Sanford Used State Funds To Visit Mistress

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Money, South Carolina

Politico did some digging and the results reveal a Governor that is even more at odds with his public persona.

Long story short, he definitely used taxpayer funds to go visit his mistress.

More at True/Slant.


This entry was posted on Friday, July 17th, 2009 and is filed under Money, South Carolina. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

25 Responses to “Sanford Used State Funds To Visit Mistress”

  1. ExiledIndependent Says:

    Why does this not surprise me? Just one more example that if a guy can’t be honorable to his family, how should we expect him to be honorable to his constituents? Character matters.

  2. Chris Says:

    Yes, but he sticks with his ideals! lols.

  3. Paul Says:

    As a South Carolinian I find Governor Sanford’s conduct to be reprehensible. It smacks of his being a reprobate in my opinion. If he wants his Argentinian “soul mate” then move to Argentina. He is a hypocrite for espousing family values and doing the exact opposite of what he espoused ! He should have resigned.

  4. Tully Says:

    Your header is misleading. Let’s make your short story long again in the interests of clarity, because details count.

    Sanford went on a legitimate trade mission to South America, trip paid for with state funds, and during his after-work time on one leg of the trip spent an evening boinking what’s-her-name, apparently their first carnal encounter despite several years of more casual acquaintance. But he spent the working hours of that day in meetings with the governer of Buenos Aires. You hardly haul along a trade delegation for a “fling” trip, nor schedule a whole continent worth of meetings to cover one night’s boinking, which is what’s implied by “he definitely used taxpayer funds to go visit his mistress,” nor apparently was she even his mistress when the trip was planned. The affair began during that one night of the trip.

    EX: Last May I had to travel overnight to another city on legitimate government business (yes, paid for by YOU, the taxpayers). After the first day’s meetings the others in my delegation wanted to go do their own things or just cocoon in their rooms, so I met a friend for dinner and picked up the tab out of my per diem allowance. Later that same week I returned to the same city completely at my own expense for a three-day conference. While there that second time I once again had dinner with my friend, among others. (Sorry, no carnality involved. Boring, eh?)

    Under such “gotcha” phrasing as employed above, Justin would say that on my first trip I “used government funds to travel to another city and have dinner with a friend.” Now while that’s strictly true — I did travel to another city, I did have dinner with a friend, and the travel and dinner were paid for with government funds — what does the phrasing imply and what does the statement leave out?

    Yeah. It implies that I made the trip on government funds with the sole intent of having a state-funded dinner with my friend. And it leaves out that I was there on completely legitimate government business that justified (required) the travel, hotel, and per diem, that my dinner with my friend was on personal time not overlapping with the work schedule, and that my paying for the dinner with my per diem money did not cost the taxpayers one single dime over and above what would have been spent had I simply gone on my trip, done my work, and eaten alone in my hotel room.

    Long story not-so-short and in context: In 1994 as a Congressional candidate and in 2002 as a gubernatorial candidate, Sanford decried lavish travel spending on the government dime, but while actually in office was not adverse to spending somewhat lavishly on his own frequent travel, if not quite as lavishly as his predecessor in office, Jim Hodges. On one of his state-paid trade mission trips, during his after-work time he hooked up one evening with the woman who became his mistress. When the affair was revealed and that one night came to light, he reimbursed the state for that entire leg of the trip, even though he was on legitimate business and the dalliance did not apparently increase the charges to the taxpayer.

    Still hypocritical for travelling in style on the taxpayer’s dime after railing against it, still a reprehensible philanderer, but not quite the same as what the header above implies, is it?

  5. Jim S Says:

    This is one where I agree with Tully. A rarity, I know.

  6. Jay Says:

    Tully: If your facts are correct (which I have no reason to doubt), you make an excellent and well versed point. However, I still feel that Sanford is an overall D-bag and still should resign. I don’t care if it was with someone from Argentina (costing big money), or the hot chick down the street (for free), he still cheated on his WIFE. How can he be trusted to the duties of the state?

    (Off topic, but why have an affair where a PASSPORT is required? wth? That is just really stupid. I don’t want someone who is really stupid leading a state. I think that we should try to not elect stupid people to office.) [/rant]

  7. michael reynolds Says:

    The essence of the complaint has shifted: it’s that Sanford flew first class after playing the tightwad. Much as he sweated all over his Argentine hottie after playing the moral prig.

    There’s no question he’s a D-bag. I think in fact he may be a D-nozzle.

    As for Tully’s confession that he misappropriated taxpayer money in order to fly to another city and then used his per diem for a night of heavy drinking and — I can only assume — chasing strippers across the stage with his pants down around his ankles, I prefer this method of wasting my taxes to many others. It’s still better than paying John Ensign’s salary.

  8. Tully Says:

    Oh goodie, the guy with money just publicly accused me of criminal malfeasance in office! Michael, I’ll have my lawyers call your lawyers. Nothing personal. I gotta pay for the kids’ orthodontia somehow. ;-)

    However, I still feel that Sanford is an overall D-bag and still should resign.

    No argument on the D-bag thing, Jay, though unless some criminal malfeasance can be shown, the judges of his continued fitness for office are still the voters. He’s hardly the first pol to screw around while in office, a list that includes some pretty impressive records.

    But if I were him I wouldn’t bank on winning any more elections. It would require a pretty soft opponent now that he’s given the people a running start on reasons not to trust his character. And I wouldn’t give up on the malfeasance angle just yet. They’re still investigating his travels over the last year, and if he made any state-paid trips where he met his mistress and did not have justifiable state reasons for the trip, he’s gonna have to resign to avoid being tossed out so hard he’d bounce twice.

  9. theWord Says:

    Hey!! You believers out there, can’t you get your guy upstairs to smite the SOB. I think the death penalty for your career should be when you don’t hold yourself to the standards you want others held to. Of course, that would be a world with a lot less Republican office holders. Hypocrisy should be a career ender.

  10. Jay Says:

    tW: I think that would just about mean there would be less office holders in general. Not much spine runs for office. Right or Left. Period.

    I know this has been brought up before, but when will political wives (and husbands) stop putting up with this shit? If I cheated on my wife, that’s the end of the story since I’m nothing but an engineer. But if I’m a governor, senator or president I can do whatever/whoever I want and still be married?

  11. Tully Says:

    If hypocrisy ended political careers we wouldn’t need term limits. The higher the office, the less they’d be needed.

  12. Paul Says:

    Sanford was diddling in the Argentine (pun intended) while Columbia wondered where he was. He didn’t bother to inform anyone in the government. He’s a cad any way you cut it. If I see him I plan on telling him so to his face.I live a few miles from the state capital.

  13. the Word Says:

    Jay-
    With two important distinctions. Dems don’t try to cram holier than thou family values down everyone’s throats at the same time they are diddling (thanks Paul) and on another angle the gay bashers weren’t gay themselves. (I think that being Republican and being anti Gay may be the gay gene.) They are supreme hypocrites.

    Oh and I didn’t defend any democrats for doing stupid things themselves. They aren’t even close on the hypocrisy scale though.

  14. Tully Says:

    Dems don’t try to cram holier than thou family values down everyone’s throats at the same time they are diddling…

    No, they try to cram different holier-than-thou values down everyone’s throats while being hypocritical about same. One can come up with endless examples playing on either side*, at which point the argument devolves down to whose sins against humanity and social values are qualitatively worse, and thus deserving of more “weight” in the partisan slugfest. Sorry, that’s too easy a game to play.

    It’s so pervasive a game that several years ago I coined a specific term for it, CPD™. Comparitive Political Demonization. Your side’s evils are outrageous and pervasive, our side’s are picayune and scattered. Our guys are uniformly angels, yours are certain demons. Them Evil, Us Good. It’s a game as old as Time.

    Every time you catch yourself using a stereotype for the other guys while dismissing the stereotypes applied to your side, or just giving those stereotypes uneven weights, you’re playing CPD™. It’s a pretty pointless game for everyone save the party bosses, who find it a very convenient tool in keeping partisans from exercising their own native intelligence and actually analyzing specific issues. It’s always easier to simply hate The Other than to improve oneself, or to actually think and thus force a headache by considering alien viewpoints.

    Paul, I expect you’d have to take a number. I think they could close some of that budget gap by selling thirty-second and sixty-second slots…

    [* -- Ted Kennedy and wind farms, anyone? How does the proportion of millionaires in Congress stack up by party affiliation, anyway? Does the new health care bill mandate that Congresscritters have the same public-option health plan as everyone else gets? Ad inifinitum.]

  15. the Word Says:

    Tully-
    Saying it doesn’t make it so and saying that “we all do it” is just as lame as when it was trotted out when Nixon was under investigation. If you want to trot out where anyone on the Left has claimed to have “Values voters”, “Traditional Family Values”, “Moral Majority”, “Real Americans”, the people who love America, Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve, We’re not elitist and on and on and on and then proved to be hypocrites by standing on soapboxes to denounce others while doing the same deeds themselves, I’d be right there with you in condemning them.

    I don’t think anyone is universally evil or good. Point out what you think should be condemned and if by chance it makes any sense, I’ll be with you. I must admit that I do hate hypocrites and hypocrisy. On sanctity of marriage and gay rights issues there are no bigger hypocrites that I know of than Republicans. Closest to it was Edwards who I heard said Clinton should have resigned but I never defended his actions and said he was an idiot for doing what he did.

    As for millionaires, any of them who vote like they are only looking out for themselves and people like them should be questioned. Some vote like companies are sacred and better than any person and some vote like we all need to make it. I see a distinction.

    I don’t get the wind farm thing so if you want to point it out maybe I would agree with you there. As for health care, I don’t think any congressman, senator or President should have better health care or more rights than the rest of us.

    In conclusion, if you want to point out the wrongs of the other side document it and make a case, but don’t think the we’re all the same argument has any validity just because you’ve said it. It’s just as ridiculous as Simon thinking 5 or 6 colleges and a journalism degree are the same as Harvard Law Review. That IMO is blindness.

  16. Tully Says:

    Thank you for nicely illustrating my point. :-)

  17. the Word Says:

    Only in your mind Tully. When I condemn hypocrisy in the GOP you see bias. I see reality because I condemn it everywhere. Hope someday you can join the reality based view of the world. Sometimes there is good and evil.

  18. Tully Says:

    Once again you demonstrate my point while also demonstrating you didn’t understand it..

  19. the Word Says:

    TULLY
    Here is my point. The Right wing has been using divisive politics for years. They’ve used their so called values to divide the country. It was part of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater’s plan and it worked. I don’t think that is “an I only see your problems and not mine type” of issue. It’s a fact, they said it. When people on the right are so disingenuous that they don’t acknowledge that there is something especially repugnant about people holding others to a standard that they don’t hold themselves to then we have little desire for dialogue.

    A valid point you could have made was. I condemn it too. We were talking about two politicians who were both of the “my values are better than yours crowd” Don’t really think that is debatable. They both had condemned people in the past and called for the resignation of people for the same transgression. You could have taken the manly stand that that is a reprehensible behavior wherever it occurs as I did for Edward’s. Instead you try to blow it off by saying it is a partisan attack.

    Joe Scarborough even said last evening that Republicans ought to stay the hell out of people’s personal lives for the same reason. If for no other reason, you might condemn it because it is bad for the party.

    Again-if you want to point out something that you think politicians of both stripes should agree on, I am all ears. All I hear is a whiny partisan defense. And yes, for the last time, I think anyone of any party who has made hay of another’s failings and then does the SAME thing has only one honorable option—to fall on their own damn sword.

  20. Tully Says:

    LMAO. You still don’t get it. But thank you for continuing to demonstrate (with special BONUS stereotyping!) the pervasiveness of CPD™ in what passes for political discourse nowadays.

    Here, do the following and then try again. Read through everything I wrote in this post and point out every instance where I refer to parties at all, and any general traits I ascribe to any specific party. Then do the same for your own comments. Then come back and explain to me exactly WHO is mounting “partisan defense(s)” and attacks.

    I suspect by the time you finish that little exercise, assuming you’re honest and open-minded with yourself, you’ll be a lot closer to getting a grasp on what I mean by CPD™.

  21. vero Says:

    this is nothing, and yet very common for these gansters to use our taxes to fund there secret private lifes.

  22. Sean Cavanaugh Says:

    Is there anyone in Political office that is not a criminal or sexual deviant. This story reminds me of John Edwards baby scandal. Using campaign contributions to cover up his affair and child.

  23. Ron Says:

    HA! I like how Politico is just busting out scandals, this blog came up when searching for politico, nice! The funny part is we all know what should be with all of these scandalous politicians.

  24. Ron Says:

    Politico is always busting these politicians, scandals all around. I’m sure we all have an idea of what to do with these scandalous politicians.

  25. Donklephant » Blog Archive » The Donklephant Roundup Says:

    […] If hypocrisy ended political careers we wouldn’t need term limits. The higher the office, the less they’d be needed. – Tully […]

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: