Report: S.C. governor says he was in Argentina

Status
Not open for further replies.
jillio said:
Yes, you did. "At least he came forward and admitted" makes it sound as if he voluntarily came clean as a result of his conscience. Right. That's why it took him a year to admit to having an ongoing affair. He got busted, plain and simple. Otherwise, it would be continuing today. Get a grip.:cool2:
Click to expand...

You're not a mind reader, so, please, don't even try to ply the trade. And stop getting so defensive and paranoid for pete's sake!

No. It was in the context that he did not run away when faced/caught. He admitted. And I said, that was a start but still that doesn't help much to those he hurt. Just the same as Clinton, he would've continued with the affair if he thought he could continue to get away with it. How wrong he was.

Edwards was caught about the affair at a hotel in June, he admitted two months later on national television but the problem was he had a baby and used hush money.
Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate - ABC News

Clinton? Well, he made a bald-faced lie *under oath* in front of a federal judge about the affair. He lied on January 26, 1998 to the America public via the media wagging his finger at the cameras saying he never had sexual relation with "that woman." And then on August 17, 1998 that night he admitted on tv to the American public that he had an affair, in so many words, with Lewinsky...almost 7 months later.

I've noticed that over the years when politicians get caught they learned that it is better to quickly admit the affair and let the scandal die quickly so they can go with their lives (in the hope it can be repaired or just move on) rather than to hang on and lie or obfuscate at every turn. Especially in this day and age of the internet and Twitter.
:cool2:
 
Last edited:
Her name, picture, biography, and emails have been out for two days here in Charleston.
 
kokonut said:
You're not a mind reader, so, please, don't even try to ply the trade. And stop getting so defensive and paranoid for pete's sake!

No. It was in the context that he did not run away when faced/caught. He admitted. And I said, that was a start but still that doesn't help much to those he hurt. Just the same as Clinton, he would've continued with the affair if he thought he could continue to get away with it. How wrong he was.

Edwards was caught about the affair at a hotel in June, he admitted two months later on national television but the problem was he had a baby and used hush money.
Edwards Admits Sexual Affair; Lied as Presidential Candidate - ABC News

Clinton? Well, he made a bald-faced lie *under oath* in front of a federal judge about the affair. He lied on January 26, 1998 to the America public via the media wagging his finger at the cameras saying he never had sexual relation with "that woman." And then on August 17, 1998 that night he admitted on tv to the American public that he had an affair, in so many words, with Lewinsky...almost 7 months later.

I've noticed that over the years when politicians get caught they learned that it is better to quickly admit the affair and let the scandal die quickly so they can go with their lives (in the hope it can be repaired or just move on) rather than to hang on and lie or obfuscate at every turn. Especially in this day and age of the internet and Twitter.
:cool2:
Click to expand...

Defensive and paranoid?:laugh2: Do you own a dictionary?:laugh2:

I don't have to be a mind reader when you put it in black and white.

OIC. When they get caught. How about if they don't engage in double standards and preach one thing to garner votes, and behave in a completely different way? How about they check that hypocrisy at the door so there is nothing to catch them at?

Where the heck did you think he was going to run to? He was caught red handed in a lie about his whereabouts. Did you expect him to duck behind the baggage carrier and claim he was a look alike? Puh-leeze.:roll:
 
Maria Belen Chapur. She's a lot older than I thought but she's not bad.
 
Sanford said Thursday that he would reimburse South Carolina for the Argentina leg of a state-funded trade mission last year because he saw the woman he had an affair with on that trip, someone he described as "a dear, dear friend."

Sanford plans to return to work Friday despite calls to resign - CNN.com

Another evidence of his hypocrisy. Tried to turn down stimulus funds that would benefit education in his state, but used tax payer money to take the opportunity to see his mistress.:roll:
 
jillio said:
...OIC. When they get caught. How about if they don't engage in double standards and preach one thing to garner votes, and behave in a completely different way? How about they check that hypocrisy at the door so there is nothing to catch them at?
Click to expand...
Should we apply that hypocrisy standard to all politicians for all their sins? That is, we should include their hypocrisy in environmental, financial, employment, public school, health, medical services, etc., right?

I in no way excuse anything that Sanford has done. He is definitely on my "list" now. But just because other politicians commit hypocritical (and illegal) acts that aren't "sexy" shouldn't let them off the hook either.
 
jillio said:
Yeppers. Just like when someone who preaches abstinence ends up with a pregnant teen daughter. Makes the news because they are inconsistent in word and deed. Kind of like, "Do as I say, not as I do."
Click to expand...
How is that hypocrisy? Which words of Palin didn't match Palin's deeds? What exactly did Palin do that didn't match what she said?
 
jillio said:
Sanford said Thursday that he would reimburse South Carolina for the Argentina leg of a state-funded trade mission last year because he saw the woman he had an affair with on that trip, someone he described as "a dear, dear friend."

Sanford plans to return to work Friday despite calls to resign - CNN.com

Another evidence of his hypocrisy. Tried to turn down stimulus funds that would benefit education in his state, but used tax payer money to take the opportunity to see his mistress.:roll:
Click to expand...
...Thursday, the governor said he would repay South Carolina for the Argentina leg of the trade mission last year with the Department of Commerce.

"While the purpose of this trip was an entirely professional and appropriate business development trip, I made a mistake while I was there in meeting with the woman who I was unfaithful to my wife with," Sanford said.

"That has raised some very legitimate concerns and questions, and as such I am going to reimburse the state for the full cost of the Argentina leg of this trip."

The South American swing took Sanford and several commerce officials to Brazil and Argentina for one week, beginning on June 21, 2008.

According to state expenditure reports, Sanford's expenses for out-of-state travel with the Department of Commerce were $21,487 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. Governors commonly travel out-of-state or abroad to stir up investment in their home states.

It was not immediately clear how much of the expenses the Argentina part of the trip comprised.

Sanford said in the news conference Wednesday that he footed the bill for his most recent trip to Buenos Aires, which occurred in the past week.
Click to expand...

If the trip for all the parties was arranged only to allow Sanford a rendezvous, then yes, he should pay it back.

If his rendezvous was only incidental to the trip, then no, he shouldn't need to pay it back.

Legally, he probably doesn't owe the money. Whatever he did outside of the official meetings was not a legal matter. Morally, he probably "feels" better by paying back the money.

Personally, I don't believe paying back money lessens any moral guilt in this situation.
 
Reba said:
Should we apply that hypocrisy standard to all politicians for all their sins? That is, we should include their hypocrisy in environmental, financial, employment, public school, health, medical services, etc., right?

I in no way excuse anything that Sanford has done. He is definitely on my "list" now. But just because other politicians commit hypocritical (and illegal) acts that aren't "sexy" shouldn't let them off the hook either.
Click to expand...

No it shouldn't. But illegal, hypocrisy, and "sin" are three very different concepts. Sanford's cheating on his wife is his, his wife's, his mistress', and his children's issue to deal with. However, his lying about his whereabouts, his using state money to take the opportunity to visit his mistress, abandonment of office for several days while no one knew where he was, and claim values to garner votes that he proposes for the rest of the country, but fails to subscribe to for himself all go a bit deeper than the issue of "sin". Remember, separation of church and state. I am not so concerned with the concept of "sin" in this case (or any other for that matter), as it is a religious issue that should have absolutely nothing to do with politics. I am, however, concerned with the issue of honest representation, misuse of public funds, dishonesty, and lack of regard for the well being of the people he has pledged to serve.
 
Reba said:
If the trip for all the parties was arranged only to allow Sanford a rendezvous, then yes, he should pay it back.

If his rendezvous was only incidental to the trip, then no, he shouldn't need to pay it back.

Legally, he probably doesn't owe the money. Whatever he did outside of the official meetings was not a legal matter. Morally, he probably "feels" better by paying back the money.

Personally, I don't believe paying back money lessens any moral guilt in this situation.
Click to expand...

It is however, an ethical issue. But then, his ethics are becoming clearer day by day.:cool2:
 
Jiro said:
she already expressed her disgusted feeling for Sanford. She already stated that he should resign.
Click to expand...

She entitle her opinion.

I personally don't think adultery should make him resign the governorship as long as he doing his job well.

Private and Duty are strict separate.
 
Reba said:
How is that hypocrisy? Which words of Palin didn't match Palin's deeds? What exactly did Palin do that didn't match what she said?
Click to expand...

Let's see, Troopergate, selling a state jet at an huge loss and claiming to executed something that actually benefitted the state, billing the state for the travel expenses for her family that essentially were in excess of what it would have cost to use the state owned plane, claimed that astinence was the only program needed to prevent teen pregnancy and refused to support comprehensive programs that actually have been shown empirically to do so all the while hiding an unmarried teen daughter's pregnancy who had received the very abstinence ed that she was claiming worked so well, placed herself in the public eye and on television attempting to grab her 15 minutes of fame and then whined about how unfairly she was treated after the election (even though she had willingly participated in these activities), and the list goes on and on and on. The woman doesn't know the meaning of the word "congruence". But this is not about Sarah Palin. This is about Sanford. The man who preached family values while carrying on a year long affair with an Argentine woman. A man who did not see fit to hold himself to the same standards as he preached for the rest of us. The man who called for the impeachment of Bill Clinton for getting a blow job in the Oval Office, yet is just as guilty as anyone else.
 
Reba said:
I prefer that he resign.

I don't know if what he did was an impeachable offense under SC law. I haven't heard or read any state legal opinions yet.

I was thinking more along the lines of not electing or reelecting them.
Click to expand...

I have a question for you, Reba.

What do you think of him as Governor before his scandal come to the public? Is he good Governor?
 
Liebling:-))) said:
She entitle her opinion.

I personally don't think adultery should make him resign the governorship as long as he doing his job well.

Private and Duty are strict separate.
Click to expand...


Agreed. But lying to his continuency, being absent from his duty to attend to the office to which he was elected with no one knowing where he was and being under question for the use of state funds to take the opportunity to meet with his mistress while at the same time, refusing stimulus money that would support educational efforts for the residents of his state do.
 
jillio said:
Agreed. But lying to his continuency, being absent from his duty to attend to the office to which he was elected with no one knowing where he was and being under question for the use of state funds to take the opportunity to meet with his mistress while at the same time, refusing stimulus money that would support educational efforts for the residents of his state do.
Click to expand...


Yep. Resign is the best option. Just as Clinton should've resigned for lying to his constituency, the judge while under oath, obstruction in order to hide his sexual relationships with Lewinsky, and the improper use of grounds (Oval office) and not his duty to attend to the office in order to have these illicit affairs while married. Why shouldn't Clinton have resigned but Sanford when both showed any lack of regard for the well being of the people as they both pledged to serve? Even Spitzer resigned over just a call girl issue and not to the same breadth and depth as to what Sanford and Clinton did.Same for McGreevey. A double standard at work here with Clinton? Should have resigned or not? Yes or no?

:hmm:
 
Should Bush have resigned after being caught red-handed in lying to get us into the Iraq War? Hell yes.
Back on topic please.
 
Beowulf said:
Should Bush have resigned after being caught red-handed in lying to get us into the Iraq War? Hell yes.
Back on topic please.
Click to expand...

Ah, a classic evasive non-answer.

Er, no. He had the same information as Congress did in deciding to vote to go to war, again. Saddam broke the surrender agreement in the first war and the subsequently violated 17 UN Resolutions, of which the UN had no means nor the will to enforce them.

Now, back on topic. :roll:
 
kokonut said:
Ah, a classic evasive non-answer.

Er, no. He had the same information as Congress did in deciding to vote to go to war, again. Saddam broke the surrender agreement in the first war and the subsequently violated 17 UN Resolutions, of which the UN had no means nor the will to enforce them.

Now, back on topic. :roll:
Click to expand...

:laugh2:
Ever heard of the Downing Street Memo? Pretty damning, eh?
 
kokonut said:
Yep. Resign is the best option. Just as Clinton should've resigned for lying to his constituency, the judge while under oath, obstruction in order to hide his sexual relationships with Lewinsky, and the improper use of grounds (Oval office) and not his duty to attend to the office in order to have these illicit affairs while married. Why shouldn't Clinton have resigned but Sanford when both showed any lack of regard for the well being of the people as they both pledged to serve? Even Spitzer resigned over just a call girl issue and not to the same breadth and depth as to what Sanford and Clinton did.Same for McGreevey. A double standard at work here with Clinton? Should have resigned or not? Yes or no?

:hmm:
Click to expand...

you know what's even worse? The enormous cost involved for investigation and legal proceeding.... and Clinton still stuck with "I've never had sexual relationship with that woman" for too long. Because of prolonged investigation, he further embarrassed his family because the investigation unraveled even more of his infidelity.

now Hillary and Chelsea are forever scarred by it. The public will never leave them alone with it. Remember poor Chelsea was asked about scandal while she was on campaign tour for Hillary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top