UPDATED: The WSJ's deafening silence over the Mark Sanford scandal continues
June 29, 2009 2:20 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
We noted last week the blatant hypocrisy of the WSJ's right-wing editorial page turning a blind eye to the Sanford controversy--a Republican governor who used taxpayer money to visit the woman he was having an affair with--in light of the fact that the same right-wing WSJ editorial page crusaded for Bill Clinton's impeachment.
The Journal's editors have published one dozen unsigned editorials since the Sanford affair broke. Not one word about the story or whether Sanford should be impeached.
But now comes word that a South Carolina Republican is pursuing criminal charges against Sanford:
ABC News’ John Hendren reports: Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief rival tells ABC News today he’ll pursue a criminal prosecution of Gov. Mark Sanford -- even if he has to go to Washington.
Republican state Sen. Jake Knotts last week asked South Carolina prosecutors to launch a criminal probe. Today, Knotts told ABC News, he plans to pursue an investigation in the state legislature, the state attorney general’s office – and possibly a federal probe.
What does the WSJ think about this intramural GOP warfare? Do editors agree that Sanford should be prosecuted, the way they urged Clinton had to be? Should Sanford be impeached the way they urged Clinton had to be?
To date, the Journal's cowardly editorial writers won't even address the issue.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
Now that your ridiculous strawman has been easily swept away, do you have an actual point about the article? Or, for that matter, about anything?
But when he arrived back in Atlanta, he told the reporter there that it was a spur of the moment decision. It wasn't.
His wife had told him for months, in no uncertain terms, that he couldn't go visit the mistress. She later insists that she and the governor separate, and he immediately went out (looks to me like the very same day) and bought the airline tickets.
He's a liar.
He planned on being gone for 10 days originally, yet was lying to everyone about where he was going. He turned off his two cell phones, and wasn't responding to other communication methods either. If that's not dereliction of duty, I don't know what is.