dagblog - Comments for "Sanford's Emails to Argentinian Lover, Maria"

I didn't read very far into

acanuck — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 08:13:00 +0000

In reply to Sanford's Emails to Argentinian Lover, Maria

I didn't read very far into these emails -- just far enough to conclude, "OK, these are bona-fide love letters." Heartfelt, sentimental. Now, I understand the guy has a wife, and kids, and an important job, and standing in the community.

But I can't help thinking, "Mark, make the right choice. For the right reasons." Kids can survive divorce; wives and husbands can make new lives. You and I know you didn't disappear for a week to "break it off." This isn't an issue that calls for a political compromise. If you're in love, that trumps everything.

I don't want to read the

Bluesplashy — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:36:40 +0000

In reply to Sanford's Emails to Argentinian Lover, Maria

I don't want to read the emails and can't see much benefit to publishing them. There are children that will see them that go to school with Sanford's boys. Great fun huh? I've gone back and forth on the adultery issue over the years and Edwards pissed me off enough to send me back against it. I was in SC when Sanford campaigned and he made PROMINANT use of his family. They were front and center 24/7 and this is what he does to repay them? Nice defense of marriage, bub.

But what interests me more is the fact the man couldn't control his - a long pause here while I control my wicked mind looking for an appropriate term - emotions well enough that he literally abandoned his job for five days. Talk about presidential material!

I agree with you guys--very

Orlando — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:58:00 +0000

In reply to Sanford's Emails to Argentinian Lover, Maria

I agree with you guys--very hard to read those. But there's a larger point here (aside from Sanford's hypocrisy and the end of his political career).

Back in the late 1980s, when I was still a teenager, I knew somebody who lived and worked in Washington. I think it must have been around the time that Gary Hart got caught in that photograph, because we were talking about politicians and affairs and my friend said that every one in DC had a mistress. Regan had one, Bush had one, everyone had one. She made it clear that she knew this for a fact and even implied that she knew one of the women.

Now, remember I was an impressionable teenager and my friend was actually the adult friend of an adult relative, so I took her at her word. Whether or not she was telling the truth, I don't know. I haven't seen her since.

But I wouldn't doubt it. I don't dout that there are numbers of women who have no problem being the mistress and it's hard to resist sex when it's right in front of your face, married or not. And I don't doubt that many of the members of Congress didn't bother to resist--men and women alike. But in the past, there seemed to be a sort of quiet agreement about one's personal life, as long as it was kept in the personal sphere. That agreement is waning.

With the rise of tabloid journalism and politicians' generally ruthless pursuit of a win-at-all-costs strategy, oppo researchers dive into whatever they can get their hands on and nothing is off limits.

There's still some stigma attached to outing alcoholics or drug addicts, but I expect that those "gentlemanly" prohibitions will soon fall away as well.

I'm sure that the ones having extramarital affairs used to keep quiet about each other out of a sense of mutually assured destruction--"If my secret comes out, yours is gonna come out too." But somewhere along the line, the genie got out of the bottle and now anything goes.

It's sad. But it also holds them all more accountable. In other words, don't be telling me exactly how I should to live moral life when you can't keep it in your pants, Jack.