There were of course many possible explanations for Republican South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s affair with an Argentinian beauty. There is of course love, lust, or simply a mid-life crisis. However, it took Rush Limbaugh to isolate the true reason: President Obama. Limbaugh was heard yesterday explaining that Obama’s economic policies pushed poor Sanford into the arms of this mistress.
LIMBAUGH: This Sanford business! I’ll tell you, one of the first thoughts that crossed my mind, with Mark Sanford … this is the first thought: What he did defies logic. This is … more than being 180 degrees out of phase because of lust, or love. To split the scene for five days, and we know he’s been separated, and he knows, by the way, that the newspaper in his state has the emails between him and his concubine down there in Argentina, he knows this. He knows that somebody knows what’s going on. He knows his wife knows. So he ups and leaves for five days, doesn’t leave anybody in charge of the state, in case there’s an emergency.
Here comes the swing . . .
LIMBAUGH: This is almost like: I don’t give a damn! Country’s going to hell in a handbasket. I just want out of here!
LIMBAUGH: He had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn’t want any part of it. He lost the battle and said “What the hell? The Federal government is taking over! I want to enjoy life!”
Apparently, Republican marriages are undone by macro economic policy and the stimulus money. Indeed, his email about the “tan lines” of his mistress is simply code for runaway deficit funding:
“You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light – but hey, that would be going into sexual details … “
For Sanford’s email messages, click here.
The problem of over-stimulation under the Obama Administration remains a danger to all Republican governors. Fortunately, Dr. Russ Limbaugh is here to keep their marriages and budgets in line with monogamous free market values
For those interested in picking up an over-stimulated Republican Governor, the usual pick-up lines for economists are usually successful. Here are a few of the most successful at GOP parties and strip joints:
1. Do you work for the Fed, cause your raising my reserves.
2. My fiscal policy is all about contributing to your private sector.
3. You have a boyfriend? That’s ok. The wife and I are into credit-swapping.
4. Are you a Keynesian? Because you sure make my monetary policy inflate.
5. Pareto dominate me, baby!
For a tape and discussion of Limbaugh’s foray into marital conflict and macro-economic theory, click here.
CEJ, Thanks. I have passed this information on to some sits, and just posted a comment in Michigan, but there have been no responses yet.
Vince,
Kudos!!! This is good news someone (wink,wink)has done a marvelous civic service! Someone (wink,wink) is a real inspiration!
I hope this news reaches a wider audience maybe someone (nudge,nudge) would consider contacting TPM, TRMS, Olberman, Colbert or TDS.
I would especially like to see Rachel get the update as she has covered The Family and might welcome more ammo on the good Bart Stupak *Democrat* from Michigan. Stupak a 7 year resident of the C street house, has previously denied any knowledge of the controversy.
From the Michigan Messenger: “When asked if there were any ethical concerns created by living in a house inaccurately listed as a church in order to evade property taxes; Stupak replied: “I don’t know own the building, I don’t know how the landlord has it listed, I pay for a room, I sleep there…”
http://michiganmessenger.com/23484/stupak-denies-knowledge-of-connections-to-mysterious-c-street-house
Vince, people are going to be very interested in this news!
On November 10, 2009 J. Welsh of the Talk 2 Action web site posted a story titled “Bart Stupak, Family ‘Minister’, Wrapped in C Street Like a Bug in a Rug” and reported the old tax status.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2009/11/10/192635/30
P.S. I wonder if they are being investigated for what some could claim was an illegal gift, benefit or campaign contribution?
Do you remember how Rahm Emmanuel was taken to task by the right because he had “benefited” from living in a “basement” apartment in his friend Rep. Rosa Delauro’s house?
Vince–
“No more living in a tax-exempt church for the top dogs.”
And the top dogmatists.
BTW, would that be a “fan” of top dogs?
I hope all this won’t be too taxing on the close-knit Family.
Vince:
I feel better now, thank you.
It is nice to see the Imperial Colonial Congressional Overlords facing the need to cough up extra rent money to cover the property taxes on their digs.
No more living in a tax-exempt church for the top dogs.
Sorry, everyone, I have to retract the above posting at 10:28 am on the grounds of mathematical challenged syndrome.
A house in DC assessed for $1,884,140 paid $17,788 in taxes for 2009, in two semi-annual payments of about $8900 each.
So the annual property tax for 133 C St SE taxable residential property should be in the vicinity of $17,000 to $18,000 per year from now on.
Byron, I thought about that. The property tax for a residence assessed for 1,800,000 should be somewhere in the $7,000 range. The payment of $1714 seems very small, but it may be a pro-rated amount for the portion of the tax year for which the house was classified as residential. They should have to pay the full tax next year for 2010.
The person who turned them in cannot change D.C. tax laws. See Art. I, Sec. 8 above. Congress is supreme. The D.C. Council only exercises delegate powers. All their enactments go to Congress, which can disapprove them. Abosolutely.
Vince:
how is it my property is worth less than 1/2 their assesment but I pay about 5-6 times the amount of taxes?
I think the person who turned them in needs to change the tax law in DC. No wonder they don’t have any money. Although the county I live in is 300 million in debt so that pretty much disproves high taxation as a way of generating revenue works.
Thank you Vince.
BRAVO VT! Pure genius hitting these free loading, hypocritical, meeps right where it hurts them most! Fine work!
Thanks, BIL.
Last July, I asked a rhetorical question about the tax evaders:
“Why are these Representatives and Senators allowed to do this? The answer of course is in the Constitution itself, Article 1, section 8: ‘The Congress shall have power … To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States.’
“The courts have said that this clause is a unique and sovereign power, extraordinary and plenary, majestic in its scope, national in its highest sense, and part of the Article which granted all the other great powers which make the nation. The Clause does appear to grant Congress absolute power over the District. As Lord Acton wrote in 1887, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Nudge nudge wink wink indeed.
Great news, Vince. Good to see that C Street crowd eat it for a change. Now if we could just make the government start enforcing corporate tax laws we might be able to pay for Bush’s Illegal War and Obama’s Wall St./Insurance Company Giveaway.
Here is some great news. I reported above, June 26, 2009 at 10:09 am, that the religious retreat on Capitol Hill was nothing but a tax dodge: “The property is Tax Type E1, Religious. It is tax exempt. No tax payments are shown. The Members live in a tax-free property. Most of those who live in the District have to pay property taxes, or pay rent to landlords who pay property taxes. These Senators and Representatives say some prayers in the dining room, claim their flophouse as a church, convent or monastery, and pay sub-market rent for their rooms. They are sponging off the taxpayers of the District, and will not even vote to give them representation in Congress.
”This does not even sink to the level of hypocrisy. It is pure, simple, unadulterated, unmitigated gall.”
So the right-wing residential “church” on Capitol Hill at 133 E St SE, where Mark Sanford and John Ensign mulled over their respective adulteries, used to be exempt from property tax as a religious property.
Well, at least one complaint just happened to be filed a few months ago, by some anonymous citizen who will remain nameless “”wink, wink,” with the taxpayer hotline at the DC tax office.
The property has now been reclassified as residential, with a taxable assessment of $1,834,500.
They paid their property tax on October 21, 2009, in the amount of $1,714.70.
https://www.taxpayerservicecenter.com/RP_Search.jsp?search_type=Assessment
(Just plug in the address 133 C St SE, then click on “square/lot” in upper left, then click on “view payments” in lower right. It is all there).
Owner Name: YOUTH WITH A MISSION WASHINGTON DC INC C ST CENTER
Tax Class: 001 – Residential.
Get your breaking news here, first, on the Turley blog, “VOTED THE #1 LEGAL THEORY AND LAW PROFESSOR BLOG OF THE TOP 100 LEGAL BLOGS BY THE ABA JOURNAL”!
“How Sweet It Is!” – Jackie Gleason.
You enroll in the second program for two years, and during that period you continue to teach full time. ,
Sanford should be made to do this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/27/AR2009082704163.html
I find it amusing that many who claim to be intelligent, free thinkers criticize Rush Limbuagh (he’s an idiot, he’s a racist, he’s fat, etc. etc.) based on the writings of this blog post. I actually happened to be listening to Rush during his monologue about Gov Sanford. Basically, the very simple and irrelevant point he was making was that it made no sense why the governor did what he did. It simply didn’t add up for him to do something as stupid as he did.
Criticize the Right and Rush if you must (they certainly often deserve it), but please, please do so with the knowledge of what you’re actually criticizing. Otherwise, it makes you look stupid.
mis101:
I agree with that,case in point.
Just as Olberman has not shown O’Rielly on his show,he should do the same for Limbaugh.
And their is to much intelligent discussion here,to be side tracked by the “wizard of oz”.
It’s sad that we bloggers give Rush Limbaugh so much free advertisement on our blogs. With all due respect, the guy is not very bright and doesn’t deserve one tenth of the exposure he gets on the net, that’s not of his own making. Turley’s blog is a giant among the blogsphere; he shouldn’t trash his blog with an entire blog post on Limbaugh’s idiocy.
I’m glad others had my reaction to his comparison of himself with King David. David’s actions in that biblical tale were beyond despicable. He was King. He saw Bathsheba naked from his roof one day and decided he had to have her. Her feelings for him were of no consequence to the extent that they are not mentioned in the narrative and he did have his way with her and then insured the death of her husband. Sanford compares himself to David, with no sense of the irony that this comparison engenders? Pathetic.
However, let me give you my surmise as to what the true story is. Sanford’s wife is the heiress to the Skil Tool Company. She is also intelligent, well-educated. Sanford was born of wealthy parents, but Jennie’s were far wealthier. They married, made money and both decided that he would launch a political career. She had served as his campaign manager and chief booster. They both dreamed of the Presidency, with her coveting the immortality of being the “First Lady.” The rumors that at one point he wanted to quit politics and she made him continue are true. She became the keeper of their political dream. She discovered this letter to his girlfriend five months ago and went ballistic. She gave him ultimatum after ultimatum, but he was so lovesick and sick of politics that from love of this Maria came obsession and the need to see her. Jennie refused, warned him not to and punished him with a separation.
He decided to hell with Jennie, to hell with politics, he was going to Buenos Aires to see his love and ask her be with him after he divorced his wife. She told him that he was crazy to believe she wanted any more of him than to see him for a tryst every year or so and that she had other, younger lovers that she fancied. He cried and cried, the sex was great, but in the end she rejected him. He returned to the States distraught, but resolved to continue his marriage and his political career. Then he was met by a reporter at the Atlanta Airport and the jig was up.
I’ve no proof so I can’t guarantee this is what really happened, which we’ll probably never know, by my instincts tell me it is as close to the truth as we are going to get.
I find no sympathy for anyone in this, particularly Mark Sanford, because he was a self righteous hypocrite well befor this affair.