I've neglected my duties on 11D and haven't done a post on the SC Governor. I've been too busy reading snark on Twitter about him and laughing my ass off. My contribution to the erudite Twitter conversation was "Steve said he wants to go for a hike this weekend. This hike better not be anywhere near Argentina." Other Twitter gems are here.
His press conference and the leaked love letters are just plain embarrassing. The governor was in lurve. Ew.
So, what's the angle on this one? The narcissism of politicians? The backslide of state government?
The angle that I'm seeing most often is the narcissism of politicians. Kristof just twittered, "Why do politicians repeatedly dive into beds and self-destruct? I think they're a self-selected pool of nat'l risk-takers." Last night, Larry King had on the usual talking head shrinks, including that Drew Pinsky, who made the similar conclusions. The talking head shrinks were really pro-family and scolded Stanford and other philanderers. Loved it.
When these things happen, it's always good to revisit this classic Seinfeld episode.
SC gov.
According to my local politics e-mail list, "Since Sanford claims to be a staunch advocate for states rights, maybe he should be the first to admit marriage/civil unions as a means to control behavior and determine benefits is a huge failure and it's high time the practice was abolished."
No, it makes no sense.
Posted by: Wendy | June 25, 2009 at 09:49 AM
Is there a "famblee values" type who can keep it in his pants?? It sure doesn't seem like it.
I don't think it's a coincidence that (most) of the politicians being caught spout off about traditional family values, etc. Implicit in these "values" is the sexual double standard. Men - especially powerful men - are *entitled* to an affair or two, and the Missus' job is to stand by her man. The right of kings becomes the right of politicians (and the rich and famous in general).
Posted by: Ailurophile | June 25, 2009 at 10:45 AM
P.S. And if you are a public servant - an ELECTED official with a JOB to do - you don't just up and disappear for a week without at least telling people you are going to be gone and making arrangements for work to be done in your absence. If I were a SC resident, that would cheese me off even more than the affair. Sucks to be the denizen of a state whose governor cares so little about you that he just skips town for a week to see his mistress.
Posted by: Ailurophile | June 25, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Ack. Thanks, Wendy. I was writing this while Jonah was talking to me. Very distracting.
Posted by: laura | June 25, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Laura, I totally understand. My kids are home today, and here it is noon and it's all gotten away from me.
Posted by: Wendy | June 25, 2009 at 11:54 AM
I was going to look at whether the CT governor had gotten into the same mess :-).
Now, you've actually made me feel sorry for the guy, by linking through to the emails. It does seem more like "lurv" and less like the power plays I associate with Spitzer/Clinton/Vitter/Edwards/Ensign.
I still don't think love, or thinking your in love justifies adultery. I think you have to disentangle yourself first, so that you're not betraying anyone, it's kind of like it being categorically wrong to lie under oath.
Posted by: bj | June 25, 2009 at 12:14 PM
PS: I also believe the "leaked" love letters are specifically for the purpose of playing people like me, who might be swayed by the "I was weak, and in love, and I made a mistake). They're particularly hurtful to his wife, though, and I will remain strong and have no sympathy, in spite of them.
Someone pointed out to me that he released the affair information when it became clear that people were considering potentially worse offenses, which, in turn, suggest an icky plan to manage the whole thing.
(not that it matters what I think -- since I'm not in SC, and would never vote for a republican president)
Posted by: bj | June 25, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Apropos of the discussion last year at this blog about Silda Spitzer, I like Henry Blodget's post: "Hooray for Jenny Sanford.":
"What a relief to finally see a political wife throw her cheating husband out of the house instead of standing dutifully (and pathetically) at his side during the obligatory confessional press conference.
It's about time someone had the self-respect--and, yes, balls--to say the hell with this humiliating tradition."
Posted by: Dr. Manhattan | June 25, 2009 at 01:03 PM
Nice letter, from Jenny Sanford. She lays out the case for her point of view, that forgiveness is hers to give as well as to withhold, in their marriage (though not necessarily in the governorship). I hope the tradition of "standing by your man" is broken.
Posted by: bj | June 25, 2009 at 01:53 PM
On the one hand, having a mistress on another continent does at least avoid very uncomfortable encounters at the Olive Garden and whatnot. On the other hand, it has a very large carbon footprint (sex-miles?).
Posted by: MH | June 25, 2009 at 02:16 PM
Winner Tweet on the subject (can't find source now): "Sanford believes that marriage should consist of a man and a woman and another woman from Argentina".
Spitzer bits bring back fond memories of an unmade Hillary commercial: It's 3am. Phone rings, waking Hillary. Woman's voice. "Hello? Hillary? It's Silda Spitzer. Eliot's not home yet. Based on your experience, what should I do?"
Posted by: Doug | June 25, 2009 at 04:30 PM
I love how hiking the Appalachian Trail has become a euphemism for having an affair.
Posted by: laura | June 25, 2009 at 04:40 PM
"hiking the Appalachian Trail"
That makes me think of a very old SNL sketch with Mike Meyers. They were cave men and they kept talking about 'walking with women'.
Posted by: MH | June 25, 2009 at 04:51 PM