Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter

OFF THE GRID
Jul 2, 09 | 9:03 AM

Jenny Sanford Is a Bummer

Share
How come Jenny Sanford has become a heroine for American women in the new sex wars? Ruth Marcus excitedly expressed the conventional wisdom on Mrs. Sanford in yesterday’s Washington Post, calling her a “model for the wronged political spouse.” Tina Brown, who, as I recall, stole her husband out from under another woman, detailed her keen satisfaction that Sanford had not stood shamefacedly by her husband’s side in the manner of Silda Spitzer and Hillary Clinton (and so many others), and faulted her only for her apparent willingness to take him back—that is, if he was appropriately humbled.

Women everywhere seem to like Jenny Sanford. But her husband doesn’t. That much we know: Mark Sanford may be going back to her, but he’s dying to get rid of her.

And, truly, what man wouldn’t want to?

She has “investment banker steel,” according to Marcus, which, while I can’t be sure what this is exactly, sounds an awful lot like a helluva cold heart.

"It wasn't exactly love at first sight," Marcus quotes Mrs. Sanford saying about her first meeting with her future husband. "It was more like friendship at first sight." Let’s translate: She didn’t like him much, but being a cool customer she decided on the basis of his career prospects and other demographic criteria he’d be a good match.


(AP Photo)

She ran his campaigns, insinuating that his success is really hers. Indeed, that’s the problem with all campaign managers: They believe they are the real thing and the candidate just a hapless front man. (While politicians seem to want to have sex with anyone who will have sex with them, the one person they probably don’t want to have sex with is their campaign manager.)

And then, and hardly least of all, there is Jesus.

It seems quite likely that in addition to fleeing his wife, the South Carolina governor was fleeing the Lord.

A diet of bible study groups, to which Jenny Sanford seems to have been obsessively devoted, would put a damper on many marriages. Indeed, let’s assume the rogue governor had begun to question his treacly faith and dweeby life. If so, sex—with a foreigner no less—would have been a reasonable escape.

“Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance,” said Jenny in a statement that Marcus praises for its “practical vision of real love.”

Well, damn. Pardon me, but let’s try repellent vision. Jenny Sanford is haughty, self-righteous, condescending, and an egomaniac, seeking “the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.”

Here, I suppose, is the news flash: Women, who don’t have to marry them, see women differently from how men see them.

More of Newser founder Michael Wolff's articles and commentary can be found at VanityFair.com, where he writes a regular column. He can be emailed at michael@newser.com.
105 comments
VIEWING:
 
polstroad
Jul 2, 09 10:17 AM CDT
Walk a mile in her 400 dollar shoes. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
Snarfeh
Jul 3, 09 11:59 AM CDT
No, thank you. Even if gay marriage were legalized, I would not jump into *that* swamp. Marriage is doomed to fail or something at which the majority cheat on. I think she needs a vibrator, Michael. Better yet, they need to use some sex toys as a couple.
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
Reader2898
Jul 2, 09 10:24 AM CDT
"A diet of bible study groups... would put a damper on many marriages." Um... how, exactly? In my experience, these groups are a source of real support to Christian marriages. I don't take issue with your speculation that Sanford might have been waffling in his faith, but a community group is hardly at fault in that regard. It's the place where he should've been most able to address his doubts and confess his marital problems. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
pete_ess
Jul 4, 09 6:05 AM CDT
um, and just how exactly do you get something saucy on the side by attending bible class, pray?
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
Reader2898
Jul 4, 09 9:01 AM CDT
Ha! Well played.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 4, 09 1:55 PM CDT
Oy.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:09 PM CDT
reader, I'm thinking maybe you went to a SUPPORTIVE bible study group, while Jenny went to a group that was telling her sex is sinful and best not to enjoy it. no way of knowing
Vote up! Vote down!
0
everywhere
Jul 2, 09 12:07 PM CDT
Great column, and totally agree with you! She seems insufferable and I bet the lovely Maria is a balm to the soul by comparison... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
Prittybritty
Jul 2, 09 9:57 PM CDT
Yeah...and so were all the other women he crossed the line with.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Prittybritty
Jul 2, 09 10:01 PM CDT
Yeah, and so were all the other women he admits to "crossing the line" with. Whatever. Maybe she is insufferable. But he was all over living with her, having sons with her, and milking his image for his career. THAT'S insufferable.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
nick
Jul 3, 09 3:47 PM CDT
Attacking the victim? Seems like a typical Republican strategy to me. Creepy, it seems like I'm watching Fox News.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:13 PM CDT
@nick: are you sure she's the victim? Like most self described victims these days ... they ARE NOT REALLY victims! What if she's indeed the cold hearted beeatch, who uses sex as a weapon, while hating it, and what if she did indeed marry Sanford out of calculation rather than love? I haven't read anyone saying they were so in love.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
deadmessengers
Jul 2, 09 12:08 PM CDT
Not all women think that way, thankfully. I sure as hell don't. Neither deserve to spend the rest of their lives in a (probably) loveless marriage, nor does his lover deserve to lose the man she loves, for the "sin" of falling in love. That's just idiotic. But, yeah - I agree with you...'repellant vision' is well put. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
nyperry
Jul 2, 09 12:28 PM CDT
Well said, Mr. Wolffe. The kids will side with their Dad in a few years. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
RobN
Jul 2, 09 2:13 PM CDT
Yeah, right after he explains why he skipped spending Father's Day with them in favor of disappearing with his mistress. It's not going to take them long to figure out which of their parents puts them first, and it's not Dad.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
pete_ess
Jul 4, 09 6:09 AM CDT
Yeah, right. But unlike RobN, I mean Yeah. Right. Kids will side with the real one. And being awfully correct is not always real. They'll know if Mom is too righteous for reality. Time will tell. Start judging your politicians on what they do in their work, Americans, will ya? What they do on the side is much less important. UNLESS, of course, they lie about it!!
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:15 PM CDT
@pete: Kids tell themselves a lotta lies about their parents. It's not a sure thing they will side with the real parent. Mommy Jenny is almost unbeatable if everyone agrees with her.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Stacy
Jul 2, 09 12:32 PM CDT
Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
tedri50
Jul 2, 09 12:40 PM CDT
the Group-Think of so-called 'support groups' rarely allows more than getting yourself 'right' with the pre-conceived notions of that group. how about a little analysis of 1st dude Todd Palin? 1 more reason not to vote for sarah. [idiocy crosses gender lines, after all]. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
thibaud
Jul 2, 09 12:53 PM CDT
Wow. I was expecting mindless snark (got here via Michelle Cottle's link at tnr.com) and instead read a fact-based, refreshingly honest and contrarian exposition of what Michael Crichton asked for, "true things I didn't know." Sanford's escape from the Christian-careerist scold suggests maybe there's some hope for this nation after all. Nice work, Mr. Wolff. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
cris
Jul 3, 09 9:15 AM CDT
This and the Politico piece in the course of a week...you're killing it, man.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
meeshlenain
Jul 2, 09 1:00 PM CDT
Thanks for that article, Mr. Wolff, I really miss the 19th century... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+7
Stacy
Jul 2, 09 1:09 PM CDT
I missed the part where he had to marry her. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+5
tazcat47
Jul 2, 09 1:42 PM CDT
You really don't like women much, do you, Mr. Wolff? What else is one to make of the line about "women, who don't have to marry them, see women differently.." ? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 2, 09 4:20 PM CDT
Just saying it's a different perspective if you don't have to imagine yourself living with Jenny Sanford.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 2, 09 4:22 PM CDT
Just saying it's a different perspective if you don't imagine yourself living with Jenny Sanford.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
q2008
Jul 2, 09 2:00 PM CDT
So, Jenny Sanford = a strong woman = she has a "cold heart" = Mark Sanford was DRIVEN into the arms of his latin lover thereby making a fool of himself on the national stage. Please. Pretty convenient theory, coming from you. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:21 PM CDT
it's called An Inconvenient Truth for Jenny Sanford and Women Like her. Look, I'll be the first to say that men stray. But half the time women hurt men in other ways. IDK who here is more of a victim. But it's not just Jenny. Propping up Jenny as a helpless victim we should all feel sorry for is not gonna cut it. Wait didn't some right wingers understood Clinton about wanting to sleep with someone else than ms. Rodham?
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
bookman
Jul 2, 09 2:02 PM CDT
Leaving Governor and Mrs. aside, I can't ascertain your reason for writing this other than to show yourself an obtuse asshole. You succeeded. "haughty, self-righteous, condescending, and an egomaniac..." pot... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
RobN
Jul 2, 09 2:10 PM CDT
Why do I get the creepy feeling that Mr. Wolff is projecting his own feelings about women onto this woman he doesn't even know? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Mmhmmthatsright
Jul 2, 09 2:34 PM CDT
Dude, you really can't write. Forget that you're sexist and an idiot; the worst part of all of this is that you're given a platform from which to write. You suck. You are just really, really bad at it. The only reasons someone who knows (really) nothing about this woman would write out a dissection of her shrew-likeness is for the purposes of humor or seeing things in a different/new light. Fail and fail. You think you are seeing things from a man's point of view but actually, you are just seeing things from an idiot's point of view who can't write and really can't discern the intricacies of a situation without relating it back to the confines own pathetic bitterness he obviously carries about women who dumped him. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 2, 09 3:39 PM CDT
"Dude," if you're going to call him an idiot you should at least be able to explain why you would write a dissection of his alleged bitterness (especially since you know (really) nothing about him). Unlike Mr. Wolff, you haven't persuaded anyone today with your writing. (Hint: that's because writing is not just about composition, but persuasion. It's also about spelling and grammar.)
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Mmhmmthatsright
Jul 3, 09 1:44 AM CDT
DOOD, it's totally not acceptable to call out spelling/grammar on a comment. People who think spelling/grammar are all that is embodied in good writing are the reason for bad writing. I have no incentive to edit. I spent one minute on that comment and frankly, it's pretty effin' good for one minute. Also, I did not dissect his alleged bitterness, I mused on his idiotic point of view. Touche on me knowing nothing about him ; I heard about him for the first time today when he was linked to another article. I clicked the link, posted this comment then went back to read the comments on that other article, and they all alleged things that would grant my musings validity. So, yeah.
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 3, 09 2:01 AM CDT
You know, I'm sorry I got nasty at the end. That was uncalled for.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
Mmhmmthatsright
Jul 3, 09 2:20 AM CDT
While I have you hear I may as well explain: the purpose of a writer is not to persuade, or enforce ideas in any way. A writer has ideas, and shares them. That's it. In many cases writers have many many ideas without a platform to share, and the moment they're given a platform, like, say, asked to ruminate on some random subject matter, often they will slyly try to incorporate their past ideas, many only tangentially related. A GOOD writer is one who can incorporate seamlessly, and make it seem like an obvious connection is there. This article is so infused with discernibly lingering bitterness that it upstages any point this very poor writer could have accidentally made. But truth be told, I am mostly ticked off by his elementary sentence structure. I would fully incapacitate his articles' actual POINTS if it weren't so irritating to reread.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Deebles
Jul 3, 09 3:00 AM CDT
Mmh. Totally 'effin' good comment. Better fucking comment if you changed the third person singular pronoun in front of your gerund into a possessive pronoun so that I know the whole thing is just a noun phrase acting as an object of the preposition. As it stands, I'm just supposed to wave my hat at you; not the fact that you don't know anything about the guy. See, grammar is only important if you want to be understood. Forgetting that bit of 2-bit and you're right that it's all bullshit. Oh, don't use a semicolon if you don't know what they do. Some grammar whore may-not might--think that you're inept. His helmet may have saved his life. His helmet might have saved his life. The rules exist only for my understanding you; they can exist for me to understand you. They can't exist for me understanding you.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 3, 09 3:07 AM CDT
Deebles = An hero ;)
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Mmhmmthatsright
Jul 3, 09 11:04 AM CDT
Sorry I don't understand your comment at all. It's very hard to follow. I never actually learned grammar in school, honestly. I only learned grammar in Spanish class and clearly that's why my grammar is so annoying for those that did actually learn grammar in high school or elementary school or whatever. I also have been utilizing spell check since like, 2nd grade. So, yeah, my spelling and grammar suck. I guess that's why I hate on people who hate on spelling and grammar. Still stand by my point that the writer of this article can't write, even though, as you've proven (?), people of his generation probably actually learned grammar.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
Mmhmmthatsright
Jul 3, 09 11:14 AM CDT
Just reread it, guess you're *dissecting* every grammatical error I made and cleverly using each correction to insult my intelligence? Ok. You're probably a really great writer. I am not a writer. I am allowed to comment if I can't write, right? I do read. A lot. Maybe you think people who read a lot should write perfectly. As far as I'm concerned, I write a lot like things I read. But I don't see why this invalidates my comment? Because I said the writer is a bad writer? Only good writers are allowed to come to conclusions? I'm sorry I believe readers are allowed to conclude the success of writers.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
Deebles
Jul 4, 09 2:30 AM CDT
Sorry about dissecting you but you were the one who brought it up. If you are going to start a comment with--you can't write--then you pretty much have to be perfect on your part. This isn't colloquial: this is writing, and I don't get the chance to see your face, your nods or hear the tone or the inflection. I only have the words--don't blame me: blame the medium. Have at it, but don't comment about style without expecting yours to be handed to you in a hat.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:28 PM CDT
@Mmmh: Ouch! ;)
Vote up! Vote down!
0
bdub
Jul 2, 09 3:25 PM CDT
Michael Wolff = douche bag Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 2, 09 4:26 PM CDT
Since grammar school I've been wondering about what that expression exactly means. Still have no idea.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Deebles
Jul 3, 09 2:03 AM CDT
A douche bag is a man-made, bladder-like container which when held on high forces by pressure a liquid, usually acid, to irrigate a normally base empty vessel so as to expunge any lingering odors of previous ineptitude. Can also be called by the Latin--Dick Cheney.
Vote up! Vote down!
+6
2-bits
Jul 2, 09 3:54 PM CDT
Nice article, and an interesting conclusion. I don't know if it's fair to characterize Jenny this way (and I don't necessarily agree with it), but I think it challenges a popular assumption about this sordid story. Why are the men in all cases completely to blame? If we can blame someone for being a bad influence on a person, can we not blame Jenny to some extent for driving Mark to his insane lengths? In Jenny's case this somehow seems more plausible than most. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
nick
Jul 3, 09 3:33 PM CDT
Cope out. Mark is responsible for his own actions. If he wanted out of his marriage, he could get a divorce. Too costly, you say? Cope out, I say!
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 3, 09 4:44 PM CDT
I assume you mean cop out. And maybe it is.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:31 PM CDT
I think Mark WAS out coping from the Appalachian trail all the way to Argentina just fine, thank you. :)
Vote up! Vote down!
0
TheTruth
Jul 2, 09 4:37 PM CDT
Mr. Wolf, Did you forget about the four children involved? Four innocent boys who did nothing to deserve this from their dad? I think you have a real problem with women, you seem to dislike them and disrespect them. I would suggest you seek a therapist to discuss this with instead of using your column. Therapy might show that women, mothers, are a vital part of our society and need to be respected. Please get some help. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
DAB
Jul 2, 09 4:52 PM CDT
I have no opinion on Jenny Sanford. And given the reporting on his own home life by the NY Post, I would think Michael would want to avoid having one as well. Shows what I know. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
bitterrealist
Jul 2, 09 5:11 PM CDT
I wonder why Wolff's own marriage imploded. Actually, no, I don't. What a misogynist. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
jonwilliams
Jul 2, 09 5:27 PM CDT
"Women everywhere seems to like Jenny Sanford" Subject-verb agreement, my friend. Subject-verb agreement. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 2, 09 6:10 PM CDT
Yes. The first people killed in the Internet revolution were the copy editors.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 2, 09 6:11 PM CDT
Yes. The first people they killed in the Internet revolution were all the copy editors.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
hamilton2
Jul 2, 09 10:51 PM CDT
First they came for the copy editors and you did not speak up, because you weren't a copy editor.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
RobN
Jul 2, 09 5:46 PM CDT
Easy to read this article in a whole different light once you hear about Mr. Wolff's liason with a young blond jounalist. Is your wife a bummer as well, Mr. Wolff? You should have realized that women turn into their mothers; you know, like the one you're getting sued by for trying to evict her. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 2, 09 5:58 PM CDT
OH SNAP
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 2, 09 6:14 PM CDT
You are taking a lot of interest in my life.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
RobN
Jul 2, 09 6:46 PM CDT
You're a public person. Perhaps you shouldn't write about things which so closely mirror the problems in your own life if you don't wish for people to point out those similarities. You take a lot of cheap shots at Mrs. Sanford that make a lot more sense when you find out the author is on fairly flimsy moral ground himself.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
fancygapva
Jul 5, 09 6:54 PM CDT
I wondered why Mr. Wolff was so fond of the "Stand by your man" political whore-wives who would rather risk venerial warts or worse to cling to the oft straying power hubby in whose reflected light they so loved to bask. And so Mr. Wolff's shed wife was not a whore, I gather. What about his newish darling? Is she a reflected photophil, a whore, or both?
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
IN RESPONSE:
TjaiKneeGrow
Jul 13, 09 12:36 PM CDT
Wow. so now we can safely assume RobN is a woman, who was dumped by her man? I mean to say: Maybe Michaels wife was an enormous beeyatch too? Who knows? Who's to judge. I find Mr. Wolffes perspective a tat refreshing, in that the automatic, kneejerk response is to victimize the woman and demonize the man. This is not OFTEN the whole picture.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
RuthHouston
Jul 2, 09 6:47 PM CDT
Jenny Sanford has shown great dignity and strength in dealing with her husband’s affair and his embarrassing statements to the press. Other women with cheating husbands can learn a lot from her regarding the steps a betrayed wife can take if she wants to save her marriage, without losing her dignity and self-respect http://bit.ly/giv70 Many disagree with her willingness to take her husband back, but there are many reasons why a wife might decide to give her cheating husband a second chance, including the ones listed at http://bit.ly/18PCI1 Many factors have to be taken into consideration before a final decision is made. And when a woman makes the difficult decision to stay with a cheating mate, she still to face the 2 obstacles mentioned here http://bit.ly/EdyTe . She also has to deal with criticism from others who disagree with the choice she has made. Jenny Sanford is to be commended for taking a firm stand, and doing what she feels is best for herself and her sons Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
Deebles
Jul 4, 09 1:30 AM CDT
If we keep making heros out of women, no matter the circumstance, we never see women as equals. True equality means seeing women as the equivalent of any man. That a woman can be as base, as driven and as loathsome as any man, just means that we have arrived. True equality doesn't simply measure the cream at the top; it accepts the scum at the bottom.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
pete_ess
Jul 4, 09 6:21 AM CDT
Well said, Deebles. I often wonder what people mean by equality when I read their tortured reasoning. I often think they use "equality" as an excuse/misnomer for "traditional roles". Equality is an easy concept, surely? Equal. In every way. And I'm for it. I am against bullshit - which is what I feel we often get when "equality" is mentioned.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
dazzle1
Jul 7, 09 8:56 AM CDT
seriously, do you think STAYING MARRIED to M Standford is the BEST THING for her and her KIDS? Sometimes people function better when giving a new beginning. its clear from the posts here that most of the people commenting are either idealistic or detached from reality. Wolff's comments, which may not agree with your own personal OPINION, are not "less true". The truth will set you free, but it will first make you miserable! (john quincy adams). Perhaps both sides of the Sanford relationship are a wreck???!!! Move on. He's no prize. She isn't either. She's using her kids as the ultimate "entrapment" tool. If she's so smart, why not go back to work as a saavy investment banker and tell Sanford to go to Argentina??? That might teach her boys MORE.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
DAB
Jul 2, 09 6:57 PM CDT
It seems to be a widely played game, at least. For example, one columnist recently wrote: "Tina Brown, who, as I recall, stole her husband out from under another woman, detailed her keen satisfaction that Sanford had not stood shamefacedly by her husband’s side... ." Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
Reader3181
Jul 2, 09 7:01 PM CDT
I read that Jenny said of her bumbling husband in an interview, "I didn't think he had it in him." Marky may not be the most eloquent of lovers, but christ, she's chilly. A strident, biblical, condescending tone is probably not the tone to go for, if you want your husband to fall back in love with you. But this isn't about love, it's about institutions, and behaving. Makes me cringe. Michael Wolff made it through his scandal without oversharing. Whatever his situation is, his writing shows he's got guts and a sense of humor. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
paulahsj
Jul 2, 09 7:28 PM CDT
I am one of those "women" aliens you refer to as being in support of Jenny Sanford. I am not a masochist so I wouldn't bother sticking around after my husband so willingly made a fool of himself. I don't see much to respect. I feel for this kids who did not choose public life and will have to cope with the consequences of their father's stupidity. I find it interesting how harshly Jenny Sanford has been assessed by you. No doubt she has faults but you are projecting assumptions about her as if she was just asking to be a victim. Yes. Sure she had it coming. Think I have heard that before. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
melodrama
Jul 2, 09 7:40 PM CDT
Read halfway through and thought, This is written by a man. I checked and Lo, I was right! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
armywife
Jul 2, 09 9:50 PM CDT
i think that if, as mr wolfe says, jenny was a cold bitch and her husband had fallen out of love with her, then the proper route he should have taken was to ask for a divorce, get it, and THEN go out and find a latin lover. jenny didnt "drive her husband to it", he made that choice all on his own. and it was the wrong choice. her alleged behavior does not excuse his actions. it certainly doesnt sound like it was a "love match" marriage, but it was still a marriage and he made vows, which he claims to value but clearly doesnt. and yes, i am one of the women who is relieved to see a woman in the public eye finally handle her husband's sordid affair in a way that leaves her dignity intact. if you are married to a bitch, then have the guts and honor to divorce her; dont have an affair and then whine that it's your wife's fault. that's pathetic. grow a pair already. i might add that if all men are as threatened by a strong woman as mr wolfe seems to be, then the human race is in trouble. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
HallieOttVulmar
Jul 2, 09 10:57 PM CDT
Lets say you're TOO devout of a Christian or just too into the spiritual ether of Christianity. What do you do? Preach.......become a missionary.......find sinners to judge(and then self-chastise on the "do not judge lest ye be judged" principle.......? Or, considering that Jesus' mother and girlfriend both were "Mary"s, take up with a "Maria". Through adultery, Sanford may have broken "God's laws", but also achieved an especial and transcendental "Christian gratification". It was love........and love is with God, right? But it was "forbidden" love, which is...........not with God? Sanford has been criticized for the lengthiness of his public confession.........hmmmmm. Did Clinton do this better, by keeping the confession terse and private("It was head!")........not to the press, to whom he simpy lied, but to his handlers? With the public confession of a politician's adultery having become de rigueur, and with the press coming under the increasing "control" of the Obama administration...........well, I think I hear JFK laughing his ass off. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
dearlizzie
Jul 3, 09 12:51 AM CDT
Bravo. All except for your slam about women not having to marry women so being blind to Jenny S's outer & inner harpy. We can like her for not being as dick-whipped as the crumpled Silda Spitzer while being horrified by this sanctimonious Nurse Ratchett with an egotism that may surpass her husband's. Forgive him? Like that's the biggest factor in any future? The man clearly loves someone else and views their marriage as a hollow, cold blooded duty. Michael, there are plenty of us women who while admiring Mrs. Sanford's decision not to offer herself up to further humiliation by going on camera with her erratic husband could see that her course of action was not based on dignity but on a tight-lipped, punitive and withholding anger. Her subsequent blab fests with AP blasted any semblance of self-respect or discretion. She's as grasping and self-absorbed as her mate but without a trace of love or tenderness. His affair and craziness are at least symptoms that there is a human heart in there someplace. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
nick
Jul 3, 09 3:40 PM CDT
Great imaginative writing. Pure fiction.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
2-bits
Jul 3, 09 2:06 AM CDT
Guys, guys, guys, before you jump all over Michael, keep in mind that he's been her secret lover for the past decade or so. Suddenly his motives come into sharp focus. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
sickened
Jul 3, 09 7:23 AM CDT
At first I really thought this was a piece of satire, torn from some 1950s manual on How To Keep Your Many Happy. In truth, and unfortunately, this is the poorest piece of analysis I've ever had the misfortune of coming across. You fault Mrs. Sanford for using Biblical language, but it is her husband who has prostituted the Bible with far greater regularity. You write “investment banker ... sounds an awful lot like a helluva cold heart," but I wonder if you would make this sweeping conclusion of a man? It is inconceivable to me any publication does still publish tasteless and demeaning comments about professional women ... based on solely, and ironically, on their professional qualifications. And um, women do marry women, and no one "has to" marry any woman. Though if the way men see women is through the narrow and insulting lens you have just defined, I am all too happy to admit I see women--and indeed all of humanity--quite differently indeed. Mr. Wolff, your predilection for gossip, appetite for judgmentalism, and gutless resort to worn stereotypes have been noted. I will heretofore avoid your writing with gusto. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Drewer
Jul 3, 09 7:30 AM CDT
I agree, this wouldn't be an issue if Americans weren't obsessed with image. He should have divorced/separated from her years ago - it is not in control who you fall in love with, what is in your control is what you do about it. Either honour your vows and live dutifully to the end (not always the best), or make a clean break, but be honest. Staying together because it's politically expedient, because you have kids, or because you have a good business relationship, will end up poorly for everyone (including the kids). Who knows what I, or anyone would do in that situation, and we all like to think we would handle it differently, but who knows? As Billy Joel said - you're only human, you're supposed to make mistakes. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
sickened
Jul 3, 09 7:35 AM CDT
Many = Man Also, I've no idea what is meant by "the new gender wars," apart from the offensive waged here. And Mrs. Sanford is not my hero. Please refrain from making generalizations about women; we are hardly a homogenous group. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
fancygapva
Jul 3, 09 7:44 AM CDT
After the sad performance of Hillary-I'll never forget her face at the second inauguration, and Spitzer's wife who looked like she had swallowed a turd (she had), Elizabeth Edwards lies somewhere midway--not forgiving but not out of the picture, and any other stand-by-your-man because he has power and she doesn't, It is refreshing for a woman to exert HER power and say she's not offering him the tit of forgiveness and she doesn't care what happens to his career. Why give your whinning puppy permission to sniff the neighbor's crotch? She's strong, she is clear about her limits. Michael, you're whinning for every spanking you ever got. Why should she save his ass? After all, she was home with the kids while he was whereabouts unknown, deep in the darkest of mid live crises....He publically humiliated her, she publically punished him. The women who "forgive" punish in private. What's the difference? If her husband runs off with his email buddy of course she is tight lipped and withholding. Did her tight lips cause him to stray or did his straying cause her tight lips? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
sickened
Jul 3, 09 8:23 AM CDT
Previous comment inspired me to do a search: http://gawker.com/5306259/michael-wolff-he-used-to-have-a-mustache-and-credibility Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
jambam
Jul 3, 09 9:52 AM CDT
instead of the bible study group sanford and his bride would have been better served by staying home and having sex Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
feminista
Jul 3, 09 11:45 AM CDT
She should have given him more blowjobs. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
vsryan81792
Jul 3, 09 6:00 PM CDT
As the current managing editor and a former editorial writer for my high school newspaper, I felt compelled to identify the numerous logical fallacies exhibited in your assertion that Jenny Sanford is “haughty, self-righteous, condescending, and an egomaniac.” To begin, Ruth Marcus lauded Mrs. Sanford’s “investment banker steel” after noting that Mr. Sanford asked his wife for permission to see his Argentinean lover and she promptly denied him that request. You used this quote to support your baseless assertion that Mrs. Sanford had a “helluva cold heart.” This is what we in the high school journalism circuit call misguiding the reader by manipulating and misrepresenting a source’s quote to support your argument. Secondly, you note that, “She didn’t like him much, but being a cool customer she decided on the basis of his career prospects and other demographic criteria he’d be a good match.” This is a rather unbalanced argument considering the fact that he too seems to have done the same thing. In fact, his behavior clearly indicates that he is not in love with her. So he is “going back to her” why? Any moderately astute person could ascertain that it is too improve his image and try to salvage what’s left of his political career. Unfortunately, you do not address this in your article making it both myopic and ultimately unconvincing. Finally, you note that “she ran his campaigns, insinuating that his success is really hers.” The logical fallacies here are truly unforgivable. To begin, the act of running his campaigns (and winning) insinuates nothing. While others many insinuate that his success can be attributed to her (not an absurd conclusion to come to), you cite absolutely no evidence that she considers his “success” her own. You go on to assert that, “Indeed, that’s the problem with all campaign managers: they believe they are the real thing and the candidate just a hapless front man.” This is again, completely unsupported, and really just a ranting assumption on your part. My high school publication would never run this article. We require that our editorials be logical, well supported and balanced. Unfortunately, this article cannot be considered any of those things. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
IN RESPONSE:
2-bits
Jul 3, 09 6:43 PM CDT
"My high school publication would never run this article. We require that our editorials be logical, well supported and balanced." Your high school paper is fair sight better than mine was in that case.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
sickened
Jul 3, 09 11:22 PM CDT
I hope you continue on into the world of journalism. You won your case--simply, elegantly, and factually.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
pete_ess
Jul 4, 09 6:36 AM CDT
But HAD your high school publication run this article it would have had a much bigger readership.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
MichaelWolff
Jul 4, 09 1:54 PM CDT
News story and opinion piece, two different forms. You will learn. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
vsryan81792
Jul 5, 09 11:33 PM CDT
The fact that you aren't reporting straight news doesn't relinquish your responsibility as a journalist to present your ideas in a balanced, factual, and logical way.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
sickened
Jul 4, 09 8:59 PM CDT
Opinion piece and egotistical rant. You will never learn. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 5, 09 7:48 PM CDT
I suspect that just means that an opinion you disagree with equals an egotistical rant.
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
IN RESPONSE:
sickened
Jul 6, 09 6:11 AM CDT
No, but I find the misogynist worldview predicated on an enormous amount of egoism. This article implies anything Ms. Sanford did, was, or said that was not ultimately satisfying to her husband was therefore wrong. I suggest Ms. Sanford was not meant to live for her husband any more than any woman exists to please a man. Ironically, I also find your article rather demeaning toward Mr. Sanford. If he did not want to marry a conservative Christian with a banking background, then why did he? Who, exactly, made him a victim of his circumstances? You imply an amazing lack of self-determination on the governor's part, while simultaneously absolving him of any responsibility for decisions made by his own volition.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
sickened
Jul 6, 09 6:23 AM CDT
Also, could you please clarify what "the new sex wars" are?
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 6, 09 7:58 AM CDT
I wasn't defending him in the least, just suggesting that even the most loathsome criminal might naturally want to escape a difficult jail (even one of his own making). By new sex wars, I mean the moral opprobrium that attaches to the private lives of public figures.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
sickened
Jul 6, 09 1:20 PM CDT
Well, if you think you can glean deep insight into a marriage from two public statements and a handful of ambiguous quotes, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. At the end of the day, you're responsible for the legacy left by your writing, and I'm a chump for having risen to the bait of shock journalism.
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
paulat
Jul 5, 09 9:29 PM CDT
I am a woman, who did enjoy this piece, because it was the first one I saw that revealed some "cold" truths about Jenny S. The problem is that Mark is no winner either. His politics are so dreadful that it is hard to have any sympathy for him. Clearly, he was no "victim". He was happy to rely on Jenny to get him to the governor's house. As Maureen Dowd wrote, he is totally two-faced: publicly, a conservative bastard to others wishing to have public affirmations of their love (gays), yet privately, Mr. Romeo to a seemingly strong and intelligent Latina. At least Jenny seems unhypocritical. My main gripe with Wolfe is that he assumes that women don't get it, that we just naturally side with another woman. When in reality it is the blatant hypocrisy that we abhor. My own take on Jenny: no one does the cheated wife very well. The bottom line: she is bitter and unhappy. Who wouldn't be? Would I want to be married to her? Never. Would I want to be married to him? UGH. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-2
Marty
Jul 6, 09 12:54 AM CDT
Wow. To vivisect a person who is in so much pain already takes an especially cold heart. Sanford obviously found something attractive in Jenny - he married her and fathered her four children. That he made a complete a** out of himself and his office in front of the world pretty much speaks for itself. She is just keeping her head above water. If I were here, I would not stand next to him, nor would I dignify his public disintegration by a long letter, but then I am not in her shoes. I agree with the posters who think you are a mysogynist. Sanford is hardly a prize right now. My guess is that even if he gets to be with his "Maria" in the end his narcissism will destroy that relationship too. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
IN RESPONSE:
sickened
Jul 6, 09 6:17 AM CDT
Interestingly, Mr. Sanford would not comment to the AP on whether she still shares his feelings. I have my own suspicions about this.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
MichaelWolff
Jul 6, 09 10:46 AM CDT
She may be in pain, but nevertheless mounting a very capable media counter-offensive.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
IN RESPONSE:
sickened
Jul 6, 09 1:23 PM CDT
Yes, she is. I was referring to Mr. Sanford declining to comment on whether Ms. Chapur still shares his feelings.
Vote up! Vote down!
0
nikkibong
Jul 6, 09 3:17 AM CDT
Michael - Brilliant post. That is all. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
-3
QueenAlli
Jul 6, 09 9:18 PM CDT
Wow! I thought you had different perspectives on the issues. That's why I read your columns. But this was just typical. Man Cheats - Uptight Wife To Blame. Yawn! Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
AmExpat
Jul 8, 09 2:53 PM CDT
Kudos to vsryan81792 for a sophisticated response. Mr. Wolff's comments seem to be coloured by his own personal troubles than by the inner happenings of the Sanford household. Mr. Wolff would be prudent to show more integrity in his writings or face a reputation of incredibility. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+2
Iconic58
Aug 21, 09 7:02 PM CDT
As a female, I concurr 100% with Mr. Wolf's analysis. I'm a little tired of seeing Mrs. Sanford parading before the camaras at the expense of her husband, while she stands on the throne of her soapbox labled, THE CHILDREN. My guess is if you have 17 year old son, I would think you'd want to protect him and keep this as low profile as possible. Moving out of the Mansion in full sight of the media with your girlfriends trailing you was a bit much. Comparing Ms. Balen to pornography was a dagger in the back, while again on the throne of her soapbox labled...THE CHILDREN...The woman who has the greatest honor in this is Ms. Balen for my money and she is the one who is going to lose. As they say...to the victor the spoils..... Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Iconic58
Aug 21, 09 7:11 PM CDT
I don't believe he was having a midlife crises...I believe he finally woke up to life. This is not to say that I think he was right for what he did. He was not, but from everything I've read about Mark Sanford, he's been a good egg all his life, the proverbial "eagle scout" and that's why Jenny marreid him, she didn't think he had it in him...he was safe. And then...he was not. She is not a woman I would hold up as a bastion of being on the mark...with Mark. She is weak. He did three things unforgiveable. He held a press conference and said...clearly...I will try to fall in love again with my wife...I am in love with my soulmate...and clearlyI am sorry I have hurt Ms. Balen. Ok. that would have been enough to have the papers filed, if she was as clear headed as white women are making her out to be...she should leave Mr. Sanford until he figures it out if she is his soulmate or Ms. Balen. Leave the kids out of it. He can love his kids without loving either woman. She's on her soapbox throne in he heart of the bible bett bleating like a goat. She doesn't love Mark. She wants him to suffer, that's why she's parading in front of the cameras with her girlfriends in tow, giving interviews to Vogue magazine, you think teenagers do not read Vogue...elitist teenagers at that? What about your children you've been screaming to high heaven about? If you are going to hang on to your husband through forgivenes, seeking reconcilation through forgiveness, then forgive and stop creating an atmosphere of bitterness, give Mark Sanford time to breathe, clear his head and really forgive or be done with it and get on with it. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Iconic58
Aug 21, 09 7:20 PM CDT
And again, Mark Sanford is somewhat of a coward. He wanted to be caught. He sent his wife to look through is files when he knew he had something of an incrminating nature within those files. Fraudian slip? I think so. I think these two need to divorce. Legally separate, to give each time to heal and then divorce. Simple as that. He doesn't love you Jenny, but he loves his kids, and isn't love what its really suppose to be about..really...or is it? Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
Iconic58
Aug 21, 09 7:31 PM CDT
And it doesn't matter if she's standing next to him...or sitting somewhere else. She's keeping him around! That is the point. She's still there. Traveling with him through Europe so soon after with the kids. What for? To me this is troublesome and I wouldn't want him near me or the kids so soon, especially after a press conference where he told the world...I am in love with another woman...read my lips. So where is the honor really in Ms. Jenny? She's the same as Silda Spitzer, Hillary and all the others who chose to be honest and stand by their man...at the podium. No difference in my book. Get some backbone and really leave their asses. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
0
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.

 
RECENT POSTS
Nov 20, 09 | 8:32 AM

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

Nov 19, 09 | 10:14 AM

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

Nov 18, 09 | 2:40 PM

And We Thought We Hated Mammograms

Nov 18, 09 | 8:43 AM

China and the Obese: The President Meets His Greatest Problems

Nov 17, 09 | 6:50 AM

Rupert Murdoch’s Guy Gets It

Nov 16, 09 | 12:30 PM

Obama's Secret Weapon: The Hug

Nov 16, 09 | 8:01 AM

The President Wants You to Know He’s Too Dopey to Use Twitter

Nov 13, 09 | 6:55 AM

Does Warren Buffett Know What He’s Talking About?

Nov 12, 09 | 7:02 AM

Is Lou Dobbs the Last Conservative Pundit?

Nov 11, 09 | 9:07 AM

Who Was the Fort Hood Shooter?

ABOUT

OFF THE GRID is about why the news is the news. Here are the real motivations of both media and newsmakers. Here's the backstory. This is a look at the inner workings of desperate media, the inner life of the publicity crazed, and the true meaning of the news of the day.

FeedRSS