# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Sanford Settles Trespassing Dispute with Ex.

## Spoa

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s=rss_politics

So maybe he will be sworn in earlier than next Wednesday (which is what was scheduled since he originally was going to have to go to court tomorrow)? 

Glad they finally settled this.

----------


## jkob

Should of never been reported, they're both adults and should of handled it amongst themselves.

----------


## Lucille

> As part of the agreement, Sanford admitted that he was in contempt of the divorce agreement and will pay $5,000 to cover his ex-wifes legal fees.
> [...]
> Its one of several complaints filed by Jenny Sanford since the couples 2010 divorce, including one accusing Mark Sanford of violating the rule that no airplanes will be flown at the children.


That vindictive shrew is never going to leave that man in peace.

----------


## Mr.NoSmile

> Should of never been reported, they're both adults and should of handled it amongst themselves.


He's a public figure, and a very prominent one at that, being a politician.  What he does is fair game, as the public has a right to know the lives of their politicians during and away from the decision-making moments.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Jenny Sanford had sought to close Thursday's proceedings to the public. The judge refused that request, reporters had planned to cover the hearing, which would have been similar to bench trial, said one local lawyer.
> 
> http://summerville.patch.com/article...-court-dispute


So Jenny wanted to leave this unsettled (and public) until after the election, but now she wanted to settle to prevent a public hearing. Hmmm.

----------


## Brett85

> So Jenny wanted to leave this unsettled (and public) until after the election, but now she wanted to settle to prevent a public hearing. Hmmm.


Yeah, I'm surprised she didn't just formally endorse Colbert-Busch.

----------


## James Madison

Why anyone would desire a government-sponsored marriage is beyond me.

----------


## Brett85

"It’s one of several complaints filed by Jenny Sanford since the couple’s 2010 divorce, including one accusing Mark Sanford of violating the rule that “no airplanes will be flown at the children.” 

What in the world does that mean?

----------


## torchbearer

> "It’s one of several complaints filed by Jenny Sanford since the couple’s 2010 divorce, including one accusing Mark Sanford of violating the rule that “no airplanes will be flown at the children.” 
> 
> What in the world does that mean?


paper airplanes?
Boeing airplanes?

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> He's a public figure, and a very prominent one at that, being a politician.  What he does is fair game, as the public has a right to know the lives of their politicians during and away from the decision-making moments.


And things like divorce documents and restraining order violations do tend to leave a public paper trail. it would have come out, if a dirt-digger was aggressive enough.

----------


## angelatc

> That vindictive shrew is never going to leave that man in peace.



He doesn't deserve any peace.  She's done nothing wrong.  He admitted to multiple affairs, and he broke into her house repeatedly.  WTF was she supposed to do - shoot him?

 "Sanford admitted that he was in contempt of the divorce agreement and will pay $5,000 to cover his ex-wife’s legal fees." - He basically pleaded guilty.  So what, exactly, did Jenny Sanford do wrong, except refuse to be a doormat ?

----------


## Warlord

> He's a public figure, and a very prominent one at that, being a politician.  What he does is fair game, as the public has a right to know the lives of their politicians during and away from the decision-making moments.


Colbert-Busch tried to hide her mugshots and arrest record then whined when they got leaked.

----------


## PaleoPaul

> She's done nothing wrong.  He admitted to multiple affairs, and he broke into her house repeatedly.  WTF was she supposed to do - shoot him?


The guy wanted to watch the Superbowl, a typical manly tradition and male bonding experience, with his sons.  At least give him a bit of a break for trying to be a Dad...

----------


## angelatc

> So Jenny wanted to leave this unsettled (and public) until after the election, but now she wanted to settle to prevent a public hearing. Hmmm.



No, she wanted to keep the whole thing private, and filed the papers with the understanding that it wouldn't be public record because it was family court..  All her actions so far indicate that there are things that she does not want the children (and possibly the public) to know about her ex-husband. 

I'm assuming that the "settlement" is primarily for the legal fees she incurred for repeatedly trying to get her husband to adhere to the deal he agreed to - that is, to stay the $#@! out of her house.

He's lucky Jenny Sanford didn't run.  She would have been the only person in the race that wasn't bat$#@! crazy.

----------


## angelatc

> The guy wanted to watch the Superbowl, a typical manly tradition and male bonding experience, with his sons.  At least give him a bit of a break for trying to be a Dad...



What part of "repeatedly" confused you?

(What he wants and what he's allowed to do are two different things. )

Ideologues and apologists go hand in hand. Sheesh.  And if he wanted to be a good Dad, he wouldn't have screwed around and broken up the family.

The title of this thread should be, "After Election, Sanford Admits He Was Guilty Of Trespassing."

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No, she wanted to keep the whole thing private, and filed the papers with the understanding that it wouldn't be public record because it was family court..  All her actions so far indicate that there are things that she does not want the children (and possibly the public) to know about her ex-husband. 
> 
> I'm assuming that the "settlement" is primarily for the legal fees she incurred for repeatedly trying to get her husband to adhere to the deal he agreed to - that is, to stay the $#@! out of her house.


Do we know who made this public in the first place?

This has been outstanding for a long time. Why settle today, and not sometime earlier? It goes back to early February.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The title of this thread should be, "After Election, Sanford Admits He Was Guilty Of Trespassing."


So Mark made the settlement offer today?

----------


## angelatc

> Do we know who made this public in the first place?
> 
> This has been outstanding for a long time. Why settle today, and not sometime earlier? It goes back to early February.


I assume that Colbert-Busch had a hand in them being released, which made her whining about her arrest record absolutely priceless.  Jenny Sanford has bent over backwards to keep this out of the public eye for the sake of the kids, so it seems pretty unlikely that she would suddenly thrust one of them right into the heart of it, on a national stage.

I assume that the offer to settle came from her lawyer to his lawyer.  If you've ever had a lawyer, I think you'll agree that it's highly unlikely that the offer was approved, submitted and accepted on the same day.  Sanford accepted the offer, but only after winning the election. He probably knew pleading guilty wouldn't play well to the electorate.

And regardless - he admitted his guilt.  He admitted his guilt.  He admitted his guilt.

Apologize all you want, but he admitted he was in violation of an agreement that he voluntarily entered into.

He's a philandering narcissist that thinks rules don't apply to him.  It really is that simple.

----------


## erowe1

I have a lot of respect for Jenny. She's beautiful, smart, eloquent, and classy. It's a shame Mark didn't know a good thing when he had it. I don't know much about his new arm candy, but I'll go out on a limb and guess he traded down. If he ever really does marry her, it won't last long.

----------


## Brett85

> I have a lot of respect for Jenny. She's beautiful, smart, eloquent, and classy. It's a shame Mark didn't know a good thing when he had it. I don't know much about his new arm candy, but I'll go out on a limb and guess he traded down. If he ever really does marry her, it won't last long.


I never thought she was all that attractive, but the other traits you mentioned may very well be true.

----------


## T.hill

> What part of "repeatedly" confused you?
> 
> (What he wants and what he's allowed to do are two different things. )
> 
> Ideologues and apologists go hand in hand. Sheesh. * And if he wanted to be a good Dad, he wouldn't have screwed around and broken up the family.*
> 
> The title of this thread should be, "After Election, Sanford Admits He Was Guilty Of Trespassing."


Wow, people make mistakes. I'm not justifying his actions, but trying to spend time with your son after the fact isn't something anyone should be criticizing him for. It seems like to me even though he committed the unforgivable and evil act of adultery(like no one has ever cheated on their partner before) he still might be a good guy and a good dad.

----------


## angelatc

> I never thought she was all that attractive, but the other traits you mentioned may very well be true.


There's no evidence that Jenny is anything but pure class.  There's documented evidence that  Mark Sanford is a cheat and a liar.   That's not even in dispute.

----------


## angelatc

> Wow, people make mistakes. I'm not justifying his actions, but trying to spend time with your son after the fact isn't something anyone should be criticizing him for. It seems like to me even though he committed the unforgivable and evil act of adultery(like no one has ever cheated on their partner before) he still might be a good guy and a good dad.



NO, you seem to be under the impression that you can be a good Dad and still break up the family.  That's just not true.  Good Dads don't put themselves ahead of their family and kids. 

And enough with the football Sunday crap.  Nobody who has read anything about this case is accusing her of niot giving him access to his kids.  He just isn't allowed in her house.

What he did was exactly what the divorce-can-be-ok people tell you not to do  - he put his kid right in the middle .  "Gee son, I have decided at the last minute that I want to watch this game with you.  I know that your Mom said I'm not allowed in, but I'm coming in anyway."

That's not good parenting.  And its certainly not good, respectful co-parenting.

----------


## klamath

I could never support sanford on this but looking at it strictly from votes in congress that effects me it was Sanford hands down. Time for them to put the past behind them and move on.

----------


## T.hill

> NO, you seem to be under the impression that you can be a good Dad and still break up the family.  That's just not true.  Good Dads don't put themselves ahead of their family and kids. 
> 
> And enough with the football Sunday crap.  Nobody who has read anything about this case is accusing her of niot giving him access to his kids.  He just isn't allowed in her house.
> 
> So what he did was effectively put his kid right in the middle.  "Gee son, I have decided at the last minute that I want to watch this game with you.  I know that your Mom said I'm not allowed in, but I'm coming in anyway."
> 
> That's not good parenting.  And its certainly not good, respectful co-parenting.



No, you seem to be under the impression that an error in judgment should forever define him as a person. I have never said she shouldn't of taken action after Sanford trespassed on her property. Do you really believe that his kids will never forgive him, if they haven't already? There are Dad's with worse morals, who have done much worse then making a mistake and cheating on their wife.

----------


## jmdrake

> Should of never been reported, they're both adults and should of handled it amongst themselves.


Agreed.  As I said when this first came up, I feel sorry for the kids.

----------


## angelatc

> No, you seem to be under the impression that an error in judgment should forever define him as a person. I have never said she shouldn't of taken action after Sanford trespassed on her property. Do you really believe that his kids will never forgive him, if they haven't already? There are Dad's with worse morals. who have done much worse, then making a mistake and cheating on your wife.


There really isn't anything much worse than breaking the family apart.  I never understood that until I had kids.  Now I have zero use for anybody that can selfishly and intentionally extinguish that part of a child that is comforted by and trusts in the simple security of the family.

As for Sanford, this wasn't an error in judgement.  It was a pattern of behaviors.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have a lot of respect for Jenny. She's beautiful, smart, eloquent, and classy. It's a shame Mark didn't know a good thing when he had it. I don't know much about his new arm candy, but I'll go out on a limb and guess he traded down. If he ever really does marry her, it won't last long.


I agree with that as well.  The dumbest thing Sanford ever did was to declare that bimbo his "soul mate".  I don't fault Sanford for the football fiasco.  I fault both for not figuring out ahead of time that the boy probably didn't want to watch the superbowl alone and not planning better.  If Sanford had died in a plane crash, assuming the boy cared about football, Jenny should have made some kind of arrangements.

----------


## angelatc

> Should of never been reported, they're both adults and should of handled it amongst themselves.



Yes, she should have just shot him, since he wouldn't pay any attention to the rules he signed off on.

----------


## angelatc

> I could never support sanford on this but looking at it strictly from votes in congress that effects me it was Sanford hands down..


Sure - this is a win for our side.  But forgive me for not being elated.  We compromised integrity for political gain.  We're growing up and selling out for expediency.  Eh, hurrah.

----------


## klamath

> Sure - this is a win for our side.  But forgive me for not being elated.  We compromised integrity for political gain.  We're growing up and selling out for expediency.  Eh, hurrah.


15 years ago I wouldn't have. One thing Clinton taught me. A politician with no integrity can still be a powerful political fighter.

----------


## ninepointfive

that usually means a felony trespass and domestic violence enhancement

----------


## torchbearer

> that usually means a felony trespass and domestic violence enhancement


flying airplanes at the children?

----------


## angelatc

> 15 years ago I wouldn't have. One thing Clinton taught me. A politician with no integrity can still be a powerful political fighter.


Sure.  Notice I didn't spend the whole election season trying to convince people to let him lose.  But I'm just not going to jump for joy when I see a guy like him getting more support than a guy like Ron Paul.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure.  Notice I didn't spend the whole election season trying to convince people to let him lose.  But I'm just not going to jump for joy when I see a guy like him getting more support than a guy like Ron Paul.


Well to be fair, Sanford won a safe republican house seat.  Ron repeatedly won a safe republican house seat.  I don't expect Sanford to ever be a contender for the presidency, and I question whether he could win statewide.

----------


## cajuncocoa

I don't agree with angelatc very often, but I agree with every word she posted in this thread.

----------


## jj-

> Ideologues and apologists go hand in hand. Sheesh.  And if *he wanted to be a good Dad, he wouldn't have screwed around and broken up the family.*


So failing once means he should give up at being a good dad forever? You definitely don't sound like someone who cares about the kids.

----------


## jj-

> And regardless - *he admitted his guilt.  He admitted his guilt.  He admitted his guilt.*
> 
> Apologize all you want, but he admitted he was in violation of an agreement that he voluntarily entered into.
> 
> *He's a philandering narcissist that thinks rules don't apply to him.  It really is that simple.*


It's a very strange universe where someone admits his guilt, admits his guilt, and admits his guilt while thinking the rules don't apply to him.

----------


## jj-

> Yes, she should have just shot him, since he wouldn't pay any attention to the rules he signed off on.


Woah, we have a true psycho here.

----------


## angelatc

> So failing once means he should give up at being a good dad forever? You definitely don't sound like someone who cares about the kids.


At this point he is reconciled to trying to be the best Dad he can be.  Good Dad is no longer an option.

Also, being a good Dad doesn't involve putting your son in the position Sanford put him in.  "Gee son, I know your Mom and I agreed to a set of rules, but I want to remind you again that I don't respect her enough to hold up any my bargains." And if the father doesn't at least pretend to respect the mother, there's no reason to think the kids will either.

Yeah, what a wonderful father he is.

----------


## angelatc

> Woah, we have a true psycho here.



I was being sarcastic.  Although that's apparently what the OP was saying by insisting that "they" sould settle it privately.   That's a lovely thought, but apparently a bit naive, since Sanford has no respect for other people's property.



$#@!ing ideologue are always apologists. I expect it from the neocons, but it pisses me off when my side of the aisle does it.

----------


## angelatc

> It's a very strange universe where someone admits his guilt, admits his guilt, and admits his guilt while thinking the rules don't apply to him.


So you're saying he did not know what the rules were?

----------


## T.hill

> At this point he is reconciled to trying to be the best Dad he can be.  Good Dad is no longer an option.
> 
> Also, being a good Dad doesn't involve putting your son in the position Sanford put him in.  "Gee son, I know your Mom and I agreed to a set of rules, but I want to remind you again that I don't respect her enough to hold up any my bargains." And if the father doesn't at least pretend to respect the mother, there's no reason to think the kids will either.
> 
> Yeah, what a wonderful father he is.


If I cared to argue personal morality I would easily challenge your apparently delusional and naive perspective of the world, a world where a man who cheats on his wife is evil incarnate. Yes, in a society of fairy-tales and unicorns a guy that bangs another chick is a crime against humanity.

Of course you'll probably dismiss me as an 'adulterer apologist' or the product of a deteriorating liberal morality. Listen, I understand your a social conservative, but this a libertarian-minded forum and I happen to be libertarian. I'm not here to sing the gospels of the family unit or of Jesus Christ. If you were confused this is not a congregation at your local church so excuse me if I disagree with your beliefs.

----------


## Petar

All I know is that Mark Sanford seems like the most amiable bozo I have ever encountered. 

Plus, I believe that his future voting patterns are going to be stellar. 

Seriously, who can $#@! up this badly and still manage to pull themselves out of it based on little more than their own goofy charm? 

Also, I love the fact that he is driving all these bitter "feminist" types totally up the wall (not referring to you Angela).

----------


## angelatc

> If I cared to argue personal morality I would easily challenge your apparently delusional and naive perspective of the world, a world where a man who cheats on his wife is evil incarnate. Yes, in a society of fairy-tales and unicorns a guy that bangs another chick is a crime against humanity.
> 
> Of course you'll probably dismiss me as an 'adulterer apologist' or the product of a deteriorating liberal morality. Listen, I understand your a social conservative, but this a libertarian-minded forum and I happen to be libertarian. I'm not here to sing the gospels of the family unit or of Jesus Christ. If you were confused this is not a congregation at your local church so excuse me if I disagree with your beliefs.


I'm sorry - I keep thinking that Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN who has been married to the same woman for longer than you've likely been alive.

This whole thing started when the apologists tried to portray his ex-wife as some sort of "bitter shrew" when in fact she has done absolutely nothing wrong, while Sanford has done lots of things wrong.  *What he did was wrong, but trying to blame her is evil.*

But as for you, how delusional do you have to be to pretend that divorce doesn't damage children, or that infidelity isn't really all that harmful?  Dear God, that's just sick.  You can't produce a lick of evidence to support your position. I got volumes. 

And back to the topic, you certainly can't seriously argue that Sanford isn't a cheat and a liar, because he is.

And the last time I checked, this isn't entirely about personal morality.  Libertarians depended on contracts to make a society function property. So next time people roll their eyes at the thought of a libertarian society, remember your position on this, and consider that perhaps you are why they think libertarians are nothing but selfish asses looking for an excuse to slack off their obligations.

----------


## angelatc

> All I know is that Mark Sanford seems like the most amiable bozo I have ever encountered. 
> 
> Plus, I believe that his future voting patterns are going to be stellar. 
> 
> Seriously, who can $#@! up this badly and still manage to pull themselves out of it based on little more than their own goofy charm? 
> 
> Also, I love the fact that he is driving all these bitter "feminist" types totally up the wall (not referring to you Angela).


Yeah, I go from defending Jenny here to laughing at the libs on Twitter braying that Sanford is evil - apparently they've forgotten all about Bill Clinton, John Edwards and Al Gore.

----------


## Petar

C'mon Angela, you don't find his goofy ways the slightest bit endearing?

----------


## angelatc

> C'mon Angela, you don't find his goofy ways the slightest bit endearing?


No, not any more.   I'm happy he won the seat because I know he will be a solid fiscal conservative vote, but he could have been running for President in 2016 f he had any damned sense.

----------


## T.hill

> I'm sorry - I keep thinking that Ron Paul is a REPUBLICAN who has been married to the same woman for longer than you've likely been alive.
> 
> This whole thing started when the apologists tried to portray his ex-wife as some sort of "bitter shrew" when in fact she has done absolutely nothing wrong, while Sanford has done lots of things wrong.  *What he did was wrong, but trying to blame her is evil.*
> 
> But as for you, how delusional do you have to be to pretend that divorce doesn't damage children, or that infidelity isn't really all that harmful?  Dear God, that's just sick.  You can't produce a lick of evidence to support your position. I got volumes. 
> 
> And back to the topic, you certainly can't seriously argue that Sanford isn't a cheat and a liar, because he is.
> 
> And the last time I checked, this isn't entirely about personal morality.  Libertarians depended on contracts to make a society function property. So next time people roll their eyes at the thought of a libertarian society, remember your position on this, and consider that perhaps you are why they think libertarians are nothing but selfish asses looking for an excuse to slack off their obligations.


Sure it is harmful and damaging, but people are imperfect and it might not have just been one judgment error, it was probably a series of judgment errors, but in a lot of ways sometimes a relationship can become toxic or have hidden problems and the environment it creates can also be just as harmful to kids. Sometimes they can just lose their appeal, sometimes a mutual loss of excitement and sometimes not, it happens. In an imperfect world it's reasonable to expect imperfection.

Who knows what caused Mark Sanford to do what he did, no one here knows for sure, that's clear. My point is that there are not just worse things a person could do, but there are FAR worse things a person could do other than cheat. People have done far worse things and have been able to redeem themselves and redemption a lot of times is possible. I could easily come up with evidence that families recover from infidelity and divorce.

It's absolutely ridiculous to assume infidelity is the end of the world and that people can't redeem themselves. That's what it seems like your arguing and I just vehemently disagree with it.

----------


## angelatc

> Sure it is harmful and damaging, but people are imperfect and it might not have just been one judgment error, it was probably a series of judgment errors, but in a lot of ways sometimes a relationship can become toxic or have hidden problems and the environment it creates can also be just as harmful to kids. Sometimes they can just lose their appeal, sometimes a mutual loss of excitement and sometimes not, it happens. In an imperfect world it's reasonable to expect imperfection.
> 
> Who knows what caused Mark Sanford to do what he did, no one here knows for sure, that's clear. My point is that there are not just worse things a person could do, but there are FAR worse things a person could do other than cheat. People have done far worse things and have been able to redeem themselves and redemption a lot of times is possible. I could easily come up with evidence that families recover from infidelity and divorce.


Pople recover from car wrecks, too. But they always have scars.

Look, I don't actually care about him. I'm not dating him.  My whole point remains only that this crap is all his own doing - nor Jenny's.

Mark cheated, Mark lied, Mark broke (repeatedly) the terms of the divorce decree, Mark put his son in the middle with that stupid "Super Bowl" excuse. 

All she did was NOT be a doormat.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Pople recover from car wrecks, too. But they always have scars.
> 
> Look, I don't actually care about him. I'm not dating him.  My whole point remains only that this crap is all his own doing - nor Jenny's.
> 
> Mark cheated, Mark lied, Mark broke (repeatedly) the terms of the divorce decree, Mark put his son in the middle with that stupid "Super Bowl" excuse. 
> 
> All she did was NOT be a doormat.


Yup, the point is if we care about Clinton's or Gingrich's adulteries, lies and excuse-making, we should care about Sanford's  adulteries, lies and excuse-making. Sanford may vote our way in Congress, but his character lapses make him vulnerable. He comes with self-inflicted baggage.

----------


## Aratus

> So Jenny wanted to leave this unsettled (and public) until after the election, but now she wanted to settle to prevent a public hearing. Hmmm.


in light of the race looming that dangles the prospect of running against Lindsey Graham, and talk of running Jenny Sanford,
if we keep in mind that even Martha Washington's take on on politics might have been sharper than George's, maybe when
Jenny Sanford opted not to run against her very remiss ex-husband for the House seat, she was thinking over things down
the road.  Getting the divorce out of the way, and looking ahead to the future, simply is one way of seeing things as they are.

----------


## Aratus

Petar... i am agreeing with Angela. i don't blame the woman for his glandular impulses
nor for the lies he initially told her. i'm hoping he's settled down recently. lindsey graham
just gave him the nod before his house victory. he can't immediately challenge lindsey
or he looks like the worst two faced S.O.B. in the eyes of the mainstream of the party.
if we get behind her and reward her for the years she agreed with and backed to the
hilt the career of her ex-husband, and we run HER against senator graham, we just might
get a very close senate race bringing to the national level the voice of Liberty & Freedom!

----------


## Aratus

> No, not any more.   I'm happy he won the seat because I know he will be a solid fiscal conservative vote,
>  but he could have been running for President in 2016 if he had any damned sense.


angelatc  --- mark sanford's public image right now is sorta akin to that of the town 
drunk that just did a major turn~around after going thru AA and its  baby steps...
we know he is no longer a front~runner potus contender in terms of iowa because 
RAND PAUL's polls outta iowa have been reet, sweet & laid back. mark sanford got
a shout-out from people who were looking into his soul and being compassionate. 
at the national level people side with jenny sanford for almost the same reasons
people sided with the late wife of senator john edwards.  the poor woman never 
asked for what happened to her at all, and the lies at the time cut deep wounds.

----------


## Warlord

> Yup, the point is if we care about Clinton's or Gingrich's adulteries, lies and excuse-making, we should care about Sanford's  adulteries, lies and excuse-making. Sanford may vote our way in Congress, but his character lapses make him vulnerable. He comes with self-inflicted baggage.


I don't care about a politicians personal life unless they can be politically damaged which is why I supported going after Bill Clinton. 

Mark cannot be damaged by revelations about his personal life.  Various opponents spent $5m trying and failing pretty badly.

Policy positions and fiscal conservatism trump all this nonsense which is why he's back in Congress and he'll be a great leader and ally for limited government and balanced budgets. 

The bonus is he's a non-intervenionist and there's only a handful of those.

----------


## Aratus

Warlord, if he marries the mistress, who now is his fiance, he looks no worse than newt gingrich, strom thurmond or john mccain.
were he a Democrat, the carefree social disease spreading promiscuity we associate with JFK, Bill Clinton and (drool) cute senator
edwards would be something we'd worry about. admittedly the mistress is from argentina and dances at least a passable tango even
 if he doesn't.  the tabloid press almost turned the poor woman into a latterday mata hari even though she may be an economics wonk.

----------


## angelatc

> angelatc  --- mark sanford's public image right now is sorta akin to that of the town 
> drunk that just did a major turn~around after going thru AA and its  baby steps...
> we know he is no longer a front~runner potus contender in terms of iowa because 
> RAND PAUL's polls outta iowa have been reet, sweet & laid back. mark sanford got
> a shout-out from people who were looking into his soul and being compassionate. 
> at the national level people side with jenny sanford for almost the same reasons
> people sided with the late wife of senator john edwards.  the poor woman never 
> asked for what happened to her at all, and the lies at the time cut deep wounds.


Yes, and you guys can spit nails at me if you want, but I would really liked a Sanford / Paul ticket.  Bush might get Texas, maybe Florida, but we'd easily get the rest of the south.

----------


## Aratus

i'm inclined to think SEN. RAND PAUL and  REP. MARK SANFORD could be a ticket.
i'd even sorta humour  RAND PAUL and TED CRUZ... because i like RAND PAUL!!!!!

----------


## Aratus

angelatc...      or did i misread thee... are you floating the idea of a mark sanford and ron paul ticket in 2016?  if rand paul only runs for the senate?

----------


## Aratus

i've made at least three postings on the theme that maybe we run trey grayson as a favorite son in KY if senator rand potus runs nationwide.
i've also said that when mitch mcconnell promised trey a senate seat, he forgot he was sitting on one, too as he grabbed at poor jim bunning's!

----------


## ninepointfive

sounds like angela has some issues of her own here. 

can we really say we know everything that happened?

----------


## Aratus

we've also been talking up jenny sanford in terms of taking on lindsey graham if tom davis or jack hunter avoids the contest.

----------


## Aratus

lets get real. representative mark sanford has very obvious baggage in terms of his personal life. joe biden doesn't. rand paul doesn't.
could we get the nomination for rand  after we run jenny against lindsey, so she won't go Democrat if her "ex" is on a national ticket?
 i could happily  live with both a senator sanford and a veep sanford being in D.C at about much of the same time over the political year.

----------


## Aratus

if we think about an august RNC its only about a 60 day gauntlet run between the convention and the fall election.
a happily married representative who goes out and vigorously campaigns for the party standard bearer is a big plus!

----------


## Aratus

curiously enough, jenny sanford being a  respected senator makes it much easier for mark sanford to become a GOP veep!

----------


## erowe1

> curiously enough, jenny sanford being a  respected senator makes it much easier for mark sanford to become a GOP veep!


I think the only thing that could open a door for Mark to move up from where he is now is a lot of time during which he doesn't make fools of his supporters.

----------


## Warlord

> I think the only thing that could open a door for Mark to move up from where he is now is a lot of time during which he doesn't make fools of his supporters.


He's not moving up. He's going to stay in his safe district for as long as he wants it (like about 340 other congressmen)

The National Assembly here in Afghanistan has more turnover than the US congress!

----------


## angelatc

> angelatc...      or did i misread thee... are you floating the idea of a mark sanford and ron paul ticket in 2016?  if rand paul only runs for the senate?


No, I don't think Ron Paul will run again.  And I don't think Mark Sanford would or should run in 2016, either.  If he hadn't mucked up his career I would like to have seen a Sanford / Rand Paul ticket in 2016.  That would have allowed Rand to run for senate while still being the VP choice.

----------


## angelatc

> sounds like angela has some issues of her own here. 
> 
> can we really say we know everything that happened?



My only issue here is with the other people, who don't know anything either, making things up in order to try to force Jenny Sanford to shoulder some of Mark's baggage.  Again, we already clearly know what he is and what he does.

There's just no legitimate reason to give him any benefit of doubt.

----------


## ninepointfive

> My only issue here is with the other people, who don't know anything either, making things up in order to try to force Jenny Sanford to shoulder some of Mark's baggage.  Again, we already clearly know what he is and what he does.
> 
> There's just no legitimate reason to give him any benefit of doubt.


gotta say, I know nothing more than what's been said here on this thread - but it always takes two to tango so to speak. sorry for the lame analogy.

----------


## Aratus

the tango is the national dance of argentina.
he went down there and began to talk of hayek
and keynes and then became a backpacker 
out on some lonesome long appalachian trail.
do not blame jenny for mark's actions in this all.

----------


## angelatc

> gotta say, I know nothing more than what's been said here on this thread - but it always takes two to tango so to speak. sorry for the lame analogy.



The problem was that Mark had several other dance partners.

Again, based on everything we know, she has done absolutely nothing wrong.  But here you are - seemingly intent on insisting that that somehow the problems with Mark Sanford's character must be at least partly her fault.  

That's being an apologist.

----------


## Aratus

keep in mind that FDR was aware penicillin existed but that JFK thought it almost equal to communion wafers when being religious.

----------


## ninepointfive

> The problem was that Mark had several other dance partners.
> 
> Again, based on everything we know, she has done absolutely nothing wrong.  But here you are - seemingly intent on insisting that that somehow the problems with Mark Sanford's character must be at least partly her fault.  
> 
> That's being an apologist.


I'm not intent on anything. Just noticed it's obviously stuck a chord

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not intent on anything. Just noticed it's obviously stuck a chord


What are you getting at here?

It seems like you can't find enough support for what you're saying in the relevant facts, so you're resorting to ad hominem.

----------


## ninepointfive

> What are you getting at here?
> 
> It seems like you can't find enough support for what you're saying in the relevant facts, so you're resorting to ad hominem.


ad hominem what? Looks like angela has personal feelings about it

----------


## erowe1

> ad hominem what? Looks like angela has personal feelings about it


That's what ad hominem means.

----------


## ninepointfive

> That's what ad hominem means.


its not ad hominem if you have no horse in the game.

----------


## erowe1

> its not ad hominem if you have no horse in the game.


Yes it is.

----------


## ninepointfive

> Yes it is.


look up the definition of what an observation means

----------


## erowe1

> look up the definition of what an observation means


Great idea, genius. Keep digging.




> ob·ser·va·tion
>   [ob-zur-vey-shuhn]  Show IPA  
> 
> noun  
> 1. an act or instance of noticing or perceiving. 
> 
> 2. an act or instance of regarding attentively or watching. 
> 
> 3. the faculty or habit of observing or noticing. 
> ...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/observation?s=t

----------


## Aratus

duckie... your horse is in the game.
angela's passion is focused on a neat
political litmus test that is juxposition'd
next to a personal life in total disorder.

----------


## ninepointfive

Statement - "it takes two to tango"  meant usually relationship problems arise from not just one party of the two, but both. 

Observation- angela seems to be taking this topic personally.

----------


## erowe1

> Observation- angela seems to be taking this topic personally.


Of course that's not actually an observation. It's a baseless assertion used to divert from any actual points to be made. See _ad hominem_.

----------


## Aratus

ninepointfive --- at one point, their marriage had 3 uncomfortable people. he is very protestant. 
she got divorced. tango dancers pair up south of the equator. y'all do not see threesomes tango.

----------


## jmdrake

> The problem was that Mark had several other dance partners.
> 
> Again, based on everything we know, she has done absolutely nothing wrong.  But here you are - seemingly intent on insisting that that somehow the problems with Mark Sanford's character must be at least partly her fault.  
> 
> That's being an apologist.


Well if we assume Jenny is human then she probably did something wrong.  Maybe she isn't human.  It's odd that this was so public before the election and then hushed up after Mark won.  It's odd that after "multiple tresspassing violations" it's the Superbowl one that is supposedly the big deal.  We don't know what actually happened with the others because they were all mere allegations and now it's all sealed after the damage was done but didn't destroy Mark.  I'm not a fan of Mark Sanford.  I wish he hadn't been such an idiot not only to get involved in an affair but to let it so consume his life that his staff had to lie to cover it up.  And I think he genuinely loves his son and wants to be there for him as much as possible.  And yes, he (Mark) is ultimately responsible for his kids' heartache for his own stupid decisions.  But good grief this has been blown out of proportion.

----------


## ninepointfive

> y'all do not see threesomes tango.


lol

----------


## cajuncocoa

I hope Mark Sanford will be as good an advocate for liberty issues as everyone on this board thinks he will be. 

That said, in his personal life with respect to this issue between him and his ex-wife, Mark Sanford IS NOT the victim!  If Jenny is being vindictive, I almost don't blame her considering what he put her and their children through when he ran away to Argentina with his mistress.  

As for putting those issues aside, they will go away when Mark stops violating the terms of the divorce/custody.

----------


## Aratus

the well timed nature of doctor ron paul's email said things greatly to me

----------


## torchbearer

> I hope Mark Sanford will be as good an advocate for liberty issues as everyone on this board thinks he will be. 
> 
> That said, in his personal life with respect to this issue between him and his ex-wife, Mark Sanford IS NOT the victim!  If Jenny is being vindictive, I almost don't blame her considering what he put her and their children through when he ran away to Argentina with his mistress.  
> 
> As for putting those issues aside, they will go away when Mark stops violating the terms of the divorce/custody.


I had seen him as an ally of ron paul back when he was in congress. this was prior to the new awakening.
so, mark was libertarian, when libertarian wasn't cool.

----------


## jmdrake

> I hope Mark Sanford will be as good an advocate for liberty issues as everyone on this board thinks he will be.


Well looks like he has something of a track record so that's hopeful.




> That said, in his personal life with respect to this issue between him and his ex-wife, Mark Sanford IS NOT the victim!  If Jenny is being vindictive, I almost don't blame her considering what he put her and their children through when he ran away to Argentina with his mistress.


I'd say the children are the victims in all of this.  




> As for putting those issues aside, they will go away when Mark stops violating the terms of the divorce/custody.


Well apparently he hasn't violated any since the superbowl.  One day at a time.

----------


## Lucille

Jenny Sanford knew what she was getting into when she married him.  She said in her book that they weren't in love, and he didn't want to vow to be faithful.

Stop Feeling Bad for Jenny Sanford
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...ampaign/62717/




> Since the scandal, Jenny hasn't gone into hiding — instead, she posed for Vogue, wrote a memoir, appeared at a White House Correspondents' Association Dinner with plenty of PDA with her new boyfriend, and been an adviser to South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. She didn't divorce Mark when she discovered the affair — she divorced him after an embarrassing press conference that appeared to kill his career. (She even let him visit his mistress with a chaperone!) Mark asked Jenny for advice on what to say in that press conference — and she gave him sincere advice, instead of telling him to go stab himself in the eye. Jenny Sanford is clearly quite politically savvy, and it shouldn't be much of a surprise that her ex-husband is still asking her for help. What's more surprising is that we still feel bad for her.

----------


## angelatc

> Jenny Sanford knew what she was getting into when she married him.  She said in her book that they weren't in love, and he didn't want to vow to be faithful.
> 
> Stop Feeling Bad for Jenny Sanford
> http://www.theatlanticwire.com/polit...ampaign/62717/


Was that supposed to bolster your position?  Because it really didn't.  She didn't do anything wrong. 

She's isn't the one that cheated.  She didn't divorce him when he had an affair because she wanted to save the marriage. She's been pretty open about that.  

I think that because she refuses to play the submissive role, the red-eyed wife standing stoically behind her husband as he confesses to the public, the role that we're used to seeing the DC wives play, people somehow resent her for not being a doormat.

----------


## Aratus

thoughts of Hillary defending Comrade Bill when Jennifer Flowers was soon to become a name in tabloid ink abundantly, yes...

----------


## Lucille

> Was that supposed to bolster your position?  Because it really didn't.  She didn't do anything wrong. 
> 
> She's isn't the one that cheated.  She didn't divorce him when he had an affair because she wanted to save the marriage. She's been pretty open about that.  
> 
> I think that because she refuses to play the submissive role, the red-eyed wife standing stoically behind her husband as he confesses to the public, the role that we're used to seeing the DC wives play, people somehow resent her for not being a doormat.


I liked that she didn't get up and stand behind him when he confessed on the teevee and didn't act like a doormat.  Then she wrote her book and started talking.  What did she expect marrying a man who didn't love her, and had reservations about taking a vow to be faithful?

----------


## Aratus

I didn't read the book and now representative sanford is turning into the warren beatty wannabe of s.c in my mind's eye!

----------


## angelatc

> I liked that she didn't get up and stand behind him when he confessed on the teevee and didn't act like a doormat.  Then she wrote her book and started talking.  What did she expect marrying a man who didn't love her, and had reservations about taking a vow to be faithful?


She was what - 20?  She said she thought he just had cold feet.

----------


## Aratus

at least gentleman mitt never cheated on his better  and brighter half

----------


## Lucille

That's what she gets for thinking rather than taking him at his word!

That is not to say that he didn't handle the whole thing in the most stupid f'n manner.  He should have left Jenny and filed for divorce when he fell in love with his Immortal Beloved.

----------

