I was feeling sort of sorry for Mark Sanford. His emails to Maria indicate he was deeply in love with her, and, thus, he was in a difficult situation. These things happen--even to conservatives. And, yes, he was a blazing hypocrite, voting for the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and claiming that he knew the true meaning of marriage:

As Jenny and I are the parents of four little boys, we've always taught our kids that marriage was something between a man and a woman.

Still, I wondered how tough we should be on a fellow caught in these circumstances. Until I watched the video of Sanford's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference last March.

His address was red meat for empathy-free conservatives. Sanford, taking a Palinesque view, proclaimed to the crowd of conservative activists that the United States has reached a historic moment in which the "battle line" is between "government on one side" and "liberty...on the other." In what now comes across as a poignant observation, Sanford noted that the toughest problems to contend with are "internal problems," such as "your personal life." His contention was that the United States now has a serious internal problem:

We literally do live at one of the most pivotal points in American history. Every one of our threats, or pretty much all of our threats, have been external in nature. I mean, what were the British going to do to us? Or what were the Germans going to do to? Or what were the Japanese going to do? It was always what was somebody going to do to us. But the real quesiton of our times is, what are we going to do to us? I mean, it is a very different question, because as we all know external problems at times aren't all that difficult to deal with. Internal problems--whether in your personal life, whether in business, whether in government--are the real problems that are hard to get your arms around. And what we have right now is a problem of internal. [sic] And the question is, what do we do about it?

Sanford defined this internal problem as too many Americans depending on government for guidance and assistance. He pointed to the victims of the Hurricane Katrina tragedy and asked, "Did you see people who saw themselves as lions or gazelles?" His point: too many of the Louisianan residents clobbered by Katrina and the failure of the levies viewed themselves as needy gazelles, not strong and independent lions, and actually expected government to help them. For Sanford, this sums up the "internal problem": Americans have become weak and unable to assist themselves because government has become too big.

His ideology-driven lack of sympathy for these people was not charming. After viewing this video, I lost any empathy I might have had for Sanford. If he's going to judge others so harshly on the basis of what he considers to be their weaknesses, then he deserves similar treatment. Yes, "internal problems" in one's personal life are hard to handle, but try dealing with 20 feet of water on your block.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Stories from our other blogs you might have missed, on Blue Marble-friendly topics:

Stone cold: Quoting the Rolling Stones and talking about climate change, simultaneously.

Spin doctors: The healthcare industry's attempts to spin the media their way.

God works in mysterious ways: A climate change bill grows from 946 pages to 1,021 pages overnight without explanation.

P is for Piggie: Someone's been fattening up the Waxman-Markey climate bill with delicious farm subsidies. Soo-EY!

Sanford's speaking nixed: Apparently, people don't want you as a speaker on family values after you publicly admit cheating on your wife.

On Wednesday evening, The State newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina, published a series of steamy but well-written and mature-sounding emails between Republican Governor Mark Sanford and his gal-pal in Argentina. The paper also reported it had received these emails six months ago from an anonymous tipster. Why hadn't the paper rushed this hot stuff to press? It could not confirm the emails were real, and Sanford had no rep as a philanderer. So the paper sat on the hot docs all this time. Apparently, the newspaper did not ask Sanford about the material.

Journalists and others can--and will--debate whether the paper ought to have approached the governor. But this part of The New York Times report on The State's actions was particularly odd:

But with one mystery solved, another endures: Mr. [Leroy] Chapman [the political editor of the paper] said he still did not know who sent the e-mail to the paper in the first place. “It’s kind of a moot point,” he said, “but I’m still curious.”

A moot point? Not at all. Whoever had those emails had been in a position for six months to pressure--or blackmail--Sanford. An enquiring newspaper person might want to know more about that. Had Sanford even been aware that someone possessed these emails? If so, did he take any actions based on that realization? The State engaged in great traditional reporting to get the scoop on Sanford's secret trip to Argentina. But now it seems it's ready to turn the story over to bloggers.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.

Two sexy burger ad revelations today. First, the burger-as-blow-job Burger King ad burst onto the scene, second, The Hills' Audrina Partridge becomes the latest scantily clad lady to make love to, I mean, to lustily eat a Carl's Jr. burger. In the ad, that started airing today, Partridge pretends to eat a ginormous pineapple burger while lying on a beach in a bikini, alternately resting the burger on her toned tummy. The tagline: "More than just a piece of meat." The ad sends exactly the opposite message of course. Partridge, just like Paris Hilton and Padma Lakshmi before her, has every right to chow down on this burger, but to suggest they all do so on the regular is just silly. To make women envious, and men horny, well, that’s advertising for you.

The fine-print on this choice Burger King ad:

On Wednesday afternoon, lawmakers in Washington, DC, will finally take up the fate of mountaintop removal mining, a type of surface mining that levels the summits of mountains to expose coal seams. The practice inflicts substantial damage to the surrounding environment and communities, mainly because the removed rock and soil is dumped into nearby rivers and streams, contaminating them and often burying water sources. The Senate Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife will host the first legitimate hearing on mountaintop removal in nearly seven years, titled "The Impacts of Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining on Water Quality in Appalachia." Witnesses include leading experts on the subject, like Maria Gunnoe, a 2009 Goldman Environmental Prize winner for her organizing against the mining practice; Dr. Margaret Palmer of the University of Maryland’s Center for Environmental Sciences; and Randy Pomponio, the director of the EPA’s Mid-Atlantic region, among others.

An outspoken opponent of mountaintop removal, Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.) called the hearing to more thoroughly review the effects of the practice, a decision that comes on the back of legislation he introduced in March with Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) to completely ban the mountaintop removal called the Appalachia Restoration Act. The hearing also has supporters and opponents of mountaintop removal fired up: Both coal industry-friendly and environmental groups have chartered buses to Capitol Hill for the hearing, while other organizations will be streaming video of the event. (Not to mention the recent arrests of NASA's James Hansen and others who were protesting mountaintop removal in Southern West Virginia.)

 

Satirist Mark Fiore has dreamed up a device perfect for Iranian mullahs: The power-cling.

See how it works here.

People for the American Way points out Mark Sanford has already been scratched from the list of confirmed and invited speakers at the 2009 Values Voter Summit. That was fast.

Obviously Sanford's affair didn't sit well with the Family Research Council, the conservative think tank that "champions marriage and family" and sponsors the summit. But, hey, even with Sanford gone you'll still be able to get your fair share of values voter inspiration—in the form of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan.

Boy, did I pick wrong. The Gibbs presser was damn tame compared to the Sanford meltdown. The hottest issue—or non-issue—at the White House was HuffPo's Nico Pitney's question at Tuesday's presidential press conference. This topic did lead to a somewhat interesting display. The front-row journos—who usually get called on during presidential news conference—complained that the Pitney set-up created the impression that reporters (like themselves) are in cahoots with the White House. Robert Gibbs pushed back by noting that he believed that CBS and other Big Media are certainly in the position to disabuse viewers of that notion. He then called on practically every reporter in the first two rows and asked each one if he or she had ever told the White House what he or she intended to ask at a press conference. Each one dutifully said no. Still, they were upset by the HuffPo episode.

At the same time, reporters in the lesser rows—those who don't tend to be called on by the president and who are not always afforded questioning opportunities during Gibbs' briefings—tried to exploit Nico-gate to raise another issue: how does the White House decide who makes it on to the prepared list of journalists President Obama will call on at a news conference. Gibbs ducked that query. For my money, that's the more important matter—but, not surprisingly, not for the guys and gals in the front rows. (You can read my Twitter feed for the details.)

Back to Mark Sanford. After his sad, wife-less press conference, during which he admitted an extramarital affair and stated he would resign as chair of the Republican Governors Association (not from his governor's post), Senator John Ensign, no doubt, said, "Thank you, Governor."

And that's no joke. Two hours before Sanford cried on TV, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a public interest group that chases after government wrongdoing, sent out a notice that it has filed complaints against Ensign with the Senate ethics committee and the Federal Elections Committee.

The group explains that Ensign's actions during his own extramarital escapade might have violated Senate ethics rules and campaign law:

First, Mr. Hampton has alleged Sen. Ensign terminated him and his wife for reasons related to the affair. If true, the senator likely engaged in discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII, and Senate Rule 42, which incorporates the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to Senate employees and prohibits discrimination based on sex. At least two members of Congress previously have been investigated for sexual harassment, including former Sen. Bob Packwood (R-OR) and former Rep. Jim Bates (D-CA).

Second, Ms. Hampton apparently received a severance payment directly from Sen. Ensign when she was terminated from the campaign committee and PAC, but neither committee reported any in-kind contribution by the senator. In addition, if Sen. Ensign paid Ms. Hampton more than $5,000 he may have made an illegal excessive contribution to the PAC. Knowingly failing to report a contribution of over $25,000 is a violation of criminal law.

Mr. Hampton apparently was paid $6,000 upon his departure, purportedly for vacation time. If this actually was some sort of severance payment, Sen. Ensign’s office may have misused official funds.

CREW has alleged Sen. Ensign violated the rules prohibiting improper conduct that reflects upon the Senate by abusing his authority as the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) to hire and pay the Hampton’s son as an intern at the NRSC and by claiming to have been blackmailed by Mr. Hampton, without reporting the alleged crime to law enforcement authorities.

Remember what the Republicans used to say. It's not about the sex, it's about the deceit. Does that hold true for Ensign? Will GOPers support an investigation of these allegations?

The Republican Senator from Nevada—like Sanford, once a 2012 presidential propsect—did get a lucky break with the Sanford press conference. But he's now part of an even bigger narrative: what's with these guys who represent the party of family values? And what's next? Newt Gingrich leaving his wife for another woman? Oh yeah, been there, done that. Twice.

 

Obama's First Veto?

In a rare move, the White House has threatened to veto the defense budget bill if it contains money for extra F-22s. From a letter released today (PDF):

The collective judgment of the Service Chiefs and Secretaries of the military departments suggests that a final program of record of 187 F-22s is sufficient to meet operational requirements.  If the final bill presented to the President contains this provision, the President's senior advisors would recommend a veto. 

(h/t: Travis Sharp)

Obama hasn't waved his veto pen around much yet. Before taking office, he vowed to veto any bill that would prevent him from releasing the second half of the bailout funds. But otherwise he's been circumspect about deploying the 'v' word, even on his top policy priorities. He hasn't, for instance, indicated that he'd refuse to sign a health care bill that lacks a public option. So this is definitely an interesting development.


With both Congress and the White House promising to overhaul health care, a variety of reform options are now on the table. So these options have all been rigorously researched and recommended by objective third parties, right? Notes CQ Politics:

Nearly four dozen members of Congress have spouses employed in the health care industry—ties that lawmakers acknowledge are influencing their thinking about how the health system should be overhauled.
Financial disclosure forms made public in mid-June showed that at least 39 members were tied to the industry by their spouses in 2008. In addition, 13 full-voting House members are medical doctors.

Let's hope our Reps listen to all their constituents on medical issues.