Jenny Sanford Files for Divorce

It's no real surprise, but Jenny Sanford announced this morning that she has filed for a divorce from Governor Mark Sanford, who, just this week, dodged impeachment.  He faces a censure resolution,  however. 

Jenny Sanford has gained much respect and admiration during this whole ordeal.  You know the one - the "Luv Guv" who found his lover/soul-mate in Argentina.

State Dinner at the White House - WITH an Invitation

For as long as I can remember, there have been tales of little children sneaking into places where they shouldn’t be. Little boys climbing over fences to parts unknown. Little girls going into mommy’s closet to play dress-up. Children snooping to find hidden gifts before an upcoming holiday.

Virginia socialites Tareq and Michaele Salahi were somewhat flashier with their actions when they went to a place where they shouldn’t have been – the White House.

And, no, they definitely weren’t sneaking. Quite the opposite. The flamboyant couple brazenly and unapologetically crashed the state dinner hosted by the Obamas for Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

I am totally amazed they were able to pull off this escapade.

Years ago, my then-husband and I attended a state dinner honoring Spain’s top royalty, King Juan Carlos I and Queen Sofia. Yes, we were actually invited to be there, although when I received the initial phone call, I turned down the invitation because I thought it was a joke. 

Security was strict. Really, really strict. And this was a long time before 9/11.

We had to show identification along with our invitations and we had to go through more than one check-point. If I remember correctly, our identities had to be verified to get inside the gate to the grounds. There was another check to get into the White House and then, I believe, a third one to go into the area for the dinner.

The Obamas hosted their recent state dinner inside a large tent on the grounds, so that might have made the process a little easier or more relaxed.

State dinners are usually seated and extremely formal. Guests’ names are on cards at the respective place settings. Husbands and wives are not seated at the same table. If these practices are still in place, someone had to know the Salahis were interlopers before they posted their own pictures on Facebook the next day.

I expect we’ll continue to hear more about this.

Should anyone be punished?  Is it a big deall?  What do you think?

 

 

Sanford, Bauer, Time, Money and Numbered Days

Yesterday’s post about Mark Sanford and impeachment was so doggone long, I figured I’d covered just about everything.  I was wrong.  A few arguments/reasons that have circulated for a few months were left out, so here we go again with a bit about what wasn’t written yesterday.

Lots of good, intelligent and reasonable people have posted varying opinions on this blog and on Facebook.

Some folks argue that the impeachment process is a waste of money. Some say it’s a waste of time. Some assert that Sanford’s term is almost over anyway, that his gubernatorial days are numbered, so why bother? Still others contend that a lame-duck do-nothing Sanford is better than the person “waiting in the wings”, i.e. Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.  You know him: he's the Jeff Gordon lookalike.

One thing’s for sure: if I’m ever charged with some sort of crime, I hope some of these same arguments will be used: “Trying her would be a waste of money. She’s so old she’s probably not going to be around much longer anyway, so why spend the time and money?”

What about someone who is charged with murder but happens to have some terminal disease? Is it okay to just drop the issue because a trial is expensive, takes time and the person is going to die anyway? Or consider a lesser offense, like shoplifting (the same one I used in yesterday’s post.) Should an alleged shoplifter not be brought to justice because she is terminally ill? Are time and money considerations in bringing about justice? Is illness?

With tongue firmly planted in cheek, I might argue that the impeachment process is a great use of time: it keeps elected officials busy so they won’t be passing more unnecessary laws, meddling in our personal lives, raising our taxes, etc.

Then there’s that other person who seems to be a consideration to some people – Andre Bauer.

First of all, if an employee has done enough wrong to be fired, does the employer ever refuse to deal with the wrongdoing because of the next person in line who might be promoted? Does the employer fail to dismiss an employee who has embezzled money because there is no one available to fill the slot or because he doesn’t know much about the person who may step in?

If there is a teacher in a school who is not doing a good job and is actually a hindrance to the learning process, is he kept in the classroom for another year because the most likely replacement has an unknown track record?

I’m not arguing for or against Bauer. I just don’t think he should be a consideration in whether Sanford is punished for wrongdoing.

Or, to put it another way, have you ever heard the saying that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt? No, I am NOT saying Bauer is a fool.

But to those who say letting him serve a few months in office would give him an advantage in the next election or that he would not be a good governor, I ask this: Isn’t it just as possible that giving him the opportunity to step in also gives him the opportunity to mess up and prove his critics right? I can think of several people who have filled unexpired terms at various levels, only to lose in the next election. 

So, all in all, just how much wrong-doing, how much misconduct, how much dereliction of duty does one excuse for whatever reasons?

Should Governor Mark Sanford Be Impeached?

Should Governor Mark Sanford be impeached?

That’s what South Carolina legislators have to decide, so let’s take a look at some of the considerations.

First, there’s what the state’s constitution provides regarding impeachment in article 15:

The House of Representatives alone shall have the power of impeachment in cases of serious crimes or serious misconduct in office by officials elected on a statewide basis, state judges, and such other state officers as may be designated by law. The affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members elected shall be required for an impeachment. Any officer impeached shall thereby be suspended from office until judgment in the case shall have been pronounced, and the office shall be filled during the trial in such manner as may be provided by law.

Therefore, a governor (or certain other officials) may be impeached for either serious crimes or for serious misconduct in office, so the question is whether Sanford committed serious crimes or did he exhibit serious misconduct in office?

Several different issues have been fodder for the political grist mill. And there are more opinions than there are issues, ranging from “Yes, impeach him” to “Forget it; the state has more serious matters facing it” and from “He hasn’t done anything other politicians haven’t done” to “Having an affair is not a reason for impeachment.”

Let’s look at the adultery first. Was he wrong? Yes. Does the fact that he had an affair mean that he cannot govern?  No. (There are many who say he hasn’t been able to govern all along because he doesn’t “play well with others.”)

For adultery to be grounds for impeachment, it has to be a crime. The SC Code of Laws (16-15-60) says it’s a crime:

Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

So, yes, it’s a crime without severe or extreme punishment. But what is adultery?

The code goes on to define adultery as “. . .the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.”

To meet that definition, the two people either have to live together and have carnal intercourse or engage in habitual carnal intercourse if not living together. Governor Moonbeam (as Sanford has been called by some) and his Argentine paramour undoubtedly did not live together. By his own admission, the governor and his mistress had carnal intercourse, but was it habitual? Several times over a year or so probably isn’t habitual, although had she lived nearby – well, who knows?

Sanford committed adultery as the term is generally known by moral and ethical standards but perhaps not in a legal sense.

Even so, I don’t think the adultery alone would have Sanford facing possible impeachment. Divorce? Perhaps. Impeachment? No.

Recent news is about 37 ethics violations with which Sanford is charged. These relate to misuse of a state airplane; use of private planes on numerous occasions without reporting such use (which is deemed a “gift” under ethics laws); misuse of campaign funds; and breaking state law by flying first class or business class instead of coach as state employees are required to do.  Actually, state employees are required to use the least expensive available when traveling.

I don’t know the exact number of flights. According to Yahoo News, “Sanford's attorney said in a statement the commission's probe raised questions about only two dozen of more than 770 flights.”

The Post and Courier quoted Sanford attorney Butch Bowers saying “…the Ethics Commission conducted an exhaustive investigation that turned up questions on nine of the 663 flights reviewed between January 2003 and October 2009.”

Another Sanford attorney, Kevin Hall talked about a particular flight from North Carolina to Georgia for a vacation, rather than a return to Columbia at the end of his business trip: "Again, we're back to the hair-splitting," Hall said. "We're talking about impeaching a governor over whether a plane stayed in the air for approximately 20 minutes longer."

In a letter to the impeachment panel, Hall and Bowers argued that the Sanford administration used “the state plane a full third or more less than its predecessors” and that “the related flights are also more than comparable to any number of state plane flights made by legislators and other state officials.”

These arguments sound more like childhood antics than legal arguments. Were you ever caught with your hand in the cookie jar and pleaded “but Johnny did it, too?” Are they contending that Sanford did nothing wrong because (perhaps) “everybody else does it?”

Can you imagine someone being tried for shoplifting arguing that it should be overlooked because other people do it also?

Or what about the nine trips out of 663 flights? The attorneys argue that, by comparison, the number in question is miniscule. Does the alleged shoplifter argue that she has been shopping 100 times but was charged with shoplifting only once? Does an alleged rapist contend that he has dated 50 women without raping them so this charge must be false? Well, yes, sometimes these arguments are made in court but that doesn’t mean those arguments always work.

How about the flight that ended in Georgia for a vacation? If this was wrong, does it matter whether it was 20 minutes or 20 hours? Yes, the costs would be different but the principle is the same. Or is it?

I don't blame Sanford's attorneys for arguing anything and everything they can.  After all, they have a job to do.

By the way, the state’s ethics commission will address all of these matters relating to campaign funds and the airplanes in a separate hearing.

Now, what about those who say there are more serious matters than impeachment before the state? There are the “e’s” – economy, employment, education – and so much more. Yet we all complain about the double standards - those to which elected officials and celebrities are held in contrast to those to which everyone else is held. Many of us say during each election cycle that we want honest people of good moral character in office.

In our legal system do we not bring an alleged shoplifter up on charges because there’s a murder trial that is more important? No, we try to do justice in both matters.

If not adultery, if not misuse of campaign funds, if not misuse of the state plane, if not breaking state law regarding travel on commercial planes, then what is the subject of the impeachment resolution introduced by Rep. Greg Delleney?

The resolution states the governor is guilty of “serious misconduct” and “dereliction of duty” because he left the state for five days without leaving anyone in charge and “directed members of his staff in a manner that caused them to deceive and mislead the public.” Remember? They said he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. And, if you didn’t hear all about that on the news, you certainly must had heard it from late-night comedians and others.

Is going out of the state and out of the country while being out of touch and unreachable “serious misconduct?” (Some of us think he has been out of touch even while inside the state, but that’s a whole different matter.) Was his willful neglect of the state serious misconduct? I think so.

Was the fact that nothing went wrong while he was gone important?  It's important in that it's a good thing nothing went wrong.  If a person fires a gun into a crowd and no one is killed, does that mean it was okay for him to fire the gun into a crowd?  No, of course not.

If any other employee in this state left his or her job for five days without notifying anyone in authority of his/her whereabouts, it would probably be deemed serious misconduct and likely result in job loss, don't you think? Have you ever had a full-time job that you could leave without notification as to whereabouts and/or how to be reached, other than on a pre-approved vacation? 

Sanford abandoned his job for several days.  That would be serious misconduct for the rest of us and probably get the rest of us into the ranks of the unemployed.

For a House member to vote against the impeachment resolution, he or she would have to determine that Sanford’s actions did not rise to the level of serious misconduct.

Because of his serious misconduct and dereliction of duty, Governor Moonbeam should resign while there’s still a ray of moonlight shining in his direction. Otherwise, he should be impeached.

~          ~          ~          ~          ~          ~          ~          ~

Read another post or two about Sanford:

Listen to Your Heart; Mark Sanford's Song

Sanford Promotes Tourism

Rod, Political Consultant Extraordinaire, Among Other Things

As many people know, brother Rod is a political consultant, although, like several in our family - including yours truly, he has been called lots of other things.  He's also quite a character, known for his wit, his attire - as opposed to his "style," for his guitar-playing and for other assorted oddities. 


I try not to know which candidates are his in many races.  That's because we don't always agree on politics, although we do sometimes. 

Anyway, last year he was diagnosed with and treated for a cancerous brain tumor. 

In his newspaper column and blog this week, he provided an update. 

It's included as part of his annual Thanksgiving column.  I'm sharing the portion regarding his cancer:

"...I’m still here… and healthy… which I can only count as a miracle.



In Summer of 2008, many readers will recall I was diagnosed a cancerous brain tumor, and initially given a dire prognosis. The tumor was a recurrence of the same cancer – melanoma – from 25 years earlier. My odds of still being here for Thanksgiving, 2009, were slim. My odds of still being here and being healthy were even slimmer.


At that time, I wrote in detail about my condition, and promised to keep readers posted of developments. Thanksgiving seems to be a good time for an update.


For the better part of a year after my brain surgery, I remained free of any recurrence. In late June, 2009, however, scans detected growth of tumors on one of my lungs, which biopsies revealed to be melanoma.


A month later, a regularly scheduled MRI revealed new, very small tumors on the brain.


Since my 2008 surgery, at the advice my doctors I have undergone scans every couple of months in order to catch new tumors as early as possible. It worked! Within weeks of the new discovery, I was able to undergo stereotactic surgery at MUSC to eradicate the two small brain tumors.


Similarly, catching the tumors on the lung early has allowed me a variety of treatment options, including participation in experimental clinical trials, which is the route I chose to take. Ultimately, I was fortunate to be accepted into an innovative cancer research program at the Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Florida, for a long-term trial in which I am currently participating. It’s a field of cancer research -- finding better ways to boost the body’s natural abilities to fight cancer -- which is VERY exciting to me, and appears very promising for the future.


My most recent scans indicated that the tumors on my lung appear to have stabilized.


So, as promised, this is an update of my medical condition. If you’re keeping score, I’ve now had four separate occurrences of cancer -- starting with one in 1983 that I shouldn’t have survived, according to the doctors -- and overall, the odds have been something like 1,000 to 1 against me. But, to date, I have no symptoms, no side effects, and no impairments whatsoever. I’m not just alive… I’m healthy! (I could add that I’m “completely normal”… but, frankly, I’ve NEVER been exactly what anyone would refer to as “normal”.)


Am I thankful this Thanksgiving? You betcha!


I’m thankful to be here. I’m thankful for the doctors and nurses and other medical professionals who have found ways to keep me healthy -- from MUSC in Charleston, to Moffitt in Tampa, to Lovelace Family Medicine in Prosperity, SC… and lots of places in between. I’m thankful for my family and friends whose strong support has kept me positive and optimistic. And mostly, I’m thankful for the many, many people -- including entire groups of people I didn’t even know -- who said a prayer for me… and caused a miracle.


In the big picture, I have much to be thankful for...."


The rest of the family is also glad he's still around.  We, too, are thankful. 


~     ~     ~     ~

In case you'd like to read the rest of Rod's column/blog, it's here.

It's About Time!

It really is about time, or the lack of it.  For over a year, I've been maintaining three blogs, although I've slacked off with two of them recently. 

So, for the time being, all posts will be made on one blog:  EX Marks the Spot.  This one, Lipstick Election, is not closing down forever (as far as I know.)  Hope you will visit EX Marks the Spot for a mixed bag of humor, politics, information and other ramblings.

Thanks!

It's a Great Question, Don't You Think?

Thanks to Iris for sharing this!