Blogs and Stories
Sanford's Email Outrage
William Thomas Cain / Getty Images
As America snickers at the governor’s steamy emails to his lover, Lee Siegel wonders why no one—in a country so sensitive to individual freedom—is protesting the invasion of Sanford’s privacy.
The brouhaha over Gov. Mark Sanford’s indiscretion brings several words to mind: outrageous, disgusting, unsettling, terrifying.
Not the fact that he committed adultery (sleep-inducing) or that he took off for Argentina without telling even his most trusted aides (fascinating) or that he spoke intimately and weepily during his interminable mea culpa (poignant). No, what should have us all in some kind of uproar is the fact that Sanford’s private emails are being broadcast all over the world. And incredibly, in this society so ultra-sensitive to individual freedom, not a single voice has been raised in protest.
The biggest riddle of all is why sophisticated adults can make merry over the exposure of two people’s most intimate thoughts and feelings, under the pretext of condemning a public man’s private folly.
Instead of worrying about how that South Carolina newspaper got hold of Sanford’s emails in the first place, our high-minded pundits wring their hands over the governor’s hypocrisy, over his possible misuse of public money, over the effect his actions will have on Republican fortunes. Then they excitedly return to discussing the emails. These are some of the same people who thought the Patriot Act’s legitimization of invasion of privacy was the opening phase of a “police state.”
There was a time, seemingly in a different geological era, when the very symbol of governmental infringement on private life was the illegal wiretap. Think J. Edgar Hoover’s electronic eavesdropping on Martin Luther King Jr. and the perverse pleasure Hoover took in listening to King’s bedroom conversations. Think the concept of “Big Brother,” which more than anything else summons to mind wanton surveillance of a citizen’s innermost thoughts. Francis Ford Coppola’s 1974 film, The Conversation, with its story about a professional eavesdropper finally losing his mind when his adversaries turn his invasive techniques against him, captured a generation’s outcry against governmental use of privacy-shattering technology.
There is something eerie about watching Rachel Maddow, everybody’s progressive hero, snickering over the emails of Sanford and his girlfriend on the same evening that Obama was making his pitch for health care on one of the dreaded networks.
So much for the cable revolution. Once upon a time, Maddow built a fan base by sallying forth against Bush & Co.’s evil domestic empire. Now she is holding up to public derision the most intimate sentiments of an Argentinean woman, with two teenage sons, who speaks from her heart about falling in love with a married man and wanting to change her life:
“I have to find my new place in this new stage of my life. Life has been very generous with me and I want to return at least a little bit of what I have been given. I have time and think helping others who haven’t been as lucky as me will do me fine.”
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Obama, the Un-decider
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Leave Palin Alone
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Obama's Dangerous Obsession
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Your online privacy is only as good as your email password or the security of your connection. Unencrypted email is inherently not private. A password your wife or sons know guarantees you zero privacy. While I agree more questions to The State newspaper need to be asked about who their source is for these emails, this is Governor Sanford's fault. If you don't want people to know your business, don't send it in email.
How do you think the media got those mails? Through some unscrupulous hacking of Sanford's personal email account by cyberpunks in Russia? No. This was an inside job. My money is on Sanford's wife or one of Maria's sons disclosing these to the press.
To excuse this breach of privacy because email is somehow a less than perfectly secure method of communication, is insane. How secure is your mailbox at the end of your driveway? Should we dismiss people who identity is stolen because they weren't smart enough to put a titanium chain and lock on their mailbox? It might surprise you how easy it is to tap someone's phone. Does that make it "your fault" when you telephone calls are leaked to the press because you weren't paranoid enough to use an encrypted telephony system?
This breach of privacy should be condemned by all the hand-wringing liberals that were so afraid W and his cronies were going to xerox library cards and tap grandma's phones. If it's wrong for government to do it under the guise of national security, it's equally as wrong for a profit-driven private enterprise to do it for the sole reason of embellishing an already salacious story.
Not a good analogy... Assuming that the emails had been opened and read, a desk drawer, not a driveway mailbox, would be a better comparison...If the newspaper had hacked the account intercepting the emails, just like tapping a phone, it would be illegal but printing private opened letters or emails given by a third party isn't...Could be considered sleazy though.
I'm sorry top tell you but public officials do not have the same privacy rights as everyone else. They chose to go into a PUBLIC LIFE. It is the price you pay for having the status and power of being called Senator or Congressman or Governor or President. If you took off for a few days your whole state wouldn't be out looking for you.
exactly.
just because it can be done, that doesn't mean it should be done...everyone has a right to privacy, regardless of their "public" status...and, these emails don't lend any pertinent information to his wonky disappearance, just to the sensational aspect of it all.
Those who say that public figures don't have the same privacy rights (or other rights) -- and that includes judges' decisions -- have never pointed to where, exactly, in the Constitution or its amendments this public figure exception to the equal protection of the laws is.
We are living in a world were their IS no personal privacy that went out the window with the internet. If some one wants to hack into your e-mail tap your phone they;ll do it becaues they can. If some one wants it bad enough they'll get it especially if theirs a paycheck at the end
I agree, difficult to expect privacy from the internet and if mails did not come from the wife ( can not blame her) it definitely comes from his intimate circle. Bottem line; Good that hypocrites get exposed!
I'm completely with Siegel on this. The larger point isn't how this information was obtained. That part is easy. The main issue is how our culture has gotten to the point where we take enjoyment from other people's shortcomings, where we mock and laugh at other's personal affairs, where we fail to show the least bit of compasion and decency, and where we lack the ability to forgive. Just because someone is in a public position does not give us a free pass from being civil and humane.
This user is no longer registered.
Your reply is moot. First his wife was the recipient of the emails. Second, just like at my job, emails sent from my work account are not private and do not belong to me. Same here. Sanford was using his public/government email which is subject to review by his superiors...US.
The email providers have no legal scruples. One corrupt employee can tamper with an account copying whatever. The FBI has software which can be installed to send a copy of all emails to them, and to copy all keystrokes. FBI agents murdered innocents. What's a little email tampering to them? On my YouTube account someone put a picture purporting to be me in my profile; and an ad with my name pretending to me. The internet companies like the phone companies before them need to screen their employees and scrutinize their behavior better.
I totally agree. His wife 'found' one of the letters sanford and his paramour exchanged in January, and busted him. Further she was gobsmacked by his trip to Argentina last week. He was outed for being a dog. If the paper had the letters for five months that would be in keeping with his wife's knowledge of the affair. This thing was totally inside, you should be more impressed by the restraint shown by the paper.
Just because someone can get to ones personal emails does not make it right or legal. I agree with Seigel that Sanford has a right to privacy, even tho his is a public figure. He has a "private" life and a right to some privacy.
The affair SHOULD be btwn himself and his wife. How they work it out is btwn them and he has already publically confessed his affair. That should be enough. Not every marriage ends when there is an affair. Some survive and the couple have a stronger marriage and more honesty afterwards. That's up to them. It really is none of our business how they work it out.
He does deserve some ridicule if he previously condemned other politicians, like Clinton, for the same crime he has committed now. From the history of these scandals, it would seem that the most vocal critics of ANY politician should be investigated too. Most times, it seems they are guilty of the same crime while condemning others.
At least Bill Clinton (Democrate) dont "Shout Bible"or use "Family Values" during election,that's HUGE difference between apple and orange.Governor Sanford's(Republican) preachings are all My A.ss*
i think it is fair to say that the current incarnation of press is tempered by the need to make monies for its corporate owners and, also, to stay ahead of the competition.
...sex sells, sensationalism sells...pop, pop, pop...keep it going, as it is now a 24/7 news cycle...consequently, what is legal, compared to what is ethical, is now rarely considered.
while my voice is a small and modest one, there are many like mine who have responded to the tasteless display of his personal life in the last 24 hours...we don't like it...we do find it as an invasion of privacy, as well as, simply, bad taste...it is not news.
and while it is most disappointing to see the media latch on to these emails like a dog with a bone, there is solace in knowing that among the many responses of readers, there are many who won't bite.
I have no sympathy. It was his choices and actions that led to this, not some kind of indecent conspiracy meant to shame him. He'd taken care of that.
And to hell with this feeling sorry for two adulterers. These people made choices to take vows, and damn it, if they weren't happy and wanted to be together, they should have had the decency to get divorced. Especially Sanford, someone whose political rhetoric about the sanctity of marriage should have actually meant something.
I don't really care
About either of them.
But it's really the principle of the thing
Isn't it?
The emails make me cringe
And I don't conflate their behavior with
The awful infringement of privacy-
But I wouldn't read anybody's mail.
Ritarita: The e-mails make you "cringe" but you "wouldn't read anybody's mail"? Sounds like you would and did.
They chose to commit adultery. They didn't choose to have their privacy violated. What matters more to you as an individual? What matters more to the future of this nation? My emails have an expectation of privacy and I want to see liberals stand up for that.
Not your work email. Your work (especially government) email has NO EXPECTATION of privacy.
I concur. Privacy as a principle outranks the fatuous self-righteousness of these indignant taxpayers who overestimate their right to judge public officials who get caught because it benefits the press to give them extra scrutiny.
Scientific, I agree with you 100%. And I want to add that the author of this piece needs to save the tears for the wife, not the adultress, period.
Oh, and don't forget the sons -- now that their father has been unable to maintain his vows or at least have the balls to ask for a divorce before having an affair -- what about their lives?
And for everyone else out there naive enough to think that their emails or other similar digital chatter can't be dredged up now or in the future -- be warned -- what you type today may haunt you down the road. We're all vulnerable. Sit down sometime with a 20 year old computer whiz/hacker and let him/her enlighten you on all the ways that your typed words can be monitored, read, etc. at any point in time.
Finally, in defense of Maddow -- the part of this situation that is sickening is the fact that, like Ensign and his "supporter" Coburn, Sanford is part of a block of religious conservatives who condemn homosexuality and gay marriage and anything they deem to be inappropriate among heterosexuals as well. Screw them. While they're out destroying their marriages (or looking the other way, in the case of Coburn), do you know how many FAITHFUL, MONOGAMOUS gay couples exist in this country? The hypocrisy of these powerful, sanctimonious men (and the other religious conservatives in this country who are cheating on their opposite sex spouses) is off the charts.
Jafly, I hope that your intolerance does not lead to hypocricy later on. That will require that you live a perfect and sinless life. And if you do falter, I'm sure you'll find it fair to be under full scutiny and judgement of everyone else.
So, the nub of your argument is that liberals, by dint of being immoral scumbags and proud of it, are entitled to protections that conservatives aren't?
Just to remind me, where is that hypocrisy exception to the Bill of Rights, exactly? I can't seem to locate it in my copy of the Constitution.
I completely agree with you. How *did* The State get these emails?
Sanford has enough problems without his private correspondence being splashed all over the papers. Did it really add anything to the revelation? Did the citizenry really have a right to know? He'd already confessed for crying out loud.
I have a hard time imagining his wife forgiving him now, knowing the entire world has read about his peccadilloes.
On the other hand, for me, it humanized him. I actually feel sorry for him.
He confessed because he knew the newspaper had these emails. If the newspaper didn't have them, do you think he would have confessed? HA!
And he's paying the state back for his trip to Argentina now. Do you think he would have done that if he hadn't been caught? HA HA!
Will his wife forgive him? Let's see, was she one of those taunting Hilliary for her decision? At least Bill wasn't a hypocrite. He never condemned others for their private piccadillos, like Sanford did as he held himself up to be a fine, family values man, off boinking his mistress over Father's Day Weekend.
While it is true that Sanford probably would not have been truthful about his escapades in Argentina had "The State" reporter not confronted him with the facts from the e-mails, "The State" newspaper still could have chosen not to print the e-mails.
Incidentally, I don't think they should have printed the emails because of privacy issues, but not based on any violation of Sanford's right to privacy.
They should not have printed them because they violated the privacy rights of the other party, whom they identified as "Maria," but who they must have known would be identified by her full name once the story was printed.
And while she is presumably not a US citizen, does that mean she is not entitled to privacy? She is not a public official and was not using government owned computer to post her private communication with Gov. Sanford.
Have you thought Mrs. Sanford or their eldest son might have done it?
It is his home computer at his home, you know. The family knew about his escapades and they had been separated for two weeks on Mrs. Sanford's orders. There are several unamused costumers because of this at the Sanford home.
Underestimate Mrs. Sanford at your own peril.
If that's the case
It's not a giant step toward
Reconciliation.
Let's just say the powerful
here, is making the selfish
guv a powerless fool.
Mrs. Sanford holds the cards
he'll dance to her tune.
the state has had these emails for months, before the wife knew...and why in the world would she want to suffer the humiliation?...i don't buy that it was a vindictive wife...it's not her style and she worked too hard to get him where he is.
jazz -- and the bum pays the favor with a Buenos Aires girlfriend!
Mrs. Sanford is independently wealthy and a highly capable professional. Don't cry a tear for Jenny Sanford, she can take care of herself and the four boys and make it look easy.
Sorry to be blunt, but you're blathering, and in your hurry you've conflated a number of issues that have nothing to do with one another. You make an Olympic-sized leap of logic, for example, when you mention illegal wiretaps in the same breath and imply (without a smidgen of proof) that Sanford's emails came to light via some illegal gov't activity. Fact is, no one knows exactly how the media got them, but I think the age-old practice of "the leak," is rather more likely than a Patriot Act level conspiracy. The decision of a media outlet to publish them, is a whole different issue. When you write "The media's uncritical euphoria over social networks-look how Twitter is liberating Iran and China!-is turning the invasion of privacy into a cultural style," you go completely off the deep end. Are you really trying to say that "liberating Iran and China" are examples of "invasion of privacy"? Get your thoughts in order and try again.
it's an interesting conundrum...this middle aged love long distance affair is rather sad and charming - but the fact is the governor left the state leaderless for several days, and had planned to be gone for several more. he didn''t tell ANYONE where he was. he also paid her a visit on the state's dime. these are not the actions of a good leader.
'the state' held on to the emails them for six months, which, in light of the explosive material regarding the head of their state, is rather remarkable. it was only after the governor crossed the line line with his disappearance and then confessed to the affair did they choose to publish them - which by that time, had become really newsworthy items.
i think 'the state' was perfectly within their journalistic right to publish the emails.
Shows you how little we need of some of americas leaders, or for that matter, the best business our government does is when they are away on recess.
I probably agree with most of Rachel Maddow's political positions, but her snickering and smerking is offputting.
She is as irritating as the Fox people are. If Sanford's e-mails were on a state server, I say, public record; if not, then the publication of them is an invasion of privacy. However, it is amusing when a hypocritcal Politician is caught with his pants down. I don't care about his private life as long as he doesn't spend my tax dollars to finance it.
Probably extra special
Schadenfreude for Rachel-
GIven Sanford's position on
All things gay.
You can hardly blame her given
The Governor's 'Do as I say not as I do'
Hypocrisy.
No, what should have us all in some kind of uproar is the fact that Sanford's private emails are being broadcast all over the world.
Except for the fact that the world doesn't care about the affair of a governor of a minor state, except maybe for snickering about that weird puritan side of American culture. In no country in Europe this would be news.
His email did not belong to him and was not private. We all know work email is not ours.
Therefore there is an element of arrogant disregard, bordering on stupidity, that makes snickering/sniggering explicable.
Why the outrage over our actions? Why not more outrage over his -- and Ensign of Nevada -- and Lousiana Bobby?
"violation of Sanford's privacy?"
Excuse me but this is the same party that thinks they have the right to enter and police a woman's vagina, access to a family's reproduction plans, and to tell adults what type of sex they should have! Now you're pissed when YOUR private e-mails are released? Give me a freaking break! You are selfish hypocrite who believes in making PERSONAL choices for OTHERS but think that YOU shouldn't have to abide by these same rules. You are NOT standing up for the general principle of privacy, you only want the privacy clause to apply to YOUR life.
Your abortive mental tendancies are overwhelming your ability to listen, comprehend, and tolerate opposing or alternative viewpoints. Your rage is the only emotion which shines through your commentary.
Not really Peter-
It's a fairly normal reaction
To the shameful and shallow hypocrisy
Exhibited by the Governor.
That stuff makes people furious
And you can't really blame them.
Right on Peter, also shows lack of civility and decorum.
*YAWN* Tolerance does not mean silence, and sometimes anger is justified -- especially when someone is actively campaigning to take people's rights away.
peter,
I know you are but what am I!
Read your own comments and act according, you seem to be contradicting yourself :)
Who is trying to mandate the type of sex people have? Did you come out of some time capsule from the 1950's or something? If anyone's a hypocrite, it's the Left, whose hand-wringing over privacy and Patriot Act for the past 8 years over intercepted phone calls has been incessant. Where are they now, now that there's an ACTUAL case of invasion of privacy? Hypocrites!
Check out South Carolina's laws on morality and decency and you will see who claims the 1950's time capsule title. And just because his "poetic" nature has been put on display really does not mean people give a damn.
Mr. Sanford and other right-wing nut cases are who you are looking for. Last time I checked they believe they have the right to tell women WHEN to have sex (after marriage), and gay people what type of sex they can have (heterosexual or none at all).
So, objecting to the murder of babies (regardless of their location) makes it impossible to criticize reading other people's mail. Okay.
You do realize you're insane, right?
Last time I checked "murder" is a crime. Murders go to jail. Abortion is neither murder nor is it a crime. Abortion is a LEGAL medical procedure. You can use what ever FALSE claims you need to advance your propaganda but the facts are facts. A baby is an independent HUMAN being. You know, that PERSON who people like you abandon as soon as they go from being theory to reality in need to love, money, healthcare, food, schooling, etc.!
If men gave birth, abortion would not only be a "civil right", but a sacrament! And any governement MANDATING delievery, considered fascists and unDemocratic. The facts remain that men have tried to control women, their sexuality and their bodily functions since the beginning of time. The "fight" against abortion is smugly made to be wraped up in morality. If that were the case, passions would be equally as high for adultery, the death penalty, poverty, divorce, deadbeat dads, etc. However since the others are gender neutral, all the "outrage" is soley guided towards the single issue that deals with female reproduction. Sorry, I don't buy it.
My guess is that as soon as they start releasing the medical records showing that the wives, daughters, girl-friends, and mistresses of "conservative" candidates have abortions, the sooner right-wing nuts like you start DEFENDING the rights to have abortions. Afterall, it's all about hypocricy right? Do as I do not as I say? And when caught, quote the baby, claim to "not be perfect" and have right-wing nuts come to your defense. Same old boring story.
Get off Rachael's back. She didn't smirk, she didn't giggle or titter. She gave us the news, and all of it, and those emails were part of the news.
As to how the emails became public: Maybe those same guys Bush had tapping the phones of Iraq soldiers and other private citizens and who were reading Ted Kennedy's email had time to do this job. Once you say illegal wiretaps are A-Okay, you've lost control of the technology.
I just wonder why the newspaper held on to those emails for 5 months.
Oh wait, I know.
I'm a lefty who enjoys the hypocrisy-exposing Olbermann, but when he read the emails on national TV I thought "this is going too far, now you're being just like Limbaugh". Hypocrisy, yes but spare the details in honor of his family. Don't stoop to Limbaugh's level.
Regardless, Sanford can thank Michael for wiping him off the front pages.
Anything you post online, no matter how many numbers and symbols in your password, should be assumed to be public. You cannot have an expectation of privacy or hide behind the mask of a user name. If someone wants to find your information, they can. If you want your love letters kept secret, I suggest pen, paper, and, if your lover is in Argentina, air mail.
That's crazy. You do have and expectation of privacy on the internet. Expectation being the keep word. Millions of people are doing banking and taxes on line and there are laws protecting them.
No different than putting my check in the mail. Can someone go fish it out of a mail box and steal it, of course. But we do it anyway. The point is if you vanish for a few days without notice then you should probably expect friends or family to go fishing through your emails and other personal stuff, including paper mail to figure out what the hell happened to you.
I'm resigned to the fact that privacy is dead. I don't even think people growing up now know what the concept of privacy is. They're being raised to be exhibitionists and lay everything on the table. R.I.P privacy... preceded in death by your sisters Irony, Subtlety and Wit. I think Sarcasm is still alive but it had a lobotomy.
When FISA was revised to retroactively cover the crimes of the telecoms and the Bush administration the nation yawned and turned to American Idol. What should anyone care about this guy's privacy?
Amen. It only took 30 or so replies to get to the real crux of the matter. We now live in a society where fearmongering over potential terrorist attacks takes precedence over individual rights. We retroactively allowed our citizens to be wiretapped, we hold people without charge and torture them, and on and on.
Was Mr. Siegal similarly outraged when Eliot Spitzer's financial records were searched under the Patriot Act in order to catch him with prostitutes? I hardly think someone (probably his wife or a staffer) sending in emails showing him to be a lying cheat is on par with the Bush era privacy compromises, which sadly have numbed most people to these invasions of our basic rights. But apparently Republican hypocrisy and victimization is alive and well for this idiotic writer.
Exactly.
Thanks, EdinNJ. One thing you can be certain of is that all of the people here complaining about Sanford's privacy did not offer the same sentement about Edwards, Clinton or Spitzer.
It's called HYPOCRISY.
Since someone close to the gov gave them to the STATE newspaper and they weren't hacked as far as we know, Lee's views have no basis in fact. THe real news disclosed in the emails and what the "press" should be focused on is the Mcain and meeting in Aspen portion. Did Sanford spend days or a week with Mcain in Aspen discussing the VP slot? If that is the case, why did Mcain only spend hours with his final choice, Palin? That goes to Mcains decision making and judgement. Also an indication that he was pushed to the Palin choice by his handlers.
I'm sorry but the difference between Mark Sanford and most of the rest of us is he's a public figure, a publicly elected official, and with that he kisses a blanket right of privacy goodbye, context be damned. Hypocrites deserve to have their business paraded, especially if they go about their affairs the way that Sanford did. He was HARDLY discreet.
Argentina? Hell of a long way to go to get laid.
Sanford condemned and voted to impeach Bill Clinton for his "private" actions (or actions on his "private"). How then does he deserve respect for his privacy when he takes philandering to such and extreme? The man is a public official, which makes all of his actions, private or official, public. What's most astounding is we have another Republican "hopeful" who, by his actions and communications, exhibits intelligence just below that of a box of rocks, totally contradictory to their preaching.
No, Sanford (like everyone else) voted to impeach Clinton because he lied under oath. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you're going to do the crime, you have to be willing to do the time. Sanford, unlike Clinton, didn't hide from what he did and didn't wag his finger at the public and press, lying through his teeth the entire time. He owned his mistake. Clinton didn't. It's apples and oranges.
Are we speaking about the same Sanford who "didn't hide from what he did" and didn't lie when he:
1) LIED to Gina Smith (from "the state" newspaper) at the airport saying he was "alone" in Argentina and that we went there because he wanted "something exotic"?
2) LIED to his office and claimed to have gone hiking?
3) Had his offfice LIE that he left because of stress from having to take the stimulus?
4) LIED to his wife for about a year regarding an affair?
Apples and oranges by butt! The fact that you will actualy try to justify sleezy behavior is simply amazing. It again proves that conservatives don't believe any of the crap they preach!
I am sick to death of sniggering and conjecturing about the sex lives of politicians. Affairs didn't harm the Presidencies of Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Kennedy. What seems to be different now is that the country seems to have degenerated into a day time soap opera. Perhaps it's the inevitable consequence of the dumbing down of America.
We need to grow up about sex and pay attention to the things that really matter. The problem with Sanford is not that he was sleeping with someone other than his wife. It's that he's such a grandstanding ideogue that he didn't want to take stimulus funds that would have helped rebuild one of the worst public education systems in the country.
You are right, it is sicking and the details are silly. But when you have someone who is was a cheerleader of the Bill Clinton impeachment movement and preaching family values you should not be so hypocritical to come out against other peoples behavior and then go do the same thing yourself. He should have kept his mouth shut. If he condones the behavior which his actions show he does. Until he was caught and his words (the words are never the truth) say he sorry. They is why you don't throw stones, because there is a good chance it will come back to you in some way.
Any moron knows there can be no expectation of privacy when you use work email to do anything. Are we supposed to be all concerned about invasion of his privacy when he was doing this on state time?? On state equipment?? Screw him and his hypocritical ilk like you.
Best advice here to all politicians is "don't use email". But if you do, make your personal stuff so obscure that nobody knows what email id you are using!
The email address Sanford used ended in .gov. That means he was using a government owned email address to conduct personal business. That means it is public information, regardless of whether it was his private email address at work.
You have to wonder at the hubris and possibly even stupidity of someone who uses a government owned email address to carry on an illicit affair, all the while decrying gay marriage, Bill Clinton and standing on a pillar of salt.
I guess he never heard of gmail.
Because I'll not be surprised to discover that his wife found the emails, discovered the affair and sent them to the STATE just before she kicked him out of the house.
What I find really appalling is someone out there thinking you enter the internet and you are suddenly in a private coccoon of your own fantastic making.
You want private love messages?, use snail mail and a P.O. box number as a return adress.
Mr. Siegel, are you that innocent?
You post here a passage from Ms. Maria. I like that lady because she is sincere. Yes, she is a likable person, now the world knows that.
Mr. Sanford, like all selfish philanderers, is a predictable moron. My bet is he leaves his wife for the Argentine beauty. Or should I say, Mrs. Sanford has already made her mind up about this and is too much of a realist to pretend the ashes of her marriage can hold any new fire.
Remember Monica Lewinsky? To force her to reveal intimate details of her relationship with Bill Clinton, Ken Starr threatened to prosecute her parents for tax evasion. Her "friend" Linda Tripp secretly taped their phone conversations and although this is a felony in Maryland, Tripp wasn't prosecuted. The tapes were released by the Republicans, as was Starr's gratuitously detailed "report" of every sordid little bit of information he could squeeze out of Lewinsky to humiliate Clinton and his wife.
Remember Terri Schiavo?
Conservatives like Sanford don't respect anyone else's privacy. They're asking for it.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.