« GOP Messaging Strategy on Health Care Revealed | Main | "Family Values" Hypocrites Remove Sanford's Photo »

GOP Gov. Mark Sanford Admits Family-Values Hypocrisy With Affair

There's nothing to see here -- just another lying Republican 'family-values' hypocrite....

South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who has been seen as a potential candidate for the 2012 U.S. presidential election, tearfully admitted on Wednesday he had been unfaithful to his wife and resigned as chairman of the Republican Governors' Association.

Sanford apologized at length for his actions at a news conference after he returned from a secret, private trip to Argentina and ended days of speculation about his whereabouts.

Sanford, shedding tears, said he had "developed a relationship" with a "dear friend" from Argentina. He apologized repeatedly to the people of South Carolina and to his wife, family and friends.

"I met this person a little over eight years ago, very innocently .... What I did was wrong. Period. End of story," Sanford said.

"I'm going to resign as chairman of the Republican Governors' Association," said Sanford, who is a prominent fiscal conservative and has been talked about as a potential presidential candidate for his party.

When media reported Sanford's whereabouts were unknown since last Thursday and that even his wife did not know where he was, his aides had said he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail in the eastern United States to get away for a break after a tough state legislative session.

During his absence, some South Carolina politicians accused him of abdicating responsibility to the state.

Sanford flew back from Argentina to Atlanta early on Wednesday. He told a reporter for The State, South Carolina's biggest newspaper, that he had changed his earlier plans for a trip and had decided at the last minute to go to Argentina and drive along its coastline.

Another Republican Presidential Hopeful demonstrates that he doesn't give a crap about the morality platform of the GOP when it comes to his own personal wife.

Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.7/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)

Comments (26)


why can't these idiots keep it in their pants? is it really that difficult?

oh, and lee, i don't know the answer to this, but is sanford a social conservative? i've always heard him referred to as a fiscal conservative. if he hasn't advocated social conservative values, he's just a scum bag and not a hypocrit scum bag.

along that vein, you have a habit of calling out republicans when fail to adhere to some aspect of the "morality platform of the GOP". (not entirely sure what that constitutes, but i have a genral understanding of what you are trying to say)

out of curiosity, do you belive in and follow every aspect of the democrat platform? are their any that you don't? if you don't would that make you a hypocrit? how about democrat politicians? there is some diversity of opinion in the democrat ranks on various issues. are the ones that don't follow the "democrat environment plank" lying hypocrits too? or the ones that don't follow the "open government plank"?


Wonder if he was trolling truckstops like McGreevey, or buying high priced hoes, like Spitzer, or, just doing whatever Bubba did w/ Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey?

Lee Ward:

He was breaking his sacred marriage vows and cheating on his wife.

He's a hypocrite. Republicans claim high morality and try to legislate morality for all Americans, while they ignore their very own vows.

That's the definition of a hypocrite these days -- "Republican politician."

"Republicans claim high morality and try to legislate morality for all Americans, while they ignore their very own vows."

So what you're saying, Lee, is that because the Democratic party openly supports radical feminists, the radical gay agenda, pornography (cleverly disguised as "freedom of speech"), abortion on demand, etc., Democrats are therefore under no obligation to honor their marriage vows?

I have yet to see a uniform denunciation by liberals of John Edwards or Bill Clinton as "hypocrites," or as "proof" that the entire Democratic party is nothing but a collective group of hypocrites.

Because Republicans generally support traditional morality, are they to be judged by a different standard than Democrats? Is that what you are saying?

What does that say about the Democratic party? I don't think such a line of reasoning makes the Democrats look very trustworthy, do you?


You mean like libs claiming personal responsibility, yet, they all have their hand out for govt $$?

Or, like Perez Hilton, all upset because a college age girl has her own opinion, yet, after he got his arse beat down because he was calling someone the derogatory term for gays, the F word??

Pot, meet kettle.

Lee Ward:

"Because Republicans generally support traditional morality, are they to be judged by a different standard than Democrats? Is that what you are saying?"

I'm saying that since Republicans try to legislate morality - in other words force it onto others through big government - these small government GOP hypocrites are exposed as the rank hypocrites they truly are when they get caught playing footsy in airport men's bathrooms -- or when they get caught "hiking" down to Argentina to screw their mistresses...

The fact that Democrats do the same thing at times doesn't lessen the hypocrisy of the High-Moral platform Republicans.

One more thing Lee -- can you justify your (and the entire liberal blogosphere's) insinuation that Mark Sanford is some kind of super extraordinary family values and morality crusader? Or does simply being a Republican automatically qualify him as a member of the morality police?

gdb in central Texas:

Lee, your definition of hypocrisy needs work. Everyone falls short. It is not hypocritical to man up and admit a mistake. It is hypocritical to follow John Edwards' example and claim fidelity, dragging around a wife with terminal cancer, while continuing to claim virtuousness AND maintaining a liasion AND fathering a child with his mistress.

All legislation is morality of one form or another.

Lee, whenever anyone cheats on their marriage vows, I call them scum. Can you honestly say that you treat all marriage cheats equally?

Lee Ward:

"It is hypocritical to follow John Edwards' example and claim fidelity..."

I don't recall Edwards political party trying to legislate Christian values.

But the Republican party does -- while they ignore the 'family-values' they espouse when they're trying to get elected.


Jay Tea:

A few years ago, I made a bet with a friend: I'd give him a quarter for every comment or posting Lee made that did NOT involve the words "lie" or "hypocrite" in some form or another.

He, on the other hand, would have to pay me a quarter if the totals of both were three or more.

Of late, that little deal has more than covered the rising price of gas for my SUV under this "Obama recovery," and helped subsidize my vacation this summer.


Lee Ward:

"One more thing Lee -- can you justify your (and the entire liberal blogosphere's) insinuation that Mark Sanford is some kind of super extraordinary family values and morality crusader? Or does simply being a Republican automatically qualify him as a member of the morality police?"

Membership on the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit 2009 qualifies Republican Governor Mark Sanford as yet another Republican 'family values' hypocrite.


Good Job Lee, these neocons think that just because you redeem yourself by saying your sorry that doesn't make you a hypocrite. Like you said they like shoving their agenda down everyone's throat but it doesn't seem to apply to them.

Lee Ward:

The pompous asses who proclaim they are family-value politicians, time and time again, show that they personally don't give a crap about family values.

It's just a buzz word they use to get the drooling rubes to vote for them.


Never has a movement so utterly self-immolated due to immobile weight of hypocrisy and ignorance as has the "conservative" movement.

I can see by the frantic and hilarious responses to Lees post that these guys are taking this most recent humiliation with the usual: "I didn't just shit my pants...what are you talking about??" attitude.

Sure there are some disgusting sodomites on the other side but these conservative republicans are world champs at a 20 to 1 ratio.

When you live in a world of ignorance, propaganda, and the forgiveness of Jesus, honesty with yourself is a low priority.

But, the level of brain-washing is so deep with the conservative that not one of the critics of Lees post will ever have the honesty or the balls to say...."whoa....man these conservatives really are a fucked up bunch of people".

Lee Ward:

They're so screwed up they cant' see how screwed up they are... they just keep repeating the samel patterns that they ran for the last decade - ignoring -- or not realizing -- that America has caught onto their bullshit and now laughs at their efforts to "argue" and "debate".

Kinda hard to debate someone who wears their ass as a hat.


Is there some kind of historical parallel for this level of ineptitude and mind-numbing stupidity by a cult or movement like this? There a millions of people watching Fox News right now that are so out of touch with reality that they are believing the crawl that identifies Sanford as a Democrat.



Wonder what the Kopechnie family feels about Dems and infidelity?

Lee wrote, "I don't recall Edwards political party trying to legislate Christian values."

Lee, apparently you've missed the massive social justice crusade that Barack Obama and the Democrats have been pursuing for the last 45 years. It is inextricably tied into liberal Christianity.

Legislating economic "fairness," which is the entire stock and trade of the Democratic party, is the mother of all "legislating morality" movements. When John Edwards claims that there are "Two Americas," and implies that wealth must be taken from One America and given to the Other America by the government, he is advocating the legislation of morality -- nothing more, nothing less.

Speaking of John Edwards, does his infidelity -- no, his deliberate use of his terminally ill wife as a campaign prop while carrying on with another woman -- singularly disqualify his "Two Americas" campaign pitch as nothing but a lie? After all, he openly advocates legislating morality-based social justice, and he cheated on his wife.

Liberals want people to believe that they are "free" as long as they have a government-protected (and funded) libertine society that champions abortions, porn, and sexual promiscuity. Anyone who opposes those things is branded a Puritan who wants to "take away freedom." But there is a lot more to freedom than being able to watch x-rated movies on your computer, or get cheap birth control pills from Planned Parenthood.

Republicans oppose radical feminism, radical gay rights, abortion on demand, and wide-spread access to sexually explicit entertainment. But they defend economic and political freedom, and true freedom of speech that allows individuals to criticize or reject the decisions made by their leaders -- the very things Democrats have been working to place under absolute government control. The sooner Americans realize this, the harder it will be for liberals to stay in power.


The formal definition of hypocrisy is the insincere espousing of a standard of conduct. It is NOT falling short of a sincerely held standard of conduct. -- For example, an unreformed alcholic or smoker may tell his kids not to drink or smoke, because he sincerely believes such activities are harmful and should be avoided. Such a person is not a hypocrite. -- Even Al Gore, who has a larger carbon footprint than almost anyone you will ever meet, is not a hypocrite if he sincerely believes having a small carbon footprint is an important goal that will save the planet. -- The unreformed alcholic / smoker and Al Gore, in these examples, fall short of the standards they espouse, but they are not hypocrites. -- Although Mark Sanford is an adulterer and a flawed husband, he is not a hypocrite if he sincerely believes adultery is morally wrong.


It really is remarkable that those accusing republicans of trying to legislate morality don't recognize that they too are trying to legislate morality.They seem to think that only christians can legislate morality or that the only morality is a christian one. Secularists, I presume (though maybe too much) come at the world with a morality. So when they try to get laws passed its to promote what they consider just. How is that no legislating morality?
Take abortion. How is a pro life position legislating morality but a pro choice position not legislating morality? In either case the argument is what should be allowed vis a vis abortion, or what is just or moral or valued. And those who are pro life argue that something is moral and those who are pro choice argue something is moral. And when the law is constructed society legislates morality as it were. Do secularists feel so entitled that they can say only one side legislates morailty (the other evil side) but that their pushing of laws will not impose their values on others? How presumptuous.
Take gay marriage. How is having an argument for marriage being between a man and woman only legislating morality but having gays marry as well somehow not a case of legislating of morality? What is marriage? Marriage is whatever society makes it and values. Society sets it's rules based on values. In defining things one way it by definition does not define things another way. However society ultimatlely determines what traditions to uphold or what transactions to validate requires it to legislate the morality of the question. If gays think they should be allowed to marry too, they are arguing the unfairness of existing law, just as those arguing for traditional marriage are arguing the fairness of the existing law. Society has to ultimately come to grips with an answer, but when it does it will necessarily legislate the morality of the issue.

Why would we follow laws if they weren't just and moral? If they were simply arbitrary and not based on logic or morality they would be simply tyrannical.
This doesn't mean that therefore every law is good or just, but almost always those arguing against said laws argue their points based on moral arguments. Namely, the laws are wrong because they are unfair, or unjust. And they instead want laws that reflect their definition of justice. So they are attempting to LEGISLATE MORALITY.

All that those saying they don't like right wingers legislating morality are really saying is that they don't share the values of those they are arguing with. OF course, that's already pretty evident as if you did share those values then there wouldn't be an argument. But just as you say they can't legislate their values on you, if you truly believe you can't legislate morality then you would be precluded from legislating your morality on them either. THere could be no law that actually answered a question of fairness in a specific way without society legislating morality.


Lee please define Christian values. Is thou shalt not kill or commit adultery or theft merely a christian value? Does that mean you do not ascribe to said values or feel that society cannot either legislate those values or even speak out against them as negative treats.
Can one not have those values if one isn't a christian? If for example I'm an atheist does that mean I can't similarly hold similar values to a christian?
Are you really suggesting that dems are arguing for anti family values? or that adultery is not a negative thing?


Lee is defining "christian values" as how it is used by those that purport to live by them and define their political nature by them.

To myself and maybe to Lee, "Christian Values" does not really exist. It is a catch phrase designed to define ones adherence to ignorance as defined by people like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Sam Brownback et al.

The phrase is meaningless as a philosophy because it so rarely seen in use. I am sure millions of people with "Christian Values" supported the invasion of a country that did not attack us and the subsequent death of a million of its inhabitants.

When you base your entire life on imaginary beings, ancient myth, and superstition defining your life becomes vapor.

Lee Ward:

well said, Doc...


The media is having a field day with Sanford. Despite the fact that unlike many previous politicians who have demonstrated infidelity, he has come forward and admitted his wrongdoings. This is a man who is genuinely sorry for what he has done. I personally don't think he should give the opportunists in the SC legislature and the national media that satisfaction.

Sanford is still the kind of fiscally conservative, small government oriented politician we need more of at this juncture in our nations history. For the liberals that can't wrap their head around what that means; it means it's not the governments job to legislate morality at all, either way. It's the job of the government to simply stay out of the private lives of the people. All this talk about legislating morality from either side is silly, as the founding documents of this country do not mention it as a power the government has.


These MEN kill me. They preach one thing and CONTINUALLY do another. When was the last time you saw a woman politician get caught with her pants down? Isn't it ironic that more often than not, it's the "family values" guys that get busted exhibiting anything but "family values?" If these are family values, the GOP can keep them and I'll just go on living my pagan ways and HONORING my marriage and husband as he HONORS me!


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]





Add to Technorati Favorites


Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.