Ethics, Responsibilty and Sanford

The typical liberal position on sexual ethics, which I share, is that as long as everyone is consensual (and legally able to consent) and no one is hurt, "it's not my friggin' business!" Was I disappointed by Clinton? Sure, but the truly disgusting aspect of that whole fiasco was the way the self-appointed moral police (including Sanford himself, btw) on the right believed that somehow his personal choices were their business. So this preface is to point out that, while I feel bad for Sanford's wife and family, and for his mistress (who maybe should have known better, but nevertheless does not deserve the hounding she is undoubtedly enduring), and the many others on the fringes of the governor's life who will deal with personal stress in one way or another, Sanford's sexual choices are his alone. They're not my business.

However, that said, there are two ENORMOUS issues here. First, and perhaps less important, is the fact that Sanford apparently paid for this jaunt with funds belonging to the State of South Carolina. This is theft. Do you honestly believe he would have reimbursed those costs (as he now promises to do) if he hadn't been caught? Furthermore, we have here a person who wants to turn away federal funds for education, food supplements, health care and so on. Despite the righty noise machine's claims, the feds are not shoving those funds onto S.C.; that state's legisalture has overridden Sanford's attempts to block them. In other words, representatives of the people of South Carolina want to receive those funds, and by proxy, so do the citizens of that state. Sanford is simply a representative of a very tiny minority. My personal opinion is that all of these officials want to have their cake and eat it too, in a political sense. They know that others will override their attempts to block federal funds, but they believe they can earn political points by making a show out of vocally opposing such funding. The fact that this is tiresome and pandering hypocrisy is obvious.

But the fact that Sanford sees his state's funds as either his own personal credit card, or (my belief) debit card, casts an entirely different (yet predictable) light on the situation: "Big Government" is too big when it helps people make ends meet and stay alive and healthy as they weather tough times. "Small Government," one "small enough to drown in a bathtub" in the famous phrase, has plenty of resources to shell out (or loan) $12,000 dollars for an official of that government to fly around the planet to visit and party with his preferred penis-sheath.

Now explain that to me.

That alone, to me, is such a breach of trust that, at the very least, a full accounting of this man's expenditures should be undertaken, with the possibility of indictment looming large. But wait! There's More!

The second issue, which I think is even more important, is this: the man just picked up and disappeared. His staff didn't know where he was. His family didn't know where he was. His security, presumably (6/27- they didn't; see this article for the reason why), didn't know where he was. Now ask youself, "If I just didn't show up for work for five days, with no warning, no explanation, and no contact information, what would likely result?"

Exactly.

This man is in command of the state national guard. He's in charge of law enforcement. What if there had been a rash of tornadoes or other natural disaster? Who would take charge and responsibility? I presume the lieutenant governor... but he wasn't the one elected, was he? Aren't there some formalities involved in handing over responsibilty to a second? And Sanford has been discussed as a presidential contender?

Now the thing that prompted this rant is the following quote from an article in the NYT this afternoon:

“I wanted generally to apologize to every one of you all for letting you down,” Mr. Sanford told the gathering of his cabinet secretaries in a mahogany conference room in the ornate state Capitol complex. “Part of what it means going forward is every one of you all has specific duties to the people of South Carolina that you have to perform, that is with or without me doing right on a given day.”

So, in other words, he's saying, "Yeah, I just committed a gross dereliction of duty, and I'm sorry you guys were inconvenienced by that. Get used to it; it might happen again." Then there's this:

At the meeting, he gave no indication that he was considering resigning, despite growing calls for him to do so by members of his own Republican party as well as Democrats. Instead, he compared himself to the biblical King David, who he said “fell mightily, he fell in very significant ways, but was able to pick up the pieces.”

So. We have delusions of grandeur. We have what I take as an admission that this may very well happen again. We have a sense of entitlement to taxpayer dollars, while living in a time when people can't feed themselves or their chldren, and at the same time claiming that government is bad because it takes money away from people.

You know what that sounds like to me?

A sociopath.

This guy should be removed from office yesterday.

And what he chooses to do with his one-eyed trouser snake has nothing to do with my reasons for saying so.