scripture-tampering

I’m going to borrow that one!

And yes, Sanford is Loud and Clear about not giving a crap about his family. It’s like he is Boy in Man’s Body. Wow.

Oh Chicas!

Gotta love Mrs. Sanford. Forgiving adultery is not the same thing as condoning it. She rocks! She can afford to say what she thinks, which is what makes it all so delicious. She’s going to give voice to what voters have been thinking about this hypocrisy all along.

In six years, Congressman Sanford made taxpayers send him to (deep breath): Brazil, Argentina (twice), Chile (twice), Panama, Bolivia, Peru (twice), Canada, Colombia (twice, but not South Carolina, either), Mexico, Belgium, Venezuela, Honduras, El Salvador, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Haiti and Cuba.

Sanford’s travel as SC Representative

Seems he likes Latin culture a lot. Wonder if this was done with guys wanting to let off steam? Add in several more trips to Brazil and Argentina, plus the one to Uruguay…and the grand tour to China, Nepal, Tibet, Thailand, Japan (with family).

Sanford, at times crying and unabashedly emotional, acknowledged in the AP interview that he had casual encounters with other women while he was married but before he met Chapur. They took place during trips outside the country to “blow off steam” with male friends.
“What I would say is that I’ve never had sex with another woman. Have I done stupid? I have. You know you meet someone. You dance with them. You go to a place where you probably shouldn’t have gone,” Sanford said, declining to discuss details. But he said those encounters were nothing like his relationship with Chapur.

Hmmm. How interesting that he was doing this with male friends on foreign trips. One would think that these were likely other politicians or aides. Seems to me that there will be a lot of married women who are now wondering if their husbands were running around with Sanford and prostitutes during their mutual foreign trips (both government -sponsored and private).

You can bet that the new parlor game will be…”where in the world did Mark Sanford travel…and who went with him?”

I was bitterly angry with Bill Clinton years ago when he misquoted the end of Psalm 51. This was at a Prayer Breakfast, just when the Lewinsky fracas was at its peak. The psalm, a passionate confession of sin, ends:

The sacrifice acceptible to God is a broken heart;
A broken and contrite spirit, O God, you will not reject.

Clinton replaced “broken” with “strong”: essentially saying, “My strong heart will go on.” Friends, the grounds for impeachment were lousy, but if the House had included a charge of scripture-tampering for the Senate’s consideration, I would have lobbied to have the scum tossed out of the White House.

Now comes Gov. Sanford, and what does he do? Turns to David for inspiration. Claims that David (and his “strong” heart?) just went on. (Notice how he never mentioned Bathsheba, the woman David seduced, or Uriah, the soldier David essentially killed, or Nathan, the prophet who broke the story? Hmm.) So Sanford claims he should just go on, like David.

The problem is, that whole story is a whole lot messier in its outcome than the Governor would have you think. The prophet tells David that there are going to be at least two consequences, and then a third one, to all of David’s furtive business:

1. David’s lineage–and the country–is never going to know anything but conflict inside and outside the family. People are going to die because of this.

2. David’s wives (yes, I know, just accept this for a moment) are going to be stripped naked and handed over to other strong men. And…

3. David’s (and Bathsheba’s) son is going to die. All of these, to some extent, come about as consequences of David’s–I was going to quip about his “hiking,” but if you read the text carefully you’ll find that it all happened because of David’s failure to hike.

So, answer me this, Gov…

1. If you are willing to “go on” just like David did, are you willing to take South Carolina into civil war? Didn’t that go badly last time?

2. I know that you and your wife are on the outs right now, but seriously. Handed over to your enemies?

3. Which of your children are you willing to sacrifice?

And the odd thing is, I think Sanford acts exactly like he is willing to let all this happen, just so he can “go on.” He didn’t act like he cared about nothing except what he wanted–which, of course, is how he ended up in this trouble to begin with. (And no, it didn’t start “innocently” either.)

So, a big “wag of my finger” to both Mark Sanford and Bill Clinton. Wow. Both Republicans and Democrats getting the passage wrong. I guess neither party is God’s party, is it?