What a piece of garbage. And what a dumb woman for marrying him anyways.

It`s OK for him to change his MENU every now and then...what`s a big deal ???

So that's awesome. That means he doesn't feel bad for any of it because he never broke their wedding vows.

do you premise to glove, connor and belay her as long as you glib?

I blue.

You may kiss the ride.

(Sanford to mistress) 'so ya see, that's why we can legally consort without me getting in trouble'

What a piece of garbage. And what a dumb woman for marrying him anyways.

#1 | Posted by JOE at 2010-02-04 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

You really think she's dumb for marrying him?

Sure, he's a douche, but she was in love and I doubt she ever thought he'd cheat or else she probably wouldn't have married him in the first place. She was simply duped by an asshole. Doesn't make her dumb.

If the person you are marrying makes an issue out of the promise to be faithful in your wedding vows, and you marry the person anyway and have kids with that person, then it's your problem just as much as the spouse. Jenny Sanford sounds like someone who made a deal with the devil and then later on decided to quibble over the terms.

I don't know what she says in her book, but I have trouble believing that Mark Sanford's affair with the Argentinian woman was any surprise at all to her. She played the mistreated victim after that came to light, and that's dishonest. I'm guessing that their deal was that she'd look the other way and he wouldn't embarrass her. So when the press got a hold of him, it broke the second half of that arrangement and she took the knives out.

along with other doubts that I had

I bet she means he likes the dick too.

Don't alarm bells go off when one party to a wedding cermony says, "honey, I just don't think we should include the line about being faithful. Don't ask any questions, just trust me."

Don't alarm bells go off when one party to a wedding cermony says, "honey, I just don't think we should include the line about being faithful. Don't ask any questions, just trust me."

#7 | Posted by taxman at 2010-02-04 01:53 PM | Reply

No. That sounds perfectly logical to me. She sounds smart.
-Commondense

"And what a dumb woman for marrying him anyways."

I imagine she lives quite well now. She must have suspected he wouldn't be faithful but decided it was still a good investment of her time. It probably paid off quite handsomely.

It probably paid off quite handsomely.

I read an interview where somebody said that Jenny Sanford was the brains in the family and she married beneath herself. Kinda reminds me of the relationship between Angela Lansbury and her doofus politician husband in the original Manchurian Candidate.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2010-02-04 01:59 PM | Reply

You're describing a whore.

No. That sounds perfectly logical to me. She sounds smart.
-Commondense

#8 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2010-02-04 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Does Mrs Whine-Oh-Whine have to 'honor and obey'?

But you continued with the marriage ceremony.

At least they are consistant....never their fault.

I doubt she ever thought he'd cheat or else she probably wouldn't have married him in the first place.

Uhh. He refused to vow to be faithful. How much more clear can it be?

I doubt she ever thought he'd cheat or else she probably wouldn't have married him in the first place.

Uhh. He refused to vow to be faithful. How much more clear can it be?

#14 | Posted by JOE at 2010-02-04 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not uncommon for the line 'to honor and obey' to be removed from the Brides vows. Does that automatically mean she's going to dishonor and disobey her spouse?

No, but those terms reflect outdated gender roles. The term "faithful" does not. Are you really this stupid or are you just disagreeing because you feel like it?

He refused to vow to be faithful. How much more clear can it be?

People modify vows all the time. Looking back on it now, yeah it was a precursor (which leads me to believe the douchebag had something on the side as he was being married), but when someone asks you to marry them it is implied they will be faithful.

This gives Mark more credibility, no?

If he said to Jenny before the marriage that he wasn't going to promise monogamy, then he's only guilty of lying about where he goes hiking.

Both parties agreed to the terms of their contract.

Looking back on it now, yeah it was a precursor, but when someone asks you to marry them it is implied they will be faithful.

It's no longer implied when they actively seek to remove the "faithful" term from the wedding vows. How stupid are you? If someone tells you "i refuse to vow to be faithful," it's implied that they intend to keep that option open to themselves.

Actually it makes him look like more a douchebag if that is even possible.

Douchebag Joe,

As I said, vows are changed all the time.

There is an implied contract of being faithful when you ask someone to marry you.

How stupid are you?

Is it odd that he asked it to be removed? Yes. But his wife still believed that he would be faithful.

But then again, you are a retard.

No, but those terms reflect outdated gender roles. The term "faithful" does not. Are you really this stupid or are you just disagreeing because you feel like it?

#16 | Posted by JOE at 2010-02-04 03:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

So, because you feel they're outdated, it's now different than how he may feel about his monogamy?

I'm not defending the guy, I just feel your an asshole for attacking her for still marrying the man.

I imagine she lives quite well now... It probably paid off quite handsomely. -- #9 | Posted by danni

Danni, she was VP in charge of mergers & acquisitions at Lazard before she married him. She was financing him, not the other way around.

There is an implied contract of being faithful when you ask someone to marry you.

Yeah, there usually is. But any "implications" of faithfulness go out the window when the guy says "I refuse to vow to be faithful to you." That is concrete as opposed to implied.

I suppose that among the Republican set, you can swap just about anything for a financially secure life. Merely trading occasional use of some aperture for eating regularly surely fits the GOP profile. herm

So, because you feel they're outdated, it's now different than how he may feel about his monogamy?

No. The reason the vows of the wife to "obey" the husband is because said vows reflect outdated gender roles. That is a legit reason to remove the vows - the wife shouldn't have to promise to "obey" her husband because wives are not slaves.

There is nothing outdated about the vows of monogamy, so there's no legit reason to remove the vow unless you aren't comfortable making that promise. And yes, if your spouse won't promise you that, you're an idiot for marrying them unless you're looking for a payout. That's not mean - it's realistic.

"There is nothing outdated about the vows of monogamy, so there's no legit reason to remove the vow unless you aren't comfortable making that promise."

I think members of The Family have some peculiar ideas about their own need to be faithful to their wives.

I hate to sound like I am blaming the victim (which I am not) but it's a very bad sign if the would-be husband wants to not include faithful in the marriage vows. Probably not a good idea to go forward.

But then again, having faithful in the marriage vows is no garantee of anything anyways.

Gotta love that family values crowd...

"GAYS WILL DESTROY THE INSTITUTE OF MARRIAGE!!!"

Y'all are doing a perfectly good job of that yourselves...

I hate to sound like I am blaming the victim (which I am not) but it's a very bad sign if the would-be husband wants to not include faithful in the marriage vows. Probably not a good idea to go forward.

Talk about having a clue your future hubby doesn't plan on keeping his shoes only under your bed.

Why would this woman even allow him to leave the "I will be faithful" part out of their marriage vows? Did he take the rest of his vows seriously? Their marriage seems to have been a sham almost from the start.

All I can think of is, for whatever reason, she and her future husband must have agreed beforehand to having an "open marriage" -- at least on his part -- so neither of them wanted to make "being faithful" a part of their formal wedding vows.

Many people marry for all types of reasons and maybe she didn't want to include having sex as her part of the bargain -- other than to have kids -- so they had a mutual agreement he could mess around whenever he wanted.

What a crappy way to start a marriage. To each their own, I guess.

Yeah, there usually is. But any "implications" of faithfulness go out the window when the guy says "I refuse to vow to be faithful to you." That is concrete as opposed to implied.

#24 | Posted by JOE at 2010-02-04 04:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

Those were his exact words?

Many people marry for all types of reasons and maybe she didn't want to include having sex as her part of the bargain -- other than to have kids -- so they had a mutual agreement he could mess around whenever he wanted.

#30 | Posted by CalifChris

I find this theory highly unlikely. It's way too complicated. Fact; he's a politician scumbag wing-nut. Case Closed

That is a legit reason to remove the vows - the wife shouldn't have to promise to "obey" her husband because wives are not slaves.

I was at a wedding once where they kept the "obey" line in and the bride couldn't say it without laughing.

I hate to sound like I am blaming the victim (which I am not) but it's a very bad sign if the would-be husband wants to not include faithful in the marriage vows. Probably not a good idea to go forward.
But then again, having faithful in the marriage vows is no garantee of anything anyways.
#28 | Posted by member2586 at 2010-02-04 05:18 PM

Really? You seem to enjoy blaming gays when they are tred upon, why is it that much more difficult to blame the infidel in this marriage? Does it have anything to do with the fact that he's a Republican? Or perhaps that he's a hypocrite Republican, or is that merely redundant too?

Did anyone read the whole article? This woman is off her rocker!

"Once I came to understand that it really was deep-seeded in him ... it didn't bother me so much," Jenny Sanford said. "That's who he is. And isn't that one of the delicious challenges that you find in marriage? That you have to get to understand what makes somebody else tick in some respects?"

isn't she referring to his tendency towards infidelity? Then she goes on to remark on said tendency and regards it as a 'delicious challenge'?

WTF?!?!

I don't understand why he dropped the word "faithful."

I've often been faithful to more than one woman at the same time.

isn't she referring to his tendency towards infidelity?

No. In that quote she's referring to him being a cheapskate.

She was simply duped by an asshole. Doesn't make her dumb.

#5 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2010-02-04 01:38 PM

Sure it does.

She is going to do a real hatchet job on Mark.
It will help sell more books.

"She is going to do a real hatchet job on Mark.
It will help sell more books."

No doubt but...DING!...uh oh, her 15-minutes are up.