How will Mika Brzezinski explain this away?
June 30, 2009 3:49 pm ET by Jamison Foser
Last week, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski downplayed Mark Sanford's Argentinean affair, saying that unlike Bill Clinton, who "risked, you know, things that were happening in the White House by his behavior," Sanford is just a guy who "had an affair with someone it sounds like he is in love with." You really have to watch the video to get the full effect of Brzezinski's excuse for Sanford's conduct.
Brzezinski's suggestion that, unlike Clinton, Sanford didn't "risk" anything was absurd, for reasons I explained in a column a few days ago.
But so was her sympathetic portrayal of Sanford as just someone who fell in love. Brzezinski has no idea if Sanford loved his mistress. None. (Neither do I. And I don't care one way or another.) That was clear a week ago, and it's even more clear today:
South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he "crossed lines" with a handful of women other than his mistress - but never had sex with them.
The governor says he "never crossed the ultimate line" with anyone but Maria Belen Chapur, the Argentine at the center of a scandal that has derailed Sanford's once-promising political career.
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
I've never seen such a concentrated effort by the MSM to defend an adulterer politician. It has been quite amazing watching the librul MSM defend, attack the critics, and come up with excuses for this scumbag.
I'm still extremely worried about the 2012 ticket:
This is a very dangerous duo. Dems would do well to keep an eye on these 2.
Was he supporting her in the style to which she had become accustomed?
Girl friend, lover, paramour - ok.
Mistress? Nope. Please, don't sound like the AP...
He was "in love" so apparently, that's better than what Clinton did because he only got a BJ and didn't care about Lewinsky.
It's the SAME THING PEOPLE. And they're both atrocious behavior from married men, and in the realm of personal/moral things, it's just bad.
Now, I think in both cases, for Clinton and Sanford, these affairs definitely affected their ability to govern. Clinton because he was being hounded by Congress, and everything else, and Sanford because he can't stop talking about this thing.
Anyway, the spin is amazing. They're spinning so hard, they're like tops out there, trying to justify this man's affair with another woman.
Look who sits next to her every day, for God's sake! What do we expect she's going to do? Point out how wreckless and arrogant it is for a politician to cheat on his wife, then lean over and ask Joe for his insights?
Joe's a close personal friend of Sanford, and he's engaged in identical behavior. It's inherently impossible for Morning Joe to cover the Sanford affair with any credibility whatsoever.