Ed Driscoll reviews the news of the day yesterday under in “Through the looking glass.” He quotes David Burge, who condenses much of it in fewer than 140 characters: “Bombing at Boston Marathon, mushroom cloud over Texas, Elvis ricin attack, presidential temper tantrum. #newsinbrief.” Our prayers for all those suffering in the ordeal of the Texas fertilizer plant to which Burge refers.
Missing from Burge’s summary is Jenny Sanford’s confirmation of the news that GOP congressional candidate Mark Sanford had trespassed at her home in early February, reported dutifully by the Washington Post, among others, and noted gleefully by New York’s Jason Zengerle, among others.
Readers may recall that I prayed we would be spared Sanford’s candidacy for the vacant seat in South Carolina’s First Congressional District. At least in my case, the wrath of a wronged wife exceeds the power of prayer. Couldn’t South Carolina Republicans have figured that out before anointing him their candidate?
The reports of Sanford’s trespass, so to speak, remind us of his old character with new evidence. As the Post puts it: “The news comes as controversy continues to swirl around Sanford and his personal life — a process that began with his well-publicized 2009 affair but was inflamed, the Washington Post has learned, when one of the Sanfords’ sons met Mark Sanford’s former mistress for the first time the night he won the GOP nomination.”
South Carolina Republicans fell for Sanford’s forgiveness shtick. It’s an old con, and Sanford had provided no evidence of his reformation prior to his re-entry into politics. He just gave it the ol’ Jimmy Swaggart. Couldn’t South Carolina Republicans have figured that out before anointing him their candidate?
One more piece of yesterday’s news that Burge failed to squeeze into his 140 characters: “It wasn’t the Aryan Brotherhood apparently: Texas woman confesses to role in DA’s murder.”
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.