As I predicted in this very recent post, Mark Sanford has already come clean about lying on his expense reports regarding his alleged business trip, on his state's behalf, to Argentina.
I wrote in that post,
"Character and values are, for the most part, integral to people. When we see lying and deception occur in a politician's personal life, you can bet it's going on, or will, when necessary, or expedient, in their professional life, as well. "
Bill Bennett voiced the same concerns, and was mildly chastised in a Wall Street Journal piece this weekend for being so old-fashioned and puritanical in suggesting that Sanford is through.
Then came Sanford's admission that he needed to reimburse the state of South Carolina for expenses he incurred on what he now terms 'personal business.'
Oh.
So, basically, Sanford was willing to misrepresent the nature of that part of his travel, and claimed reimbursement from the state for expenses then incurred. But after his confession of infidelity, he hurriedly suggested that, well, yes, maybe he had to repay the people of his state after having fraudulently claimed those expenses as public business-related.
Seems Bennett and I were right, after all.
Sanford had no problem submitting personal expenses as state ones, until he got caught in the act.
If I were a South Carolina resident, this expense fudging would be the reason I'd want Sanford to resign, or be impeached.
His marital infidelity is, our could have remained, his own business. His whereabouts, when in Argentina, could have simply been described as a story to cover some pressing personal matters.
But his using public money to visit his paramour, then claiming it as business, is fraud and a lie.
For this, he needs to leave office.
Showing posts with label Sanford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sanford. Show all posts
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Mark Sanford's Confession of Infidelity
I was going to post about an idea I have for a 2012 Republican gubernatorial candidate for president today. It would have involved South Carolina's governor, Mark Sanford.
However, given Sanford's shocking announcement yesterday, I'll save that post for tomorrow.
Instead, I want to discuss my own reaction to and feelings about Sanford's behavior.
In talking about the Sanford confession of a year-long affair with an Argentinian woman, a friend expressed great disappointment in a guy who had such promise as a presidential candidate for 2012.
I disagreed, and suggested that it was better to have discovered now that Sanford doesn't honor his promises.
Allow me to explain.
If Sanford had determined that his marriage was no longer functioning and productive, for him, his wife, or his children, he had the option of filing for divorce. In today's political world, that would not have been a death knell for his career, unless he quickly remarried and were found to have been having an affair with his new wife prior to his divorce.
If Sanford was simply unhappy with his marriage, but it was still productive for his children, then I think he owed it to them, whom he chose to father, to remain in his marriage, and avoid the selfish option of divorce.
However, to simply decide that it would be too messy, expensive, or otherwise dysfunctional to file for divorce, and, instead, have an affair without his wife's agreement, tells us all we really need to know about Mark Sanford.
He made a promise when he married, and broke it. He lied to his wife, implicitly at least, and almost certainly explicitly, in order to have time with his mistress. He probably also lied to his children and various staffers concerning his whereabouts, and/or other topics involving the health of his marriage and family life.
It would have been, to me, perfectly acceptable had Sanford shared the knowledge of his affair with his wife, a priori, as part of an 'open marriage.' Granted, most politicians don't feel they can get elected with that value as part of their persona. But I'd personally have had a lot more respect for Sanford, had the affair simply been something acceptable in his marriage, and not covered up.
To me, the Sanford situation has nothing whatsoever to do with his political convictions. Whether liberal, or conservative, an elected or appointed official who is found to have lied and/or obstructed justice in order to conceal behavior of which s/he was not proud has a profound character flaw which, in time, will also appear in her/his professional activities.
In former president Bill Clinton's case, it's clear he obstructed justice and lied to cover up his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. Despite Democratic charges of prudishness on the part of Republicans who brought impeachment charges, it was Clinton's cover up, not his affair, that was of concern to the voters.
Similar to my comments about Sanford, I believe that the Clintons had an open marriage. But I think they realized that they could not get Bubba elected carrying such baggage. So they pretended to be a happy monogamous couple, and even had a child. But various reports, public and private, have convinced me that the two had, and probably still have and open marriage.
While personal matters are, per se, private, we can learn a lot about an elected official, or candidate, by how they handle their personal matters. It should be fairly obvious that the character and values of a person are integral, so what you see in their personal life is pretty much how they'll behave with the public trust.
Kennedy dissembled about his affairs and health. Nixon covered up the Watergate burglary. Clinton lied and took actions to prevent the truth being discovered about the Lewinsky affair, and his wife did the same with Travelgate and the infamous missing Rose law firm documents regarding Whitewater.
Our current president has lied about his associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright when both proved embarrassing, only to return to those associations, according to various sources, when the heat was off.
Sanford has demonstrated that, when necessary, he will lie to those to whom he made promises, and will break those promises, in pursuit of selfish personal fulfillment.
Do you really want someone like that as your president? I don't.
I'm pleased that, if this were to happen to Sanford, it happened now, rather than after a presidential nomination, or election to that office.
Despite many admirable traits and political values, Mark Sanford has some glaring character flaws which should not be in a man or woman who becomes president.
To overlook distasteful behavior or values in a candidate's personal life and believe they won't also color that person's judgments and behaviors when in elected or appointed office is to be naive.
Character and values are, for the most part, integral to people. When we see lying and deception occur in a politician's personal life, you can bet it's going on, or will, when necessary, or expedient, in their professional life, as well.
However, given Sanford's shocking announcement yesterday, I'll save that post for tomorrow.
Instead, I want to discuss my own reaction to and feelings about Sanford's behavior.
In talking about the Sanford confession of a year-long affair with an Argentinian woman, a friend expressed great disappointment in a guy who had such promise as a presidential candidate for 2012.
I disagreed, and suggested that it was better to have discovered now that Sanford doesn't honor his promises.
Allow me to explain.
If Sanford had determined that his marriage was no longer functioning and productive, for him, his wife, or his children, he had the option of filing for divorce. In today's political world, that would not have been a death knell for his career, unless he quickly remarried and were found to have been having an affair with his new wife prior to his divorce.
If Sanford was simply unhappy with his marriage, but it was still productive for his children, then I think he owed it to them, whom he chose to father, to remain in his marriage, and avoid the selfish option of divorce.
However, to simply decide that it would be too messy, expensive, or otherwise dysfunctional to file for divorce, and, instead, have an affair without his wife's agreement, tells us all we really need to know about Mark Sanford.
He made a promise when he married, and broke it. He lied to his wife, implicitly at least, and almost certainly explicitly, in order to have time with his mistress. He probably also lied to his children and various staffers concerning his whereabouts, and/or other topics involving the health of his marriage and family life.
It would have been, to me, perfectly acceptable had Sanford shared the knowledge of his affair with his wife, a priori, as part of an 'open marriage.' Granted, most politicians don't feel they can get elected with that value as part of their persona. But I'd personally have had a lot more respect for Sanford, had the affair simply been something acceptable in his marriage, and not covered up.
To me, the Sanford situation has nothing whatsoever to do with his political convictions. Whether liberal, or conservative, an elected or appointed official who is found to have lied and/or obstructed justice in order to conceal behavior of which s/he was not proud has a profound character flaw which, in time, will also appear in her/his professional activities.
In former president Bill Clinton's case, it's clear he obstructed justice and lied to cover up his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. Despite Democratic charges of prudishness on the part of Republicans who brought impeachment charges, it was Clinton's cover up, not his affair, that was of concern to the voters.
Similar to my comments about Sanford, I believe that the Clintons had an open marriage. But I think they realized that they could not get Bubba elected carrying such baggage. So they pretended to be a happy monogamous couple, and even had a child. But various reports, public and private, have convinced me that the two had, and probably still have and open marriage.
While personal matters are, per se, private, we can learn a lot about an elected official, or candidate, by how they handle their personal matters. It should be fairly obvious that the character and values of a person are integral, so what you see in their personal life is pretty much how they'll behave with the public trust.
Kennedy dissembled about his affairs and health. Nixon covered up the Watergate burglary. Clinton lied and took actions to prevent the truth being discovered about the Lewinsky affair, and his wife did the same with Travelgate and the infamous missing Rose law firm documents regarding Whitewater.
Our current president has lied about his associations with Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright when both proved embarrassing, only to return to those associations, according to various sources, when the heat was off.
Sanford has demonstrated that, when necessary, he will lie to those to whom he made promises, and will break those promises, in pursuit of selfish personal fulfillment.
Do you really want someone like that as your president? I don't.
I'm pleased that, if this were to happen to Sanford, it happened now, rather than after a presidential nomination, or election to that office.
Despite many admirable traits and political values, Mark Sanford has some glaring character flaws which should not be in a man or woman who becomes president.
To overlook distasteful behavior or values in a candidate's personal life and believe they won't also color that person's judgments and behaviors when in elected or appointed office is to be naive.
Character and values are, for the most part, integral to people. When we see lying and deception occur in a politician's personal life, you can bet it's going on, or will, when necessary, or expedient, in their professional life, as well.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Mark Sanford's Stiff-Arm From Obama
Last weekend's Wall Street Journal featured a revealing editorial by South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.
Governor Sanford made headlines last month when he voiced his opposition to the terms of the so-called Congressional stimulus bill.
Worried, like so many other governors, about being forced to spend money on programs which won't go away when their federal funding does, Sanford spoke out loudly against the tactic. As a result, Democrats in Congress inserted a clause allowing state legislatures to accept the funding over the veto of their state's governor.
However, having been outmaneuvered on this, Sanford tried a different tack. He requested a waiver of spending the stimulus funds as directed by Congress. Instead, he asked to be allowed to pay down some of South Carolina's debt, the interest on which consumes 11% of the state's annual tax revenue.
Sanford reasoned that this is an unarguably good thing to do for the relatively poor state. According to Sanford,
"In fact, paying debt related to education would free up over $162 million in debt service in the first two years and save roughly $125 million in interest payments over the next 13 years- just as paying off a family's mortgage early frees up money for other uses.
Spending stimulus money on ongoing programs would mean 10% of our entire state budget would be paid for with one-time federal funds- the largest recorded level in state history."
Sanford continued his piece, stating,
"Last week, I reached out to the president, asking for a federal waiver from restrictions on stimulus money. I got a most unusual response. Before I even received an acknowledgement of the request from the White House, I got word that the Democratic National Committee was launching campaign-style TV attack-ads branding me for making it.
Is this the new brand of politics we were promised?
Nevertheless, the White House declined my request for a waiver yesterday afternoon."
Governor Sanford's experience is quite revealing about Wonderboy's real purpose in directing spending of the stimulus largess. So much for state's using it for what they think best. Once again, Democrats at the federal level think they know what is best for everyone else, at all lower levels of government....and society.
Governor Sanford made headlines last month when he voiced his opposition to the terms of the so-called Congressional stimulus bill.
Worried, like so many other governors, about being forced to spend money on programs which won't go away when their federal funding does, Sanford spoke out loudly against the tactic. As a result, Democrats in Congress inserted a clause allowing state legislatures to accept the funding over the veto of their state's governor.
However, having been outmaneuvered on this, Sanford tried a different tack. He requested a waiver of spending the stimulus funds as directed by Congress. Instead, he asked to be allowed to pay down some of South Carolina's debt, the interest on which consumes 11% of the state's annual tax revenue.
Sanford reasoned that this is an unarguably good thing to do for the relatively poor state. According to Sanford,
"In fact, paying debt related to education would free up over $162 million in debt service in the first two years and save roughly $125 million in interest payments over the next 13 years- just as paying off a family's mortgage early frees up money for other uses.
Spending stimulus money on ongoing programs would mean 10% of our entire state budget would be paid for with one-time federal funds- the largest recorded level in state history."
Sanford continued his piece, stating,
"Last week, I reached out to the president, asking for a federal waiver from restrictions on stimulus money. I got a most unusual response. Before I even received an acknowledgement of the request from the White House, I got word that the Democratic National Committee was launching campaign-style TV attack-ads branding me for making it.
Is this the new brand of politics we were promised?
Nevertheless, the White House declined my request for a waiver yesterday afternoon."
Governor Sanford's experience is quite revealing about Wonderboy's real purpose in directing spending of the stimulus largess. So much for state's using it for what they think best. Once again, Democrats at the federal level think they know what is best for everyone else, at all lower levels of government....and society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
