Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina confessed to adultery with a woman in Buenos Aires Wednesday, after raising eyebrows by disappearing over the weekend, and then misleading the public about his whereabouts.
But for the New York Times, there was more to the tale than the political meltdown of a promising Republican presidential candidate for 2012. Sanford's affair gave the paper another chance to round up recent (and not so recent) stories of Republican misdeeds and controversies and suggest they (once again) spelled doom for the party. Enter reporter Jim Rutenberg's Thursday story, "Sanford Case A New Dose Of Bad News For G.O.P."
Republicans were just starting to breathe a little easier.
The news that Senator John Ensign had had an affair with a former aide who was married to another former aide was fading. Polls showed some voter impatience with President Obama's policies, if not with the president himself. And the Politico, the insidery Web site that is widely read in the capital's political precincts, even featured an article exploring the possibility of a Republican Party comeback.
Then Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, a fiscal conservative seen by many Republicans as an attractive standard-bearer for the next presidential campaign, went missing. Worse, he returned.
The Times has certainly never seen Sanford as "an attractive standard-bearer" for anything, going out of its way to paint him as a stubborn, ultra-conservative eccentric whose stand against Obama's stimulus package was rejected even by his fellow South Carolina Republicans.
His confession on Wednesday that he had been in Argentina with a woman not his wife -- and not hiking the Appalachian Trail as his staff had said Monday -- was another jolt of bad news for a party that has struggled to get off the ropes all year.
That it was the second such confession in little more than a week from a potential Republican presidential contender -- Mr. Ensign had been exploring a run in 2012 as well -- left party leaders dazed. They spent Wednesday alternating between gallows humor and yet another round of conversations about what the party stands for and who will give it its best shot to retake the White House.
Rutenberg strung together some golden anti-GOP oldies. He aimed some particularly cheap cheap shots at Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family.
Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana suffered a political setback after even his fellow conservatives harshly critiqued his televised response to Mr. Obama's prime-time address to Congress in February. The speech, which was supposed to provide a moment to shine in front of a national audience, instead became fodder for late-night comedy.
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, the former Republican vice-presidential nominee who was eviscerated by some of her own political aides at the end of last year's presidential race, continued to get national attention, but hardly the kind likely to help convince voters that she would be a substantive candidate. The father of her unwed teenage daughter's baby feuded openly with the Palin family, and the governor exasperated some Republicans in Washington with her off-again, on-again plans for headlining a fund-raiser there.
After basking in glowing reviews among political pundits this year, Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, had to apologize for a post on Twitter in which he called Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, "racist" for saying that she hoped Latinas would be generally better equipped to make judicial decisions than their white male counterparts.
Near the end Rutenberg remembered that sex scandals aren't exclusively Republican, noting that the Democratic governors of New York and New Jersey have both resigned over unusual sex scandals: New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer for his involvement with a prostitute, New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey for committing adultery with a gay lover. Rutenberg left out 2008 Democratic presidential candidate and 2004 vice presidential nominee John Edwards, who fathered a child out of wedlock while his wife suffered from cancer.
Rutenberg argued that the Spitzer and McGreevey scandals "did not hurt Democrats nationally." Perhaps because the Times and the rest of the media have never made a point to collate them and present them as evidence of pervasive Democratic Party corruption, the way they do with each new Republican scandal.
—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
I predict that the NYT will
June 25, 2009 - 15:24 ET by jdhawkI predict that the NYT will be in bankruptcy by 2012 and bambi, the first stupid liberal, will be run out of office like Carter was.
I can't wait to see who is right . . .
Megadork Sanford's utter genius in announcing
June 25, 2009 - 19:36 ET by jondelwichethis the day before Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson both die.
He must be psychic! Guess he is news NO longer......
I do agree the NYT and Obama both get the boot in 2012!
The Slime Machine for the
June 25, 2009 - 15:30 ET by bigtimerThe Slime Machine for the left has better worry if they are even going to be able to have any paper to print....worry about your own house NYTs.
It's useless to post all of the hypocrisy, bias etc anymore....useless.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
You mean "hopes" not
June 25, 2009 - 15:30 ET by mattmYou mean "hopes" not "predicts"
I hope they fail.
That was exactly my
June 25, 2009 - 15:32 ET by motherbeltThat was exactly my thought, matt....you beat me to it.
They will do their best to keep it alive, all the while claiming that "the GOP scandals are not going away" [not if we can help it!]
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Oh, I think that unless the
June 25, 2009 - 16:32 ET by ForeverOnTheRightOh, I think that unless the Times is out of business by 2012, it will be the NYT that is the dog doing the doging. The Democrats are vertually dog free.
read my mind
June 25, 2009 - 15:34 ET by Roussejdhawk read my mind :) The Sanford saga will still be story in 2012 if the New York Times is still in business. Which is doubtful, but DNC could buy it.
Heck Rousse... The DNC
June 25, 2009 - 15:38 ET by bigtimerHeck Rousse...
The DNC already has bought it....decades ago.
No, they'll probably try the bail-out trick, and we'll all be forced to pay for it....
As if we aren't already, one way or the other.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Timing
June 25, 2009 - 18:21 ET by easygoerMichael Jackson's death just squashed the Sanford story.
Unfortunatley it also
June 26, 2009 - 07:50 ET by Tom PaineUnfortunatley it also squashes the story about the cap and tax vote and the socialization of heathcare. I can see Pelosi and company gearing up to ram as much as they can through in the next few days.
Unfortunately, the NYT...
June 25, 2009 - 16:03 ET by PrairieSkymay very well be right on this one...The MSM, led by the NYT, will resurrect this story, along with Ensign's, every chance they get in the months ahead of the elections in 2010 and especially 2012. The leftist media is absolutely gleeful over the Sanford situation, and they are going to squeeze every possible smarmy drop out of this story that they can, and are going to use it as a tie-in to every other Republican misstep that they can conjure up.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Dogging Republican "Sinners"
June 25, 2009 - 23:25 ET by merlin61Lets not assume ahead of time that the Dems are not
going to have any "sinners" of their own in the next
two to four years. You think they can keep pure as
the driven snow? They are just as fallilble as anyone.
Don't see any halos over their heads. They will
have more scandals too. Let he who is without sin
throw the first stone.
Democrat Sinners
June 26, 2009 - 07:27 ET by BlueCat57No such thing.
If they are caught they are treated as individuals without party affiliation mentioned. That's why NB is here.
IMO, Sanford is going to
June 25, 2009 - 16:18 ET by kangarooIMO, Sanford is going to split to Argentina. His wife had all ready kicked him to the curb. The pressure from the gov about the porkulas money got to him, and he nicked down to Argentina and said "can I move in?". Sanford will do the rest of his term get the retirement package and adios MF.
So, what exactly does Redd Foxx have to do with this?
June 25, 2009 - 16:33 ET by R D Helm:-^)
-Dave
Obama's health care "reform" plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof-Herman Cain
Just an observation
June 25, 2009 - 16:37 ET by BDJust an observation regarding the NYT.
Today after my meetings at Quantico were over, I dropped by the very impressive US Marine Corps National Museum near the front gate on HWY 1.
On one of the displays they had a headline regarding the invasion of Tarawa in which a newspaper headline from the NY Times was prominantly displayed, and what struck me about it was that it said We are winning at Tarawa" and it was not a quote from anyone, but rather expressed the attitude of the actual newspaper staff.
Can anyone recall such a positive headline in the NY Times regarding any recent US military operation? No -after all they are not US citizens anymore, but rather citizens of the world. What a crock.
And while the NYT will be
June 25, 2009 - 17:59 ET by G. MayAnd while the NYT will be responsible for keeping this going into 2012, note that it's Republicans calling for his resignation first. Something we generally don't see with the Democrats.
Hopefully he will resign and be quick about it.
The only thing that will really dog the GOP
June 25, 2009 - 18:07 ET by Kat Outta the BagThe only thing that will really dog the GOP in 2012 will be if they still don't have their act together.
They're right.
June 25, 2009 - 18:17 ET by pbthinkerI'm sure the NY Times saw how well the Washington Post's "maccaca" worked on getting rid of a popular Republican in Virginia. They still feel they have a national presence where they can use this to the Democrats Advantage.
Republicans would be smart to look the Times in the eye and say, "Mark Sanford isn't running so, if you want another vote for Obama's Cap and Trade, vote for my opponent. If y ou want to send my opponent to Congress so he can pass bills he hasn't read, go ahead. The Times doesn't care about Mark Sanford, they care about liberal politics and want to use this as a smokescreen to hide the real issues." I don't believe the Times can do this much longer so, if Republicans go on the offensive, they can win in 2010, despite attempts by the liberal media to cover-up for Obama.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
The New York Times finally
June 25, 2009 - 19:46 ET by Clear thinkerThe New York Times finally get's one right.
Of course this is going to dog Republicans in the upcoming elections, that's why it makes what Sanford did even dumber. Looks like a new party MUST be developed cause the GOP can't do the job.
12 Million Law Breakers & Citizenship
http://iamnotaracist.wordpress.com/
Not needed.
June 26, 2009 - 02:09 ET by SchnikeysI don't think it's necessary to form a new party outside of the GOP.
The issue here is individual responsibility. Mark Sanford did the crime, Mark Sanford does the time. It's stupid to hold the entire GOP responsible for the misdeeds of two Republicans, and everybody should know that, and it seems like a perfectly fine argument for Republicans to use in situations like this.
Hold it to the individual.
It's pure wishfull
June 25, 2009 - 19:47 ET by MidAmericaIt's pure wishfull thinking to believe the next big election will be about Republican's morality problems. The next election will be about obama, his policies and nothing else. ...and right now the dems are in trouble and everyday they are digging their hole even deeper. They are set to pass the biggest tax increase in history in the midst of a recession. All the Republicans have to do is present a little business sanity and an attractive candidate. These sex scandals only matter when times are good.
SIN & GOP
June 25, 2009 - 20:31 ET by Mad-jThe only way this stays hot until 2012 is if NYT and MSM keep it there. How silly will thay look if this is the only scandal they are able to produce in 4 years. Not likely, however. Politicians ARE politicians.
They wish
June 25, 2009 - 21:21 ET by DelsaNY Times is *issing in the wind.
Hopefully, the NYT won't
June 26, 2009 - 01:58 ET by RR GOPHopefully, the NYT won't even be around then.
I savor the image of these Libtards working in various small towns and cities reporting on local car accidents, fires, arranging classified ads and obituaries, etc.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
prediction
June 26, 2009 - 02:49 ET by m1xramNew York Times predicts __________ (insert BS here).
On the subject of sin, the NYT has it down, they embrace it. On the one hand you have a guy who has betrayed his family and constitients. On the other hand you have a paper who has betrayed 300 million Americans by giving aid and comfort to our enimes. Both are dispicable, but one probably caused the death of American soldiers. What's the penalty for treason?
NYT Predicts Sanford ... Will Dog G.O.P Candidates Into 2012
June 26, 2009 - 04:19 ET by DoktorFrankenA self fulfilling prophecy. They, and the rest of the media, will bring this dog out for the next 3 years.
Walkies!!!
one word for GOP
June 26, 2009 - 07:48 ET by jessieHjessieH CLINTON!!!!!!!!!!!!