TOPICS:
JUL 21, 2009 09:38 AM
d20 said:
Financial shenanigans aside, I'm still amazed that we live in an age where people can fly through the fucking sky to Argentina but can't manage an understanding of human relationships and sexuality more complex than husband + wife = forever.
If we as a culture could get our heads around the idea that sex isn't weird, we wouldn't be dealing with this or any other instance of politicians behaving like actual human beings with normal sexual needs. Sanford would have his wife and his family at home and his hot broad down south and no one would give a shit.
I mean, am I reading that wrong, or did he not actually misuse any government money when he visited his mistress? He went on a trade trip, hung out with her while he was down there, then came home as scheduled. The expensive tickets he got were in line with his usual policy of being a moron, and weren't used for anything outside his normal business commitments.
It seems to me that him fucking around on the side is wholly irrelevant to this story, and the big deal being made of it is -- just like every other political sex scandal -- a mere symptom of our fucked up culture forcing people to lie about things we still have our collective panties in a bunch over.
Really, d20? Really? I don't understand why you've chosen Mark Sanford to be yet another poster child for polyamory. The fact of the matter is he repeatedly and willfully neglected his wife's wish to end the affair. Despite espousing values to the public to the contrary, open marriages aren't lost to Republicans.This man is not some pitiful soul tortured by an oppressive society, he's just a good old fashioned cheater.
JUL 21, 2009 10:18 AM
d20 said:
To me it's pretty much the same as pop stars talking about still being virgins: Certain jobs in the public eye currently require you to not be human, which is insane.
The family values / anti-gay / etc stances that politicians constantly have to push are so obviously wrongheaded that even the people pushing them won't follow them, but they're not optional. There is currently no way to have Sanford's job and not say things that are patently false.
I guess my argument here is that while he is certainly an idiot, there's a part of this story where the idiocy is ours as a society, not his.
I disagree. I don't give a rat's ass what a politician does in the bedroom on his own time, as long as he isn't forcing massively hypocritical views on other people.
Other than the whole failure to hand off state power while incognito (and that is serious) Sanford's major problem is his raging hypocrisy. Society didn't put a gun to his head and force him to make Clinton's adultery a big issue in the media; society didn't force him to make a huuuge deal out of his predecessor's travel spending in the election, society didn't force him to boink his mistress, society didn't force him to travel first class.
He did all that. If he found the love of his life (as he said, loudly, in public and in front of the media), he should have manned up and gotten a divorce.
He made a series of sanctimonious, highly public political calculations and they bit him in the ass because he thought he could have it both ways. He can't.
Bernie Sanders (for example) wouldn't have been bit in the ass nearly so hard if he had an affair. Guess what? He does not espouse the conservative views that Sanford built his candidacy on, so he isn't judged by them either. Nobody's bitching about Bloomberg traveling first class, because he didn't take a huge public stand pledging to penny-pinch in that department.
He chose to live in a glass house and then throw stones.
JUL 21, 2009 10:42 AM
Katieesq said:
d20 said:
Financial shenanigans aside, I'm still amazed that we live in an age where people can fly through the fucking sky to Argentina but can't manage an understanding of human relationships and sexuality more complex than husband + wife = forever.
If we as a culture could get our heads around the idea that sex isn't weird, we wouldn't be dealing with this or any other instance of politicians behaving like actual human beings with normal sexual needs. Sanford would have his wife and his family at home and his hot broad down south and no one would give a shit.
I mean, am I reading that wrong, or did he not actually misuse any government money when he visited his mistress? He went on a trade trip, hung out with her while he was down there, then came home as scheduled. The expensive tickets he got were in line with his usual policy of being a moron, and weren't used for anything outside his normal business commitments.
It seems to me that him fucking around on the side is wholly irrelevant to this story, and the big deal being made of it is -- just like every other political sex scandal -- a mere symptom of our fucked up culture forcing people to lie about things we still have our collective panties in a bunch over.
Really, d20? Really? I don't understand why you've chosen Mark Sanford to be yet another poster child for polyamory. The fact of the matter is he repeatedly and willfully neglected his wife's wish to end the affair. Despite espousing values to the public to the contrary, open marriages aren't lost to Republicans.This man is not some pitiful soul tortured by an oppressive society, he's just a good old fashioned cheater.
I never said polyamory, nor would I. Dude's a douche and a liar. This falls under the category of sex-positive, not poly.
I feel like I'm splitting hairs here, but they're important hairs to me: Mark Sanford is a total, complete waste of skin, but the bigger picture of sex scandals bugs the hell out of me. They're symptoms of a deeply sex-negative culture. Sanford's just a convenient window into this particular schism.
Take this week's Savage Love for example. When you have someone whose desires and beliefs are directly at odds, it fucks them up. In the case of anything sexual, it fucks them up even worse.
When you take a country of people who are fucked up over sex and hand them a Grade-A Repressed Asshole, you get something like this, where a shitstorm of financial malfeasance ends up with an Argentinian tryst as a central plot point.
He is one of millions of people who fuck around on their partners, but he is one of only maybe dozens who have access to gov't funds on that level and abuse them so badly. And yet, those two aspects of him being a freight car full of shit on the great fail train of life are being treated as equally terrible.
That's what bugs me: He's a liar and an idiot, but where he puts his dick is of startlingly little import to me compared to what he did with our money.
JUL 21, 2009 10:46 AM
Stiles said:
I disagree. I don't give a rat's ass what a politician does in the bedroom on his own time, as long as he isn't forcing massively hypocritical views on other people.
Other than the whole failure to hand off state power while incognito (and that is serious) Sanford's major problem is his raging hypocrisy. Society didn't put a gun to his head and force him to make Clinton's adultery a big issue in the media; society didn't force him to make a huuuge deal out of his predecessor's travel spending in the election, society didn't force him to boink his mistress, society didn't force him to travel first class.
He did all that. If he found the love of his life (as he said, loudly, in public and in front of the media), he should have manned up and gotten a divorce.
He made a series of sanctimonious, highly public political calculations and they bit him in the ass because he thought he could have it both ways. He can't.
Bernie Sanders (for example) wouldn't have been bit in the ass nearly so hard if he had an affair. Guess what? He does not espouse the conservative views that Sanford built his candidacy on, so he isn't judged by them either. Nobody's bitching about Bloomberg traveling first class, because he didn't take a huge public stand pledging to penny-pinch in that department.
He chose to live in a glass house and then throw stones.
Fair point. I wouldn't bitch at all if the main coverage of his affair were that it made him a steaming, zesty pile of hypocrite.
JUL 21, 2009 01:55 PM
d20 said:
Fair point. I wouldn't bitch at all if the main coverage of his affair were that it made him a steaming, zesty pile of hypocrite.
If only. The media's slacking.
JUL 22, 2009 05:08 AM
Stiles said:
d20 said:
To me it's pretty much the same as pop stars talking about still being virgins: Certain jobs in the public eye currently require you to not be human, which is insane.
The family values / anti-gay / etc stances that politicians constantly have to push are so obviously wrongheaded that even the people pushing them won't follow them, but they're not optional. There is currently no way to have Sanford's job and not say things that are patently false.
I guess my argument here is that while he is certainly an idiot, there's a part of this story where the idiocy is ours as a society, not his.
I disagree. I don't give a rat's ass what a politician does in the bedroom on his own time, as long as he isn't forcing massively hypocritical views on other people.
Other than the whole failure to hand off state power while incognito (and that is serious) Sanford's major problem is his raging hypocrisy. Society didn't put a gun to his head and force him to make Clinton's adultery a big issue in the media; society didn't force him to make a huuuge deal out of his predecessor's travel spending in the election, society didn't force him to boink his mistress, society didn't force him to travel first class.
He did all that. If he found the love of his life (as he said, loudly, in public and in front of the media), he should have manned up and gotten a divorce.
He made a series of sanctimonious, highly public political calculations and they bit him in the ass because he thought he could have it both ways. He can't.
Bernie Sanders (for example) wouldn't have been bit in the ass nearly so hard if he had an affair. Guess what? He does not espouse the conservative views that Sanford built his candidacy on, so he isn't judged by them either. Nobody's bitching about Bloomberg traveling first class, because he didn't take a huge public stand pledging to penny-pinch in that department.
He chose to live in a glass house and then throw stones.
Totally agree. The sex scandal is, of course, a juicier story because, well, if people cared as much about financial dishonesty as they cared about sex scandals soap operas would be VERY different.
meatpieboy
Korea, D.P.R.
June 2004
JUL 22, 2009 09:12 AM
There are two reasons why this is a "scandal". The first is that his base, Republicans, are generally much less "sex-positive", and can't stand the idea of someone fulfilling their sexual needs. The second is that his opposition, liberals, are laughing at his hypocrisy. Both together give the media a lot of lee-way to make a big deal about it.
I DO think it's worth highlighting because this guy is taking away others rights by voting against sex-positive legislation, but sticking his dick whereever he wants. Having his cake and eating it, too. That pisses me off. It's similar in many ways to Spitzer's sudden fall from grace - if he had been doing something legal, it would have been a totally different situation - but because he so aggressively played up the image of acting within the law, he had absolutely nothing to stand on. What if visiting an "escort" for ... whatever fetish play he was pursuing ... was legal? He might still be a governor.
JUL 22, 2009 01:15 PM
While the sex issue might be Enquirer-worthy, I don't think it should be a political issue (other than his feigned morals/decency/whatever).
I think the true scandal is his own gluttonous-like spending, which he campaigned against. Why are campaign promises non-binding?
By allowing the politicians to make lies like this in order to get into position, aren't we kind of condoning the behavior?
I have no idea if this is just an ideal of mine, but couldn't he be considered for an impeachment hearing? Or is this not severe enough?
JUL 22, 2009 01:36 PM
magpieboy said:
sticking his dick whereever he wants. Having his cake and eating it, too. That pisses me off.
Cake fuckers might piss you off, but that's no reason to ask for them to resign.
AUG 12, 2009 03:52 AM
I guess this is a reason to ask him to resign, or face impeachment.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, already under fire for an extramarital relationship, should be impeached for abusing state finances, a Republican state senator said Monday.
Sen. David Thomas -- the chairman of the Senate constitutional and administrative subcommittee -- wrote to leaders of the Republican-controlled Senate, accusing the governor of violating state regulations.
The allegations involve flights he took to London, England, and China in 2006 and 2007 on state business. South Carolina requires the governor to charge the state the lowest rate available unless there are overriding circumstances, such as emergency travel.
"The two flights by Gov. Sanford were in violation of the South Carolina Code of Regulations," Thomas said in his letter. "The difference in price between the most economical and the more expensive price of the seats the governor chose is approximately $13,700."
Thomas said he thought the violations were enough to trigger impeachment proceedings.
"If I were in the House, the answer would be yes, I would be involved in the beginning of the impeachment process," he said. "I think there is enough data right now to take seriously a move toward impeachment. Is that sufficient for impeachment? That I don't know."
Leave it to CNN to leave out most of the story:
From the full AP report:
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford used state aircraft for personal and political trips, often bringing along his wife and children — contrary to state law regarding official use, an Associated Press investigation has found.
According to state budget law, "Any and all aircraft owned or operated by agencies of the State Government shall be used only for official business."
Records reviewed by the AP show that since he took office in 2003, the two-term Republican has taken trips on state aircraft to locations of his children's sporting events, hair and dentist appointments, political party gatherings and a birthday party for a campaign donor.
On March 10, 2006, a state plane was sent to pick up Sanford in Myrtle Beach and return him to Columbia, the state capital, at a cost of $1,265 — when his calendar showed his only appointment in Columbia was "personal time" at his favorite discount hair salon. He had flown to Myrtle Beach on a private plane and attended a county GOP event.
The trip home on the state aircraft took off at 1:50 p.m. and arrived in Columbia at 2:35, enabling the governor to keep his plans for a 3 p.m. haircut across town. There were no other appointments on his official schedule that afternoon; the trip back to Columbia would have taken about three hours by car.
Also, on five of the last six Thanksgiving weekends, Sanford used a state plane to fly himself, his wife and their four sons from the family's plantation in Beaufort County to Columbia for the state Christmas tree lighting. The cost for those flights alone: $5,536, including $2,869 for flying the plane empty to pick them up.
The governor has made a political career out of being outwardly thrifty — known to demand that state employees use both sides of Post-It notes. He has frequently railed against government spending, and attempted for months to block federal stimulus money for South Carolina schools.
Last month, the AP revealed how Sanford had flown first class and business class on commercial airlines at taxpayer expense, despite a law requiring lowest-cost travel.
On many occasions, records show, the governor mingled his non-official travels with official business.
For example, on March 23, 2005, Sanford flew on a state plane from Columbia to Mount Pleasant, near the beach house, where the governor was scheduled for a 5 p.m. appointment with a dentist. Later that day, he had a TV interview before speaking at a Republican Party event for Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties along with U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint.
Such mingling also is problematic under South Carolina regulations.
Aeronautics Division rules say that "under no circumstances shall aircraft owned and operated by" the division "be used for personal or politically partisan purposes." But there's no clear enforcement mechanism for such violations; the division says it simply lets citizens know that statements attesting to official use of the planes are open to public inspection.
Still, misuse of state resources arguably could subject Sanford to civil or criminal penalties under the state's ethics laws, which are enforced by the South Carolina Ethics Commission. Any public official found to have used state property for personal financial gain is subject to as much as a $5,000 fine and five years in prison. Only incidental use that does not result in additional public expense is exempt.
AUG 13, 2009 10:30 AM
MrCrisp said:
I guess this is a reason to ask him to resign, or face impeachment.
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, already under fire for an extramarital relationship, should be impeached for abusing state finances, a Republican state senator said Monday.
Sen. David Thomas -- the chairman of the Senate constitutional and administrative subcommittee -- wrote to leaders of the Republican-controlled Senate, accusing the governor of violating state regulations.
The allegations involve flights he took to London, England, and China in 2006 and 2007 on state business. South Carolina requires the governor to charge the state the lowest rate available unless there are overriding circumstances, such as emergency travel.
"The two flights by Gov. Sanford were in violation of the South Carolina Code of Regulations," Thomas said in his letter. "The difference in price between the most economical and the more expensive price of the seats the governor chose is approximately $13,700."
Thomas said he thought the violations were enough to trigger impeachment proceedings.
"If I were in the House, the answer would be yes, I would be involved in the beginning of the impeachment process," he said. "I think there is enough data right now to take seriously a move toward impeachment. Is that sufficient for impeachment? That I don't know."
Leave it to CNN to leave out most of the story:
From the full AP report:
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford used state aircraft for personal and political trips, often bringing along his wife and children — contrary to state law regarding official use, an Associated Press investigation has found.
According to state budget law, "Any and all aircraft owned or operated by agencies of the State Government shall be used only for official business."
Records reviewed by the AP show that since he took office in 2003, the two-term Republican has taken trips on state aircraft to locations of his children's sporting events, hair and dentist appointments, political party gatherings and a birthday party for a campaign donor.
On March 10, 2006, a state plane was sent to pick up Sanford in Myrtle Beach and return him to Columbia, the state capital, at a cost of $1,265 — when his calendar showed his only appointment in Columbia was "personal time" at his favorite discount hair salon. He had flown to Myrtle Beach on a private plane and attended a county GOP event.
The trip home on the state aircraft took off at 1:50 p.m. and arrived in Columbia at 2:35, enabling the governor to keep his plans for a 3 p.m. haircut across town. There were no other appointments on his official schedule that afternoon; the trip back to Columbia would have taken about three hours by car.
Also, on five of the last six Thanksgiving weekends, Sanford used a state plane to fly himself, his wife and their four sons from the family's plantation in Beaufort County to Columbia for the state Christmas tree lighting. The cost for those flights alone: $5,536, including $2,869 for flying the plane empty to pick them up.
The governor has made a political career out of being outwardly thrifty — known to demand that state employees use both sides of Post-It notes. He has frequently railed against government spending, and attempted for months to block federal stimulus money for South Carolina schools.
Last month, the AP revealed how Sanford had flown first class and business class on commercial airlines at taxpayer expense, despite a law requiring lowest-cost travel.
On many occasions, records show, the governor mingled his non-official travels with official business.
For example, on March 23, 2005, Sanford flew on a state plane from Columbia to Mount Pleasant, near the beach house, where the governor was scheduled for a 5 p.m. appointment with a dentist. Later that day, he had a TV interview before speaking at a Republican Party event for Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties along with U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint.
Such mingling also is problematic under South Carolina regulations.
Aeronautics Division rules say that "under no circumstances shall aircraft owned and operated by" the division "be used for personal or politically partisan purposes." But there's no clear enforcement mechanism for such violations; the division says it simply lets citizens know that statements attesting to official use of the planes are open to public inspection.
Still, misuse of state resources arguably could subject Sanford to civil or criminal penalties under the state's ethics laws, which are enforced by the South Carolina Ethics Commission. Any public official found to have used state property for personal financial gain is subject to as much as a $5,000 fine and five years in prison. Only incidental use that does not result in additional public expense is exempt.
I'm really impressed at how passionate Sanford is about not wasting taxpayer money. He really puts his money where his mouth is!
Gringo
Spokane, WA
May 2006
JUL 20, 2009 04:58 PM