Mark Sanford: I Confess, I Was Awake for All 56 Star Tattoos!

24 06 2009

Tattoo girl

Oh wait —
The Sinful Governor

Face-Tattoo Girl

Maybe he could claim he slept through the whole thing? Hmmm, no, that hasn’t been working too well . . .

WaPo: the Fallout

. . .For Republicans, the long winter and spring continues. The embarrassments keep coming, as one after another of the GOP bright prospects has stumbled. Sanford’s troubles come a week after another nascent 2012 prospect, Nevada Sen. John Ensign, confessed to an extramarital affair with a staffer who was married to another Ensign staffer.

Others mentioned as possible 2012 candidates have had other difficulties. Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, still one of the most charismatic politicians in her party, has raised questions among GOP officials about her reliability and political sensibilities. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, one of the brightest young minds in the party, took on water with his performance in delivering the Republican response to Obama’s joint session speech to Congress last winter.

Some prospective younger leaders of the party have simply stepped aside. . .

Advertisements

Actions

Information

17 responses

24 06 2009
Mrs. C

The tattoos look terrible! I wonder about teenagers being able to do this without parental consent. What was she thinking???

24 06 2009
COD

So, a bright rising star thought this was a good plan?

1. Lie to staff about taking a hike
2. Drive state owned car to airport
3. Fly to Argentina and on FATHER’S DAY WEEKEND to cheat on wife (and 4 kids)

What the hell would the cast off rejects of the Republican Party attempt?

In other news, within a month we’ll be sick of hearing “taking a hike on the Appalachian Trail” as the new cool euphemism for “having an affair.”

24 06 2009
JJ

Hey, cut the gov a break — at least Appalachian and Argentina begin with the same letter of the alphabet!

24 06 2009
Nance Confer

I saw the press conference and thought it was terribly sad. I also think Sanford needs professional help. Beyond bible study which seems to be what he has done so far.

Nance

24 06 2009
JJ

He did seem — lost is the word, I guess.

24 06 2009
JJ

OTOH, what about cosmic or at least political justice?

The standard Sanford has set for other politicians over the years has been fairly high. A member of the House of Representatives during the heyday of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair, he was often a harsh critic of the president for his marital misconduct.

This is “very damaging stuff,” Sanford declared at one point, when details of Clinton’s conduct became known. “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign)… I come from the business side,” he said.

“If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”

Explaining his decision to back impeachment articles against Clinton, he added, “I think what he did in this matter was reprehensible… I feel very comfortable with my vote.”

Sanford’s complaints were directed primarily, although not entirely, at Clinton’s lying about the affair rather than the affair itself.
.
. . He was one of only five members of the House of Representatives (and one of two Republicans — Ron Paul being the other) to vote against expressing support for U.S. troops in combat after Clinton ordered bombing raids in Iraq. Sanford reasoned that the president was trying to distract attention from his marital issues. And toward the end of the saga, he insisted that Clinton could not operate with any effectiveness because he’d been untruthful.

“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust,” he told CNN. “And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.”

24 06 2009
JJ

Chris Matthews just had a good line on Hardball, that the GOP 2012 hopefuls were “beginning to resemble Agatha Christie’s Ten Little Indians” in that they are disappearing one by one.

(Itself a controversial use of words, see the first comment here . . .)

24 06 2009
Daryl Cobranchi

In other news, within a month we’ll be sick of hearing “taking a hike on the Appalachian Trail” as the new cool euphemism for “having an affair.”

Already happened on TPM yesterday.

24 06 2009
JJ

Could one of our resident evangelicals (or maybe a former, like Lynn?) translate this for me? Wow.

Sanford’s Wife Releases Statement

24 06 2009
Kristina

Not an evangelical, or even a former one, but I’ll translate for you. Wife wants what is best for kids. If he’s willing to change his ways, she’ll take him back. In the meantime, he’s ass out.

And, I guess, considering the fact that he was not to be in contact with the kids, his screwing around on Father’s Day wasn’t a big deal.

24 06 2009
JJ

Hi Kristina – all the stuff about the reconciliation? He said something in the press conference about some church fellows advising him and made it sound like a specific process of some sort? And there was a Psalm, 127 I think?

24 06 2009
Kristina

I didn’t watch his press conference, but in her statement, she mentions Psalm 127. Psalm 127, verse 3-5 says: Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

So, in my opinion, she’s basically saying that her sons are gifts from God, and they’re who she’s focused on.

As far as him getting advice from church fellows. I wish him luck with that. My brother was advised to marry the woman that had already tried to kill him three times, because she was the mother of his child (whom he had custody of because…. she had tried to kill him three times). Then, the church advised HER to quit her medication because God would take care of all that, now that she was saved. Ugh!

Anyway, it doesn’t sound, to me, that she is going to accept him back based on church recommendations, rather that she is willing to accept him back if he changes. On the other hand, she could accept change as being what my brother did–the church saying he’s repented and changed. If so, she’s a fool. She, and her children, deserve better than that.

24 06 2009
JJ

Kristina, thanks, exactly the kind of translation I was looking for. 🙂

Rachel Maddow says Slate explains more on who the church counselors are, mainly a guy named Cubby Culbertson:

So, who is this spiritual giant who for five months has been advising the governor? Warren “Cubby” Culbertson is a pillar of the Christian community in South Carolina’s capital, a Bible study leader and Sunday school teacher who owns a court reporting business.

Culbertson helped form a men’s Bible study group with the help of good friend Bill Jones, the president of the evangelical college Columbia International University. (A collection of “Cubby’s Talks” can be found here.) . . . Culbertson became a part of Sanford’s life in a “counselor” capacity. . .

25 06 2009
Nance Confer

Cubby? Gag.

So Sanford was a full quiver guy? How about the full boat — was he also a “Promise Keeper?”

It seems to me it would be a lot easier to talk about whatever their issues are if the Sanfords didn’t have to wade through all the ancient texts as part of their process.

The personal stuff is none of my business, of course. . . just the part where he tried to screw up other peoples’ lives. How’d you like to be a guy on unemployment in South Carolina right about now?

Nance

25 06 2009
JJ

Nance, that’s exactly it for me, both points really.

First, that these convoluted, obscure, disputed ancient texts are at the center of their parenting and governing, their private thinking AND their public thinking/speaking (whatever happened to the conservative belief that in America, government and commerce should speak one common language, plain ENGLISH???) and then,

Second, that it screws up people’s lives!

And these go together in my mind. You can’t say oh poor wife, poor kids, family life has nothing to do with this, none of our business and let’s feel sorry for all of them (even him) IF you also insist that his private, innermost beliefs and values are inseparable from his public life, his community leadership positions, his campaigning and legislating, his governance and policy decisions, his enterprise and commerce.

And not when MY family is a matter for his public policy — why does his get a pass, even though his millionaire wife ran all his campaigns except the last one, paraded the kids as part of the message and sat in on his top staff’s policy meetings every day?
They both were Wall Street hotshot financiers, whose beliefs applied in public were presumably more ruling the gold than Golden Rule. He was also in the Air Force I think, and the military code of conduct commands obedience regarding private matters like morals and fraternization and even sex (not just behavior but orientation and being honest or dishonest about it!)

It’s NOT only private, or only public. Nothing is. So we just absolutely must learn to do better as a society, to think better about these things, or else we’re all going to self-destruct no matter whose side we’re on in any given scandal.

1 07 2009
JJ

Same with Sarah Palin.
After claiming the private-parenting high ground for some very dirty fighting over the Letterman sex joke, she promptly picked another outraged-parent fight over a free-speech political dig photoshopping one of her media supporters’ faces over her baby’s face, in her arms being held up for show. She played her outrage for sympathy as a private mother fiercely sheltering her special needs baby, rather than a polarizing public figure exploiting that baby in the first place.

All of which reminded me of when her candidacy was first announced last summer, and some of the first words I ever heard her say were in this radio interview — in which she demonstrates what she considers fair game humor in mocking someone else’s family misfortunes.

(She name-calls and laughs at a former friend and ally, recent cancer survivor mom of three children for whom Palin clearly has no sympathy or family values concern.)

Her confusions of public and private values/behavior are legion, not limited to but including lies about sex sin, since it seems her own beliefs count all unmarried sex as adultery — her own before marriage, then mothering it while in office and campaigning for president.

She first covered it with a baby brother blanket, then openly dressed up and paraded her unmarried pregnant daughter, had her running mate shake hands with and hug the boy who made a dishonest women of her, etc. etc. — all on camera along with her pentecostal family values and her other children, all on the political dime and for political gain, followed by making a federal case of how sinful it was to make a political joke of them.

(Who made her family a political joke again? Not Letterman but Palin herself! Yet we’ve seen no Sanford-style soul-searching or acceptance of personal responsibility-reconciliation on her part)

1 07 2009
JJ

Here’s a statement from Palin’s spokeswoman about this Alaska battle of the photoshopped public family picture. (What do YOU see, a lovely holy madonna and child or a hardball-playing, child-exploiting, lying-her-head-off holier-than-thou governor?) Is that her showing the baby from the RNC stage? Public AND private maybe?

See how many value-laden coded here-comes-the-apocalypse words you can count in this one short statement:

Atrocious
Malicious
Degeneracy
Appalling
Sickening (absolutely!)
Desecration
Ashamed (twice)
Condemned

The following refers to a post Conservatives 4 Palin made Wednesday and to which others are responding:

“Recently we learned of a malicious desecration of a photo of the Governor and baby Trig that has become an iconic representation of a mother’s love for a special needs child.

The mere idea of someone doctoring the photo of a special needs baby is appalling. To learn that two Alaskans did it is absolutely sickening. Linda Kellen Biegel, the official Democrat Party blogger for Alaska, should be ashamed of herself and the Democratic National Committee should be ashamed for promoting this website and encouraging this atrocious behavior.

Babies and children are off limits. It is past time to restore decency in politics and real tolerance for all Americans. The Obama Administration sets the moral compass for its party. We ask that special needs children be loved, respected and accepted and that this type of degeneracy be condemned.”

— Meghan Stapleton

In another Palin-defending pushback blogpost, I learn that the face photoshopped on the baby is not a critic but a radio interviewer who apparently panders to Palin and thinks she’s hot. Which was the editorial point? Ah! So there is more SEX outrage too, playing the gender card while strutting like a beauty queen demanding to be taken seriously, like Miss CA — not just private mama bear protecting special needs cub.

“Why do they always attack her for her femaleness?”

[Maybe because that’s what she is always playing on herself?]

And we get more over-the-top coded words of outrage (tasteless, heartless, sick with hatred, grotesque, crude, horrible, cheap, ugly, objectifying):

That photo was iconic. It meant a great deal to parents of special needs children. I recall listening to Bill Bennett discuss it the day after the speech with Laura Ingraham on her radio show. He said that it was beautiful how Gov. Palin turned her son around in her arms to show him to the audience — as if to show the world that he was perfect and precious. It was a silent rebuke to a world that is too often indifferent to those who live with special needs. What a horrible and cheap thing to do to take that photo and make it ugly.

The photoshop doesn’t look at all like Eddie. It simply looks like a grotesque manipulation of Gov. Palin’s beautiful baby boy. It was a tasteless and heartless thing to do. It was the sort of thing a person who is sick with hatred would do.

Biegel then makes a crude sexual suggestion about Eddie Burke and the governor. Biegel is objectifying the governor. Turning her into a sex object and suggesting that Eddie’s admiration of her is nothing more than hormonal.

Why do they always attack her for her “femaleness” — for her appearance or her attractiveness as a woman or her role as a mother? It’s crude and sexist. It’s not okay.

UPDATE – so THIS is who Eddie Burke is. Shock jock suspended last fall for calling anti-Palin women “baby killers” and “maggots” on air and then sharing their personal contact info a la George Tiller harassment and attack solicitation . . . I feel so dirty every time I try to follow anything about Palin. Maybe that’s how she keeps winning, by making enough people like me wish I could ignore her . . .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: