The most memorable parts of the book are the ones in which she details his habits as an extreme cheapskate who could not possibly conduct a whirlwind romance because it would be too expensive. Many of her stories have already been recounted with disbelief—the one about the elaborate lead-up to the used $25 bicycle he bought her and his insistence that she serve as his campaign manager not because he wanted her around for the adventure but because, as he told her, “You’re free.”

More in that vein: For his wife’s birthday, Mark Sanford had a friend pick out a diamond necklace and a staffer hide it in the closet, and then faxed her clues for the scavenger hunt—”clever and boyishly sweet,” she recalls. She found the necklace, and “I loved it!” she writes. But then he came home, saw it on her and said, “That is what I spent all the money on? I hope you kept the box,” and he returned it the next day. Another time, he insisted the whole family join him in India for a work trip. (All four boys were under the age of 8.). Without telling her, he rented their house out while they were supposed to be away to make some extra money. Only, he got the dates wrong, so she and the boys had to stay at a hotel.

What puts Stanford in a cad class of his own, however, is his complete misunderstanding of the companionate marriage. He treats his wife as a fishing buddy to whom he can confess absolutely everything rather than someone whose feelings he ever has to protect with some minor omissions. “With the exception of that little man, I’m bored with life,” he tells her after the birth of their first son, not bothering to explain how the wife fits into the boredom equation.

via A review of Jenny Sanford’s Staying True. – By Hanna Rosin – Slate Magazine.

I think Rosin’s comment about how he treated Jenny Sanford like a fishing buddy confidant and not his wife hits at a real Mark Sanford. He is an extremely selfish person and his regard for his own desires were placed above hers.

There were some weird assertions in her Morning Joe interview.

A very softball interview, which is to be expected since Scarborough and Sanford were friendly in their days in the US House of Representatives. Some things that grated on me:

• “He was always there, politically, doing the right things” – Joe Scarborough, one of Mark Sanford’s long time friends. Right things for who? Scarborough is wrong, his platform was consistent, he wasn’t politically doing the right things as he felt on multiple occasions, thought that it was OK to use state funded trips as settings for his personal trysts. He was frugal unless it came down to who he wanted to bang behind his wife’s back.
• Jenny Sanford says she was fine with Mark Sanford’s wish to omit any promise to be faithful from their wedding vows because she made it clear that a marriage implied faithfulness even if you do not say it at the ceremony. Hogwash. If everything in a wedding vow is implicit, then there is no need for a ceremony at all, is there? They should have just “We’re married married” and pinkie swore by it. In most sects of Christianity, a matrimonial union is at the least a sacred vow and at most a holy sacrament. It has certain requirements. A vow of faithfulness is one of those. You cannot omit it and call it a Christian wedding ceremony. It’s not a vow buffet.
• In addition, no one on set reconciled what then Rep. Sanford said about his colleague US Rep Bob Livingston and President Bill Clinton. he equated their violation of their own wedding vows with an inability to uphold their oaths of office. [When Sanford was] Asked about Livingston’s admitted affairs, Sanford told CNN, “The bottom line … is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife.”
• He wasn’t as cheap as he was petty and callous. If you don’t want to give lavish gifts and want to be frugal, just say up front: “I don’t give lavish gifts, and don’t expect them”. That’s cheap at worst, frugal at best. Don’t buy your wife a gift, create an elaborate scavenger hunt to lead her too it, and then when you see her enjoy the gift, balk at it and then take it away?

Governor Sanford is just a guy that liked to have it his way. It wasn’t frugality or fiscal prudence, it was his primary trait selfishness led him to abandon his executive duties. The fact that he is still in office is a living testimony to his continued hypocrisy.

Soulmate. Governor. Wife.

I doubt anything will come of this, but if impeachment of AWOL Governor Sanford does proceed, as it should, I don’t know how Bill Maher will deal with his favorite romeo’s downfall.

COLUMBIA – Gov. Mark Sanford this morning refused to answer questions about a possible state ethics probe of him as House Republicans prepared to attend a retreat at which the impeachment of Sanford will be discussed.House Speaker Pro Tempore Harry Cato of Travelers Rest said he expects impeachment to “dominate” discussion at this weekends annual House GOP Caucus retreat in Myrtle Beach.

via www.greenvilleonline.com | Printer-friendly article page.

Well, if you just judge these public figures solely within the context of their sex acts, then Sanford may come off better than other folks. For instance, Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s hiring of hookers in a jurisdiction where prostitution is illegal implicitly exposes his own inability to follow the laws he is hired to endorse and/or enforce. Being that he was a “john”, you could probably reasonably assume Spitzer was softer on illegal “high end” prostitution than he was on criminal tax cheats and robber barons who hid in Wall Streets board rooms. We know many of the other culprits: Hart, Clinton, Livingston, McGreevey, Foley, Vitter, Craig, the aforementioned Spitzer, Edwards, Ensign, Pickering…I am sure I missed many more. But to prove the error of that contextual focus, I would like to pose a specific hypothetical situtation while using one of these cheating executives: Rudy Guiliani.

The morning of September 10, 2001, let’s say this alternate universe New York Mayor Rudy Guilliani decided to print out some sonnets he had written about his lover’s eyes and hips, embark on an unannounced 5 day trip, render himself unreachable by staff, neglect to transfer emergency powers to his deputy mayors, drive to Newark in an illegally commandeered SUV from his security detail’s motor pool, leave the vehicle unaccounted for in Newark long term parking, fly to London, and instead of the obligatory check in with the US Embassy, he checks into the honeymoon sweet in a London hotel w/a female companion who is not Mrs. Guiliani. The next day, a Tuesday, just after noontime, he is enjoying brunch with his lover, courtesy of room service. Let’s just say the the next few hours, are the same in this alternate reality Mayor’s NYC as they were for our Big Apple. And the Pentagon. And the folks who lost their lives on those planes turned to WMDs. In a matter of weeks, when the airports would be cleared to re-open and alternate world Guiliani returns to give a rambling press conference explaining this love. Would “at least Rudy was in love” matter to Maher then? I would hope not. It sure wouldn’t have mattered to New Yorkers. Now back to our reality’s version of that day. Folks like me, who before and after that attack had no shame in not being fond of Guiliani, his personal relationships or his policies. On that day, we were absolutely in his corner . What mattered was that in this world, Guiliani was clocked in.

Sanford showed a complete disregard, disdain and disrespect for his sworn professional duty: governing. Try being unaccounted for a full business week at McDonalds, Wal-Mart or any job and you won’t be back. The fact that he completely disappeared is the real issue. Not why he disappeared. What if he became mentally ill and disappeared for 5 days? Empathize with him, yes. Should he keep his job? No. He should not be a governor because he has the ability to completely ignore his 24-7-365 job. Not because he is a shitty husband. Tons of shitty spouses are adequate professionals. They deserve to keep their jobs and lose their marriages. They may get none, all or some of what they deserve. Mark Sanford deserves to lose his job and his marriage, but he just may get to keep both. Its immaterial what he was doing out of love or lust, its very important to look at what he was comfortable not doing while in office. The comedian isn’t alone in lamenting the jokes at Sanford’s expense told by late night hosts and partisan political show hosts who laughed at Sanford’s prose. Sanford’s sympathizers neglected to weigh the commentary on Senor Sanford against the rhetoric of then Representative Sanford: a C-Street hypocrite who piously beat his chest while showing no empathy for Republican US Representative Bob Livingston. The comedians and partisan hosts who recounted Sanford’s adulterous adventures weren’t operating from the draconian code espoused by US Representative and ’94 GOP revolutionary Mark Sanford the family man. They were berating Sanford’s infidelity while contrasting it with his own righteous indignation towards his colleagues’ adulterous forays. It is comical, and he made himself the clown. For the most part, Mrs. Sanford has actually been treated with respect and hasn’t been saddled with jokes implying that her very existence drove her husband to cheat, as Hillary Clinton was and still is.

Maher on his own show, that Friday, angrily exclaimed that he wanted to know how it comes to pass that a person’s “private e-mails and text” can be printed so “the whole world is allowed to know about it”. If Gov. Sanford was sexting Maria using a blackberry owned by his office or filling her inbox with flowery prose from a terminal hosted on a server paid for by taxpayer dollars, or if he did it during work hours, then Maher is wrong about the e-mails. In the public sphere with laws like F.O.I.A a reporter could have filed an request for them in wake of a scandal. The messages could have been subpoenaed in an impeachment trial. In the end, it came down to a real act of journalism by Gina Smith and her colleagues at The State.com. The e-mails were a tip from a source, initially and rightfully suppressed (as they were unverified) and used as leverage when Sanford continued to lie to Smith after disembarking from a return flight from Argentina. Once the ruse was up, the people had a right to see the full information acquired by the State that led to the exposure of Sanford’s real priorities.

The hypocrisy Maher peddles here is pretty disappointing. Previously, Maher alleged that a politician’s sex life is a private matter and a separate issue then his work life. He bemoaned witch hunts for guys who just did what men do. Today Maher repeatedly declared his admiration for Sanford vs. other politicians because he was truly in love with his lover, not just a guy sleeping with “road kill”. Maher can apparently judge the heart of man with a thorough a focused reading of an elected official’s e-mail. Any old Governor could have only wanted a quickie with some “road kill”, also known as a human being, in between a late meeting at the office with his aides and a late budget meeting with legislators. Such a governor is definitely not as wonderful as AWOL Casanova Sanford in Maher’s opinion. Why Casanova? Sanford also mentioned he had fooled around with some “road kill” aside from his beloved Maria. But Maher and his fellow members of the chorus choose to ignore that part when judging the pain of a love denied by printed e-mails, the Fourth Estate, and a 2 hour block of Olbermann & Maddow. The man who is a loving adulterer pol is a hell of a guy, because he actually loves. The other adulterers? meh.

Either law abiding adultery is something we should leave alone or not. We can’t genuinely sort through this man’s feelings, and filter his professional obligations through that. We can, however, sort through his state mandated duties. I don’t know if Mrs. Sanford was moved by Gov. Sanford’s rambling “I wasn’t hiking” presser, but Maher definitely was. He was moved away from a logical examination of a delinquent executive. Maher was also believes he has the gift to accurately judge the value of a man’s intention by simply reading some letters and watching a press conference. Sounds more like the gift of “bromance” from the reality show cupid. In addition to apologizing to Cubby Culbertson’s and Tom Davis’ of the world, Sanford should have apologized to Maher for being so damn dreamy he made him dream of true love. I really do believe adultery is not central to rating a governor’s job performance. As long as the adulterous behavior doesn’t lead to a violation of the law or a poor job done at the end of the day, it remains a non issue to me. Its irresponsible and slimy, not illegal. In this case, it did affect his work. The dereliction of duty makes his act as bad as Spitzer’s regardless of the amount of lust and/or love. Sanford simply disregarded all of his official duties and intended to deceive everyone from his wife to the Appalachian Regional Commission while he did it. At best, Maher’s favorite elected Romeo is just as good as the rest of “road kill” lovers.

During an emotional interview at his Statehouse office with The Associated Press on Tuesday, Sanford said Chapur is his soul mate but he’s trying to fall back in love with his wife.

Outside of sexual pursuit of minors and prostitution, the real problem the GOP has with these committing these vices is that they hold themselves up as paragons of virtue when another succumbs to these vices. The latest case, Gov. Mark Sanford, is a prime example. Damn what the hell he says now. Of course he is contrite, he got caught. Over and Over again. In the Appalachians hiking? No. Driving down the shore in Buenos Aires? Doesn’t seem quite possible to those who have seen the area. He likes solitude? What does Maria [Redacted] have to say about that?

What did he say just over 10 years ago, in 1998? He wasn’t so empathetic to former President Bill Clinton (as Sanford was a strong supporter of the failed bid to impeach) or Bob Livingston (R-SC). Livingston, then slated to be the incoming house speaker had to hear this from Sanford, his fellow Republican:

“We as a party want to hold ourselves to high standards, period,”

and on CNN’s Crossfire:

“The bottom line is Livingston lied,” Sanford said. “He lied to his wife.”

Sanford had a tendency to equate the violation as wedding vows as a tacit admission that an adulturous official would violate their oath of office.

Sanford was quoted as saying, “We ought to ask questions … rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe”

Of Clinton:

“Very damaging stuff. This one’s pretty cut and dried.” Calling the overall situation messy, he added: “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally [to resign].”

But the thing is, this social scold also knew that the legislative workloads, fundraising, long times of seperation and distance from D.C. to home districts and states could take its toll on a marriage. While discussing the high divorce rate of his fellow 1994 freshman congressmen he was quoted in CNN’s AllPolitics in 1998 as saying::

“Just look at the divorce rate of our class,” South Carolina’s Mark Sanford said with a sigh. “We’re not exactly bettering the national average.”

In November, Sanford gave his party some advice on how the GOP should make a comeback in his editorial for Politco.com called “Back to Basics”:

“First, let’s go back to the principle of saying what you mean and meaning what you say.”

Well, let’s wait and see if Gov Sanford is sticking to his avowed principles.

Update: Sanford talks about oaths: