Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
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...
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
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.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
