If MysticCat's theory that he wanted to get caught isn't true, why do idiots risk SO MUCH for these emotional and/or physical affairs?

ETA: From the article I posted:
The woman, who lives in Argentina, has been a "dear, dear friend" for about eight years but, Sanford said, the relationship didn't become romantic until a little over a year ago. He's seen her three times since then, and his wife found out about it five months ago.

This puts a spin on it, as far as I'm concerned. He disappears around father's day for a "mysterious trip" and his wife knew about this woman for months. His wife may not be the ballbuster that BabyPink_FL is making her out to be. Maybe his wife was just being full of guamguam.

He can, apparently, count on her to keep quiet and play "wife" for five months after he's admitted to an affair . . . sounds like she's "standing by her (govern)man" huh?

I'm sure she done cussed him out, right after she lied to protect him ("I don't know where he is"). I, too, would have enjoyed the gay lover angle - we don't get enough squirming among people anymore.

On a completely related note . . . is this another step toward the public simply not caring what public figures do on their own time? I'm pretty unconcerned by the "Politicians are douche bags" angle - I mean really, a cheating politician?!? Heavens to Thomas Jefferson's illegitimate kids! - but with Manny Ramirez getting a standing ovation, Jon and Kate having their highest-rated show ever, etc., do we at some point become apathetic (or even morbidly addicted) to scandal? Or are politicians held to a different standard?

He also said that he was going to Argentina "to end the relationship." HA! It does not take five days to end a relationship. He could have done that over the phone! He also claimed that he "cried for five days straight." Yeah right! He did :::ahem::: something else for four days, cried the last day, and went home.

Also, what wife would let her husband leave the country by himself for almost a week to "say goodbye" to his mistress?

This has more holes than Swiss cheese.

That's what really scares me. Have we all become so jaded that we'll accept any conduct, so long as we get warm fuzzies about someone? Or have politicians become so synonymous with corruption that we haven't a snowball's chance of ever having a decent one represent us?

I am apathetic to such scandals.

I think politicians are full of guamguam (I'm in cussin' rehab), anyway, and that includes infedility.

But, I'll discuss a politician's antics if there's nothing else to discuss.

Hey hey hey you skeptics!!! :)

Maybe he did exactly what he says he did. Let's pretend that he did.

He STILL had an affair and subjected those of us who read articles to a BS mysterious trip story. Then his wife played dumb. Poor sons...I feel sorry for the sons...why don't parents think of their children if they can't think of their spouses?!

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but there's another aspect that often goes overlooked: in the modern age, what constitutes "corruption"?

Put another way: How much are we willing to forgive to get the best person for the job (or, how much would moral turpitude of some level actually reflect on ability to govern)? (See: Geithner, Timothy)

I think that affairs will always figure in to how the public evaluates personal integrity in pols during elections, but at this point, we're kind of hard to surprise with this stuff. It's hard not to see marriage vows as the kind of public commitment you'd like your elected officials to honor, even if they break them on "their own time."

But I think most people are willing to overlook personal failings in politicians that they otherwise. Bill Clinton is the textbook example of that, but Rudy G provides one too.

I don't trust the personal integrity of any public figure unless I know them personally. I don't "like" politicians and I don't really like politics because I think it's all crap and fluff.

But, I interpret politics to mean that there's a professional integrity requirement. The person can be a complete moron who is dishonest in her/his personal life, but wears a different hat when it comes to doing her/his job. Until we do the ultimate background check and quality assurance where we micromanage all of their personal lives, we will run ourselves ragged reacting to everything.

I don't know how well that will apply in reality because we don't want politicans running more wild than they already are. Doesn't Europe have a more liberal approach to politicians' lives?

I think you have to look at individual cases for answers, and you have choose the areas of behavior that you're really going to let affect your evaluation.

Personally, I'd also consider the person's reaction to whatever the failing was. While I'm kind of amazed that we'd get a Sec. of Tres. with previous tax problems, his reaction to the issue was well-handled in my opinion and didn't make him seem unethical. If you've ever screwed up your taxes, you can see how it could happen and it wouldn't really mean you were dishonest or even particularly careless. But it's still weird that you could go on to run the US Treasury. I kind of want more of an anal retentive accountant type there, with apologize to all accountants who might read this.

I think what bothers me with adultery is that it seems to almost always involve an expectation of getting away with breaking a pretty public vow. If you're willing to be deceitful in this one area, why would a reasonable person assume you'd be honest in other areas? And marriage is purely between the two people involved or it wouldn't have the cultural significance that it has.

If you're willing to be honest in this one area, why would a reasonable person assume you'd be honest in other areas?

Beyond moral conjecture, there's no valid and reliable proof of the connection. What other immoral but legal things "can't" policians do without having their political honesty questioned?

How do you regard a person's basic character? I tend to think by a certain age, you're going to have patterns set, and while you might have occasional lapses, marital infidelity is a big enough decision that it's a significant tell.

ETA: [Apparent] marital fidelity alone wouldn't establish anyone's creditability for me; it's just that's its absence seems significant. And adultery is illegal in a lot of states, so it may not make sense to limit your request that way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6...South-Carolina!

It's fun to quote the Daily Kos.

I'm a huge proponent of fidelty. I despise cheaters and I won't get on that soapbox.

But, when it comes to politicians, the infedility itself isn't the dealbreaker to me. The context is. Bill Clinton's Oval Office Orgasms and this governor's stupid mysterious trip for which government employees had to play dumb (I don't believe he flew without anyone knowing the where and why) say to me that the politicians have blatant disregard for a position and the responsibilities and amentities that come with it.

If Clinton had done his cigarisms in a hotel on his own time and if this governor had seen his mistress without this hoopla, I wouldn't politically care. I would only morally care and think they are cheating bastards. My moral care doesn't have to translate to much, especially since we aren't talking about illegal conduct.

Yes and no on all counts.

i think we have gotten to the point not that we don't care...but moreso we are NOT surprised.

Now while I am not surprised that he had an affair...admittedly, that was the last thing that came to my mind when I initially read the story.

Being that he had a history of just disappearing probably should have rang a bell (but then I got other things on my mind) regardless of the affair, him just up and running out like that with no word to anybody, was strange enough on the face of it.

Back to the bigger picture, the reason why most of us look the other way on the affair issue is, some of us got some of our own drama going on so to a point....these actions 'humanize' the politicians...on the flipside of all of that, some of these actions also tend to reflect how they treat the office...this is why i come back to the question of on whose dime was his little trip on?

Let's get past the affair for one moment and Im willing to make a prediction...if he didn't spend any govt funds, then he may get a slap on the wrists and carry on with his career with some tarnish and no, he may wind up being lost in the pack come 2012....his wife may leave him or wind up on 20/20 or Dateline...if that money was on the people's dime, in light of teh stimulus debacle...all hell will break loose.

Isn't adultery a crime?

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

ETA: Cite to SC law: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

I didn't think the laws against adultery are still upheld aside from adultery being cause for divorce.

I think at this point it's generally seen as a waste of time and resources to bring criminal charges against someone or prosecute them for adultery.

From the legislature's point of view, I could see where it would be a bad PR move to repeal a law against adultery (although that's what's probably been done in most states). On the other hand, if someone were to actually get convicted for it, I could also see the courts declaring the law unconstitutional.

I remember there being talk about it in NY during the Spitzer thing. I don't know if NY still has the law on the books.

The law is the law.

That cut and dry, eh?

I missed O'Reilly's take on this but I'm watching Hannity's.

"Hannity's Headline: Lost and Found."

Good stuff. LOL. Hannity calls it a "very stunning admission." He knows it isn't stunning.

Cool - we'll send you all those post-hoc speeding tickets, too.

There are MAJOR issues with enforceability etc.

I feel really bad for his wife. She's probably humiliated beyond belief. He said she's known for five months, but maybe she didn't tell him that...maybe she just got fed up with the media attention/embarrassment and told him once he returned. There are lots of women who don't tell their husbands they know about an affair, you know, and many do not divorce their husbands after an affair. If he did know she knew, they might have been going to counseling or trying to work on the marriage. I imagine she was probably devastated when she realized deep down that she did know where he had gone on Father's Day weekend, then to top it all off, the media came knocking on her door. Do you really expect her to "out" him on TV for all the world, and their kids, to see? To do so would likely mean an abrupt end to their marriage, and life as they know it, and maybe she just wasn't ready to make that decision so suddenly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong (especially since I'm at the world's slowest computer & research on it is a luxury), but wasn't there a case in South Carolina in the past ten years where a wife sued her husband's mistress for adultery? I'm fairly certain it was in SC or NC, and the wife won.

Frankly, I was expecting some sort of drug revelation, rather than a relationship.

Jenny Sanford has released this statement. It sounds like she's got a good head on her shoulders (I can't believe I'm saying that since I'm rarely a fan of giving cheaters a second chance). This part of her statement really stood out to me:

"When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago. This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week."


Like PeppyGPhiB, I feel bad for Jenny and her sons.

I'm not sure, it's a possibility and doesn't sound completely far-fetched. It would be a different issue than the SC criminal code provision (probably based on something like intentional infliction of emotional distress), but I'd bet that suits like that happen all over the country.

ETA: Kevin's the resident family law expert, though, so he would know more about this than I would.

For some reason I just think everyone is really overreacting. I saw some interviews the media did with constituents who were saying that he left them "unattended."

I feel like others who have said the man is entitled to vacation time. And I don't believe for one minute that no one knew where he was. I think key members of his staff and his wife knew exactly where he was. I just think they didn't feel the need to tell the media and understandably so. It's not like SC was in the middle of some crisis that required his immediate attention. It's not like terrorists were waiting to drop bombs on SC the minute he left the state. I don't care for his politics, but for goodness sake, I wish the media would stop blowing this out of proportion. Even the titles of the articles they wrote about the situation were misleading. When I first saw some of the titles I thought the man had vanished and there was some foul play. After reading the articles I realized that he simply went away on a vacation and didn't alert the media to his itinerary. :rolleyes:

As for the affair, I have long been of the mindset that those types of isseus are for the family to handle. I don't think politicians should always resign when they get caught having an affair because I think they can still do a good job in their elected office even if they don't handle their marriages well. And I would dare say that if fidelity is an unspoken requirement for politicians, then over half of the ones we have in office now would have to step down.

And the Constitution is the superior law. As KSigKid says, there is a very good chance that any state statute making adultery unconstitutional would not pass federal constitutional muster.

Besides, if I've got it all straight, the actual acts of adultery occured in Argentina, not in South Carolina, so any SC law would be irrelevant.

It was in NC, but it was for alienation of affection, not adultery.

Some states do allow a wife to sue the woman that has an affair with her husband. I believe NC still has such a law. I'm not sure about SC.

Even if SC has such a law, I suspect his wife probably would have no interest in suing this woman. Women like the First Lady of SC are satisfied as long as they have their money, power, prestige, and children. There would be no real justice (or point) in suing the mistress.

That's a weighty assumption.

She probably won't sue the other woman because it would be more trouble than it's worth. That may be more about torturing her children than being "satisfied" with money, power, prestige, and children.

Besides, there are tons of women who do not have money, power, and prestige but hold onto loser men.

The interesting thing about the press conference is that he talked about hurting the mistress before he mentioned hurting his wife and kids.

Bastard.

I can't remember ever thinking about this before, but why would adultery being illegal be unconstitutional?

I can understand how investigations of adultery could be but not the statute itself. Marriage has traditionally involved assumptions of fidelity. Marriage is a legal issue. . .

Are crimes for which there's likely to be uneven enforcement all suspect constitutionally?

FYI: I'm not emotionally invested in adultery being a crime; I'm just curious about it.

If adultery is illegal than other things that can cast a negative light on marriage should be illegal.

~ Emotional or physical neglect (being sued for something in a civil suit does not mean it is illegal)
~ Mismanagement of family money (economic troubles contribute greatly to divorce)
~ Allowing bratty kids to overshadow the marriage
~ etc.

When would the law stop meddling in family affairs and mind its own damn business?

I think the whole point of this 'reaction' is...if he went away and not told someone and something DID happen.

Suppose he did go and while travelling his plane crashed or he was killed etc and so forth while his staff had little or no clue as to where he was...how does that look upon them for not being able to account for his disappearance?

They are probably being criticized now just for this very idea.

I agree on some level, in that I don't know that a person's faithfulness to their spouse has much bearing on their ability to govern. If your statement is accurate, that his higher-level staff knew where he was at all times and could get in touch with him at all times, then I think the story changes a little (at least with respect to his continuing fitness to be governor). However, I would think that his staff would have made that all perfectly clear when the story broke; unless they REALLY hate the guy, they would have told the media anything to make him look better to the media and general public.

I will say though that anyone who is a leader of an area, with that level of responsbility, needs to be easily contacted at a moment's notice. There could very well have been some sort of crisis, whether it be man-made or natural, and in those situations the Governor would be expected to step in and make decisions (regardless of any Constitutionally or legally-provided transfer of power to the Lt. Gov.). It's not the same level of responsibility as, say, the President, but it's high enough up and important enough that big decisions could arise at a moment's notice.

As for the media response - I think it's just a symptom of the over-sensationalization (if that's a word, which it probably isn't) of these types of events. Sanford is a prominent politician with some national following, and it's an easy way for the media to pick up readers/viewers/listeners/etc.

I'd disagree, in that the position of a person within society doesn't necessarily mean that they are more or less affected by problems in their marriage. Whatever personality she project publically, this could very well have devastated her. I think it's tough to assume that anyone would be "satisfied" if their spouse was cheating on them, especially if the cheating became widely-known.

Short version: Since Lawrence v Texas, in which the US Supreme Court struck down Texas's law criminalizing sodomy on the grounds that it violated constitutional privacy protections (ie, criminalizing acts of sexual intimacy between consenting adults), there has been speculation that a similar reasoning would invalidate laws criminalizing adultery. Civil laws of alienation of affection and divorce would presumably provide adequate recourse for the "non-offending" spouse without the need for the government to impose criminal punishment.

i think that may be generally true, but this case is a little different, I think. Sanford basically set up the media response by going AWOL. It was a story before the adultery part came out -- though as has been said, many of us guessed that it was coming. I still think the AWOL aspect is still the real public story, although it's not a juicy.

Wow. Stereotype much?

I understand how it would APPEAR that it is a weighty assumption, but the truth of the matter is that many women in her position feel that way. The Kennedy wives are prime examples of women who had this mentality, especially Jacqueline. She often told women in similar positions the same thing.

But you are right...it would be more trouble than it is worth and her kids don't need to deal with that.

With respect to my statement about his wife, my statement was not intended to imply that she may not be hurt or that she isn't affected by the problems in her marriage. My point was that I couldn't likely see her being interested in suing his mistress.

The issue seems different to me because of the assumptions involved in legal marriage. In Lawrence, you have only the issue of private sexual behavior. In adultery cases, you have behavior which, likely, violates a legal contract, depending on what we assume that marriage means.

(If adultery has long been a reason to file for divorce, it would seem to violate the idea of marriage. Even if the spouse engaging in the adultery consents, it would seem that the other spouse would have to as well for the issue to boil down to the same thing as Lawrence vs. Texas. )