Worst. Apology. Ever.
I've seen a lot of politician affair apology pressers, but this is one of the worst I've seen. This isn't your usual politician affair-discovery sequence, in which the politician can convey somewhat convincing regret and guilt. But not Sanford. The man just got off the plane, for heaven's sake. He might as well have delivered the speech from his mistress' bedroom with her walking around in one of his T-shirts and no pants. You can't convey a sense of remorse when you have committed the act in question mere hours ago.
One thing's clear: Mark Sanford had sex in Argentina. No one goes to another country to break it off with another woman and stays for 6 nights. Couldn't it be accomplished with a sincere phone call or letter? Men will risk their political careers for sex, but not for emotional closure.
He didn't call his staff or his family, so I'm sure he really was legitimately shocked that he was getting national attention for going AWOL. The logical choice for him in this situation is to claim he went down there to end the relationship. He's already started the healing process. He already knows he was wrong. He's already stricken with guilt and self-flagellating like we want him to be. But should anyone believe him? I don't think so.
One thing's clear: Mark Sanford had sex in Argentina. No one goes to another country to break it off with another woman and stays for 6 nights. Couldn't it be accomplished with a sincere phone call or letter? Men will risk their political careers for sex, but not for emotional closure.
He didn't call his staff or his family, so I'm sure he really was legitimately shocked that he was getting national attention for going AWOL. The logical choice for him in this situation is to claim he went down there to end the relationship. He's already started the healing process. He already knows he was wrong. He's already stricken with guilt and self-flagellating like we want him to be. But should anyone believe him? I don't think so.
Advertisement
He did NOT break it off. He said that in response to a question at the presser.
I agree with you. It's the worst press conference apology/grovelling I've ever seen.
"God's law"...what a complete idiot.
June 24, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
For a somewhat different perspective, one that is not entirely forgiving, but less judgmental, see
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-sanford-what-was-he-thinking,1,7666755.story
June 24, 2009 8:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the above article takes Sanford at his word a little too willingly. Is it possible that Sanford was emotionally tortured, and this wasn't just an example of recklessness and brazen arrogance? Sure it is, and I'll be happy to change my opinion of him if it comes to be known. I think in reality he gambled it all on a secret trip to see his girlfriend, and once he found out about the situation at home he pulled a complete about face.
I will say this in his favor: looking at his (alleged) letters to his mistress, it does seem that they were genuinely in love. I'm not sure if that makes his actions any less objectionable, but he seems to genuinely like his mistress as a person. This wasn't an Eliot Spitzer situation.
June 25, 2009 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the guy fell in love. Wasn't looking for it, wasn't wanting it, wasn't ready for it.
It happens. Christine Lavin called it a tidal wave, when you fall in love later in life, when you had sort of given up on the concept. Sometimes it happens so hard that nothing else matters. You'd risk anything, hell everything, for the chance to be with her. Or him. I think that's what happened here
Thee are always consequences. Hemmingway wrote, "When two people truly love each other, there can be no happy ending."
I don't like Mark Sanford. But I sure has hell feel for him right now. Because none of us, really, can stand against the today wave when it's coming for us.
June 25, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but if you're a married man, it's not like a woman you really like can completely disarm your conscience. I'm sure he really was in love, but you don't fall in love unless part of you is open to it in the first place.
June 25, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, Carl. Sometimes it just hits you.
We don't know anything about the Sanford's marriage, but it doesn't seem to be all roses. Maybe the stars and circumstances aligned and and old friend suddenly looked like so much more.
I don't know. And I still don't like him. And I still think he fucked up. But I can understand it, mor than I probably should admit.
June 25, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I definitely hear where you're coming from. The emails sounded very genuine, and you could tell it wasn't entirely, or even mainly about sex. It kinda personalized him for me, and made the whole thing, which I was laughing about yesterday seem a bit tragic. I think most men (maybe even myself) are vulnerable to that kind of out-of-nowhere true love, but I don't think there's such thing as a love that can overcome the most rigid conscience and the strongest willpower. I guess Sanford didn't have it
June 25, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that he should have overcome it. That's a hard one, to think that love should be overcome by conscience and willpower. I understand the point -- and there are, there must be, consequences -- but I also am not sure that standing steadfast when there is something that makes you feel better, makes you feel more alive, is the right or moral thing. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just not sure.
Political marriages at that level are always complicated. I think the Clintons showed that better than anyone. Sanford's wife -- justifiably -- has shown a level of callousness (which isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one)that leads me to believe that this wasn't a lovefest, but I could be wrong. More likely it was a partnership to mutual benefit, and he broke the rules of it. But that's what love does, doesn't it? makes you break the rules?
Interesting tangent.
June 25, 2009 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mighty innaressin' that a governor could go through airport security and nobody knew where he was for all that time, and then he clears customs on the way back and Homeland Security who might have heard a governor was missing did not spot him coming back in. And his personal and state vehicles were parked at two airports. Just how hard were the authorities looking for this guy?
June 25, 2009 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
He wasn't a "missing person," and even if he was, I'm not sure what Customs and Homeland Security is supposed to do in such cases.
June 25, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is interesting, as it has the exact opposite of your take on this:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2009/06/25/mark_sanford/?source=newsletter
The point of the Slate author, Gary Kamiya, is that this was not the same plastic mea culpa that has become standard fare, with the long-suffering wife bravely smiling at the guy's side. The very fact that it was so awful made him think it was authentic.
Frankly, I agree with all those who say the affair part is between him and his wife (hypocrisy about family values, and others indiscretions notwithstanding) but what he has done to the citizens of South Carolina, while using their funds to go to Argentina, China, Nepal, etc, are what I am mad about. Going off on a runner without contact information betray an entitlement that he doesn't feel for his needy citizens; he has terrible judgment, and his behavior proves it.
June 25, 2009 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I like that article- what I don't think it stresses enough, though, is the fact that it was Sanford's circumstances, not his personal qualities, that led to that soul-bearing news conference. He stepped off the plane after having tuned out of the world for a week, and then he's confronted by a reporter. He must've known that then, so suddenly, his political career was over.
There was no point denying the affair. There was no point going through the usual post-affair motions because he had basically been caught in the act. So he sort of went off the cuff, and, owing to the unusual circumstances, he blazed his own trail.
June 25, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The thing that made his presser unique was that he spoke tenderly and respectfully about his dear "friend." Compare that to any of the others. As a woman who has been on the wife's side of this kind of mess, I can tell you that it is more painful to hear it the way he told it, but I just think it brought a little honesty (maybe?) into a situation that was built on lies.
June 25, 2009 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yea, I never really thought about it that way- I think you're right about that.
June 25, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Carl, don't you feel all gooey inside thinking about how he was honest with his feelings and all (honest to some degree, that is)? Golly gee, some people' spines tingled and tingled!
David Kurtz talks about it on the main page. It gets peoples juices going, and the fact that he as incommunicado and didn't transfer power and lied and continued to lie after being caught, shucks, where's the *romance* in that, Carl? Maybe he just needs some hugs! Are you the man to offer him those? ;)
June 25, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink