Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mark Sanford Reactions from South Carolinians
As a native of the (still great)
state of South Carolina and a fellow in the Clemson Institute for
the Study of Capitalism, I know a fair number of Mark Sanford
supporters, and have always been one myself. During the past year I
couldn't have been any happier with the way Gov. Sanford handled
the duties of office, especially his stance on the
stimulus. It's too bad that his image and reputation are now
badly tainted.
A brief survey of friends and professors suggests that most are mourning for the damage Sanford's now-public infidelity has caused the conservative movement in South Carolina. A long-time champion of limited government and fiscal conservatism, Sanford has been known around the state for standing on uncompromised principles and beliefs. Many fear that those values will now be questioned even more.
A sampling from my friends around the Palmetto State:
His moral lapse has cast a pall on every idealistically-driven stance he has taken in the recent past, and perhaps throughout the entirety of his governorship.
—Erin Gillespie, Anderson, SCSanford represented what true conservatism is supposed to be about. He has always fought hard for his principles, even when it wasn't politically popular, and when something like this happens, it makes it that much easier for the opposition to discredit him. It's a real blow to a movement that was just starting to take hold. —Abby Olin, Beaufort, SC
Some said their general view of the governor was not changed:
Everyone has their vices, and while I feel that Gov Sanford's decisions were extremely poor, it does not change the fact that I agree with many of his public policy decisions.
—Justin Prescott, Florence, SC
Others were not won over by the tearful admission:
I thought, this was a man I could support more than McCain or any past Republican candidates. My trust in him has been shattered. I am severely disappointed in his leadership and have lost faith in the politics of South Carolina....His statement disclosing the truth does not forgive anything.
—Josh Morgan, Columbia, SCI was shocked and dismayed about this turn of events. I think Sanford will probably have to resign as a result and it will ruin his political career. My thought is he will not make it two more weeks.
—David Woodard, Clemson, SC
As Sanford put it: "This is the first step in what will be a very long process." He was talking about his personal life, but the Sanford supporters in S.C. have a long process ahead of them as they attempt to repair the damage the governor has done to the limited-government cause.
|6.26.09 @ 11:37AM|#
Hell, I am a white male and I can empathize with the delicious temptation of and the natural surrender to a hot Argentine babe. Next issue please. (After some pics of her, of course.)
|6.26.09 @ 11:44AM|#
It wasn't so much that he had an affair, to me.
It was that he was shown to be batshit crazy, thinking he could
conduct an affair in Argentina in secret, could sneak out of the
country for days at a time with no one the wiser, etc.
The fact that his wife has proved to be such a class act only makes
him look worse.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 11:59AM|#
I was prepared to cut him some slack, but the taxpayer-funded
trip to Argentina blows that for me.
I don't care if he gives the money back. The point is that he did
it in the first place.
Paul|6.26.09 @ 12:00PM|#
I don't care if he gives the money back. The point is that
he did it in the first place.
Of course, because it implies that he's giving the money back only
because he got caught.
|6.26.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Putting any faith whatsoever in any politician is laughable. You deserve your disappointment.
Paul|6.26.09 @ 12:02PM|#
By the way, no one's asked the highly important but sexist question: Was she hot?
Kater|6.26.09 @ 12:05PM|#
Stone throwin. We all do things that hurt others. This guy came
clean, he showed genuine contrition. I like him even more after all
of this. Sometimes we fall in love and it makes us do crazy things.
Are we so self righteous that we would cast away this man, who
fights for the same principles as we do, because he was overcome by
something completely human, and so mundane as an affair?
And not to mention, he could have been having an affair with an
albino alpaca, i wouldnt have minded so long as he stuck by not
wanting stimulus money.
|6.26.09 @ 12:07PM|#
She'd have to be Catherine Zeta Jones prettier sister for all this to be worth it.
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.26.09 @ 12:08PM|#
She was ok. Kind of like a middle aged Sophia Loren but more meh.
alan|6.26.09 @ 12:09PM|#
To sum up how I feel, a quote from David Allan Coe:
It was all I could do to keep from crying
Paul|6.26.09 @ 12:11PM|#
She'd have to be Catherine Zeta Jones prettier sister for
all this to be worth it.
She's from Argentina, so in my humble opinion, there's a
chance...
She was ok. Kind of like a middle aged Sophia Loren but more
meh.
Really? Hmm....
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Although I will say this: his emails were released to embarrass him, but the notable thing to me was that they were actually well-written. They were maudlin, of course, but they're love letters, for Christ's sake. At least we know he can put two words together.
|6.26.09 @ 12:13PM|#
His wife knew five months ago. I am real curious what shitstorm was about to explode that he decided to come clean now.
Sandy|6.26.09 @ 12:15PM|#
If Sanford had not been a morals-crazy religious nutball (my
definition: anybody who's a fundie), this wouldn't be such a big
issue. But because Republicans, especially Southern Republicans,
tie up capitalism and religiosity as if the two had anything to do
with one another, the best spokespeople for limited government get
shot down this way. Until the divorce of limited
government/market-oriented politics and religious politics is
finalized, we're just going to see more of these break-the-china
fights.
So stop voting for fundies. For the children.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 12:15PM|#
Re: Hotness or Notness
http://www.news.lalate.com/pictures/chapur1.html
The quality is poor, but it gives you the general idea.
|6.26.09 @ 12:17PM|#
Putting any faith whatsoever in any politician is laughable.
Epi,
That's rather harsh. I once voted for someone that deserved the
faith that I put in him, but that was for the local school board.
At any level higher than school board, I agree.
alan|6.26.09 @ 12:18PM|#
brotherben | June 26, 2009, 12:13pm | #
His wife knew five months ago. I am real curious what shitstorm was
about to explode that he decided to come clean
now.
His dissapearance became a news item, and his leading SC GOP critic
was all over the news taking him down. I believe it likely that his
enemies got wind of what was going on, and used the trip as a means
to fan the flames and get it out in the open. Doesn't excuse what
he did, but the RealPolitik of this suggest a nicely applied
demolition of a politician's career.
Paul|6.26.09 @ 12:19PM|#
Wasn't Eliot Spitzer's wife kind of willing to, you know, overlook the whole infidelity thing so long as she could keep living in the mansion?
alan|6.26.09 @ 12:21PM|#
If Sanford had not been a morals-crazy religious nutball (my
definition: anybody who's a fundie), this wouldn't be such a big
issue.
Sandy, you must be a bit tone deaf, because Sanford hasn't been
anything like you describe him. Try a little nuance, deary.
|6.26.09 @ 12:22PM|#
You know she's not going to be hot. Situations like Sarkozy or Berlusconi are rare. Shit, Gary Hart/Donna Rice was 20+ years ago.
Paul|6.26.09 @ 12:22PM|#
The quality is poor, but it gives you the general
idea.
Yeah, the idea is she's got one eyebrow.
|6.26.09 @ 12:22PM|#
Until the divorce of limited government/market-oriented politics and religious politics is finalized, we're just going to see more of these break-the-china fights.
Well, if perhaps any sort of politician with market-oriented views
that wasn't socially conservative could ever get elected to
anything (particularly statewide), it would make a difference.
Remember Tom Campbell getting crushed by Feinstein in California
for the Senate? If not in California, where?
Market-oriented political views aren't popular, sadly.
alan|6.26.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Fascitis Necrotizante,
his wife is better looking. Did you see her in the white tank
top?
|6.26.09 @ 12:26PM|#
If Sanford had not been a morals-crazy religious nutball (my definition: anybody who's a fundie), this wouldn't be such a big issue.
No, the only reason it was a big issue is because he was so
fiscally libertarian, sadly. He was taken down by a political
action by less fiscally libertarian GOP rivals in the state, whose
spending bills and pork he kept vetoing.
If he had been a more traditional social conservative and less
libertarian, this would not have blown up.
Sure, if South Carolina were less socially conservative this might
not have blown up either, but that's different from Sanford.
(Though it's weird to talk about just GOP hypocrisy-- no Democratic
politician comes out in favor of affairs or prostitutes either)
Fascitis Necrotizante|6.26.09 @ 12:32PM|#
Alan, I've seen pics of the wife, but none in a tank top...
link?
I think the main reason this blew up is because of the incredibly
stupid way he handled it. Which seems to be a result of real
emotional confusion on his part. For a lot of reasons I think his
affair is less objectionable than that of the average philandering
pol. But he's still retarded.
And I'm not sure how sound his presidential chances really were. I
live in South Carolina and noticed how many enemies a man can pick
up by standing in the way of legislators/bureaucrats/interest
groups' lucre.
Rich|6.26.09 @ 12:34PM|#
But if these trips produced an improvement in the South Carolina business climate ...?
|6.26.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Situations like Sarkozy or Berlusconi are rare.
Our (KY) former Lt Gov married Ms Kentucky Heather French Henry.
Still rare, but another example.
Tricky Prickears|6.26.09 @ 12:35PM|#
Doesn't excuse what he did, but the RealPolitik of this
suggest a nicely applied demolition of a politician's career.
Could be he stepped on someone's toes or pissed off the
wrong person. That's what I think happened with Spitzer. Everybody
within the circle new what he was doing, and he was a real arrogant
prick to begin with.
This could be why they went after Spitzer.
|6.26.09 @ 12:38PM|#
This has been going ob for a year and a half, with the friendship going back 8 years. He isn't completely daft. I believe there is much more to the story and he "allowed" himself to be caught and did the press conference to preface the coming storm. just my gut
alan|6.26.09 @ 12:42PM|#
Alan, I've seen pics of the wife, but none in a tank top...
link?
I was watching one of the majors, probably ABC News, and they
showed an interview with her when she was getting ready in the
morning. She wore a dark pair of dress pants, and a white tank top.
Impressive figure.
|6.26.09 @ 12:45PM|#
Ms America Heather French Henry, that is.
Since when is Kentucky part of America? I have been gone a long
time.
Wicks Cherrycoke|6.26.09 @ 12:50PM|#
A conservative Republican having an extra-marital affair does damage to the conservative movement. Yet, having tax-and-spend liberals like Charles Rangel and Timothy Geitner "forget" to pay the taxes they so readily impose on the rest of us does absolutely no damage to liberalism or the Democrats.
|6.26.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Wasn't Eliot Spitzer's wife kind of willing to, you know,
overlook the whole infidelity thing so long as she could keep
living in the mansion?
So she's a whore, too? Big surprise.
Michael Ejercito|6.26.09 @ 1:12PM|#
Time will tell whether Sanford ends up like Clinton or like Spitzer.
hmm|6.26.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Ben Franklin received state sponsored whores from other
countries. I'm thinking who or what you fuck has no actual bearing
on your ability to execute an office.
The people that feel he is no longer capable of doing his position
are just as retarded for buying into the bullshit. Of course, the
reality is that now there is crack and the south is pile of social
conservatives he is fucked.
Michael|6.26.09 @ 1:53PM|#
You know she's not going to be hot.
I think the fact that he was flying to Argentina for a rendezvous
as opposed to nailing some back page call girl makes up for that.
Leaving aside for a moment the idea that his trips were taxpayer
funded, the international nature of it adds an rare touch of
class.
Fist of Etiquette|6.26.09 @ 2:15PM|#
This guy can't even be honest to the woman to whom he'd pledged his life and with whom he was raising a family, and I'm supposed to trust him with my ideology. Fuck that.
|6.26.09 @ 2:27PM|#
I'm supposed to trust him with my ideology
That's not faith, that's delusion. He's a POLITICIAN for
chrissake.
I'll let 'em fuck whomever they like provided a) they don't try to
tell me who I can/can't and b) don't try to
politically/economically fuck me (at least not frequently).
Fist of Etiquette|6.26.09 @ 2:36PM|#
Unfortunately, politicians are the stewards of our laws, which apply ideology to, well, everyfuckingthing. There are plenty people that can remain faithful to their spouses. (The shit ain't that hard.) If you can lie to your wife for a year you can easily show me a fiscally conservative face that is completely false. I refuse to be the Libertarian version of an Obama voter. Sanford needs to fade away as quickly and as quietly as possible.
|6.26.09 @ 2:45PM|#
the international nature of it adds an rare touch of
class.
Thinking no one would find out about his international expeditions
adds a rare touch of delusion.
zoltan|6.26.09 @ 3:00PM|#
I totally agree with Fists of Etiquette. Rarely does someone's private life not reflect upon their public one.
|6.26.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Sanford is one more sad, pathetic example of why so-called
"small government," and "family values," conservatives oppose
marriage rights for everyone. He, and his ilk, place no value on
marriage. Marriage is what's expected, so they do it. But, given
half a chance and a smile from a pretty face, they demonstrate that
marriage vows are just words to them.
This is no "man of principle." This is a man, a hypocrite who
joined the chorus against President Clinton's infidelity when it
was politically expedient. This is a man, a liar, a deceiver, and
an adulterer who has pandered to the hate-filled throngs to oppose
the rights of people who want marriage for everyone. This is a man,
who now expects the world to forgive him for his repudiation of his
own "values," and "principles," and words.
Enough. Can we stop taking the GOP seriously as a real source of
"leaders?" Can we let this gang of hypocrites, liars, drug addicts,
false prophets, and con men fade into the obscurity of history they
so richly deserve while we get on with the adult business of living
lives of purpose and solving the world's challenges?
Nash|6.26.09 @ 3:09PM|#
The emails are particularly interesting because they illuminate
his character. This wasn't some married guy getting a blow job from
an intern or sleeping with a hooker, it was a married guy totally
in love with another woman.
I don't know if it's better or worse for him politically. You could
make a case either way. But it appears he's not some sex crazed
maniac but rather some sappy lovestruck goof.
The disappearance and taxpayer spending? Whatever. It's not good
but it's forgivable from my point of view. I think his Presidential
aspirations are done for 2012 but frankly he made that decision
himself when he decided to do this in the first place, so really
nothing has changed except that we are aware of it.
I hope Gary Johnson runs in 2012 so I have someone to support in
the primaries.
Fluffy|6.26.09 @ 3:23PM|#
I actually find the disappearance more forgivable than using
taxpayer money to go on a trip to Argentina.
Apparently his wife had just told him to get the fuck out, that she
didn't want to see him any more, and in the face of that kind of
once-in-a-lifetime bad day he said, "You know what? Fuck ALL this,"
and bailed.
Got a wife and kids in South Carolina jack
I went out for a ride, and I never went back
Not exactly the guy I want handling the nuclear football, but an
understandable and human reaction.
|6.26.09 @ 3:25PM|#
"""he's not some sex crazed maniac but rather some sappy
lovestruck goof"""
That just so happens to have a wife.
The problem for him is that the GOP loves to talk about things that
can distroy marriage and how those things are immoral, wrong, and
shouldn't be tolerated. GOP claims to be pro-family. Adultery is
not pro-family.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 3:27PM|#
Luccia Rogers - please shut up. Being a partisan blowhard is no more endearing than GOP foibles.
alan|6.26.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Sanford is one more sad, pathetic example of why so-called
"small government," and "family values," conservatives oppose
marriage rights for everyone.
You mean like that guy Obama who doesn't support gay marriage, and
says the 'irony of it all' is he is a 'limited government kind of
guy?'
Michael Ejercito|6.26.09 @ 3:31PM|#
Can we let this gang of hypocrites, liars, drug addicts, false prophets, and con men fade into the obscurity of history they so richly deserve while we get on with the adult business of living lives of purpose and solving the world's challenges?
And the solution is to ally yourself with another gang of
hypocrites, liars, false prophets, and con men?
alan|6.26.09 @ 3:34PM|#
Adultery is not pro-family.
I have no idea how old you are but from my experience the people
who are not understanding of this kind of thing tend to be young.
Imagine your self with your significant other ten years down the
road, do you know where your heart is going to be? Really, for
certain? What about the other person, do you know?
|6.26.09 @ 3:47PM|#
TAO-
I am inclined to think as you do about Luccia Rogers; however, in
the interest of being both fair and consistent, I will withhold
judgment pending her denunciation of morally challenged and
hypocritically oriented democrats.
|6.26.09 @ 3:50PM|#
I could care less about who politicians fuck, and whether they
are faithful to their spouses, so long as they work to keep
government small.
Unfortunately, a lot of voters, especially female voters, consider
infidelity a political death sentence.
|6.26.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Adultery is not pro-family.
You can love your spouse, and your children, and also love another
person and have an affair with them.
Life can be messy that way.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 4:00PM|#
they aren't the only ones, prole. if a guy cannot keep a simple promise to be faithful, why in the world should I trust him on anything else?
alan|6.26.09 @ 4:04PM|#
Unfortunately, a lot of voters, especially female voters,
consider infidelity a political death sentence.
Unless the guy has a handsome mug and the gals want to fuck him.
Then he gets the Clinton treatment which was, 'oh, he's available,
then?'
Po' Sanford, with that weak chin, he looks like a young Souter.
That is what is really dooming his political career.
|6.26.09 @ 4:20PM|#
they aren't the only ones, prole. if a guy cannot keep a
simple promise to be faithful, why in the world should I trust him
on anything else?
I'm taking it you haven't had an affair yet, TAO. Life is messy,
and can blindside you. But, yeah, keep on being all righteous about
your not being sufficiently tempted yet moral purity.
Good on ya, mate!
|6.26.09 @ 4:30PM|#
Clinton got a pass cause it was a hummer from a fatchick. People felt Empathy because a fat chick is a step backwards. Especially if you're POTUS.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 4:32PM|#
ah yes, we all do it! moments of weakness, who are you to judge,
etc. etc. look, if you're too weak-minded to adhere to a simple
promise, it has nothing to do with moral indignation. it has to do
with your lack of manhood and adult sense of responsibility.
oh i know, I am soooo judgmental. whatevs, dude.
|6.26.09 @ 4:36PM|#
I'm taking it you haven't had an affair yet, TAO. Life is messy, and can blindside you.
Wow, nice useless speculation there. Should we all take it as given
that you have had an affair, prolefeed?
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 4:41PM|#
who is "blindsided" into actively choosing to cheat? attempting to get cheaters into the "omg I couldn't help it" victimology class is patently absurd.
|6.26.09 @ 4:44PM|#
John -- OK, how about some useful speculation: I think we could
reasonably expect Sanford to be more humble and less hardline
social-con -- more libertarian -- if his career wasn't over. I'd
trust him more now that some of the sanctimony has been knocked out
of him.
Or, as Mark Twain explained it, The
Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg
|6.26.09 @ 4:54PM|#
So a libertarian is a conservative who's been caught cheating on
his/her spouse?
Sorry, I don't accept that. I would hope that most married
libertarians are faithful to what is at least the very serious
CONTRACT of marriage. You cosmos need to get over this
libertarianism == libertinism nonsense.
Officer Caniphobe|6.26.09 @ 4:56PM|#
I'm taking it you haven't had to shoot an attacking chihuahua yet, prolefeed. Life is messy, and can blindside you.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 5:00PM|#
Tulpa - I consider myself "cosmo", at least in the sense of the
word that "cosmopolitan" is originally used, but I don't have any
truck with cheating, either.
but I couldn't agree more. Dump libertinism. It's pretty much
nihilism and invalidates the strongest of feelings (love,
happiness, jealousy, anger...).
guys have got to learn to deal with the fact that
not everything everybody does short of "force and fraud" is de
facto valid.
|6.26.09 @ 5:04PM|#
"""I have no idea how old you are but from my experience the
people who are not understanding of this kind of thing tend to be
young. """
Are you saying that adultery IS pro-family? I'm not a youngster and
I've seen it destroy many marriages. I know people do it and for an
assortment of reasons, that doesn't make my premise false.
Perhaps you feel a need to justify adultery?
"""Clinton got a pass cause it was a hummer from a
fatchick."""
Impeachment counts as a pass? The rightwing was trying to make hash
out of him, not the good kind. Their holier than thou attitude
toward their behavior took down Gingrich.
|6.26.09 @ 5:11PM|#
who is "blindsided" into actively choosing to cheat?
attempting to get cheaters into the "omg I couldn't help it"
victimology class is patently absurd.
You're assuming victimology where none is stated or implied or
intended.
You seem to assume that everyone who has an affair thinks it was a
bad idea, and regrets actively making that choice in
hindsight.
That would be an incorrect assumption. It does not comport with
objective reality.
But, thanks for showing us where the "angry" part of "The Angry
Optimist" comes from.
|6.26.09 @ 5:15PM|#
Are you saying that adultery IS pro-family? I'm not a
youngster and I've seen it destroy many marriages.
Yes, some marriages get destroyed by affairs. But, hard as it may
be for you to believe, an affair can make a marriage stronger. It
can lead to more open and honest communication about previously
undiscussed problems. It can lead to going to counseling and fixing
other things that aren't going right. It can lead to a spouse no
longer taking the other for granted, and trying harder to make
their love life more exciting. And so on.
It's counterintuitive, but once again -- reality isn't always the
clean, bright cut-and-dried thing taught in Sunday school.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 5:26PM|#
*choke* spare me this moral subjectivist nonsense. if you don't have the desire to remain faithful any longer, for whatever reason, it is your obligation as a committed partner and as an adult with a mouth and a brain to speak up and say so, and say why. you do not just get to post facto justify your affair because it *happened* to have what you would think are good effects. an adulterer breaks his/her promise is a weak-minded slave to his/her impulses for doing so.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 5:29PM|#
I mean, I really feel sorry for your partner.
"Baby, I HAD to cheat! It was for the good of our relationship! you
were boring and unappreciative"
holy diver.
alan|6.26.09 @ 6:46PM|#
Let's walk this backwards.
Perhaps you feel a need to justify adultery?
Nope. My one marriage fell apart for reasons that had nothing to do
with our sex lives. Actually an ugly combination of Ted Nugent,
anorexia and veganism had something to do with it, but that is a
story for another day.
Are you saying that adultery IS pro-family?
'Pro-family', really? Are you going to indulge in the lexicon of
Fundie nonsense?
alan|6.26.09 @ 6:58PM|#
It is not libertine to desire to keep the personal and the
political seperate.
I've been pretty harsh to some of my friends who have been had
affairs, but the reasons have been complex as prolefeed is getting
at. One friend of mine called me at four o'clock in the morning
after a night with an escort. He was crying and suicidal, and I
talked him down.
However, a month or so after this, I really let him have it. He
tried to sentimentalize that moment and it made me snap. I told
him, "You cried like a woman. Accept yourself for what you are. It
is not your place to cry"
That was one of my longest friendships but it pretty much ended
there. He was too ashamed to face me after that.
|6.26.09 @ 7:00PM|#
alan -- I'd love to hear how Ted Nugent wrecked your marriage. Anorexia and veganism putting a strain on one's marriage -- that I get.
|6.26.09 @ 7:10PM|#
TAO -- rather than engage in an exchange of personal attacks,
let's try this on for size -- every marriage has its difficulties.
Married couples can choose to let an affair wreck their marriage,
or they can take that as a sign that there is something missing or
wrong in their relationship and choose to try to work through
it.
I've known some women who have taken the "one strike and you're
out" rule, and while I don't blame them for handling it that way,
it might not have resulted in them being as happy as they could
otherwise be.
I got an earful of the fundie opinions you voiced here while I was
a member of the LDS Church, and yet I know some of those members
who spout those views and yet have thoroughly unhappy marriages.
And, ironically, these same people will tell you that every word of
the Mormon scriptures is the inspired word of God, even though what
some of those scriptures say about polygamy ought to induce a fair
amount of cognitive dissonance.
There is more than one route to happiness, much as conventional
morality would say otherwise.
The Angry Optimist|6.26.09 @ 7:33PM|#
one of those routes is not cheating to try to expose
what's wrong with your marriage.
Infidelity hurts, prole, and I'm frankly just astonished
that you have the gall to try to justify it by claiming it's some
kind of exploratory tool for flaw-finding.
Mine isn't a "fundie opinion" that comes from bizarro
Jesus-worshipping world where you can just pat me on the head and
say "oh, how cute! He thinks you should keep your promises to the
ones you love!"
Married couples can choose to let an affair wreck their marriage, or they can take that as a sign that there is something missing or wrong in their relationship and choose to try to work through it.
Well, they wouldn't have to make that choice had the adulterer not
cheated in the first place. If one or another partner
feels something is missing, he or she is an adult, with a
mouth and brain, and needs to say so.
The only justification for adultery is...is if you have an open
marriage, and then it isn't even really "adultery" any more, it's
just a different arrangement.
But when you cheat, you are basically saying "fuck you and your
love and trust. I'm gonna do what I wanna do, even though I've
promised you fidelity" and NOW you want to justify it because "the
ends justify the means"? If you have problems, seek counseling, not
new pussy.
alan|6.26.09 @ 7:54PM|#
alan -- I'd love to hear how Ted Nugent wrecked your
marriage. Anorexia and veganism putting a strain on one's marriage
-- that I get.
In one sense I was making light of a sad situation, but in another,
yeah, one of last arguments was about Ted Nugent.
richard|6.26.09 @ 8:03PM|#
Sanford missed the new GOP instructional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBKuRK1wD1A
Michael Ejercito|6.26.09 @ 9:10PM|#
Impeachment counts as a pass?
The impeachment was for perjury, subornation of perjury, and
obstruction of justice.
John Lofton|6.26.09 @ 11:21PM|#
Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de
facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will
not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic
peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall
Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic
belief more than 100 years ago:
"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything.
Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the
progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable
amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the
innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today
.one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now
conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which
will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by
some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its
turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows
Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind
it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This
pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be
salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is
worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and
not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the
sake of the truth."
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God
(Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
PS - And "Mr. Worldly Wiseman" Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger
ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous "joke"
about himself and God.
|6.27.09 @ 12:35AM|#
"Impeachment counts as a pass?"
I meant that a lot of normal folk gave him a pass and respect his
work to this day. being an amazing politiker helps.
Mad Max|6.27.09 @ 12:44AM|#
'A brief survey of friends and professors suggests that most are
mourning for the damage Sanford's now-public infidelity has caused
the conservative movement in South Carolina.'
Political movements seem to be able to survive the misbehavior of
leaders. Liberalism managed to survive FDR's and JFK's adulteries,
and this was back when Democratic politicians were famous for their
preachments in favor of sexual morality. Liberalism also manages to
survive Rangel's tax-cheating (as noted above) -- and the tax
problems of the country's chief revenue officer. This from an
administration which proclaims itself just as passionately opposed
to tax cheating as to cheating on one's spouse.
'Married couples can choose to let an affair wreck their marriage,
or they can take that as a sign that there is something missing or
wrong in their relationship and choose to try to work through
it.'
That's a good idea for all sorts of family tragedies - the death of
a child, or example. The shared tragedy *could* bring the couple
together and make them determined to make things better again. But
it's not an argument in favor of letting your child die, in hopes
it could save your marriage.
zoltan|6.27.09 @ 1:15AM|#
Adultery is only good when both people want it (swingers!). To
use it as some sort of relationship pick-me-up is pathetic at best.
It's not like a terminal illness that brings people together, it is
a blatant, deliberate choice to break a significant other's trust.
To excuse that would be like excusing any other form of lying,
though I feel like adultery is somewhere farther than lying but not
as far as consistent emotional or physical abuse.
I think women tend to be less forgiving of the situation because it
happens to them more often, but I could be totally off.
zoltan|6.27.09 @ 1:18AM|#
Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on
God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).
Uh, kiss him where?
But if only we could get back to the time when America was right
with god...and slavery...and less rights for women...as bad as the
country is now, I'd say it was a lot worse for the majority of
people in it a hundred years ago.
Fluffy|6.27.09 @ 8:29AM|#
All I'm going to say on the "cheating" debate that has developed
in this thread is this:
No one accidentally cheats, or happens to cheat, or finds
themselves thrust into a situation where it just happens. In order
to cheat, you have to set your life up beforehand in a way that
facilitates your cheating. Specifically, you have to have
structured your relationship with your spouse or significant other
in a way that keeps them at a certain distance, so that you will
have the blocks of unaccountable time that are necessary for an
affair. Every person I have ever known who has cheated has done
this. People who cheat do what they need to do to make sure, often
years in advance, that they will have a chance to
cheat.
So as far as I am concerned, I will regard everyone who cheats -
everyone - as a person who is on some level scheming to have a back
door out of every obligation they may appear to assume.
|6.27.09 @ 3:10PM|#
Specifically, you have to have structured your relationship
with your spouse or significant other in a way that keeps them at a
certain distance, so that you will have the blocks of unaccountable
time that are necessary for an affair.
I wouldn't go that far. In the modern world spouses are bound to
have such blocks of "unaccountable time" that occur naturally. For
instance, a salesman who travels a lot to close deals is going to
have ample opportunities to cheat on his wife without any scheming
at all.
The truth lies between this and the "it just happens" idea.
Adultery may well be a spur of the moment thing, but that doesn't
mitigate the fact that it is an act the adulterer chooses to
commit.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245