Renzi. Karl Rove & his acolytes in the White House were deeply concerned that information about the investigation could cost the G.O.P. a vital seat in the House. That fact seems clearly to have played a major role in the decision to fire Charlton. But it seems that political meddling with the Renzi case was not limited to Charlton's firing.
Significant new information concerning the political shenanigans surrounding Charlton and the Renzi case has just surfaced. In October 2006, weeks before the election, Charlton got the go-ahead from Attorney General Gonzales to seek a wiretap of Renzi. The case against Renzi is now in the trial phase, and observers say that the wiretap does not appear to have yielded much to support the government's case. Now it appears that there's a reason for that. Murray Waas reports in The Hill:
'In the fall of 2006, one day after the Justice Department granted permission to a U.S. attorney to place a wiretap on a Republican congressman suspected of corruption, existence of the investigation was leaked to the press -- not only compromising the sensitive criminal probe but tipping the lawmaker off to the wiretap. Career federal law enforcement officials who worked directly on a probe of former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) said they believe that word of the investigation was leaked by senior Bush Administration political appointees in the Justice Department in an improper and perhaps illegal effort to affect the outcome of an election...'"
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/28/2009 @ 09:44am
RepubliFecalFailures loath fair elections (Horton, cont'd):
"...the official said it is unusual for the department to publicly acknowledge concerns about the accuracy of media reports." The unnamed Justice official seems to have been a very busy beaver. The Arizona Republic story notes that he had contacted two other newspapers to persuade them that their stories about Renzi were wrong.
Except that the newspapers had accurately reported what was going on. It's the unnamed Justice official whose account was wrong. He had claimed that the investigation had barely begun and did not rest on anything substantial. In fact the investigation had been going on for more than a year and had compiled a sufficient quantum of evidence to warrant seeking the attorney general's okay for a wiretap. It's obvious that the Justice official in question was spreading false accounts in order to save Renzi's scalp in a closely-fought election campaign. It worked. Newspapers on the scent of the probe that led to Renzi's indictment dropped it...Renzi was reelected in 2006.
But there's another aspect to these politically motivated leaks of fake information: they also clued the target to the existence of the criminal investigation. Here's how Charlton put it in an interview with Waas: "Any time you have a wiretap up and the subject or the target becomes aware that there is an investigation, the value of the information you glean from that wiretap will almost certainly be greatly diminished." This means that the "Justice official" who leaked to the newspapers in question did not simply breach Department protocols, he may very well have committed a crime: obstruction of justice. That leaves a big question: who is the leaker who disseminated disinformation to the papers to help out Renzi?"
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/28/2009 @ 09:48am
Thrawn has this whole thing nailed.
Adultry is wrong, terrible, a family breaker and a person breaker, a destroyer of trust and hope, not only in the family but in the immediate community as suspicions erode other relationships.
That said: beyond reconciliation (very difficult, really) and serious apology (not "i'm sorry" which cuts nothing) or deep self-searching and moving on, what is to be done? Nothing.
Moral condemnation is cheap. It's ok for teens (if kept within bounds) for romantic double-crosses, because they don't know which end is up and may be capable of learning. For adults, it's a bit late.
Now one last point. No species has survived without a strong reproductive instinct. In many birds this expresses itself as monogamy. Sadly, not so in humans. Sex runs deep. We choose our leaders on their vitality (=sex). Let's stop being shocked when they act out. And let's keep a lid on moralist counter-reaction. It is so juvenile.
Posted by ljwaks at 06/28/2009 @ 09:50am
"Something the left views as a fault and a reason for dismissal"
the left (meaning: we artists, healers, farmers, activists, forward-thinkers, intellectuals, et al) don't care about this at all. we don't care about other people's sex lives or impetuosities.
ok?
please, please remember that.
now, can we talk about something else?
Posted by darladoon at 06/28/2009 @ 10:07am
The Puritans may have settled in New England, but the South historically has been puritanical. It will be interesting to see in the governor survives politically in South Carolina.
Posted by pjcasey at 06/28/2009 @ 12:34pm
Does not surprise me. The "blame it on the woman" concept is of course a core conservative idea that blames on third parties (specially women) as the "sinners" that intrude and brake the sanctity of marriage!!
From there to oblige women to wear head covers or not getting them out to the streets to "avoid the temptation of men" there is just a tenuous difference.
Posted by Frank42 at 06/27/2009 @ 02:35am
I don't know where you resource such idiotic conclusions, but it is not a core conservative idea to blame 3rd parties (specially women <sic>).
We are all responsible for our own choices and actions. Gov Sanford has no one to blame but himself for his current situation.
At the same time, as a Pastor, it is ALWAYS the role of Christians to seek to restore people in their relationship with G-d and others. I admire Mrs Sanford for her principled and faith based responses to this situation in their lives. I pray they are able to restore their relationship and find complete emotional and spiritual healing.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/28/2009 @ 3:29pm
TO BE A CONSERVA-LOSER IS, BY DEFINITION, TO
(A) SET PATEHETICALLY LOW STANDARDS; &
(B) FAIL ABYSMALLY TO MEET THEM;
AND THEN (C) TO HAVE LACTATING APOLOGISTS LIKE THE DIM-WITTED BLOCKHEAD JOMAMMA AFFIRM (A) & (B).
JOMAMMA lactates explosively: "what the Gov said unscripted .... He took responibity for his actions publicly...."
Unvarnished bullshit that JOMAMMA is dumb enough to believe. Truth is Sanford returned to the US lying thru his phony Chriatian metrosexual teeth about the booty call. Read on:
'Sanford met in Atlanta after returning from South America', By GINA SMITH
"Gov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport on Wednesday morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said...
Sanford's whereabouts had been unknown since Thursday, and the mystery surrounding his absence fueled speculation about where he had been and who's in charge in his absence. His emergence Wednesday ended the mystery.
Sanford, in a brief interview with The State in the nation's busiest airport, said he decided at the last minute to go to the South American country to recharge after a difficult legislative session in which he battled with lawmakers over how to spend federal stimulus money.
Sanford said he had considered hiking on the Appalachian Trail, an activity he said he has enjoyed since he was a high school student.
"But I said 'no' I wanted to do something exotic," Sanford said "... It's a great city."
Sanford said he has been to the city twice before, most recently about a year and half ago during a Commerce Department trip.
Sanford said he was alone on the trip. He declined to give any additional details about what he did other than to say he drove along the coast..."
Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/28/2009 @ 5:12pm
Yee Haww, only in South Carolina!
Riff http://www.privacy-web.tk
Posted by aawindoze at 06/29/2009 @ 06:12am
Sanford lied about a sexual affair.
Sanford violated his oath to his wife.
He violated his oath of office by using pub(l)ic moneys to go see his mistress.
It was a year long affair, involving "the heart", not just Little Sanford.
the response now is far different than the response repubs had in 1998.
hypocrisy.
from the core values crowd.
Again.
I am shocked, shocked that the xtian fascists have dual standards.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2009 @ 06:24am
Sorry, but I am expecting a sisterhood among women.
Posted by TheTruthShallSetYouFree at 06/28/2009 @ 6:59pm
The Truth Shall leave you sorely disappointed.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2009 @ 06:25am
Ms Sanfords faith based values kept her man in check....NOT!
Mr Sanfords faith based values kept it in his pants...NOT!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2009 @ 06:52am
I'm sure Islamic extremists all over the world use the exact same rhetoric against women.
How long before Christian fundamentalists start making women wear their own style of burqa, I wonder? Because Christian men clearly can't keep their lust in check...
Equal rights for women will become achievable once people lose their religious ways. Every organized religion on the planet oppresses women.
Posted by mikecap at 06/29/2009 @ 07:55am
By the very standards the GOP uses when it stands on a soapbox and screams "Family Values, Family Values", Mark Sanford must be judged by their own standards. Alas, when it comes to their own, the GOP can only slink off into some dimmed corner and mutter, "liberal media bias."
We don't have to apply GOP values to Mark Sanford as he will be viewed a a low life scumbag by most Americans. He left his wife and children for a piece of ass and that in itself floods Sanford with the inescapable light of biblical self righteousness.
If the people don't toss this abominated example of sperm cell mutation out the door, then they should judge their own self worth using the same values they so proudly proclaim.
It could have been worse given the geographical habitat of Sanford.
South Carolina, you just stay classy.
Posted by center-left at 06/29/2009 @ 10:20am
How long before Christian fundamentalists start making women wear their own style of burqa, I wonder? Posted by mikecap at 06/29/2009 @ 07:55am |
Why wait?
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/ Christianity/Latter-Day-Saints/ 2006/12/Wearing-Garments-Is-Beautiful.aspx
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:41am
posted by Jon Wiener on 06/26/2009 @ 5:33pm
And how is it your suprised? Do you ever read web logs? How bout threads off your own articles at the Nation.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/29/2009 @ 11:33am
Wow. Ok, let's get something straight here. It was the governor who took the marriage oath, not this Argentinian woman. HE is the only one to blame for this. I think it's unwise to have an affair with someone who is married. But the blame lies with the person who took an oath and broke it.
Posted by DebbieKat at 06/29/2009 @ 12:07pm
Those who leverage political success on sanctimonious moral posing are much more dangerous when NOT caught with pants down. All such candidates are cheap frauds, whether hypocritical or not. The politician who thinks your bedroom is a public concern is dangerous per se. It's no solace that by taking this position, the sex-&sin-obsessed crusader opens his own lusts to public voyeurism. Nobody is safe until everybody's bedroom is treated as above & beyond political interest.
Posted by dhdunlap at 06/29/2009 @ 1:17pm
Posted by snowball777 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:41am
"...they raise your body temperature a little,..."
God wants you to be HOT!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/29/2009 @ 1:50pm
The Demoncrats just keep getting their orders wrong from the Obamanation that makes desolation!!!!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/28/2009 @ 01:15am
I know I'm bearding the lion with this question, but can you please stop with the "obamanation that makes desolation?"
1. 'Cause it just makes you sound stupid.
2. It doesn't help your cause, and kinda makes your cause sound stupid (and I respect true conservatives).
3. The whole "Demoncrats" thing doesn't help you sound like a person with a sound mind and body either, and as has been pointed out by others long before I came on the scene, it makes you sound unstable. I totally get that you don't like Obama. I spent eight years thinking Bush WAS the antichrist and that he wouldn't leave office through some use of legal trickery. So, I get it. I also get that I was paranoid. But to help the discourse, you might want to re-think your tactics, like any good general in any war: It's not about the type of ammunition you use, but the tactics in which you employ them to utilize them to their full potential.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/29/2009 @ 2:49pm
<i>Posted by mikecap at 06/29/2009 @ 07:55am </i>
Let's put aside for a moment the question of how a framework with no ultimate point of reference (i.e. no ontological foundation) for moral claims justifies inherent rights to begin with.
Your claim about "all organized religions" shows a sad lack of empirical foundation. "All organized religions" don't oppress women; empirical research might be good before making such sweeping assertions.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/29/2009 @ 5:22pm
Mark Sanford is just another "narcissistic sociopath"! He joins the ranks of Bill Clinton, John Edwards, many hypocritical republicans, etc. It's a bigger deal when conservatives, who preach family values and condemn low-life liberals for not having any, go off and cheat on thier wives. It's the same old " do as I say, not as i do" mindset that liberals perpetuate daily. The difference is, liberals, we all know, have NO values or morals, and therefore, when they cheat on thier wives, thier taxes, or betray those closest to them, it may be wrong to some, but it's not hypocritical! Liberals justify, accept, and in this case, enjoy adultry and betrayal, but at least they're not HYPOCRITES like the Republicans who don't practice what they preach. This is not to say that liberals are not hypocrites, because they are the biggest hyocrites on the planet. Like on the issue of taxes. They constantly push for higher taxes on other people but fail to pay their own fair share (see: 90% of the Obama administration). But when it comes to adultry, lying, cheating and betrayal, they are pretty much consistent in defense and acceptance of such evil actions! So, while liberals are hypocritical on issues such as race, condemning racism selectively, while accepting racism selectively, as shown in their acceptance of racists like barack and Michelle Obama, and the latino racist herself, Sotomayer, who was smacked down today, by the very court she hopes to serve on and discriminate from,when they rejected her racist beliefs by overturning her decision to discriminate against white firefighters based solely on race. LOL!
Posted by barry25 at 06/29/2009 @ 5:30pm
Once again, the republican lie machine goes to work. The party should be banned in America. They are criminals, cowards and liars. Nothing else.
Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/29/2009 @ 5:41pm
Wacko!
Posted by barry25 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:16pm
Criminals, cowards, and liars: Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, William Jefferson, Alcee Hastings, Timothy "Tax Cheat" Giehtner, Charles" i misunderstood the tax code, the one I had written" Rangle, Chris " sweetheart mortgage deal, i never saw or approved of that legislation, oh wait, i did" Dodd, Elliott Spitzer, Blago!!!!!!!!, Roland Burris, and on and on and on......... Now that's a REAL " CULTURE OF CORRUPTION ", and I've just named a few. Now, Tigerdunglover, you are an idiot! Because the Repub's don't have nothin' on those evil Dem's when it come to criminal behavior, cowardly acts, and lying. i'd also like to add: cheating (whether it be on your wife, or taxes), treason, sedition etc. Have a good day!
Posted by barry25 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:25pm
"The real point, ignored here completely, is what the Gov said unscripted .... He took responibity for his actions publicly....
Something the left views as a fault and a reason for dismissl, hence the glee in the tone if the article.
Posted by YourJomamma
Actually, the real point, also ignored here and by virtually every Republican, is that Sanford left the state without telling too many folks where he had gone. My guess is that if the CEO of some major corporation just up and left for five days with no notice of his whereabouts, he would get canned. Fortunately, for their incestuous own, Republicans believe in failing upward.
As to taking responsibility for his actions publicly, good for him, but please complete your sentence with "because he was caught." Otherwise he would have kept the lie going.
Dismissal? No way, keep him in office as another example of a hypocrite to further embarrass the party of small men. I have little respect for adulterers as they are cowards and usually violators of some oath of faith to another, but top off that the utter hypocrisy of such people who just can't find enough to blame in others for similar mistakes, and...well...really what is there to say? Maybe we should leave it to the Bible and have the bastard taken out and stoned. That is the code, right?
Posted by onthehelm at 06/29/2009 @ 11:45pm
Should anyone really care about this, other than the question of the moral integrity and judgment of a publicly elected official. The man is the governor of S.C., and he went off somewhere and told no one about it, and came back and presumably would have told no one about it if the whistle had not been blown (by whoever blew it).
I don't think we should care about the governor's private life, just as we should not have been so occupied with that of Bill Clinton. However he has lied (like Clinton) and demonstrated that he is not fit to be trusted with the responsibilities of his office (which Bill Clinton never did). It is this second aspect that renders him unfit to serve.
As for hypocrisy revealed, it is for the people of S.C. to decide. He is certainly not the only hypocrite in public office. It seems clear that any national ambitions he might have entertained have fallen in to the nightly entertainment that his outright stupidity has offered to a willingly distracted populace.
Who's fault is it? Should the women be blamed more than the man? The questions are wrongly posed, an invitation to demonstrate gender bias. Might we better assume that each of us has a conscience and each of us takes on responsibilities as we act in life, thus each of us is responsible for our actions. In the case of personal relations each one must answer to themselves and to the others. Mr. Sanford's private life in none of my business, his public life is, especially for the people of S.C.
Is this man a responsible public servant? The answer is no. He should resign.
None of us have any business judging his private life or that of his wife or lover beyond saying something like, "I would never do such a thing" or "In my opinion, it is morally wrong" or what have you.
Posted by bluhippo at 06/30/2009 @ 6:02pm
Update! He's still been lying, holding back information about his affair--much longer than he had said. So much for JoMama's piddling words about taking responsibility.
Posted by onthehelm at 06/30/2009 @ 7:05pm
Posted by barry25 at 06/29/2009 @ 6:25pm |
Isn't it wonderful that Barak won the election, Barry?
I true milestone in AMerica, which I am sure you continue to celebrate while flipping burgers at The Hut, where the elite meet to adulterize sweet Argentinian Treats.
Posted by crabwalk at 07/01/2009 @ 07:56am