Yawn another Republican sex scandal

[iNow]

What about his staff who lied and said he was on the Appalachian trail? Either they knew where he was and lied, or they didn't know where he was and lied. Neither speak very well of them either, and the whole lot of 'em should be fried for dereliction of duty.

[SH3RL0CK]

What about his staff who lied and said he was on the Appalachian trail? Either they knew where he was and lied, or they didn't know where he was and lied. Neither speak very well of them either, and the whole lot of 'em should be fried for dereliction of duty.

 

Do we know that they were not decieved by the governor? If he told them he was hiking the Appalachian trail, why would they assume he was in Argentina instead? If asked, why wouldn't they say he was hiking if that was what they were told?

[iNow]

Do we know that they were not decieved by the governor? If he told them he was hiking the Appalachian trail, why would they assume he was in Argentina instead? If asked, why wouldn't they say he was hiking if that was what they were told?

 

I'm pretty sure, having a read the stories on this, that this was not the case. IINM, his staff had no idea where he was, either.

 

On another note, it turns out that the governor has now admitted to other indiscretions with woman... more than just his wife... more than just his Argentian mistress... but others, too.

 

 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/06/governor-sanford-admits-to-relations-with-more-women.html

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has given an interview with the Associated Press. In it he discusses his relations with other women...not his wife, not his mistress.

 

Here is the AP: "South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress

 

 

What a circus.

[Pangloss]

Maybe their criticism is simply an unconsious effort to reveal the politician for who they really are: either someone firmly of their word and principles, or someone constantly in disguise because they're exactly like the very people they condemn (a disguise earns religious votes, while the condemnations paint the opposition as spiritually-corrupt hooligans....two birds with one stone).

 

I don't disagree with that. I think reporters do this pretty well, drawing analogies and comparisons without (at least overtly) ostracizing the focus of the attention. That's an intelligent and potentially productive course of action, in my opinion. Talk about it. Let people know what happened. Show the context. You bet.

 

(That was a nice post in a number of ways.)

 

 

If this guy deserves indignation, it's for deserting his post as governor.

What about his staff who lied and said he was on the Appalachian trail? Either they knew where he was and lied, or they didn't know where he was and lied. Neither speak very well of them either, and the whole lot of 'em should be fried for dereliction of duty.

 

Mokele was ahead of the curve on this bringing it up back on page 1, and I'm glad to see it come back up again. I think it's a very correct argument, and of course subject to details that we're not yet privy to (i.e. who knew what and when), but I agree that there's something there that needs to be investigated and it should be determined if the people of that state were lied to.

 

I actually empathize with governors and other high level government officials for their lack of privacy, but there are ways you can go about that sort of thing while ensuring that the appropriate people know what they need to know, and that nobody has been lied to. When you take that oath you assume a responsibility that sometimes impacts on your personal life. If you can't handle that then you shouldn't take the job.

 

I think it would be interesting to see how this might have played out if it had turned out that this was just some kind of escapist vacation. There'd be no moral condemnation, but there would still be serious legal and ethical questions raised, and the politics would be interesting.