Don't cry for me Argentina...

foxpaws

foxpaws

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
0
Location
Denver
SC Gov. Sanford admits affair after going AWOL

By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. – After going AWOL for seven days, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he had secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he was having an affair. Wiping away tears, he apologized to his wife and four sons and said he will resign as head of the Republican Governors Association.

"I've been unfaithful to my wife," he said in a bombshell news conference in which the 49-year-old governor ruminated aloud with remarkable frankness on God's law, moral absolutes and following one's heart. He said he spent the last five days "crying in Argentina."

Sanford, who in recent months had been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012, ignored questions about whether he would step down as governor.

At least one state lawmaker called for his resignation. As a congressman, Sanford voted in favor of three of four articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, citing the need for "moral legitimacy."

<snip>
 
foxpaws said:
SC Gov. Sanford admits affair after going AWOL

By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Jim Davenport, Associated Press Writer

COLUMBIA, S.C. – After going AWOL for seven days, Gov. Mark Sanford admitted Wednesday that he had secretly flown to Argentina to visit a woman with whom he was having an affair. Wiping away tears, he apologized to his wife and four sons and said he will resign as head of the Republican Governors Association.

"I've been unfaithful to my wife," he said in a bombshell news conference in which the 49-year-old governor ruminated aloud with remarkable frankness on God's law, moral absolutes and following one's heart. He said he spent the last five days "crying in Argentina."

Sanford, who in recent months had been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2012, ignored questions about whether he would step down as governor.

At least one state lawmaker called for his resignation. As a congressman, Sanford voted in favor of three of four articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, citing the need for "moral legitimacy."

<snip>
Click to expand...
Are you wanting to discuss this, or are you trying to make a point about something? Most of us hear the news.

Based on Clinton's track record, this should be a boost for Sanford. Oh, wait, he's not a Democrat...
 
...At least one state lawmaker called for his resignation. As a congressman, Sanford voted in favor of three of four articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, citing the need for "moral legitimacy."
Click to expand...
Funny...MSNBC's reporter on the spot said that state legislators who had been decrying his absence changed their tune after seeing the news conference, and are now supporting him (morally, if not necessarily politically)...
 
There are two issues here-
the first deal with his fidelity and whether or not that disqualifies him or indicates that he lacks the character to really lead the country.

And the other has to do with how I think this guy was targeted. He was a very vocal, high profile critic of the stimulus and the tactics the Obama administration were using to force it upon the states. He goes away for a couple days and suddenly the national media is investigating? My hunch is that a political operatives got a tip and then leaked the "suspicions" to the media to do get the circus rolling. Pure speculation on my part though.
 
Calabrio said:
There are two issues here-
the first deal with his fidelity and whether or not that disqualifies him or indicates that he lacks the character to really lead the country.

And the other has to do with how I think this guy was targeted. He was a very vocal, high profile critic of the stimulus and the tactics the Obama administration were using to force it upon the states. He goes away for a couple days and suddenly the national media is investigating? My hunch is that a political operatives got a tip and then leaked the "suspicions" to the media to do get the circus rolling. Pure speculation on my part though.
Click to expand...

+1 He's dealt with some serious pressure from the Obama administration, being forced to accept stimulus money.
 
Calabrio said:
There are two issues here-
the first deal with his fidelity and whether or not that disqualifies him or indicates that he lacks the character to really lead the country.

And the other has to do with how I think this guy was targeted. He was a very vocal, high profile critic of the stimulus and the tactics the Obama administration were using to force it upon the states. He goes away for a couple days and suddenly the national media is investigating? My hunch is that a political operatives got a tip and then leaked the "suspicions" to the media to do get the circus rolling. Pure speculation on my part though.
Click to expand...
Good instincts. Remember Mark Foley.
 
So, a highly visible Republican Governor has been cheating on his wife for a few years, he goes AWOL for a week after lying to his staff where he will be, his wife throws him out of the house when he returns, and somehow it is the Dems fault that this is getting press...

Did the Democrats also toss him an Argentinian temptress years ago, knowing that he would rise to power within the Republican party, so they could bring him down with a sex scandal?

Sanford made his own bed... may he hypocritically reap the rewards.
 
foxpaws said:
So, a highly visible Republican Governor has been cheating on his wife for a few years, he goes AWOL for a week after lying to his staff where he will be, his wife throws him out of the house when he returns, and somehow it is the Dems fault that this is getting press...

Did the Democrats also toss him an Argentinian temptress years ago, knowing that he would rise to power within the Republican party, so they could bring him down with a sex scandal?

Sanford made his own bed... may he hypocritically reap the rewards.
Click to expand...

Keep believeing EVERY SINGLE word the media tells you. ;)
 
foxpaws said:
Sanford made his own bed... may he hypocritically reap the rewards.
Click to expand...
Can't say I disagree with this, although he was, in the aftermath, certainly more of a stand-up guy than most politicrits. Luke 12:48 comes to mind here (For to whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required), and you'd think it would come to mind to more politicrits. Of course, if that were the case, we'd have more leaders and fewer politicrits.

I do have to say this--at least she was female, did not work for him, and wasn't (as far as we know) a hooker, so he still has that to separate him from McGreevey, Clinton, and Spitzer... ;)
 
And of course let’s not forget (and these are just fairly recent...) – Vitter, Foley, Craig, Allen, and just this month Ensign…;) If we are going down the staff, hooker, male intern route...
 
Gotta love staff & hooker collection...those are some pretty beautiful girls gettin it from a insecure, overpaid, balding or fat piece of democracy!!!!
 
Calabrio said:
There are two issues here-
the first deal with his fidelity and whether or not that disqualifies him or indicates that he lacks the character to really lead the country.

And the other has to do with how I think this guy was targeted. He was a very vocal, high profile critic of the stimulus and the tactics the Obama administration were using to force it upon the states. He goes away for a couple days and suddenly the national media is investigating? My hunch is that a political operatives got a tip and then leaked the "suspicions" to the media to do get the circus rolling. Pure speculation on my part though.
Click to expand...

I'd say it shouldn't matter in the big picture, but considering his stance on "moral legitimacy", he should rightfully step-down on his own, least be a hypocrite.

That's politics for you; it's his own fault for getting caught, there's no one to blame but the man himself. He should have either A) Not done something he considers wrong or B) Been more discreet about it.
 
foxpaws said:
And of course let’s not forget (and these are just fairly recent...) – Vitter, Foley, Craig, Allen, and just this month Ensign…;) If we are going down the staff, hooker, male intern route...
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you forgot to mention Eliot Sptizer there...
 
TheDude said:
I'd say it shouldn't matter in the big picture, but considering his stance on "moral legitimacy", he should rightfully step-down on his own, least be a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

I am really tired of this talk as if hypocrisy is, in and of iteself, a sin. It is not. Only when it is a conscious, disingenuous double standard is it wrong (like dems who defended Clinton's infidelity but call for the head of any Republican who does the same thing).

Just because you fail to hold yourself up to a standard does not mean that the standard is wrong or that your critiques of others who fail to live up to a standard is wrong or in any way invalid. Only when it is clear that the standard you lay out for them is not one you strive to hold yourself to is it wrong.

Here is a good example; Limbaugh and his drug addiction. People call him a hypocrite when it is an irrelevant and meaningless charge in the way they paint it. It wasn't a disingenuous double standard on his part. He got unknowingly addicted to the medication through his doctor after a botched surgery before it was known that the medication was addictive. That doesn't mean that any claims he makes that doing drugs are wrong is invalid now. It wasn't a conscious and disingenuous double standard on his part. It was a standard that, by the time he found out he was addicted he was unable to meet on his own. That doesn't mean he shouldn't have gone and gotten help right away, but it isn't a disingenuous double standard about drug use at that point.

Another great example; Obama's infomercial last night:
President Obama struggled to explain today whether his health care reform proposals would force normal Americans to make sacrifices that wealthier, more powerful people — like the president himself — wouldn’t face.

The probing questions came from two skeptical neurologists during ABC News’ special on health care reform, “Questions for the President: Prescription for America,” anchored from the White House by Diane Sawyer and Charles Gibson.

Dr. Orrin Devinsky, a neurologist and researcher at the New York University Langone Medical Center, said that elites often propose health care solutions that limit options for the general public, secure in the knowledge that if they or their loves ones get sick, they will be able to afford the best care available, even if it’s not provided by insurance.

Devinsky asked the president pointedly if he would be willing to promise that he wouldn’t seek such extraordinary help for his wife or daughters if they became sick and the public plan he’s proposing limited the tests or treatment they can get.

The president refused to make such a pledge, though he allowed that if “it’s my family member, if it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care.​
As one blogger put it; "ObamaCare for thee, but not for me".

That's politics for you; it's his own fault for getting caught, there's no one to blame but the man himself. He should have either A) Not done something he considers wrong or B) Been more discreet about it.
Click to expand...

There is no "B". He should have kept it in his pants, period. He deserves everything coming to him on this.
 
shagdrum said:
It is interesting that you forgot to mention Eliot Sptizer there...
Click to expand...

Since SoonerLS did in the post above mine I didn't think I had to repeat it...;)

And I thought all the 'codene' drugs were pretty much known to be addictive at least by the 70s... like oxycodene and hydrocodene.
 
foxpaws said:
And I thought all the 'codene' drugs were pretty much known to be addictive at least by the 70s... like oxycodene and hydrocodene.
Click to expand...

from here:
OxyContin [the drug Limbaugh was addicted to] is the brand name of a time-release formula of oxycodone produced by the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1995 and first introduced to the U.S. market in 1996. By 2001, OxyContin was the best-selling non-generic narcotic pain reliever in the U.S.; in 2002, over 7.2 million prescriptions were written for it, for total sales of $1.5 billion. An analysis of data from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration found that retail sales of oxycodone "jumped nearly six-fold between 1997 and 2005."[1​
You can read a report about what Limbaugh had to say on it here and here.
 
Shag - there are a whole lot of 'codene' drugs - besides the two that Rush was taking - I actually think Oxycodene has been around quite a while - OxyContin is just a brand name for some sort of time release form. Oxycodene is a synth opiate... which was being made in the early 1900s.

Notice the word 'narcotic' in your post...
 
foxpaws said:
Shag - there are a whole lot of 'codene' drugs - besides the two that Rush was taking - I actually think Oxycodene has been around quite a while - OxyContin is just a brand name for some sort of time release form. Oxycodene is a synth opiate... which was being made in the early 1900s.

Notice the word 'narcotic' in your post...
Click to expand...

Your point?
 
Foley was not charged with anything. Just thought you might need a fact checker. You usually do.
Click to expand...
Foss - I believe Foley is still under investigation - but, I didn't indicate that he had done anything illegal, I don't need that little bit of 'fact checking.' He falls under the sex with your male interns category - and I believe they were over 18, therefore 'legal', however they were his 'employees' so it falls into soonerLS's 'work for him' call out...

Oh shag - you said
He got unknowingly addicted to the medication through his doctor after a botched surgery before it was known that the medication was addictive.
Click to expand...
All synthetic opiates have been known to be addictive for quite a while - certainly long before Rush got hooked. It is all over the labels - it is why your doctor won't prescribe them for an extended period of time. He had to have known they were potentially addictive. And certainly the first time you send your maid out to procure drugs you should know you need help.
 
foxpaws said:
Foss - I believe Foley is still under investigation - but, I didn't indicate that he had done anything illegal, I don't need that little bit of 'fact checking.' He falls under the sex with your male interns category - and I believe they were over 18, therefore 'legal', however they were his 'employees' so it falls into soonerLS's 'work for him' call out...
Click to expand...
Please show me your source, and also the source that proves that Foley had sex with interns.

I'll be waiting with your 'FAIL' sign ready.
 
foxpaws said:
All synthetic opiates have been known to be addictive for quite a while - certainly long before Rush got hooked. It is all over the labels - it is why your doctor won't prescribe them for an extended period of time. He had to have known they were potentially addictive. And certainly the first time you send your maid out to procure drugs you should know you need help.
Click to expand...

Limbaugh never gave a date for when he got hook, but it was "many years" before 2003. Oxycontin came out on the market in 1996. It was not billed as extremely addictive at the time he started on it, all your conjecture to the contrary.

And Limbaugh had tried rehab in some form at least twice before he went in in the Fall of 003.

Here is a relevant article to this conversation:
ABINGDON, Va., May 10 —The company that makes the narcotic painkiller OxyContin and three current and former executives pleaded guilty today in federal court here to criminal charges that they misled regulators, doctors and patients about the drug’s risk of addiction and its potential to be abused...

..OxyContin is a powerful, long-acting narcotic that provides relief of serious pain for up to 12 hours. Initially, Purdue Pharma contended that OxyContin, because of its time-release formulation, posed a lower threat of abuse and addiction to patients than traditional, shorter-acting painkillers like Percocet or Vicodin.

That claim became the lynchpin of the most aggressive marketing campaign ever undertaken by a pharmaceutical company for such a drug. Just a few years after the drug’s introduction in 1996, annual sales reached $1 billion. Purdue Pharma heavily promoted OxyContin to doctors like general practitioners who had little training in the treatment of serious pain or in recognizing signs of drug abuse in patients.​

Now, stop trying to raise the goalposts in an attempt smear Limbaugh. :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 165 (members: 0, guests: 165)
Back
Top