and we seem to be reveling in it.  How horribly sad…and revolting. The blogs, news comment sections, tv pundits, and water-cooler conversations have lit up with gleeful disdain of yet another public figure being ‘caught’ in an affair.  I won’t even get into the Republican vs. Democrat - based glee; it’s more disgusting than I want to know.

First of all - his private life is not the public’s business.  Yeah, yeah, I know…he’s a public figure.  And?!!  We have been beating the crap out of people with that excuse for-ev-er, and mostly to satisfy our own perverse voyeurism and/or so we can feel superior in some bizarre manner.  Enough already - time for the (American) public to grow up a little, stop demanding politicians live their lives on the pedestals on which we place them, so we can throw stones at them until they invariably fall off…at which point we vilify them for not being agile enough to dodge said stones and stay on our pedestals.  I think I just made my head hurt!

We elect people to do a job - not be saints.  At least, that’s what we should be doing.  Now, while everyone might not  agree on how well he’s done that job, obviously a lot of people in South Carolina thought he did them (Congress, as well as Gov) pretty well, since he was re-elected several times, not to mention pushed for a presidential run in 2012. 

It would be such a nice change of pace (snark) if we could manage not to make candidates/politicians feel they had to become some creation of flawless morality in order to get elected.  We have fostered this demand that our public servants must have none of the foibles we possess, and they keep trying to fulfill it…often with personally disasterous consequenses.  How about we knock it off?  Hmm? Few, if any, can live like that, and maintain their sanity for very long.

What happend to Governor Sanford can, and has, happened to millions, and will likely happen to millions more every day.  And too many are ready to crucify him, or demand he resign, or make him the punchline to a bad joke, for what?  For falling in love?  Or for not living up to something others wanted him to be, or decided he should be, in their own definition of what a leader, what a public servant, must be.  Let’s be fair for a second, there’s a big difference between stepping outside of one’s marriage to get laid, and falling in love, and all the gradations inbetween.

There are all sorts of things about what transpired, what caused the affair, who was involved, who was to blame, etc., the public will never know - I hope.  It’s none of our business.  It’s between him, his estranged wife, and his lover.  Period. 

The only part of this that belongs in the public eye, is relative to how Governor Sanford handled the details and procedures of leaving the state - not why he left town, not where he was, and not with whom he spent time. If he was derelict in his responsibility to the safety of the state and its people (and I seriously question the idea no one could get hold of him - obviously they could leave him phone messages, and did.  His not returning a message doesn’t mean he didn’t get it. That’s why we all have voicemail!) then punish him for that, if you feel it’s warranted - but not because he had the effrontery to be human. 

As for my part - I can only say this:

Governor Sanford - 

While I admire your willingness to take full responsibility for the actions of not only yourself, but of everyone remotely involved, I deeply regret the public demand you (or any other public figure) fall on your sword for something that was never the public’s right, nor need, to know in the first place.

I have seen few human beings look so utterly lost and desolate as you did today.  You have some difficult choices and decisions ahead of you.  Remember, life is all too short.  Choose to be the man you want to be, not what others demand.  Choose the life you think will bring you happiness and joy - as this will likely bring the same to those you love - not the life others want you to have or think you should, or must, pursue to fulfill a dream that may not be your own.

I wish you a long and happy life.

First it was that posh San Francisco fundraiser. Obama asserted that small town people are bitter, and that is what turns them to guns, religion, and racial prejudice. “Poor choice of words,” the Man of Words tried to explain, but few bought it. http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=4652934&page=1

Then Democratic leader, Donna Brazile (clearly an Obama booster) says that there is a “new” Democratic coalition that no longer has to rely on white blue collar workers and Hispanics. Apparently the elderly are no longer of much consequence either, since this “new” Democratic coalition is young, urban, and suburban. http://www.talkleft.com:80/story/2008/5/6/221614/3546

So I get the picture. I don’t comprehend what’s going on behind that “New” Democratic Party door, but I do know that I am now standing outside with these other folks who I tried to lovingly portray in cartoon style.

By Pat (Tricia) originally posted at No Quarter
http://noquarterusa.net:80/blog/2008/05/15/uninvited-to-the-party/
Since the original post, I should add feminist women (after the NARAL endorsement of Obama). Hillary Clinton has dedicated most of her career to advancing women’s rights! Obama voted “present.”

In the interest of full disclosure, yes, I will be voting for Senator Clinton, but not because I’m a Hillary fan or because I dislike Republicans or even because someone I respect as much as Wes Clark endorsed her. If you’d asked me a year ago, and some of you did, could I imagine any circumstance under which I would vote for Hillary Clinton for president, I would have, and did, say no.  Then I remembered what’s best for my country is a hell of a lot more important than what I want, and wrote this comment June 30th:

Well - since then I’ve been paying more attention to her, and the others, and no longer distrust her just as a matter of course. But more on that in a moment. Let me put this issue another way…

This is not the time for amateurs. Considering the particular circumstances in which we find ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, this is not the time for on the job training either.

What’s best for the country is to have a team of pros in the White House on the first day of the new administration come January 2009, who know where the light switches are and how to find the bathrooms without an escort.  That includes the president and vice president. Given the possibility that the state of the Union, by 2009, may well include us being at war in three separate countries simultaneously, we don’t have time for any administration to spend reading “How To Run The Country For Dummies.” Currently, there is only one campaign that satisfies that criteria and that’s the Clinton campaign.  But let me explain myself by reposting the pertinent part of the comment I mentioned above…

If forced to be dispassionate about her, one might consider the following:

• she lived in the White House for eight years - odds are she probably absorbed a bit while there
• she is far from stupid
• she doesn’t fall apart when things don’t go her way, or when she makes a mistake and gets her ass kicked by the public. There is at least something resembling a backbone there, even if voters don’t always like what she did
• she possibly has a far better grasp of foreign policy and national security and the real value of diplomacy now, and because of those eight years in the White House, than perhaps any other current candidate
• she comes with a spouse who has eight years of experience running the country during one of it’s most successful periods, and one who is well liked by most of the rest of the world and this country…and is brilliant.
• she is the only current candidate who has been a First Lady of a southern state, a senator of a northern state, and the First Lady of the nation - in fact, if you take out the word “lady” she’s still the only one who has represented a northern state for the Senate, a southern state via the Governor’s mansion, and the nation via the White House. Demographically - that’s a home run.
  
• (New) along with the spouse with eight years of experience, comes an enormous pool of talent who also have the experience of being part of one of the most successful administrations in recent history - people like Wes Clark and Richard Holbrook and Madelaine Albright, for a start. Many of them, some of whom may be be in contention for cabinet posts in her administration, have already been vetted through the Senate conformation process at least once - so it should go pretty quickly if they have to do it again.  At least in theory.

In recent posts and comments (all over the blogosphere), I’ve seen several people refer - quite negatively - to the practice of “triangulation”.  It seems to bother people more that Hillary may do it than when Bill did it.  Maybe because it was a seemingly newer practice when Bill did it.  Well, it isn’t new, and it isn’t bad.  It’s actually quite smart…unless you happen to be a someone who thinks it’s a bad idea to listen to what constituents think and try to find a way to do as they wish. Yep…that’s bad.  Why would anyone want to have a politician listen to and consider the views of all of their constituents, including, God forbid, non-Democratic ones!

For all the yelling we voters do about our representatives not standing up for what they want, we seem to have a bad habit of forgetting they are supposed to stand up for what we want. I’ll take a little more of that triangulation, thanks.  Consequently, I am less concerned with whether or not I can trust her personal positions, so long as I can trust she will not further violate the positions of the country.

I’m less concerned she be the smartest person in the room, so long as she is wise enough to surround herself with the smartest people available - even if, and especially if, they are smarter than her.  So far, she has demonstrated that wisdom.

I also appreciate that, unlike both Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards, she has paid her political dues by at least completing a full senatorial term before running for the presidency. That demonstrates, at least, that she has some patience. Senators Obama and Edwards haven’t seemed to consider that important.  To my thinking, deciding to run for president before one has even completed half of one’s first senatorial term, demonstrates not patience, not loyalty, not a commitment to obligation, not a desire to restore hope, and certainly not wisdom, but rather a childish egotism.

I’m sorry but I’ve had enough of a childishly egotistical president in the last seven years to last me a lifetime.  I’d like an adult with a modicum of wisdom to be the next president, please. While Sentors Biden and Dodd both qualify as such adults too - they can’t win the nomination.  She can.  And, contrary to my previous opinion of her, and while it will by no means be a cakewalk, she can also win the general election.

But…and I say this to all Democrats, with the greatest respect for your individuality and your opinions, there is a time to push your pet candidate or issue/single issue/”my” issue importance - it’s when you have a veto-proof majority in both houses.  When you don’t have that majority, then it’s time to suck it up, look at the big picture and pull together.  If your party cannot do that, especially when it matters most to the survival of what we want to believe we are as a people and as a country, then you doom us all to wondering what could have been…again.

What is the matter with all of you? Have you completely lost it? You’re letting the tail wag the dog and paying an obscene amount of money to look like fools who can’t handle employees while you do it. And, sadly, you’ve been doing it for years. You’re supposed to be fairly bright - haven’t you figured out who’s supposed to be running things yet? here’s a hint: not the athletes and actors/singers/other celeb-types!

Had you not created the problems in the first place, I might feel a little sorry for you. But…Michael Vick, Brittany Spears, Lindsay Lohan…just the latest in the passing parade of children you pay ridiculous amounts of money, then sit on the sidelines and watch as these accidents looking for a place to happen, keep happening all over the place.

You know? For all the things the old Hollywood studio system did wrong, one of the things they got right was understanding that, for better or worse, the performers under contract to them were looked up to as role models by the public and they had a responsibility (there’s that word again!) to live up to that job, as part of the price of fame and fortune. Consequently, and with enlightened self-interest, the studios spent a great deal of time and money to make sure their performers became role models - by teaching them to look and act like ladies and gentlemen, if not all the time then at least whenever in public. In fact, part of many a contract included the penalties for misbehaving in public.

Where are the David Nivens, William Powells, and Myrna Loys? Or John Waynes, Sophia Lorens and Audrey Hepburns? They all had their flaws and foibles, no doubt, but they also understood the meaning of the word ‘discretion’. Sophia Loren has more grace and style covered in mud than Brittany Spears could posses if dressed by Edith Head!

We used to teach the same sort of idea in sports, whether it was learned in community athletic associations, junior high and high schools or college; it was called ‘good sportsmanship’. A big part of ‘good sportsmanship’ was behaving as ladies and gentlemen and understanding your behavior reflected not only on yourself, but on your coaches, team mates, schools and communities. It wasn’t long ago that the thought of bringing dishonor to one’s teammates, coach or school, by behaving like a jackass in public, was unthinkable (unless, of course, you were defending the honor of said school, lol).

When I was in the 8th grade, playing volleyball for my school, our team was the top in the league, unbeaten for that season. However, during one away game, after our match was over, the JV coach told all of us to stay on the sidelines and support the JV girls. Well, a few of my teammates decided they’d rather watch the boys play football. They were suspended from playing the next game. As it happened, that game was against our toughest rival. With three of our A-string players suspended, we lost, and with that loss we had to share the championship title and trophy with those same tough rivals. It was a bitter pill to swallow. I remember being furious with that coach at the time, while trying to argue my teammates’ case. But, as angry as I was, and as short-sighted as I thought that coach (who wasn’t even our coach - but ours agreed with him and rightly so) was being - he was right. I was wrong. Part of his job, and the job of all the coaches, was teaching us to respect all of our team mates, including and especially the younger ones, by watching their games and showing them our support, helping to build their confidence, rather than by demonstrating how cool we thought we were.

Well, fast forward to the last decade or so and, along with enormous salaries for athletes - especially basketball - has come equally enormous egos and all the problems that go with them, including felonies.

Someone please tell my why you owners and studio heads continue to put up with this crap? Do you think most of the public really wants to emulate, and have their children grow up to emulate the Michael Vicks, Brittany Spears and gangsta-rap flavor of the months? Do you think it’s more cost effective? It isn’t, and if you think it is then you deserve to go bankrupt.

However, I’d rather not see you go bankrupt at some point down the road - I’d rather see you consider some sensible (for everyone) changes:

Instead of giving that basketball phenom a $10 mil signing bonus, how about spending that $10 mil to teach your players to be ladies and gentlemen, teach them how to manage their finances, teach them how to give back to their communities and that that is an admirable thing to do - in short, teach them to actually be the role models people might admire and respect - and respect for something beyond their athletic skill only.

Maybe if you stop treating athletes and performers like high-priced, prima donnas  who can do no wrong, who’s displays of ill temper, poor taste, petulance, narcissism, bad manners, and over-whelming self-involvement and sense of entitlement should not only be excused but lauded - they’ll stop behaving that way.

Maybe they’ll even grow up a little, and maybe we, the public, will too. No, we don’t get a free pass for all of this either.

Now the problem with all of this is that it requires you team owners and studio heads to have some character yourselves, before you can teach it to others.  Bill Walsh had it.  Bear Bryant had it. So did others, who hopefully, are still alive, and still willing to teach the rest of us.  One of the youngest athletes who has it is Tiger Woods - his is a public persona to be admired as a good role model .  And one of the few sports left whose players still seem to understand the concept of ‘good sportsmanship’ is golf… and I don’t even play it!

DM