Skip to main content

View Diary: Sanford: I trespassed at my ex-wife's house because my 14-year-old son was watching football alone (254 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The kid can't drive, though (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    milton333

    I agree this doesn't dispute that Sanford violated the terms of the court order, which alone is serious, but the reason actually makes some sense on a human level.  Sanford's political problem is that for a comeback, he has to be above reproach.  It'd be like Anthony Weiner taking his shirt off on a hot day.  His legal problem is that sometimes that court orders don't depend on Mark Sanford's feelings to matter.

    I don't believe for one second that Jenny Sanford is completely innocent of trying to undo her ex's political comeback, though.  Mostly innocent, sure.

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 12:46:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Huh? You or I would be in the SLAMMER (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gustynpip, ColoTim, LSophia

      if we did what Sanford did.

      'Human level'? Are you kidding? All that was negotiated in family court, and if it's unreasonable then family court is where Sanford should go for revision.

      Your sympathy is misplaced, in my opinion.

      Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

      by Clem Yeobright on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 12:55:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sanford gets what's coming to him, (0+ / 0-)

        but the tone is all wrong.  What if there were no court order, would he still be full of shit when he said he wanted to watch the game with his son?  His problem is his conduct, not his feelings, and I don't think the idea of wanting to use sports to bond with an adolescent is so prima facie ridiculous as this conversation suggests.  Sanford's problem is his reasons don't excuse his behavior, not that they may or may not be illegitimate.  I'm sorry if you didn't find that sufficiently clear.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:00:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What if there were no fucking Super Bowl? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy, tikkun, gustynpip

          If you want to introduce counter-factuals, don't stop with court orders ....

          Too late for the simple life, too early for android love slaves - Savio

          by Clem Yeobright on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:03:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Wen I thought (0+ / 0-)

            it was him randomly walking around the house for no reason at all, I was more willing to crack jokes than I feel are appropriate now.  There's nothing wrong with counterfactuals, except when they don't illustrate a the difference one's  trying to articulate.  He's (a) a republican and (b) lacking in judgment, so he shouldn't be in Congress.  That's enough.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:16:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  What does the kid not driving have to do with (7+ / 0-)

      the price of ice in the North Pole?  I've yet to see any rule that parents can see their children only if their children drive themselves to the parent's home.  I'm quite certain most parents pick their children up - without going into their exes home even when there's no court order prohibiting them from doing so - and drive them to their own homes to visit with them.  And then drive them home again.  Even the rare case of supervised visits don't occur at the exes home.

      "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

      by gustynpip on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 12:56:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair enough, (0+ / 0-)

        I'm not convinced an off-site, unscheduled or unsupervised visit would be any better.  What I wrote couldn't possibly be construed as a legal or political defense of Mark Sanford, but without any reason to doubt his explanation, it's bad judgment but not particularly funny.  The very fact that its so pathetic makes it ring a little true.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:05:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You have got to have the most bizarre way of (6+ / 0-)

          looking at things that has ever been.  Who the hell cares if "an off-site, unscheduled or unsupervised visit would be any better"????  Who the hell is looking for something "better"?

          Your basic premise is so flawed, it's ridiculous.  You seem to think that parents just drop in at their exes homes to visit with their children whenever.  No.  It NEVER works that way.  Ever.  For a reason.  The other parent has the right to have their privacy in their own home.  

          Parents routinely pick their children up from the other parent's home and bring them to their own homes to spend time.  Whether it's for a day, a week-end, a summer, or a football game.  That's the way it's done.  There is no justification - NONE - for going into someone else's home, even if there wasn't a COURT ORDER SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITING IT.

          Really.  Try thinking about it from the perspective of the homeowner.  Try imagine coming home to your house, apartment, whatever, and there sits your previous girl or boyfriend, watching tv.  Would it just slightly give you the creeps?

          "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

          by gustynpip on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:17:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  your basic premise (0+ / 0-)

            seems to suggest I'm defending his conduct, which I'm not. I don't think there's any reason, however, to think he's lying, or that the son doesn't want to spend time with him by virtue of the fact he was watching the game by himself, or that Sanford's explanation is itself worthy of mockery, as opposed to being worthy of scorn for the basic reason that it doesn't actually amount to a legal defense.  It's enough that he showed bad judgment by violating a court order.  I thought Sanford was pathetic before, and he just seems more pathetic now.  I'm glad he's going to lose.

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 01:38:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The idiot Should Have Thought Of His Kids (0+ / 0-)

          before he got involved with another woman.

          Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

          by tikkun on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:51:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So he could drive over (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, tikkun, gustynpip

      to his son's car, honk the horn, and the kid could come over to HIS house and watch the game.  My father did that countless times when I was a teenager.

      There's absolutely no reason why he should be in his ex's house without permission.

    •  According to reports, he has repeatedly (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LSophia, tikkun, Kimbeaux

      trespassed and entered her home(s) without invitation.

      When someone is impatient and says, "I haven't got all day," I always wonder, How can that be? How can you not have all day? George Carlin

      by msmacgyver on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 03:28:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You Don't Trespass In Someone Else's House (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright, LSophia, gustynpip

      unless the damn house is on fire or someone else is trespassing where they have no business.  Having a child with someone does NOT give you the right to assume you have an eternal right to trespass.  This man started this whole mess with completely irresponsible, immature, and immoral behavior.  He has no grounds to expect anything from Jenny but whatever the court demands

      Newt 2012. Sociopath, adulterer, hypocrite, Republican.

      by tikkun on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:48:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site