Missing Mark Sanford

[tieguy]

I think he should resign just as I thought Clinton should have resigned. I would prefer politicians don't put themselves into positions where they might be the subject of potential blackmail.

But then again, maybe thats impossible. They all seem to sell their souls one way or another.

Am I cynical or what ?

I don't disagree. But clinton is no comparison at least this guy flew out of country to engage in his seediness rather then desecrating the oval office not to mention a few fine cigars.

 

[JimJimmyJames]

I agree that Clinton's, er, indiscretions, were far worse.

 

[Jones]

I agree that Clinton's, er, indiscretions, were far worse.

You're kidding right? You think it would have been less worse if Clinton had disappeared for five days, had his staff lie to the American people about where he was ( "Just tell'em I'm hiking on the Appalachian trail!"), used taxpayer money to fly to Argentina to see his girlfriend, and then spent the next few weeks giving long rambling interviews about his " tragic, doomed love story" and his "soul mate"? OK....

 

[moreluck]

Sanford can screw whoever he wants, but he used taxpayer money to be in Argentina trysting with his 'soulmate'.

He has a duty to his constituents and he blew it !!

 

[JimJimmyJames]

Like I previously stated, I think both Sanford and Clinton should have resigned.

But I think because of Clinton's higher position (um, "leader of the free world", anyone?) what he did was worse.

 

[wkmac]

If an elected official is gone for 5 days and nothing bad happens, no dramatic ill effects are seen or experienced, using the economic principle of "best allocation of resources" one has to ask, do we really need that job and someone to fill it in the first place? I mean at UPS if somone was gone for 5 days and all the packages still get delivered on time and at the optimum efficency of work and cost, then is that person really needed in the first place?



Gov't is the drug of illusion. Just Say No! to drugs!

 

[tieguy]

You're kidding right? You think it would have been less worse if Clinton had disappeared for five days,

had his staff lie to the American people about where he was ( "Just tell'em I'm hiking on the Appalachian trail!"), used taxpayer money to fly to Argentina to see his girlfriend, and then spent the next few weeks giving long rambling interviews about his " tragic, doomed love story" and his "soul mate"? OK....

You're saying Clinton didn't have his relationships on the tax payers dollar?
You think his frequent acts of sexual harrassment in the work place does not equate?
You think his scheduling his adulterous relationships at work is better then flying off to a discreet location.
You think his lying about his actions is better then Sanford coming clean as soon as he got back?
So sanford would be ok if he bangs the girl in the governors office and then lies about it?

I think Sanford is a loose cannon but his act was actually handled a lot better then clintons.

Having an adulterous affair is bad enough. Banging a subordinate in the oval office is a disgrace.

 

[Jones]

Sanford can screw whoever he wants, but he used taxpayer money to be in Argentina trysting with his 'soulmate'.

He has a duty to his constituents and he blew it !!

Totally agree. I really couldn't care less about the actual affairs that these guys engage in, that's between them, their girlfriends, and their wives. Where Clinton did wrong was in lying to a grand jury, regardless of the fact that using a grand jury to investigate an affair is ridiculous, he was under oath and should have come clean. Sanford should probably not have instructed his staff to lie for him, and he definitely should not have flown down to Argentina on the state's dime. I never thought that Clinton should have resigned, and I don't think Sanford should have to either. That's their decision.

 

[wkmac]

House of Pain: GOP's Class of '94

 

[tieguy]

Totally agree. I really couldn't care less about the actual affairs that these guys engage in, that's between them, their girlfriends, and their wives. Where Clinton did wrong was in lying to a grand jury, regardless of the fact that using a grand jury to investigate an affair is ridiculous, he was under oath and should have come clean. Sanford should probably not have instructed his staff to lie for him, and he definitely should not have flown down to Argentina on the state's dime. I never thought that Clinton should have resigned, and I don't think Sanford should have to either. That's their decision.

I'm hearing south carolina has cleared him of charges of affairing at tax payer expense?

 

[soberups]

If an elected official is gone for 5 days and nothing bad happens, no dramatic ill effects are seen or experienced, using the economic principle of "best allocation of resources" one has to ask, do we really need that job and someone to fill it in the first place? I mean at UPS if somone was gone for 5 days and all the packages still get delivered on time and at the optimum efficency of work and cost, then is that person really needed in the first place?

Apply this logic at UPS, and 2/3 of the management would be gone. And the average employee probably wouldnt even notice.

 

[Jones]

I'm hearing south carolina has cleared him of charges of affairing at tax payer expense?

Well, that's because he has agreed to reimburse the state for the cost of the trip. That's the right thing to do obviously, but do you really think he would have paid that money back if he hadn't been caught?

 

[tieguy]

Well, that's because he has agreed to reimburse the state for the cost of the trip. That's the right thing to do obviously, but do you really think he would have paid that money back if he hadn't been caught?

everything I'm seeing tells me that he paid for this trip to Argentina out of his own pocket. He did fly to Argentina on other trips that were state paid but it appears those trips may have predated his relationship.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24164.html

 

[Jones]

Yeah it was a legitimate trade mission, but I really doubt that's the reason that Sanford jumped at the chance to go. Sanford knows it too, which is why he's paying back the money.

 

[over9five]

Yeah it was a legitimate trade mission....,

Depends how you define "trade mission"!!!!!

 

[toonertoo]

I heard that he was a possible candidate to run in 2012........at least he has foriegn affair experience. Sorry didn't have a Michael Jackson joke

Now that was funny, the guy is a boob.

 

[toonertoo]

Apply this logic at UPS, and 2/3 of the management would be gone. And the average employee probably wouldnt even notice.

+3

 

[tieguy]

Yeah it was a legitimate trade mission, but I really doubt that's the reason that Sanford jumped at the chance to go. Sanford knows it too, which is why he's paying back the money.

Your posts appear to be a little misleading. His recent trip was paid for out of pocket.

His trip last year was a legitimate trade trip to two different countries but he still offered to reimburse the state for the trip since he met with his lady friend while in one of the two countries. Nothing seedy there. He could have kept his mouth shut on the whole affair.

I wonder if Clinton ever offered to reimburse the taxpayers for the time he spent copulating in the oval office?

 

[Jones]

Your posts appear to be a little misleading. His recent trip was paid for out of pocket.

His trip last year was a legitimate trade trip to two different countries but he still offered to reimburse the state for the trip since he met with his lady friend while in one of the two countries. Nothing seedy there. He could have kept his mouth shut on the whole affair.

I wonder if Clinton ever offered to reimburse the taxpayers for the time he spent copulating in the oval office?

Look, if you really want to believe that it was vitally important for the governor of South Carolina to go on a "trade mission" to Argentina, and that it was just a coincidence that his girlfriend lived there, be my guest. As far "keeping his mouth shut on the whole affair", that's exactly what he intended to do until the press found out what sort of trade mission he was really on. He didn't offer to reimburse that money til after he got caught, and he's reimbursing it for a reason.

 

[tieguy]

Look, if you really want to believe that it was vitally important for the governor of South Carolina to go on a "trade mission" to Argentina, and that it was just a coincidence that his girlfriend lived there, be my guest. QUOTE]

the trade trip last year went to brazil and argentina. You're really delving more into an entirely different subject here. I'm sure these politicians use the trade trip excuse all the time to go on taxpayer paid vacations. A two country trade trip was clearly not entirely set up to see the girl in argentina.