Here’s video of Mark Sanford with Piers Morgan, tossing him touchy-feely softballs.
It was the usual act that we’ve seen and heard at Rotaries and in other venues across the state, only now it’s going national.
It’s all a bit hard to take, hearing stuff like this: “There’s something sacred about the family unit; I have four boys.” This from the guy who ditched his family, his security detail, his job and the people of South Carolina to spend Father’s Day weekend with his mistress in Argentina. Yes, that’s within the context of expressing regret. But manohman, am I sick of him taking his rather bland and superficial regret public.
Why can’t he shut up about it already? The simple explanation is unavoidable: Mark Sanford is not done inflicting himself on us. He sees this as a stage on his way back. Could I — and all the others who are saying it — be wrong about that? Could it just be his usual narcissism, with no actual political end in sight? I’d love to think so…
(By the way, I would apologize for the fact that both this video and the YouTube version seem to cut off in the middle. But I think you should regard that as a merciful blessing.)
Related Posts
To Sanfraud: Go away. Stay away. Stop talking (tape your mouth shut if you have to–and it appears that you have to).
He feels like he needs to help his country????? What, has he reversed course, and decided that we really need a strong government, and that we should be willing to pay taxes to support the government? Because, if that’s not what he’s talking about, then there’s a whole slew of folks out there who’ve already jumped on the libertarian bandwagon. So no, Mr. Sanford, the nation does not need your help. Please go away.
There are a whole host of reasons why we should be appalled at the idea of Mark Sanford running for public office again: his political philosophy, and yes the poor judgment he showed in the way he gave the entire state and state officials the slip in his excursion to Argentina.
But, as far as his romantic life is concerned, that has nothing to do with it, in my opinion. Ms. Chapur can no longer be referred to as his “mistress.” This hardly fits in the same category as Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, or any of Bill’s adventures, for that matter. If his “regret” sounds bland and superficial, that’s probably because at heart he does not have any regrets, but has to express them for the sake of America’s prurient, fake-moralistic political theater. Would his boys have been better off had he stayed in a loveless marriage, within an emotionally barren home climate? I’m not so sure.
@Phillip- Do we know it was a “loveless” marriage?
Studies of the effects of divorce on children suggest that in fact, it is better for the kids to be in a two-parent home so long as there is no abuse. Of course, individual cases vary, but over a large sample size…
I’m with Kathryn.
And of COURSE she’s his mistress. She’s not his wife.
Brad,
Even Captain Jack Aubry would make allowances for the reality that couples may fall into many different types of relationships other than simply mistress or wife. Even back in the eighteenth century.
That seems a little narrow-minded to draw such black and white lines – though I’m not talking about Sanford or his behavior; he remains a skunk to this day.
I’m with all of the above on the sacred institution of marriage. Mark Sanford messed up — he hasn’t the wherewithal for a true investigation of ‘all things considered.’
Mark, I think we’re having a miscommunication. It must have to do with the meaning of words.
What do YOU think “mistress” means?
I don’t think many of Jack’s liaisons would be generally dignified by calling the ladies in question “mistress.” Oh, perhaps the one with Molly Harte, since that went on for awhile. And perhaps you’d apply that term to Mercedes at the Crown, also in Minorca. After all, Jack gave her a present of jewelry that she still treasured years later. But owing to the rigid distinctions of class in that day, Mr. Aubrey probably thought of her more as a here-and-now convenience. Jack was a very here-and-now guy. He was deeply fond of her when she was present, and was quite prepared to commit spouse-breech, as Dr. Maturin put it, even when he came upon her unexpectedly after his marriage (he didn’t, thanks to Maturin’s interruption). But I don’t think Jack ever thought of his relationship with her as an AFFAIR per se, but more in the line of Nelson’s dictum about all sailors being bachelors beyond Gibraltar.
Actually, you know, Jack didn’t THINK deeply about anything, outside of naval tactics and seamanship. It’s one reason he got into so much trouble.
He was a devoted husband, and he didn’t always think. The kind of contradiction that makes fictional characters interesting — painfully so, if you come to care about them.
“Mistress” means “female paramour of married man”–since Sanford is no longer married, she can be his “lover,” “girlfriend,” “paramour,””significant other,” or, wait for it, “soul mate.”
Oh, I keep forgetting that Protestants believe divorce actually counts…
Anyway, I guess Molly Harte wasn’t Jack’s mistress. Since he hadn’t even met his future wife yet.
Odd word. It’s the source of “Mrs.,” which would seem to make Molly qualify. Of course, she was Capt. Harte’s Mrs., not Jack’s…
It’s also the feminine form of “master,” and she was certainly his mistress in that regard, as she controlled the relationship…
I’d say the Argentinian woman was his mistress. Now, she should be labeled differently as they appear to have an ongoing relationship (I guess, but I try to duck whenever it comes up in the news).
Sanford’s the one here that appears morally unhinged. This incessant psuedo-rationalizing is tiresome; clearly the man knows as much now as he did before he went hiking. That’s kind of sad and pathetic. None of this would matter to me except it does appear that he is trying to resurrect his political career. I wouldn’t have a problem with that were it clear that he had gained the kind of self-awareness that would indicate that he would be better able to provide real leadership going forward. There is no sign of that. He’s still just in it for himself.
I brought up Aubrey because I knew it would set you off and I also thought it would highlight the different kind of relationships that can occur even within adultery — even 200 years ago.
I don’t think we should continue to call Chapur his mistress simply because it puts alot of the burden on her when clearly Sanford is the one who created the breech and is the one solely responsible for the abdication of his responsibilities as Governor. Let’s not deflect from the issues of his lack of character.
Why should the ex-guvnot stop inflicting himself on us? There’s been no evidence that South Carolina voters have become more perceptive about character since he left office.
Mark Sanford is perhaps one of the least emotionally demonstrative men I have ever watched on television or in person. He shows no real emotions and almost everything he conveys is done in a very monotone voice. Almost no inflections and therefore, he offers no evidence of his emotional state when he speaks.
About the only time he comes close to any emotion is when he is talking about policy and other subjects involving financial issues at the governmental level.
However, I am willing to bet that if he had Bill Clinton’s ability to connect with an audience, in short order, he would have an army of defenders, ready to forgive and forget his transgressions.
Sanford screwed up big time and he lost any moral high ground he may have had at one time.
Human nature. We are ready to forgive the sins committed by the popular politician and at the same time, stone the unpopular politician for committing the same sins.
Running across this years later, I note Bart’s observation that Sanford is “one of the least emotionally demonstrative men I have ever watched,” reminds me of something.
On the old version of Word we used to use at The State, the spell-check would always try to change his name to “sangfroid.” Which fit, actually.