Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Julia Reed | 06/25/2009 10:45 am

Mrs. Mark Sanford Is No Silda Spitzer, by Julia Reed

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.

161 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Rachel F

Thanks, Libra — and you’re right. The MSM was dragged, kicking and screaming, into the Edwards affair, and this while the man was aspiring to the country’s highest office; they didn’t have to be asked twice about someone in a substantially less significant role than that which Edward hoped to gain.

Also, have to agree with you, deber — I would rather not have people think that an official’s betrayal of and lying to one person is unimportant as opposed to betraying and lying to others. After all, we’re supposed to trust these people; if they can betray and cheat the people closest to them, why not us "nobodies"? And I’m not saying a mistake should ruin a person’s life or political career; just that when they think lying and betraying people who trust them is perfectly legitimate, and when any and all remorse is merely for being caught, the red flags do — and should — go up!

By Rachel F on 06/25/2009 3:39 pm
DeBúrca obj

Wrong Rachel, Sanford was going to run in 12, now he won’t. Also, people in here and elsewhere, even on Progressive Radio were furious with Edwards and were not calling for the subject to be dropped. I was furious with both him and his wife for not refraining from running for president under the circumstances because, had he won the primary and that scandal had come out, McCain probably would have won.

Again, Edwards was not an elected official and when he was campaigning, he was not calling for legislation to protect ‘the sanctity of marriage’. 

By DeBúrca obj on 06/25/2009 8:27 pm
Reader 117
Yeah, one has to wonder why she went all the way back to Gary Hart and Wilbur Mills when she really only had to go back as far as John Edwards.
By Reader 117 on 06/25/2009 1:55 pm
DeBúrca obj

Or Senator Ensign, or Larry Craig, or she could have mentioned Newt Gingrich or Henry Hyde if she wanted to go back a few years. The list is quite big actually.

Edwards is fair game, but he actually was not an elected official when he was cheating, so I suppose that is apples and oranges. 

By DeBúrca obj on 06/25/2009 2:10 pm
Marjorie C.

DeBurca:  …but he actually was not an elected official when he was cheating

If that’s the criteria, how about Spitzer… does he fit the profile?

By Marjorie C. on 06/25/2009 3:37 pm
DeBúrca obj
And did everyone crucify Spitzer for it? Yes, everyone did. Democrats were as critical as anyone. Also, Spitzer was a hypocrite for cracking down on prostitution while seeing a prostitute.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/25/2009 8:28 pm
Marjorie C.

DeBurca:  Democrats were as critical as anyone.

From what I can see, there is no one here on this site supporting Sanford’s behavior.  The Republicans are disgusted.  The Democrats are disgusted, but they are also trying to make political hay out of the situation.  I just don’t think it’s going to fly. 

By Marjorie C. on 06/26/2009 6:17 am
DeBúrca obj
Marjorie, it IS political. Just like Spitzer was political because he went after prostitution and then got caught with a prostitute, Sanford is political because he is anti-gay marriage because he says it threatens "the sanctity of marriage" and he runs as a ‘family values’ republican… add to that he also calls himself a fiscal conservative, and even tried to keep his state from getting stimulus money, and it looks like he was visiting his mistress on taxpayer money. So YES it is very political. Just like Larry Craig was ALSO political because he was vocally against gay rights all the while he was attempting to pick men up in airport men’s rooms. Their hypocrisy, not the affair itself which is a personal matter, their hypocrisy makes it political. And just like the Catholic Church which holds itself up as the moral authority therefore gets extra criticism for its pedophile priests, the Republican Party which holds itself up as some sort of authority on values gets extra criticism for its politicians who run on values yet don’t have any.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/26/2009 7:08 am
Marjorie C.

Reader:  …only had to go back as far as John Edwards.

Or Eliot Spitzer.

By Marjorie C. on 06/25/2009 3:32 pm
Rachel F
And talk about a hypocrite in Spitzer’s case. Here’s a man who goes after prostitution, and then hires a prostitute! This isn’t even the sort of Edwards/Sanford/etc. case, where what was at some point a legitimate friendly relationship turned into something else, where hormones but probably emotions too complicated matters (not an excuse, by any means, but a factor nonetheless)…this was just saying one thing and doing another, entirely. Of course, that’s another one the left forgets to mention a lot…gee, I wonder why?
By Rachel F on 06/25/2009 3:49 pm
MK P

I agree. Rachel, it was clear that emotions played a big part in the Sanford saga and evidently his connection with this woman/friend has been 8 years in the making.   I feel badly for politicians because sometimes I think we the public force them to be the hypocrits we accuse them of being when they show themselves to be human.   The public needs to worry less about whether or not there is lipstick on a politicans chair and more about the politicians views on things that impact the voter and the voter’s life.

 

By MK P on 06/25/2009 4:48 pm
DeBúrca obj
MK P, that would be true of politicians who just do their job of being public servants and then get caught cheating. That would not only be none of our business, it wouldn’t be, or at least SHOULDN’T be, a big political scandal. However, when political parties align themselves with religion as the Republicans do, and when politicians run on so-called ‘family values’ platforms and vote against the rights of others, like women and gays, based upon religious dogma and things like ‘the sanctity of the family’ it is NOT the public forcing them to be hypocrites, they have put themselves in that position solely on their own.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/26/2009 7:13 am
DeBúrca obj
typo: ‘the sanctity of marriage’
By DeBúrca obj on 06/26/2009 7:14 am
MK P
I don’t disagree with you, DeBurca.   I find it interesting that people who seem to embrace "religion" so closely — are often the most unforgiving.     Sometimes the mere fact that someone leaves their marriage is seen as "anti-family" when in fact — often, staying in a marriage that is not working and living a lie is actually more "anti-family".    I do think the Republican party is more aggressive about expecting their candidates to be perfect and hold their party up as the party which somehow has a monopoly on "family values" — which is why we also see more Republicans who seem to fall from grace (as it were).    I liked your comment in another post about them "pimping" family values" — you’re right, Republicans seem to invoke religious dogma in their political decisions, which is in fact very scary.
By MK P on 06/26/2009 7:41 am
DeBúrca obj
Yep, as a party they try to force a narrow view of the world down the throats of the public and into our legislation. Hell, Huckabee even stated he was for amending the U S Constitution to better reflect the values of the bible! As individuals, many of them seem to think it is ok to legislate the personal lives of others, through anti-choice and anti-gay marriage (next there will be some Republican wanting to legislate anti-divorce laws)… yet they don’t live the rhetoric, because they just use the rhetoric for political gain. I for one think the phrase "sanctity of marriage" has no place in government policy, and it especially is offensive when coming from politicians who seem to have a less rigid standard for themselves.
By DeBúrca obj on 06/26/2009 7:48 am