Mark Sandford, the latest casualty

Originally posted by DrKF
Personal morality matters not at all to me in elected representatives - they can sleep with whomever they wish, within the bounds of the law, of course, so far as I am concerned.

I do, however, have a serious problem with hypocrisy. If a politician has not made it part of his stance to uphold 'family values' or to damn homosexuals, for example, then being re ...[text shortened]... lues I would sooner not have in those who make decisions that affect the lives of millions.

Agreed.

Originally posted by generalissimo
I questioned his education, which is only natural, I want to have a President who is fit to be representative of the country, not some illiterate....

.

That kind of stuff is ok in a president in the US...

Originally posted by FMF
Maybe it wasn't the Framers' intent.

Framer? Isn't that a person that builds the frames of houses? What does that have to do with anything?

Originally posted by sh76
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_where


Is it possible, please, just once, for one damn governor or Senator in this country to keep it in his pants every once in a while? Am I really asking too much.

He has to be the happiest person in the world that Michael Jackson died.

Originally posted by uzless
That kind of stuff is ok in a president in the US...

yeah, considering you had GW Bush, I guess you're right.

Originally posted by kirksey957
He has to be the happiest person in the world that Michael Jackson died.

MJ's death won't help him much. It may spare him the humiliation of being on the front pages for a day or two, but he's through as a politician after his term is up.

It's not just about the affair. It's that he used state money to go fly to see her and it's about the fact that he disappeared for a week while his staff misdirected the media as to where he was.

This is a guy who once had nationwide political aspirations. All those dreams are -poof- gone.

Originally posted by sh76
MJ's death won't help him much. It may spare him the humiliation of being on the front pages for a day or two, but he's through as a politician after his term is up.

It's not just about the affair. It's that he used state money to go fly to see her and it's about the fact that he disappeared for a week while his staff misdirected the media as to where he was ...[text shortened]... s a guy who once had nationwide political aspirations. All those dreams are -poof- gone.

Which is unfortunate, since his private life has nothing to do with his ability as a politician.

His hypocrisy however, changes everything.

Originally posted by generalissimo
Which is unfortunate, since his private life has nothing to do with his ability as a politician.

His hypocrisy however, changes everything.

He obviously was a tad bit corrupt or at least was a bit judgement impaired as a politician to use state money to fund his affair.

Originally posted by PsychoPawn
He obviously was a tad bit corrupt or at least was a bit judgement impaired as a politician to use state money to fund his affair.

how do you know he used state money?

(but it is quite possible)

Originally posted by generalissimo
yeah, considering you had GW Bush, I guess you're right.

Canadian here

Originally posted by uzless
Canadian here

my mistake then.

Originally posted by generalissimo
how do you know he used state money?

(but it is quite possible)

I'll correct myself, I don't know if he used state money on this trip.

He is reimbursing the state for money he used on a state trip that he did also go to see her on:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/26/south.carolina.sanford.governor/index.html

"Sanford said Thursday that he would reimburse South Carolina for the Argentina leg of a state-funded trade mission last year because he saw the woman he had an affair with on that trip. He described the woman as "a dear, dear friend."

So it isn't quite as bad as the impression I had - I remember an article about how he was reimbursing the state, but forgot which trip. Sh.. mentioned that in his post above too.

The question is whether there was any actual state business in Argentina or whether he was just going there to trade other things 😉 (insert beavis & butthead laugh here...).