Sanford scandal detracts from issues (& scandals) of greater relevance
To a large extent, Mark Sanford is responsible for the public embarrassment he now suffers for his extramarital liaison with an Argentinian charmer. In an ideal world perhaps, a politician’s privates affairs should not be made public unless they impact his professional duties. (Well, in this case, they did with the governor going incommunicado “for the better part of a week.”)
We, however, do not live in an ideal world. The reality, as the Anchoress puts is that media are “just lying in wait for the chance to expose . . politicians, particularly politicians on the right.” She is baffled that men like Sanford don’t “think long and hard, not just twice but a dozen times, before they indulged themselves in behavior that can only blow up in their faces.” Michael Barone echoes this incredulity at Sanford’s folly, “I can’t understand why so many men thinking about running for president commit adultery.” Jim Geraghty, while still critical, is a bit more sympathetic, wondering if maybe the Republican, as many men do, met his true love only after marrying another woman (a notion, I should note, behind the primary theme of my novel).
Given the gossipy, melodramatic aspects of this story (it almost reads like a plot from a daytime soap opera or mediocre movie), the media are likely to make much of it for the new few days, if not weeks. And I dare say they would do so even if it were not for Sanford’s political affiliation, yet that affiliation certainly accounts for the better part of their glee. (The MSM doesn’t seem nearly as gleeful about the extramarital indiscretions of one of the leading Democratic contenders for the California gubernatorial nomination.)
Yet, this glee, as Roger Simon reminds, comes at the expense of attention to more pressing items of national interest:
At this moment, the eyes of this country should be fixed on the horrific events coming from that company [Iran] and the struggle for freedom against all odds by many of its brave citizens. They need our support more than anything. Instead – and it doesn’t take Nostradamus to predict this – our cable networks will be treating us to wall-to-wall Argentinean hanky-panky cum gubernatorial soap opera when an historical event of titanic proportions is taking place.
Not just that, while the media dwell on this “sexy” scandal, they all but ignore scandals more relevant to politicians’ service in office involving (as they do) politicians’ abuse of public trust and squandering taxpayer dollars.
Maybe it’s because the politicians involved in those scandals don’t have (R)s after their names.
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
When long and hard, I wish they’d indulge themselves with those they blow up with their faces.
Comment by Ignatius — June 25, 2009 @ 5:12 pm - June 25, 2009
And now Michael Jackson detracts from Sanford. See how the world works?
Comment by DaveO — June 25, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - June 25, 2009
I agree that the country has much more imporant things to focus on, but you and Simon miss the most important one.
Nancy Pelosi is trying to push through the biggest tax and regulatory increase in American history, otherwise known as “Cap and Trade”, by tomorrow, and to do so with no debate, and no time to even read the 1,200 page bill. The bill will make electricity prices skyrocket for every American individual and business. These costs will cost Americans both directly, through much higher electric bills, and indirectly through inflation in the price of ….everything that uses energy.
And yet everyone is busy talking about Obama, Obama’s health care special, Mark Sanford, mark Sanford’s mistress, White House luau’s, Michael Jackson, and the biggest tax and regulatory increase in American history is way down the list.
I hope everyone here has told their representatives to vote against it.
Comment by American Elephant — June 25, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - June 25, 2009
[...] Michelle Obama involved? Big Lizards: How to Succeed in Politics Without Really Trying GayPatriot: Sanford scandal detracts from issues (& scandals) of greater relevance Goodtimepolitics: Probe launched in suspicious firing of inspector general Sister Toldjah: Another [...]
Pingback by Yes, Sex Sells: Media Gives More Attention to Sanford’s Affair Than Illegal Firing of Inspector General Getting Too Close to Truth Behind Obama’s Cronies « Frugal Café Blog Zone — June 25, 2009 @ 7:20 pm - June 25, 2009
i think sanford sounds truly lovesick.
he still should have put on his big boy pants and long ago picked one life over another.
my fury is that he has handed yet another stick to the left with which to beat us.
Comment by ShyAsrai — June 25, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - June 25, 2009
I would bet that if Obama had an affair (you know the media would be there), it would be a PayPerView event.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 25, 2009 @ 8:44 pm - June 25, 2009
The problem my friends, is the hypocrisy of “Family Values” politicians and ministers who keep falling of the wagon. Sanford excoriated Clinton, citing the need for “moral legitimacy” in office. What’s good for the goose. . . .
Comment by Ross — June 26, 2009 @ 7:25 am - June 26, 2009
the only reason everyone was fixated on Sanford is his overt hypocrisy. He’s such a “defender” of marriage and his stance against Clinton in the ’90s makes him such an easy target to pick on. That he wanted the president to resign due to his affair and now not resigning himself shows exactly why the gop is in such trouble: hypocrisy.
He’s probably one of a few people alive that’s glad Michael Jackson died; the story’s no longer about Sanford.
Comment by buckeyenutlover — June 26, 2009 @ 7:53 am - June 26, 2009
Actually, the hypocrisy is in watching Obama Party puppets like Buckeye demand that Sanford resign when they screamed that Clinton shouldn’t.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 26, 2009 @ 11:48 am - June 26, 2009
To be completely candid for a moment, I thought that those emails were completely hot…OK, now, you can gag me with a tennis ball.
Comment by Michelle — June 26, 2009 @ 7:06 pm - June 26, 2009