Return to ads
All categories
Bill Bennett

Bill Bennett

Posted by
Posting ads for 48 years
Next Right: Patrick Ruffini says Mark Sanford should not resign: At the core of the Sanford and Ensign episodes is the cloud of "hypocrisy" that hangs over any Republican who strays from the bonds of their marriage.

.

.

.

Because Democrats are perceived as more socially libertine, they get off easier.This is a structural disadvantage that, on the margins, hurts Republican officeholders, forcing them into resignation or disgrace more easily than their equally adulterous Democratic counterparts.National Review: Kathryn Jean Lopez reports that Bill Bennett invokes Chuck Colson to argue that Sanford has to resign: "A cheat in private is going to be a cheat in public." National Review: Dana Perino says that "while I am not able to explain, I do think I know the answer to all of this: Elect more women." No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the[y] desire one.

They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.Still, many of them are left with broken hearts.

What a sad state of affairs.Daily Beast: Tina Brown parses the statement Jenny Sanford released yesterday, and finds the ending disappointing in the extreme: Just when she set the table for a big-ticket matrimonial lawyer to have a payday on behalf of all the humiliated political wives—ashen Mrs.

Eliot Spitzer; pulverized Dina Matos McGreevey; quietly imploding Mrs.

Larry Craig; fuming deity Elizabeth Edwards—the first lady of South Carolina blew it.

She chose instead a pious manifesto that lets the governor off the hook.

“I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.” God is great.

Roll on the book deal about Resilience, and the date with Oprah.

Firedoglake: Blogger Peterr provides his textual analysis of Jenny Sanford's statement, which he says is "one big dog whistle to the fundy faithful." In particular, he notes her invocation of Psalm 127, which says sons are a gift from God: Psalm 127 is at the heart of the "Quiverfull" folks — a far right evangelical movement, devoted to extreme patriarchal gender roles, homeschooling, and of course they are against any form of birth control or abortion.Hauling out Psalm 127 is hitting Mark Sanford across the head with a two by four in evangelical circles.

"God gave you these boys as a gift, and you scorned it.

You mocked it.

You treated them like dirt, and in so doing you treated God like dirt.

You didn't just disrespect me — you disrespected God." Daily Beast: Reihan Salam says "if Sanford hadn't been brought down by his intercontinental philandering, it would have been something else." The sad fact is that Sanford was too interesting, too smart, and too strange to ever really make it on the national political scene, which seems to demand inhuman levels of discipline and, to put it bluntly, boringness.

Even Barack Obama, with his tremendously bizarre and compelling backstory, has remade himself into a square golfing everyman, a nonthreatening Stepford president that we can all embrace.

That was never going to happen to Mark Sanford, who was despised by South Carolina Republicans and Democrats alike for his mile-wide independent streak.

Guardian: Michael Tomasky reads the e-mails between Sanford and his lover and writes: The amazing thing about this email, of course, is that he casually mentions that he might become John McCain's vice-presidential nominee and then in the very next sentence limns his extramarital lover's physical and spiritual glories.

Didn't that strike him as a little incongruous as he was writing?Mother Jones: David Corn notes that the political editor of the State, the South Carolina newspaper that published the e-mails between Sanford and his lover, said the paper still did not know who had sent the e-mails to the paper six months ago and now it's "kind of a moot point." Corn disagrees: A moot point? Not at all.

Whoever had those emails had been in a position for six months to pressureâ€"or blackmailâ€"Sanford.

An enquiring newspaper person might want to know more about that.

Had Sanford even been aware that someone possessed these emails? If so, did he take any actions based on that realization? The State engaged in great traditional reporting to get the scoop on Sanford's secret trip to Argentina.

But now it seems it's ready to turn the story over to bloggers.



http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/sanfords-sins/
Reply to this ad
Recently viewed ads
Saved ads
Please log in to browse your saved adverts or sign up if you don't have an account yet.
Popular Stuff