Julia Reed | 06/25/2009 10:45 am
Mrs. Mark Sanford Is No Silda Spitzer, by Julia Reed
My first thought, looking at the puffy, bloodshot eyes of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, was, "Do these guys NEVER learn from the mistakes of their elders?" Although there are legions of examples of pols who strayed and got caught they could choose from – I’m not referring to Bill Clinton or Gary Hart or … pick a name – in this case, there is a particularly fitting example Sanford should have been mindful of: Wilbur Mills.
I have quoted the wise words of Mills, the late representative from Arkansas and the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, many times before: "Never drink champagne with a foreigner." Mills was referring to Fanne Fox, the stripper known as "The Argentine Firecracker" with whom he was discovered cavorting in the tidal basin. Apparently, Sanford drank in a lot more than that from Maria, the Argentine chauffeur, a woman he has considered a "friend" for eight years. Man, these guys never fail to disappoint – ridiculous cover stories (hiking alone on the Appalachian trail? Really?) are always blown, and we are left with hilarious images and bits of info: Monica’s blue dress; Spitzer’s black socks; and now, Sanford’s e-mail, leaked to The State newspaper, in which he praises the curves of his lover’s hips along with her "erotic beauty" and "magnificent gentle kisses," and describes himself as a man bound up in "a hopelessly impossible situation of love."
In addition to seriously pissing off his wife, who apparently found out what was going on a few months ago and asked for a separation two weeks ago, he has further narrowed the Republican field of 2012 presidential contenders. (Nevada Sen. John Ensign’s chances bit the dust after his longtime affair with an aide was revealed only a week ago.) Sanford has already resigned from his post as chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association, where he will be succeeded by my good friend Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who is already running and who is one of the smartest people I know.
But back to the Sanford saga: the most refreshing thing about his news conference yesterday was that Sanford was the only one crying. There was no dutiful wife, in dress and pearls, standing shell-shocked and red-eyed beside him á la Silda Spitzer. Jenny Sanford says she requested the separation in order to maintain her "dignity and self-respect." In response to their troubles, the couple had been attending an intense Bible study group, and Jenny, a tad too predictably, says she’ll take her husband back, but only "in time" and only "if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance." It must be said, she is giving herself a lot of outs on that one. And I would not characterize quickie trips to Argentina as exactly in keeping with "the true spirit of repentance." From the looks of things (not to mention the video of his distraught, stream-of-consciousness press conference) no amount of praying is going to mend Sanford’s broken heart over this present-day Argentine Firecracker.
I have quoted the wise words of Mills, the late representative from Arkansas and the powerful chairman of the House Ways and Means committee, many times before: "Never drink champagne with a foreigner." Mills was referring to Fanne Fox, the stripper known as "The Argentine Firecracker" with whom he was discovered cavorting in the tidal basin. Apparently, Sanford drank in a lot more than that from Maria, the Argentine chauffeur, a woman he has considered a "friend" for eight years. Man, these guys never fail to disappoint – ridiculous cover stories (hiking alone on the Appalachian trail? Really?) are always blown, and we are left with hilarious images and bits of info: Monica’s blue dress; Spitzer’s black socks; and now, Sanford’s e-mail, leaked to The State newspaper, in which he praises the curves of his lover’s hips along with her "erotic beauty" and "magnificent gentle kisses," and describes himself as a man bound up in "a hopelessly impossible situation of love."
In addition to seriously pissing off his wife, who apparently found out what was going on a few months ago and asked for a separation two weeks ago, he has further narrowed the Republican field of 2012 presidential contenders. (Nevada Sen. John Ensign’s chances bit the dust after his longtime affair with an aide was revealed only a week ago.) Sanford has already resigned from his post as chairman of the Republican Governors’ Association, where he will be succeeded by my good friend Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, who is already running and who is one of the smartest people I know.
But back to the Sanford saga: the most refreshing thing about his news conference yesterday was that Sanford was the only one crying. There was no dutiful wife, in dress and pearls, standing shell-shocked and red-eyed beside him á la Silda Spitzer. Jenny Sanford says she requested the separation in order to maintain her "dignity and self-respect." In response to their troubles, the couple had been attending an intense Bible study group, and Jenny, a tad too predictably, says she’ll take her husband back, but only "in time" and only "if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance." It must be said, she is giving herself a lot of outs on that one. And I would not characterize quickie trips to Argentina as exactly in keeping with "the true spirit of repentance." From the looks of things (not to mention the video of his distraught, stream-of-consciousness press conference) no amount of praying is going to mend Sanford’s broken heart over this present-day Argentine Firecracker.
Read more about: Bill Clinton, Gary Hart, Infidelity, Jenny Sanford, Mark Sanford, News, Politics, Relationships, Silda Spitzer, Wilbur Mills

























161 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
It’s a politician, that’s why it is political. It is a politician who voted to impeach Clinton for his affair, it is a politician who sited "the sanctity of marriage" to argue against the right of gay people to marry, it is a politician who touts fiscal responsibility while messing around on the public dime and using his official e-mail acct to send sickening love notes to his mistress, it is a politician who was one of the front runners being hailed as a potential candidate for the so-called "family values" Republican Party in ‘12.
Meanwhile, Ms Reed here is reaching back to the likes of Gary Hart and Wilbur Mills (in office from 1957-1975!) in order to take attention away from this philandering Republican.
So what you and Caj are saying, is that b/c he is a Republican it makes this worse…any Politician who cheats does so by using tax payers money some way some how and lies about it. If you parade your family out there for all to see that your a happy family then your using them and making it seem like everything is ok, so out goes the values.
So once again, its your strong dislike of Republicans that makes you this way…Ok i got it. Thanks
Exactly. Because he is a Republicans and the Republican Party panders to the far right and calls itself the party of ‘values’ it IS worse, because it makes him not only a cheater, it makes him a hypocrite. The Republicans, and this man in particular, talk about ‘the sanctity of marriage’ while they fight against equal marriage rights for gay citizens. This guy also tried to keep his state from accepting Stimulus money, under the guise of ‘fiscal responsibility’ all the while he is using taxpayer money to foot the bill for his affair.
The Democrats do not pander to the "focus on the family crowd" and they fight for REAL family values by trying to fund education and healthcare. Thus their personal indiscretions are a family matter and are irrelevant to their jobs. But when the self righteous, holy roller, family values touting Republican politicians cheat, they show their hypocrisy.
WOW DeB you never cease to amaze me with some of your answers on why Dems are so much better then anyone else. Yes their private lives are just that private, so why did you comment on this to begin with if you feel that way. This is about our opinions on what this man did, as a man, he cheated on his wife and got caught. I dont think he is a good poltician regardless if he was a Repbulican or Democrat bc of what he did. But I refuse to say he is worse bc he is a republican, that just amazes me that anyone can say that. He had sex with another woman who was not his wife…that is what he got caught for and the fact that he left SC without telling anyone where he was going, other than his wife, she knew but didnt say anything.
Should he keep his job, NO, wish he would have resigned when he was crying yesterday, but that day will come.
You keep your nose upwards and I wont, that is just who we are. You say his affair is his private life YET you are putting himd own for it right along with everything else he did "wrong" in your eyes. Just b/c he didnt want the stimulus money, doesnt make him a bad politician, that is your opinion. Now using SC tax payers money to pay for trips to see his mistress, if that truth comes out, then YES I have said it before that was wrong…It has nothing, for me, to do with him being a republican but for you it does and I feel for you.
C Hardy, they really have to "stretch" to make a point these days. They will use "anything" to try and discredit a republican because the republicans aren’t in the "aura" of the present administration.
Sanford made a bad decision one that will cost him his political career….just like John Edwards. Deburca admitted that she believes in family values as do millions of credible Americans. The family "unit" is the core of who we are as a country. Republicans believe in family values so I’m not really sure what it is the democrats believe in if they don’t believe in that.
I just think its funny that b/c we dont agree that its all b/c he is a republican that we are wrong, once again, yet they are never wrong. I find it funny that we have to agree with everything they say or we arent smart and cant come up with our own sensible thoughts. Oh well, but then again we are paid to post here so I guess I should take that into consideration.
You’ve got the answer! LOL! I understand their frustration and they will go to any lengths to keep the attention off of the White House. Changing the subject, reaching back two decades, anything, I mean, anything, but discuss current issues. The minute a new political thread comes up it becomes George Bush, Reagan, etc.
This will soon be over, C Hardy, so hang in there. 2010 is right around the corner and then we are halfway home!!
Remember, Deber B, that this is the same crowd that argued against me/us about Stormy Daniels a few weeks back: they don’t see any problem electing a porn star to office, or keeping a lying philanderer in office, but if it’s a Republican on the line, they are all over it.
They also don’t seem to understand that it’s better for a party to stand up and declare what’s right—even while understanding that humans are fallible and imperfect—than it is for everyone just to throw up there arms and say "nobody’s perfect, so why should we try, or even care for that matter?"
No DeBurca I have said it now several times, all politicians parade their happy families around when they are trying to get elected…so to me that is trying to show your family values by being a happy family, both Dems and Reps are guilty of it.
So you keep saying its worse for a rep just makes no sense to me, they all flaunt their families, all of them. You have family values and I am sure those values dont revolve around you being a democrate.
Deburca, Clinton was impeached for lying, not for his affair.
You’re absolutely right about his hypocrisy about the sanctity of marriage while carrying on an affair…just like Edward’s statement that you couldn’t trust someone who would betray a spouse — followed shortly thereafter by his affair and betrayal of Elizabeth while running for president, etc., etc. Sometimes people have ideals that they don’t live up to; it’s a fact of life. I’d still rather have an ideal and not make it than have no ideals; and I’d sure as heck rather put someone into office with morals, even if, being human, they don’t always live up to them, than put someone lacking morals into office.
BTW, I love the "to take attention away from this philandering Republican" line, particularly in light of how fast Dems wanted to drop the Edwards thing. Gee, I wonder why there’s such a different take on it?