Meghan McCain Wants Us To Forgive Mark Sanford

Riley
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:29 am: [report]

So, if they preach sodomy and transgender threesomes on the campaign trail; they can get it on with whomever they wish after being elected?

I don’t think the media will let extramarital affairs go by the wayside, regardless of the politician’s views.  Just too easy to sensationalize and the stories write themselves.

If they can perform their duties to the public and make good on real promises and change; I don’t care what they do after-hours.  Do whatever floats your boat, just do your job first.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:37 am: [report]

This is besides the point, but I’m irritated Meghan McCain was hired by the Daily Beast as a writer to begin with. Just being a famous person’s child doesn’t mean you naturally have any talent or anything worthy to say.

moonblossom
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:45 am: [report]

I agree with the article - these stories are always the most interesting when there’s hypocrisy involved. Even in the Clinton scandal the most famous line was [Clinton w/finger wagging at the camera] “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Uh huh.

Most americans are willing to forgive indescretions and whatnot. What we tend to be less willing to forgive is the holier-than-thou, judgy-McJudgersons who blast the very behavior they get caught doing later on down the road. Which brings up an interesting point….

Do these politicians spend so much time talking about the behaviors because they are secretly/subconsciously obsessed with them? Was Sanford so harsh on Clinton cause he was really just jealous? 

Whatever the reason - it certainly makes for funny news!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:50 am: [report]

I say we keep firing them till they stop the “Do as I say not as I do routine”.

Humble Bee
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:50 am: [report]

I used to like Meghan McCain until I saw her in the Bill Maher show, she sounds like she’s straight out of valley high. She kept mentioning twitter, referring back to facebook and giggling at everything. I think she is practically defending these men because of what happened with her father, of course she thinks it’s OK, she’s the product of an extramarital affair. I feel especially inclined to scrutinize these political bible pushers, they keep preaching about morals, values, reproaching gay marriage, but they want to hire hookers, do men in restrooms, have children with their mistreses and tell me I should be fu*ckn abstinent. Bitch please.

nikkiwikki
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 09:59 am: [report]

Fantastic article. I agree with you 100%.

sstephs
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:05 am: [report]

@Jessica- Megan Mccain is actually a graduate of Columbia University with experience from Saturday Night Live and Newsweek. She may be a famous person’s child but she’s earned her success. People in her situation often have to prove themselves in a way no one else does because of their social status. Some may think she doesn’t have anything worthy to say but that’s the beauty of journalism- it’s subjective.

I completely believe that personal life should be separate from professional life. HOWEVER, Sanford disappeared from his professional life to tend to his personal life leaving his own administration questioning his whereabouts and leaving his state vulnerable. If I chose to take a week-long exotic vacation and not tell my employer I definitely WOULD NOT expect my position to be there when I returned.

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:08 am: [report]

@sstephs: I could of went to Columbia if my dad was who he is too, but he’s not, so I went to a state school. I agree Humble Bee, I saw her on Bill Maher and she came off all “The Hills/OC/90210” dumb, blond, and self important.

Symian
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:13 am: [report]

I don’t get why it’s ok to want to oust a politician who says no new taxes then raises taxes, or pledges to help get better funding for schools, then never follows through, but it isn’t ok to want to get rid of one who uses their family values to get elected then uses state funds and a barrel of lies to satisfy his own lusts and desires.  I would never hold a politician above others either.  I still have not regained any respect for my louse of a dad who cheated on my mom.  I love him, but he should feel ashamed and had he used his mmilitary position to do so, he should have been publicly shamed and removed from his post.  But, I might feel different if thier marriage was built dishonor and unfaithfulness, they probably would have cast cheating in a soft warm glow like Meghan’s parents did and made it seem normal.

joyy
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:14 am: [report]

@Amelia - word.

@jessicaW - well aren’t you the pot calling the kettle black. hah!

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:16 am: [report]

@sstephs Famous people’s kids sometimes (note the use of the word “sometimes”) get internships and jobs purely out of nepotism and not because they would have otherwise earned it. It’s called nepotism. I agree with your point that “People in her situation often have to prove themselves in a way no one else does because of their social status.” That’s so true. But so often they don’t.

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:17 am: [report]

**sorry, I meant to say “get internships and jobs purely out of CONNECTIONS and not because they otherwise would have earned it.”

Oliveira
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:24 am: [report]

May I also mention Sanford being a member of “marriage is a holy institution that would be spoiled by filthy homosexuals” brigade? I think it wasn’t a gay man, woman or couple who broke his own marriage…

keightee
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:26 am: [report]

I think this article and Humble Bee hit the nail on the head.

I was reading McCain’s articles for awhile because I was interesting in how much attention she was getting for being the “new face of the republican party”, but I found her articles mostly lacked substance. I mean, good for her for completing school, etc.; however, I feel that there are better writers in the world, but I’m sure the fact that McCain’s name would gather attention/readers didn’t hurt when it came to hiring.

sstephs
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:45 am: [report]

@ Cheese- Point taken. Buuuut….while many Ivy league schools do accept students based on parental alumni and wealth/donations I think there also has to be some merit there. If a student doesn’t have skills to get into a school like that it’s not going to be easy to keep up with an ivy league curriculum.  I could be wrong, she could just be using the perks of being a senators daughter but then again she could have graduated Columbia with a 4.0. Maybe we’ll never know. Point is, if I (someone equally educated and experienced as MM) were to have the same career as her no one would disregard my “intelligence” or merit. It’s a classic case of double standard (and maybe guilty by association?).

@Jessica- completely agree. Even some of the guys that work at Taco Bell got their job because of “connections”. The higher ups just have better opportunities than the rest of us. Unfortunately for me, that’s the way of the world.

I’m definitely NOT republican and I’m pretty indifferent to MM. I just think it’s unfair to discredit someone who has “earned” their career. Now, if she was straight out of high school with no experience my stance would be completely different.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:49 am: [report]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,976360-6,00.html

Here’s an old Time magazine article from 1992 that states that Clinton and Gore utilized “family values” in their campaign…and that Clinton “sounded virtually Republican in his insistence on personal responsibility.”

So…it is ok to forgive Bill Clinton, who not only had an affair but then LIED ABOUT IT UNDER OATH but not Sanford?

Sandford had an affair.  He lied about, used his constituents tax dollars to pay for it—he should be kicked out of his office.  Same thing should have happened to Clinton—he did the same thing, except he didn’t use tax dollars to pay for it (as far as I can remember)

But just because he is a Republican and preaches family values, the automatic response of liberlas is to crucify him.  He didn’t do anything different than Clinton did, except use tax dollar money to fly to Argentina—which I don’t condone.

But to say that Clinton *didn’t* preach family values and therefore it is ok that he screwed around on his wife is wrong.  Clearly as noted above—he did. And I remember the damn speech.  Is family values as important and as consuming as it is for Republicans?  No—but it is in their platform.  It HAS to be.  It is the only way they can catch the middle of the road people who aren’t really ultraconservatives and aren’t really ultralibers.

Aside from that—Clinton was the President of the United States.  He had a fiduciary responsibility NOT to drag the Office through the mud as he did. He shamed the country.  He shamed the office.

Sanford shames his state.  Shamed *his* office. 

Both are equally offensive.

And no, I did not vote for McCain.

sstephs
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:51 am: [report]

@Oliveira haha. YES!!!! Why let the homosexuals spoil all our fun?
The filthy heterosexuals are doing a fine job by them(our?)selves.

GreenAura
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:56 am: [report]

I am so tired of peoples relationships becomming headlining news.  People are starving, genocide is being commited, the planet is changing rapidly and this story about an affair is what’s making news.  Forgiving Sanford is not anyone’s place except his wife’s.  If she chooses to forgive, then that is on her and her alone. Poor gal, its hard enough for her to deal with this, let alone under public scrutiny.  I say let the Sanfords work this out amongst themselves.

sstephs
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 10:57 am: [report]

@Writergirl receiving oral sex on break and receiving oral sex in another country (all expenses paid!!) while neither your administration nor the state you’re supposed to be running know where you are, are two different things.

If Sanford would not have gotten caught, he would be the real winner here.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:08 am: [report]

@sstephs.

You’re splitting hairs. 

It doesn’t matter where the affair took place—lying about it (especially under oath!) *should* be grounds for removal from office.  Just because Clinton got a blow job IN THE OVAL OFFICE (which actually makes me more disgusted) and not abroad does not change the fact noted in the article above.  That it was ok for Democrats and Clinton to cheat because they don’t preach family values.  When in fact—they do.  Hell John Edwards is a BIG family values man and always talking how he loves his wife, and loves his kids…uh-huh.  Which is why the moment your wife is indisposed due to chemotherapy, you had to go screw one of your campaign staffers.

If you are going to say that Republican’s are holding themselves to a higher moral standard—which is what Amelia is essentially saying—and *their* affairs are unforgivable, you have to apply the same standards to the Democrats who are stating the same exact thing.  The difference is, Democrats are a little more open as to what constitutes “family” but last time I checked, even they didn’t condone screwing around on one’s wife as a definition of “family” though they seem to be doing it just as much as the Republican’s are.

sstephs
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:36 am: [report]

Oh @Writergirl… I definitely agree lying under oath is grounds for impeachment. What I fail to see is your logic on the circumstances surrounding both affairs. The fact that this man used TAX PAYER DOLLARS to take a secret WEEK LONG vacation abroad (to commit these immoral acts) while leaving his state completely vulnerable is what leaves me disgusted. What both representatives did were morally wrong, there is no argument there. I don’t know who you are employed with but leaving my work responsibilities without permission and taking a vacation in Cancun using my company’s credit card is less forgivable to my employer than having sex in my office.

For the record, I never once mentioned any part of Amelia’s article. I have simply been commenting on the comments of others. The fact is, democrats and republicans see and run things differently. Always have, always will. Republicans have a reputation for their “all-american” family image. When we elect officials we more or less know how the country is going to run based on their party. If we didn’t we wouldn’t bother claiming ourselves “democrat”,republican”, etc.

Humble Bee
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 11:48 am: [report]

@writergirl, your acting as if Clinton got away with it. He was impeached, he got what he deserved, and far as Sanford goes, most of these senators keep their jobs. Oh and BTW, liberals want to crucify all republicans, and are just waiting for another screw up, or scandal to say, I told you so! (McCain did the same as Edwards, his wife was paralyzed from the waist down, while he was banging muliti millionaire heiress Cindy McCain and making Meghan.)

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:11 pm: [report]

@sstephs
//I don’t know who you are employed with but leaving my work responsibilities without permission and taking a vacation in Cancun using my company’s credit card is less forgivable to my employer than having sex in my office.//

Well….I am a SAHM.  So I guess I am employed by my son and my husband. If I left for an unauthorized vacation without telling anyone I would be most definately removed from my position. Assuming of course, they could actually survive the week without being burried under a pile of laundry and garbage. (Which really is questionable)

I agree—and stated as such in my first post—Sandford was wrong—an understatement—for using tax payer dollars to conduct his affair.  I didn’t state it, but do agree he should be removed from office for that. 

Actually if he had used the money to treat his wife to a spa day around the corner from the SC’s governor’s mansion, I would think he needed to be kicked out of office.  So I definately don’t condone that. 

My issue wasn’t even with anything you said, it was with Amelia’s hypothesis that Democrats who have affairs should be forgiven because of their family values stance over Republican’s who have affairs because of their’s.  I don’t agree.

Both preach family values—although albeit the definition of “family” is different for both parties.  And neither party says “Go ahead and screw around on your wife”/spouse in the interest of fairness should either Barbara Boxer or Olympia Snow ever be found having an affair.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:22 pm: [report]

@Humblebee-

He was impeached by the House of Representatives and acquitted by the Senate.  As the impeachment was not sustained by the Senate, he did, essentially “get away with it”.  He only paid a $90K fine being found guilty of Contempt of Court for lying in the Pauls Jones case.

And I never said McCain was a saint.  I don’t condone his actions on cheating on his wife anymore than I do the rest of them.

sstephs
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:40 pm: [report]

@Writergirl

Well said. I think many people believe it’s the affair itself that has Sanford’s position in question when, in reality, the only role his affair had was it was the cause of him neglecting his duties and taking advantage of his power.

Looking at the Obama family, we see a picture of this wholesome “nuclear” family and in the event of some sort of familial scandal we would feel hurt and lied to because we’ve set them as a shining example of what a family should be. Even though an affair has absolutely no barring on the ability of the president to run our country we feel betrayed and our emotions have us judging the official, making the actions in his personal life subject to consequence for his professional life. MM has it right when she says “...I suggest that the party concentrate less on what goes on in the bedroom and more on what is going on in policy”.

We are the ones responsible. Both parties are just trying to give us what we want to see even if it has nothing to do with their job. Can you blame them? We need to stop looking at these people as super-human anti-mistake machines and focus on how well they can do their job.

retro chic
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:47 pm: [report]

Relax, peeps, they could’ve brought Carrie Prejean in… Yeah, well, they didn’t think it was a good idea, either. Um, I don’t care about anyone’s affairs. They’re scum. I just have a problem with the standards-to-forgiveness quotient, ie, the hypocrisy one party levels on the other.

Megan’s pleas for forgiveness? Who can deny those pinchable smiling cheeks? OK, so I forgive. Now what. So, let’s see when it happens again (and it will), only on the Democrats, and see how long their memories are, let alone how deep their commitment to their newfound forgiveness policy goes… you know, “Going forward.” Sure looking forward to the video playback when that time comes. Megan: “Just kidding!”

Look, Megan’s just following Party orders. All the Republican political women now—the (semi)good-looking ones—are being tasked to rehabilitate the GOP. It’s all about image, trying to look fresh and young and socially progressive. But it’s still the SOS.

Also, I saw her on the Bill Maher Show, too, and in his intro of her, he made note of saying how her handlers told him to “be gentle” with her, and that “she’s nervous and scared.” That’s impressive. And manipulative. So, it’s mitts off and special treatment already, implying too that we should expect less from her ‘cause she’s such a bambi, but accept everything she has come to say. Like the others, my dubious “anticipation” of a “news journalist” was allayed the moment she opened her mouth… and bambi was delivered to us. The terrifying thing is… it usually works. On second thought, let’s get Carrie back out here!

CheeeeEEEEse
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 12:52 pm: [report]

Retro has teeth. Bitey bite.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 01:28 pm: [report]

@sstephs—

Sex and politics are nothing new.  Eisenhower, JFK, Johnson, Nixon all had affairs.  Ted Kennedy had them.  McCain had them.  The Governor of Lousiana way back when had one with a burlesque dancer. 

The difference between those men named in the previous paragrpah and Clinton, Edwards Sanford, the governor of NJ in 2004 and of NY last year (can’t remember their names) and countless others is that the media wasn’t inclined to break the story on the men mentioned above.

Do you REALLY think the country would hold JFK in such high regards if we had known he was messing around on Jackie?  Especially after she buried his son?

No.  So the media kept it quiet—why?  Who knows.  Was it because JFK’s affairs had nothing to do with how he handled the Cuban Missle Crisis?  Or was it because their was an code, an honor, an integrity that isn’t there today.  We live in a 24 hour a day news cycle—that wasn’t the case as recently as twenty years ago—we now need something to fill those 24 hours.

The problem comes in when the politician’s lie.  If they would just own up to it, instead of letting the media investigate and try to find something, public opinion *may* actually work to their favor.  But they lie about it, deny it, and get caught anyway.  They are complete idiots—or no.  Maybe they are just egotistical enough to believe that because they are who they are and sit where they sit that nothing can touch them.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 01:33 pm: [report]

@sstephs—and I meant to add, but went off on a tangent—that we hold these politicians in high regard because they set themselves up for that.  JFK did it—Camelot reincarnated.  That image would have been shattered had word of his affairs gotten out. 

If President Obama were caught having an affair, his world that he’s created would be utterly shattered. (Not that I think Obama would have an affair—I don’t.  I think it goes against his honor and integrity as a person to do that). 

AS the old saying goes, the higher your go, the bigger you fall.

joyy
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 01:41 pm: [report]

@writergirl - I do think the 24-hour news channels needing to fill all that space has something to do with all the pointless, obnoxious coverage of non-job related things.

I was young enough during the Clinton debacle to not really remember his campaign, so I’m not going to draw comparisons. 

However, I think that if you join the fight for DENYING a group of people marriage rights in defense of the “sanctity of marriage” and then leave a cleveland steamer on your own marriage, that’s hipocracy WAY beyond just doing something you aren’t supposed to do ... before you even get into the whole using taxpayer dollars to facilitate it while abandoning job duties issue.

That’s not a defense of cheating politicians/other d-bags everywhere.  I just think it’s a higher level of #&@$% for someone to tout that marriage is sacred in saying select others can’t get married when they obviously don’t take even their own marriage very seriously.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 01:50 pm: [report]

@joyy—

So a Democrat having an affair is more forgiveable because he advocates same sex marriage?  He has no more regards for the sanctity of marriage than his Republican counterpart.

Sorry.  Not buying that argument.

I’ve stated that the fundamental definition of “family” by either party is different, but that doesn’t make one more right than the other, and therefore doesn’t excuse one party’s extramarital affairs over the other’s.

joyy
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 01:57 pm: [report]

@writergirl - I don’t think cheating is right/justified/excusable no matter who is doing it.  It’s just that my stomach does an *extra* flip when it’s someone who buys into/pushes the whole “gays can’t be married because marriage is sacred” line.

writergirl
wrote on June 30 2009 @ 02:13 pm: [report]

@joyy—I can understand that.