Sex, Hypocrisy & Governor Sanford

Before we push the story about Governor Mark Sanford's "hiking the Appalachian Trail" (i.e. seeing his lover in Buenos Aires) entirely out of mind, I'd like to call attention to some statistics that appeared on yesterday's op-ed page of The New York Times. There, courtesy of Charles M. Blow, we learned that the three states with the highest teenage birthrates in the country are Mississippi, Texas and Arizona. The three states with the highest number of online subscriptions to pornographic sites are Utah, Alaska and Mississippi. Eight of the ten states with the highest divorce rates are Arkansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and West Virginia.

What do all these states have in common? Yes, they are all "red states" that went for John McCain. The people preaching to us about what to do in our private lives and voting for politicians who espouse "traditional values" seem curiously incapable of applying these standards to themselves.

But, hypocrisy aside, my first thought when I heard the news about Sanford was the same thought I always have when a story breaks about a politician's personal life: namely, so what? Why is it our business to track who a politician is sleeping with so long as no laws have been broken? Why should press conferences be wasted on such matters? Sanford's case was an exception because he disappeared for five days, a matter of public significance, some would argue. Fair enough. But as a friend of mine pointed out a few hours after the story about his escapade to Argentina broke, the inevitable result of showering attention on such matters is to humiliate the individuals involved and to reinforce the puritanical strain in our culture. It's somehow newsworthy that (shock!) a public figure has been unfaithful to his or her partner, that a marriage may be unraveling, that lies have been told.

The underlying assumption is that it actually is our business to know these things and that any public figure who strays from the norm has serious, potentially unpardonable character flaws. Let's retire this assumption and heed the words of Governor Sanford's lover, who, in a letter sent to an Argentine television station, wrote, "I won't speak about my private life as it just belongs to me. It has already been made too public during these last days, bringing to me even more pain."

Comments (30)

1. The "man" is a typical coward republican, nothing else. He should rot in his own hell.

   Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/29/2009 @ 5:37pm

2. Isn't that kinda....old news?

   Nothing about the latest Heroine of the Left, the Racist Sotomayor who is now an emabarassement to even qualify for sitting on the SC....NOT EVEN bating .500 on her cases.

   BTW, there are only two sides in lawsuits, called the Plaintiffs and Deffendents....an average lawyer ought to win half of his/her cases and a damn good lawyer ought to do a whole shitload better.

   So sorry, Libs, Sotomayor is full of it! Another Affirmative Action `star', no doubt!

   Posted by Happy at 06/29/2009 @ 5:52pm

3. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

   Posted by YourJomamma at 06/29/2009 @ 6:39pm

4. The "man" is a typical coward republican, nothing else. He should rot in his own hell.

   Posted by Tiger2Lover at 06/29/2009 @ 5:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   You wish the same for Demoncrat Conyers and his wife?

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/29/2009 @ 7:39pm

5. Hmmm... no sex, but plenty of HYPOCRISY and flaunting the rule of law " and it 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."

   eat it up tiger!

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/29/2009 @ 8:11pm

6. Actually, to some extent I think that a politician's personal life is relevant to hir constituency. There's a violation of trust here, if his wife did not in fact know where he had gone. (If they had an arrangement where he occasionally disappeared to Argentina and she had chosen to mislead people, that would be different.) I would say much the same thing if a politician had been involved in shady business dealings that weren't illegal enough to be convicted on, or if a politician parades outside of funerals with a sign that reads "God hates mixed-fabric clothing," or teaches at university about the evils of the Second Amendment. Some of these are private, some of these are public, but I think they're relevant.

   Posted by cyrano at 06/29/2009 @ 10:32pm

7. Posted by cyrano at 06/29/2009 @ 10:32pm

   I have to agree. I bet if you went through the gamit of "personal" life choices a politician could make you would find something different that would make each and every person not vote for someone.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/29/2009 @ 10:57pm

8. Ah, the party of family values.

   Posted by onthehelm at 06/29/2009 @ 11:35pm

9. I don't care where a person "hikes," just don't go "hiking" on my dime. Arn K - NY, NY / Moraga, CA

   Posted by akawano at 06/30/2009 @ 12:13am

10. Two good old boys on seeing a sign on the door of Gov. Sanford's office-

    Bubba1- Sign sez "Out to Lunch". Har, har, he must be down there in Argentina seein' that little Argentyne lady. Showed me a pitcher of 'er. That's one foxy lady!

    Bubba2- Well say what you will about the govnor. He's got his morals. At least he's not havin' sex with her!

    Posted by Sorelish at 06/30/2009 @ 12:52am

11. John Edwards, another Carolinian, gives Sanford a pretty good run for the money in the wild adultery sweepstakes, particularly when offering a "take care of you for life" deal to his campaign aide Andrew Young in exchange for publicly claiming to be the father of the L.A. video director's baby ... which lie Young did indeed perform just before the Iowa caucases & which he's now retracting in a "book" soon to appear from the ever obliging hack house, St. Martin's Press (entirely owned by those great lovers of literature, the German conglom von Holtzbrinck). Either Edwards didn't pay up as promised, or Young is looking to cash in twice.

    Let's hear it for Ars Gratia Artis.

    Posted by sloper at 06/30/2009 @ 01:17am

12. Eyal Press is exactly, precisely right. Will anyone please address his point? I will second it, and add its counterpart: the fact that private affairs are not public business means it's illegitimate for candidates to seek public office by posing as guardians of private morals. It's because these candidates seek public office on a platform of private rectitude that their own private failings become as legitimate public business. Adultery and hypocrisy are private sins. Never vote for a candidate who says otherwise. The Clinton impeachment makes the best example. It was only when Clinton signed the law allowing discovery of a sexual harassment defendant's entire amorous life that Paula Jones sued him. Jones, goaded by Clinton opponents who knew a great opportunity when they saw it, posed an Interrogatory to Clinton in her lawsuit: identify each person with whom you have ever had sexual relations. Having authorized this himself, Clinton couldn't argue "it's none of your business." When he failed to name Monica Lewinsky among his partners, he had "lied under oath" and was impeached for his trouble. Clinton, of course, didn't run as a policeman of private morals. But he opened the door to his own public disgrace and was hoist on his own pétard. So it's a bipartisan failing. Here's my bargain with all politicians: We won't ask who you're sleeping with, and the government shouldn't care what the governed do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, either.

    Posted by dhdunlap at 06/30/2009 @ 05:48am

13. I really don't care about politicians private lives; however, when they vote to impeach a sitting president and get on their high horse only to fall in the s**t themselves, then I say they get what they deserve.

    I agree with dhdunlap but argue that it should go further than Don't Ask, Don't Tell not just for politicians but for the military as well.

    Posted by AJH at 06/30/2009 @ 07:58am

14. Posted by Happy at 06/29/2009 @ 5:52pm

    HAPP, you do know it's just you and Rush left on the "Sotomayor is a racist" thing, right?

    She's looking at probably getting 70 votes in the Senate, maybe more.

    Posted by Mask at 06/30/2009 @ 08:36am

15. First, I don't believe this is a Republican or a Democratic problem. As a Democrat, that is actually a lot easier to say than it looks. Sanford's troubles seem to be the problem of trying to serve two masters - Christ and the political system. We have ample warnings about this from many quarters, but those avowed Christians with a bit of power always seem to get it wrong. This is a problem of a man talking the talk he would like to believe in but walking something else. That we (Christians) expect more from others than we require of ourselves is an age-old problem in practice and perception, especially for the powerful. If we do not practice what we preach, the perception of others will be that either our Christ is not all He's cracked up to be or that we are poor reflections of His character. No, Christ is not the Lord of perfect people, but we ARE called to a greater effort at least. Yet the powerful too often miss the obvious signs, relying on their status to shield them from scrutiny or accountability. Oops. When we root around as do the heathen, whom we admonish and lecture and tut tut over, we must expect a reckoning. I think Governor Sanford might actually be lucky, as his initial accounting for his actions will be here on Earth, in full view of the world, giving him an opportunity to repent. Too many people don't have this accounting on Earth and may be lost completely when their time finally comes. I think we expect morality of our elected reps primarily because,as a people, we'd prefer that morality guide us and we look hopefully for signs that there are people we trust who can rise above petty lust and bad judgment. I also think, therefore, that we will be perpetually disappointed. May God forgive Sanford, but may his wife take all he's got.

    Posted by porzitski at 06/30/2009 @ 08:40am

16. Where Sanford's hypocrisy and his political values meet is the crux of the problem. I, too, find a politician's personal life a private matter. Yet, far right-wingers like Sanford tend to promote and enforce laws that either demonize or criminalize their own behavior. They are only contrite after getting caught (whereby the contriteness is clearly an act).

    Therefore, Sanford's only course of action here is to resign. Yet, I do not think that resignation is necessary in every 'personal' scandal of every politician.

    Posted by erazma at 06/30/2009 @ 10:03am

17. as a resident of the palmetto state this blindsided me. although not a big fan of sanford, i really did not see this coming.

    but at least...

    1. it wasn't just rutting debauchery. despite the whole betrayal of family thing, at least there was an element of romance involved.

    2. she IS hot...the gov's got good taste...

    and then michael jackson died...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 10:25am

18. Posted by BigPasture at 06/29/2009 @ 8:11pm

    You and JOMAMA need to get on the same page, Conyers admitted guilt, and according to JOM that is enough.

    ------------------

    I also find it funny that JOM is sleeping while a Family Values Christian is using tax dollars to go see his mistress. I thought he hated to see his tax dollars wasted. Guess he only hates it when it is spent on health care for kids.

    Tell me John, why should a governor that ran as a "real conservative with Family Values" who spent public money to go see his mistress, NOT resign? Seems like his activities are being rewarded and celebrated.

    -----

    HAPPY, the guy that calls his Commander in Chief a "magic negroe" is complaining again about the alleged "racism" of Sotomayor, totally ignoring the fact that she ruled against hispanic firefighters. AND she did not excercise "judicial activism" by over-ruling not only the City Council, but Supreme Court precedent.

    Damn those double standards!!

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2009 @ 10:45am

19. Is adultery a crime in SC?

    ---

    How do our resident cons defend the stats provided above, that RED states have more moral/sex issues than blue states?

    Is it the insidious influence of liberal media? Unions, in Right to Work states? Attacks on Christianity from the ACLU? Marxist cabals?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2009 @ 10:50am

20. Note the attempt by the Family Values Nation conservatives to change the subject.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2009 @ 11:15am

21. Breaking News...

    SANFORD SPEAKS: "NO MORE 'PRINCE OF PEACE' BULLSHIT FOR ME, I AM NOW & OPENLY ALL ABOUT 'PIECE'--PIECE OF ASS"

    Following the lies and phoniness about a "tuff legislative session" that Mark Sanford spouted upon returning from his Argentine booty call, the embattled Governer has now decided to speak unvarnished truth.

    At the door of his office, Sanford told onlookers, "Look, I was a metrosexual phony pushing 50, an aging frat boy in need of a bigger ego boost than being shortlisted by McShitStain. That's what this is all about".

    "My wife Jenny bores me to tears. And I am so tired of the lame Christian bullshit that I have had to endlessly mouth all my adult life to the point of intense boredom. You try to pandering to inbred southern redneck SC voters who needed help reading the fucking ballot. Jenny goes on her knees to ... do knee time. Boooorring. Maria, my Argentine piece of ass, got on her knees to blow me. And that's more like it." The governer repeats the phrase "Piece of ass!" several times while, with obvious animation, he pantomimes a pear-shaped derriere with his hands.

    "Of course, my piece of ass dissed me so that's where I am now. But I found I liked being myself for once instead of a plastic sub-Shitt Romney GOP phony. Now, I am going all the way. I have started a 1-800 number. It is 1-800-GUV-SEXY." He points his thumb into his office. "I want to turn my office into a Den of Sin. Won't cost the taxpayers anything, unlike some of my previous booty call junkets and I won't have to derelict my desk since I will be boffing on top of it. Good governance. Personal touch"

    Sanford turns toward the camera. "So ladies. And heck guys too. Remember, I'm not just another 50-ish uptight GOP guv. I'm GUV-SEXY! Operators are waiting!"

    Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/30/2009 @ 11:24am

22. Posted by crabwalk at 06/30/2009 @ 10:50am

    Uhhhh...uhhhh.....

    It's Bill Clinton's fault!!

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 11:49am

23. It's amazing, I thought my disgust for Bill Clinton should make me pretty popular with the undesirables around here.

    I was wrong, they're way too dumb : (

    Posted by TexasFlood at 06/30/2009 @ 11:50am

24. Posted by PhilMcCrevice at 06/30/2009 @ 11:24am | ignore this person | warn this person

    at least he has good taste. although i'll take spitzer's ideology over sanford's any day of the week, falling in love with a hot argentinian senora is a HELLUVA lot classier than whoremongering...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 06/30/2009 @ 11:58am

25. What a wild Father's Day he had!

    Posted by winyahn at 06/30/2009 @ 9:12pm

26. "namely, so what? Why is it our business to track who a politician is sleeping with so long as no laws have been broken?"

    If Sanford had stayed on the job, I would say that he shouldn't resign. But Sanford was very unprofessional. Hey, if I disappeared from my job for a day without leaving an "out of office" notice, I would get fired.

    Adultery is never a "so what" matter. It can lead to abuse of women and family breakups, which can lead to poverty. I don't think adultery should be illegal; still, in a sense, it is a social justice issue and we need to support women who refuse to remain silent. Divorced men whose ex-wives spoke out about hubby's affairs have told me, "I learned my lesson and will never cheat on a woman again."

    Posted by ktrig at 06/30/2009 @ 9:15pm

27. "What do all these states have in common? Yes, they are all "red states" that went for John McCain."

    Hardly a shocker, Eyal. Because Mormonism and Christianity are so patriarchal, they will never be able to do much about pornography, divorce, and teenage pregnancy.

    (Note that I just said Christianity and didn't add the "conservative" prefix. I know about Jim Wallis and the "Christian Left" but that crowd doesn't really believe in equal rights for women. Their leaders are men (usually with stay-at-home wives), they don't respect feminists (although they're very quick to say that Jesus was a feminist), they put women's rights issues on the back burner, and so on.)

    Posted by ktrig at 06/30/2009 @ 9:24pm

28. patriarchal, they will never be able to do much about pornography, divorce, and teenage pregnancy

    Posted by ktrig at 06/30/2009 @ 9:24pm

    Not being confrontational or insincere here, what connections to you draw between "patriarchal" and the the problems you list? Maybe the same question: how do you define patriarchy?

    Posted by winyahn at 06/30/2009 @ 10:47pm

29. <i>Posted by winyahn at 06/30/2009 @ 10:47pm </i>

    Right. Plus...ktrig, this all looks like some giant assertions. Not only do you draw conclusions based on very limited information AND from that draw conclusions that are very difficult to sustain through actual empirical investigation.

    Christianity as a fundamental structure is hardly patriarchal, even if some of its particular incarnations (forgive the pun) are.

    Posted by Thrawn at 07/01/2009 @ 6:52pm

30. When was the first woman granted priesthood, a parsonage, ministerial frocks etc?

    How long did it take Christians to appoint women to posts of authority?

    1500 years?

    1800?

    1900?

    In The Good Book, what were women considered, Partners or property?

    Posted by crabwalk at 07/02/2009 @ 09:06am