The American Spectator

Aaron| 6.28.09 @ 10:37PM

Are yours and mine related?

Kevin| 6.28.09 @ 10:43PM

Dude. She's a southern girl, right? She knows damn well how to reload that thing.

Kevin| 6.28.09 @ 10:43PM

Dude. She's a southern girl, right? She knows damn well how to reload that thing.

Dennis D| 6.29.09 @ 12:18AM

Parker is correct. Sounds like love

Brownie | 6.29.09 @ 8:19AM

Sorry, Kathleen, I haven't read the emails and won't. Sanford should resign or be impeached. He's proven that he's unfit for public office AND marriage.

Grzmlyk| 6.29.09 @ 8:43AM

Parker reveals herself to be an eternal adolescent with the phrase "in love." While it's a welcome staple of the confection that is Hollywood myth, being "in love" does not exist any more than do leprechauns or unicorns.

When you are "in love" you are either in the grips of lust (and I have been there many, many times) or in the throes of infatuation (that is, a callow idealization of the object of one's desire as a blank-slate - and ultimately narcissistic - completion of the self).

How is it that being "in love" generally describes the very beginning of a relationship? It's the mysterious allure of the unknown, the unconquered, the unstale - the mostly mythic - that fuels this ersatz emotion.

Being "in love" is pretty much an activity that includes many glands and organs, none of which are the cerebral cortex.

And whatever else he may be, Sanford is most certainly an emotionally immature fool.

Love is a grown-up emotion that is terribly complex and requires a very grown-up sense of discipline, respect and maintenance.

Being "in love" is for 1940s black-and-white movies and pimply teenyboppers.

Enjoy that popcorn, Kathleen.

hoads| 6.29.09 @ 8:48AM

Grzmlyk--Very well said and so true.

Grzmlyk| 6.29.09 @ 9:26AM

Thanks, hoads - I learned this the hard way.

Hey, the 2,745th time's a charm. :-)

Mary| 6.29.09 @ 9:44AM

I don’t often agree w/Parker but I do here, more or less.

Mr. McCain you’re not in any position to moralize. You really aren’t. Until recently, you hawked T&A on your website frequently. You even hawked it on Easter Sunday. And I don’t think you were “lusting” because as a Christian you obviously know that Jesus said adultery begins in a man’s thoughts, in his eyes. If anything convinces me that Jesus is Divine is that he knew everything. No, you hawked T&A because of good, old-fashioned capitalism. You even hawked Prajean’s breasts that the wind, oh deceitful wind, revealed. IIRC, they were the breasts she was born with not the ones that were recommended and purchased for her. Yes, she was “biblically correct.” I think there’s a good chance she might be telling the truth about the wind blowing open her bolero and revealing what she hadn’t planned to reveal, but only a twit would think that wearing the bolero in the first place wouldn't wreak havoc on one's argument. I’m more disgusted by that kind of nickel/dime morality than I am by what constitutes the subject of literature. Mrs. Sanford, heroin extraordinaire. Mr. Sanford a man who his wife “didn’t think he had it in him.” A man who doesn’t exclaim in exculpation: “begone Foul Temptress.”

Mr. Sanford is likely to acquire more sympathy, the more his wife talks.

Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery because women may rock the cradle, but they don’t really rule the world. They can convulse it with their beauty or “hidden talents” but they can’t ever rule it. And Rahab is part of Jesus’ lineage.

It’s interesting to me that you speak mainly of the consequences should you stray. Laying in a pool of blood, reloading, etc. I don’t think I’ve read or heard any indignant man say, I wouldn’t cheat on my wife because I love her. Because I know every contour of her body, as if it were my own. Because I could never look her in the eye over our next meal. Because I know that whatever the temptation, I’d be trading eyes for a tail. No. Just hackneyed prose.

As an antidote, some theological poetry from the East and +John Chrysostom:

"How do husband and wife become one flesh? As if she were gold receiving the purest gold, the woman receives the man’s seed with rich pleasure, and within her it is nourished, cherished, and refined. It is mingled with her own substance and returned as a child. But suppose there is no child; do they then remain two and not one? No; their intercourse effects the joining of their bodies, and they are made one, just as when perfume is mixed with ointment."

"These are the two purposes for which marriage was instituted: to make us chaste, and to make us parents. Of these two, the reason of chastity takes precedence. . . . Marriage does not always lead to childbearing, although there is the word of the Lord which says ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.’ We have as witnesses all those who are married but childless. So the purpose of chastity takes precedence, especially now, when the whole world is filled with our kind."

Mary| 6.29.09 @ 10:09AM

So as to be sure no slur to Mrs. Sanford is inferred, it should read: Mrs. Sanford heroine extraordinaire.

Mrs. Peperium| 6.29.09 @ 10:12AM

Mr. McCain, thank you. The mistake most folks make with Ms. Parker is they think she's intelligent and cute because she was once part of WFB's inner cocktail circle. At most, Parker is a (very) pale imitation of Maureen Dowd. Though like MoDo, she grows longer in the tooth each day Obama is in office....

Tony| 6.29.09 @ 10:55AM

pool of blood... that's Dick Armey's line. It really wasn;t that funny 10 yrs ago, the least you could do is give proper attribution.

Bob Belvedere| 6.29.09 @ 8:15PM

I read this passage to Mrs. Belvedere, with whom I will be celebrating our tenth anniversary this fall, and she responded: 'That's exactly how I feel. Couldn't have said it better myself.'

However, she would carry it a step further, being half-Sicilian and half-Irish Catholic: 'I would kill your whole family, your friends, our pets, the mailman, our neighbors who like you, and whoever you voted for'.

Trumped you on this one RSM.

David M. Wagner| 7.1.09 @ 12:08AM

Whether Parker is a silly girly-a__ herself or not (and it sure sounds like she is), Sanford should resign because he's one too. But, far from doing so, he seems to get silly-girly-a__ier every day.

David M. Wagner| 7.1.09 @ 12:09AM

Whether Parker is a silly girly-a__ herself or not (and it sure sounds like she is), Sanford should resign because he's one too. But, far from doing so, he seems to get silly-girly-a__ier every day.

nedwilliams| 7.1.09 @ 3:31PM

Mary,
Very well said, but I think you're wrong. I also don't agree with Mr. McCain, however. Grzmlyk has it right in my opinion. I love my wife, and will commit to be faithful to her, whether or not I'm "in love" with her or because "I know every contour of her body as if it were my own"; love is not a feeling, though it is typically followed by feelings.