« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Revealed: The Sanford/Ensign Connection
We couldn't help noticing during Mark Sanford's reality-show-style press conference that there's a tie-in between this week's GOP 2012 presidential contender sex scandal and last week's involving Sen. John Ensign.
Sanford said that in dealing with his affair, he'd been working with a group called "C Street," which he described as a "Christian bible study." He said he'd been part of the group when he lived in Washington as a congressman earlier this decade.
And last week, we wrote about Ensign's own ties to C Street.
In his letter to Fox, Doug Hampton wrote about a confrontation over the affair that took place last year between Ensign, Coburn, and several other of Ensign's"peers." In a book about a secretive Christian group called the Family, published last year, the journalist Jeff Sharlet wrote that Ensign and Sen. Tom Coburn each at times lived in a group home for members of Congress, described as a "four-story red-brick Washington townhouse, a former convent at 133 C St SE, run by a Family affiliate called the C Street Foundation." Both Ensign and Coburn, as well as several other lawmakers, have been involved with the Family. And in his letter, Hampton seemed to be implying that the issue had been discussed in the context of the organization.
It seems very likely that the C Street group Sanford referred to is affiliated with the C Street Foundation and the red-brick townhouse that Ensign, Coburn and others have lived at, and where the confrontation that Hampton referred to appears to have taken place.
Is it possible that Coburn and other lawmakers affiliated with C Street and the Family knew in advance about both affairs?
In any case, maybe C Street should start giving out refunds, because whatever they do over there sure isn't working too well.
Josh
Zachary
You're welcome.
June 24, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I'm taking a little different turn on this. I don't see him coming forward as something that needs to be commended or acknowledged in a positive way. He didn't resign anything until he was caught, so for months he saw it perfectly fine to continue with C-Street and RGA. Only after he was forced to come forward did he resign and admit his faults. That's not courage or honesty. It's narcissism.
C-Street is a front. Look through it all day and it's more of a gentleman's club than a Bible study.
June 24, 2009 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we thought right wing Christians were buttoned down, moralistic, holier than thou stick in the mud's. I guess it's the same as thinking high school band kids were total geeks, yet turned out they were getting more booty then anyone else.
June 24, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's what's purported to be a foto of the the Ensigns and the Hamptons at the 20th HS Reunion of the two women. Inside Edition yesterday, had the foto of the two couples in palmier days.
Just fyeieio, since in the foto album there's a blank page where the foto of the correspondent would be.
June 24, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't give him any credit for coming clean - if he hadn't been caught at the airport he'd still be lying. These Reps always take credit for manning-up - after they're caught red-handed.
June 24, 2009 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Former" convent indeed.
June 24, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"refunds"
lmao
June 24, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, C St. sounds like those therapy groups for sex offenders where they tell all, in the interest of "coming clean" and therapy, but are really getting off on the stories of others. Is that how C St. is - between the bible verses and self righteousness, it's the details of "I done wrong" that keeps the members coming back? Maybe I misjudge here, but those "good Christian values" guys are really racking up the points in the illicit sex game.
June 24, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm wondering where your knowledge of sex offender group therapy sessions comes from. I've been a counselor in such groups and they were very difficult for the perpetrators to deal with, and certainly not circle jerks by any means, I can assure you.
June 24, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I don't have any first hand knowledge and perhaps my second hand knowledge is way off-base. Anybody else?
June 24, 2009 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will add that I agree with your overall point about the feigned piety of these hypocrites.
June 24, 2009 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And that in these "Christian" groups, they are not there by court order, as sex offenders most likely would be, nor are they confronted hard and fast by mental health professionals. Who knows what the hell really goes on in their groups? I remember Al Franken pointing out in one of his books (Lying liars?) that George W didn't know shit about Bible verse after supposedly hanging out with this other guy reading the bible all of the time.
June 24, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before I exhaust my supply of hankies, it may be worth noting Sanford's lack of curiosity about his position as Governor, and the fact that the sparking, as in courtin' n' sparkin', took place once he was in office. He went on at some length about the bubble, and how confining it is. At some future point, it may dawn on him that from the outside looking in, the bubble is an aura, and one that never fails to draw in beautiful women. Any married person knows what real temptation is. And if most rise above it, most, it would seem, also manage to avoid tying themselves to reactionary politics and policies that are so profoundly unforgiving of the faults and alleged weaknesses of others. Spare your sympathy. He's a small man, doing small things.
June 24, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur. He's been as self-righteous as can be, and then he had the nerve to say something about never having claimed that he was 100% perfect in his caught-red-handed apology.
If these guys ever showed a little real humility about themselves, or earnest sympathy for others, maybe they would be deserving of a bit more charity at times like these from the public. But they don't, so they are unworthy of anything but being called out as the hypocrites they are. He can go cry to his wife or mistress in private for all I care, but in public life he deserves ridicule for his arrogance.
June 24, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why it took 7 days to break off the affair? Seems like a very slow paced breakup. I guess he should get points for the great sensitivity he showed in letting his mistress down gently, while his wife had not idea where he was.
June 24, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah have sinned Oh Lord.....(sob sob)
Gee, it seems like a thousand years ago that Nancy Pelosi said the CIA lied.
June 24, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the ultra-right crazies like the Senators from Oklahoma are also evangelical "Christians" and Dominionists?
Katherine Harris is, as is Sarah Palin. Those right-wing "Christians" were the political asset that Sarah Palin brought to the table to become McCain's Veep nominee. Sanford had Presidential aspirations, as of course the grandfather of the evangelical crazies, Pat Robertson.
It's time to read David Neiwert's new book on the right wing extremists in America. And perhaps Karen Armstrong's book "The Battle for God."
[Note: the "Christian" right is not Christian. It's a heretical off-shoot, just as the radical Islamists who are conducting the foreign terrorist actions are not Muslims, but rather a heresy of Islam.]
June 24, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still don't understand why couldn't she met him half way...say in Panama or in Nicaragua...?
That would have made the affair easier to conceal and he could have flown back in half the time, to face all the inquiries about his whereabouts...
I guess he couldn't resist those long romantic drives along the NON-EXISTENT scenic coastline route near Buenos Aires...
June 24, 2009 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 24, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we have enough evidence to put a warning label on the Bible: "Bible study is linked with chronic marital infidelity".
June 24, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the Morning Office every day and thus I read the bible every day
My problem is Eric Kleefeld has spurned all offers of marriage so I can't be cuckold him
June 24, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are a threat to traditional marriage.
June 24, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
These little clubs with their Group-think seem to lose track of reality when evaluating their self-importance. In general, I believe "joiners" have no original thoughts, nor the mental ability to generate any. Along these lines, Scientology comes to mind. A religion of gibberish spewed by a science-fiction writer?!? LOL-WTF?
June 24, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
David Neiwert says is that it is not religion that is causing the right-wing extremism, either in Christianity or Islam, or Hinduism. It is anti-modernism.
Fundamentalism is the effort of a group of preachers who were anti-modern and who thought in Manichean terms. That is, they divide everything into two sides, choose one that they consider perfect and Holy, and relegate everyone else who disagrees to the other side. Since the fundamentalists are on the side of all that is good and perfect, then the other side has to be evil and unredeemable.
Those fundamentalists are the people who took to defining the Bible as perfect and as the literal word of God in all things. They have a whole set of doctrines to explain why the Bible is perfect and covers everything, so that they can then interpret those words to "prove" they are correct (and thus perfect.) Of course, the doctrines all are based in the "Faith" that they are perfect, without any proof. Questioning the basis of those doctrines is discouraged. Mostly they are presented (repeatedly) as sermons from the pulpits, leaving no opportunity for questions.
Unfortunately for them, this is a heresy of both Christianity and of Islam. Since it is a heresy, their goal has become "Dominion", that is, a religious take-over of the government and the law. Law would then be based on the Bible, which they already know it perfect.
It's a great system for leaders who want to exploit a bunch of followers. But they are not Christians, no matter what they call their churches. It should be no wonder that they have developed a whole set to social and propaganda techniques to marginalize the majority of real Christians and hijack the name "Christian."
June 24, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly.With due respect for compassion .... Religion is for these guys 90% a combo of political ammo, handy networking tool, and of course political cover. (Hence today's high-drama confession.)
As far as I can see Sanford, like most post-Reagan Repugs, is just a hypocritical, exploitive, narcissistic gasbag.
He's human, I guess, but that's about as far as I'd go.
June 24, 2009 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
C Street. We put Viagra in the water.
An ad for C Street.
June 24, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes you think it's not working as designed, as opposed to advertised?
June 24, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans can now forget about ever attacking Democrats over "family values." Ensign and Sanford shouldn't resign because they had affairs -- they should resign because they're giant hypocrites. Simply having an affair shouldn't disqualify one from elected office. Let's return to a time when people could have discreet affairs without being condemned for it.
June 24, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
And wasn't Ensign residng in the same "group home" with Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma and does Coburn ever go for long hikes, I wonder? If Coburn is another "Promise Keeper" then it's a sure bet, based on past wingnut projection and hypocrisy trends.
June 24, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans can now forget about ever attacking Democrats over 'family values.'"
Wrong! While Hannity and Malkin did decry Sanford's infidelity yesterday, they contrasted such "rare" Republican incidents to Democrats, which they repeatedly called the "party of corruption."
June 25, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the C-Street connection related to the religious group, "The Family"? Because that group was formally known as "The Children of God". Among the accusations of the group, besides being pejoratively called a "cult", was the notion of "fishy flirting" which involved female members "hooking up" converts via sexual interaction. Was that the nature of this C-Street group? Just asking...
June 24, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entire C Street story seems fishy. Why does a bible study group for congressmen need a four-story townhouse? Why couldn't they meet in one of their offices/conference rooms? Why does a bible study group need bedrooms? Nice cover for sanctimonious repugs who want a discreet place to carry out their assignations, and nice cover for lobbyists to provide something congressmen want at no obvious cost to anyone.
June 24, 2009 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
C Street seems like a frat house for middle aged lotharios. Now, every member will be suspect. As well they should be.
The most interesting aspect of this is will Elliot Spitzer made his back-from-the dead appearance?
June 25, 2009 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too easy, but I can't resist:
Which member of John Ensign and the C Street Band gets the next solo?
June 25, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give these guys Ensign, Sanford and the other C Streeters a break - I don't think they are hypocrites. I think it more likely their Christianity was a pose they used to insulate themselves from criticism and increase their appeal to religious conservatives. It was a cynical ploy for certain, but it worked for them.
July 19, 2009 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink