Repub. Gov. Mark Sanford admits affair

Now he admitted to multiple affairs over the past 20 years and he had the nerve to attack Clinton?

What a hypocrite.
 
How's that vote for change working out?

Change like this Dude??? :shock:

But unlike many other Republican politicians of his stature, Sanford recognizes that there are limits to ambition, that government treasuries are not bottomless, and that no ideology can captain the globe. If the promise of “hope†in the form of bailouts fails to revive the American economy, Mark Sanford will be the GOP’s most dangerous man in 2012.

As part of the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, Sanford pledged to serve just three terms. His explanation for the self-imposed limit reveals the two sides of his personality, the brainiac and the bumpkin. He says, “The ‘beta’ is the correlation between an individual stock and the market as a whole. Term limits change the beta of a political decision. Some politicians look at a single political decision and say, ‘Man, this could affect my career for the rest of my life.’ But with term limits, if it only affects you for the next two years, it’s not a life-changing event.â€
Will Mr. Sanford go to Washington?

From The American Conservative magazine.
 
I heard a cute (humorous) reference of the republican party this morning, while coming out of church, that (It was).."coming Off the rails". What was equally humorous was that the group saying it, were republicans .
 
Isn't the double standard coming from those who preach "do as I say not as I do"? The media reports what the people want to hear. It's a business.
 
Has anyone seen the press confrences with Sanford talking about this? That guy is not playing with a full deck.
 
Gary Hart was the first to try and get away with this. Why anyone sinc him thinks they can dip their wick and not get caught is beyond me. Personally, I think anyone caught fooling around ought to be canned right then. Not for any moral issue, but for being so blood stupid. Anyone that stupid should not be in public office serving the public good. I know they are all leaches but in theory a public servant is just that, someone who is supposed to server the public good.
 
Personally, I think anyone caught fooling around ought to be canned right then. Not for any moral issue, but for being so blood stupid. Anyone that stupid should not be in public office serving the public good. I know they are all leaches but in theory a public servant is just that, someone who is supposed to server the public good.
generally it seems they just end up resigning.
 
Personally, I think anyone caught fooling around ought to be canned right then. Not for any moral issue, but for being so blood stupid. Anyone that stupid should not be in public office serving the public good.

Really? Now you're making me bring up the past. Do you think Clinton should have been canned also? As I remember, a lot said that what had happened was his private life and should not concern anybody. Am I reading you correctly?
 
Yep. Theoretically I think he should have been run out of town. Any POTUS who thinks he/she can play the field with out getting caught is too bloody stupid to be a public servant. Having said that there is no way I would support any law that authorizes the removal of a person from office for infidelity.

As Dignity said, most end up resigning from office. Clinton was in his last term when it all hit the fan.
 
Any POTUS who thinks he/she can play the field with out getting caught is too bloody stupid to be a public servant.
what ends up happening is simply people start questioning their decision making abilities. if a public servant is making very poor choices in their personal life, it can also be said or generally..viewed they may also make poor decisions while serving the people they represent.

Having said that there is no way I would support any law that authorizes the removal of a person from office for infidelity.
a law more than likely would never be necessary.. as most who are caught in those types of situations, may find it difficult convincing the voters.. during a time of re-election or another election to vote for them. (generally the public embarrassment is enough for them to resign)

As Dignity said, most end up resigning from office. Clinton was in his last term when it all hit the fan.
I wonder how many more people would have supported "Democrat" during the 2000 election had the "Monica" situation never happened. you know it may have affected some people to vote the other way..
 
what ends up happening is simply people start questioning their decision making abilities.

True, but I believe they only question the opposite party. I do tend to think that the Republicans are more willing to rid their party of these people and the Dems more willing to forgive their people. Notice I said "more willing" and not that it always happens.
 
Back
Top