Andy Martin, one of America’s leading conservative authors/investigators, says he may be the only one who feels sympathy for South Carolina congressional candidate Mark Sanford. Andy says Jenny Sanford’s passive-aggressive behavior is no basis to reject Mark, the conservative candidate for congress. Andy also has some surprising advice for Jenny Sanford and South Carolina media.
NEWS FROM:
ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin, J. D.
adjunct professor of law
executive editor
America’s most respected
independent author/investigator
“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”
you can call Andy:
NH (603) 518-7310
NTL (866) 706-2639
you can email Andy:
andynewhampshire@aol.com
you can write Andy by
faxing (866) 214-3210
Blogs/web sites (partial):
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com
To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Conservative columnist and corruption-fighter Andy Martin writes about South Carolina congressional candidate Mark Sanford
Andy Martin has some strong advice for Jenny Sanford and South Carolina media
(CHICAGO) (April 14, 2013)
[Disclaimer: Andy has never met Mark or Jenny Sanford and has no personal knowledge of the Sanford marriage breakdown or subsequent events. Andy is responding to the latest media brouhaha over Mark Sanford having viewed the Super Bowl with his son, an act that prompted a criminal charge from Jenny Sanford.]
I went to the Illinois General Assemble in 1965. So I have spent almost a half century in the political process, in state capitols, in Washington, and just about everywhere else where information is traded and deals are made.
Politics is an insidious process that invests ordinary men and women with extraordinary powers. Some people can ignore the pressures, others are consumed by them. Not everyone can resist the temptations of public office. Some people have genuine marriages; others project a cameo for public consumption. We do not live in a perfect world.
When the Mark Sanford/Jenny Sanford marriage collapsed I took slightly more interest because Jenny is from Illinois and as everyone knows I have spent a lot of years in Illinois.
But I never truly understood what a witch Jenny Sanford could be until the “trespassing scandal” erupted this week.
Mrs. Sanford is an intelligent, accomplished woman who helped propel her husband close to the mountaintop of political success. Mark and Jenny most likely married in good faith. (I have never been married so I am no expert on marriage.)
But “modern” marriage is a strange institution. Conservatives say “marriage” is under attack by gays. (Where are the gay generals and where are the homosexual armies?) Traditional marriage, where two people of similar backgrounds married and lived their lives together in a homogenous environment is indeed an endangered species. Today people are mobile. “Love” is as close as a mouse click. People move. Attitudes change.
My parents divorced in prehistoric times when I was five. At the time it was a shattering experience. Yet in the decades since divorce has become more common, more understood and more accepted. Not every marriage can or will last unto eternity and for those who end up in unhappy marriages that is a good thing.
Which takes me back to the Sanfords.
Obviously, something went astray in their marriage. The pressures and fissures exploded four years ago when Mr. Sanford “disappeared.” Sanford acted like a confused, middle-aged love puppy. Men and women sometimes act that way.
Jenny Sanford got a divorce and took with her from the governor’s mansion the whole armor of aggrievement to which a wronged spouse may be entitled.
But the Sanford marriage legally ended three years ago; (it obviously “ended” some time before that). The parties have a right to go their separate ways and to live out their lives. Sensible parents are also the best resource for the children of divorce.
And, here, in April 2013, we find a “trespassing scandal” triggered by Jenny Sanford last January. The “trespassing” affair has engendered hand-winging, vitriol and the usual two-faced type of chicanery we have come to expect from the political class (see links below).
Please forgive me if I have no sympathy for Jenny and something of a sympathetic attitude towards Mark. In fact I find Jenny so irritating and her behavior so juvenile and seventh-gradeish, that if I lived in South Carolina I would vote for Mark to spite Jenny.
What is Mark’s “crime?” He watched the Super Bowl with his son? South Carolina taxpayers have to pay the judicial process to investigate this imaginary crime? Jenny Sanford should be ashamed of herself.
No divorce decree, however well argued and however artfully drawn by expert lawyers, can anticipate every little situation in a dissolved marriage. Little doo-hickeys come up all the time. Did Mark have to “lawyer-up” to watch a TV show with his son, when Jenny was away and the son was alone? Sometimes parties to a divorce use these doo-hickeys to abuse their former spouses. That appears to be the case with Jenny. Mrs. Sanford is an abusive former spouse.
There is no way the Sanford divorce papers could have anticipated days when Jenny would be away from home (with a boy friend?), and a son would be “home alone” and dad would come calling with some chips and dip (no salsa, please).
But what the “trespassing” scandal inadvertently does is open a window into Jenny Sanford’s passive-aggressive view of divorce.
The marriage imploded four years ago. But Jenny Sanford is still imploding, exploding and whatever. The divorce was final three years ago. I don’t remember when Governor Sanford announced he was now “engaged” and I am not going to waste the time to research the precise date. Divorced people remarry all the time. Governor Sanford’s “status” is no secret to me, South Carolinians and presumably Jenny Sanford.
Then why is it that the Sanford boys have been hermetically sealed off from their father’s new life? Bolton Sanford did not see his father’s fiancée until April 2nd, three years after the divorce? Bolton is a young man, not a small child. (Presumably he has some sort of “partner” of his own (how do we say “straight” or “gay” any more?) So Bolton faces the same challenges as any senior high schooler.
And yet “Mama Sanford” did not want her son, or sons, to be soiled with the reality of their father’s after-marriage life? Was Mark expected to remain celibate? Wear sackcloth and ashes? Why the attempts to “divorce” the sons from their father? If Jenny Sanford were my mom, I would cringe at her “trespassing” accusations against my father. Are the sons going to be asked to testify during the “investigation?” Jenny is making herself look bad and needlessly abusing her sons.
Because public life/private lives are inherently conflicting and confusing I am not sure Mark even knows what went wrong in his marriage. Falling “out” of love is just as mysterious as falling in love. But Mark wanted to be a “dad” on Super Bowl Sunday, and he ran into an ex spouse that decided to punish him for being a dad. Now that’s sad.
Jenny Sanford needs to lighten up, or her second marriage and/or current relationship will also sour.
And so herewith is my free “legal” advise for Jenny, Republicans, South Carolina media and Mark:
To Jenny:
[1] Immediately drop your idiotic trespassing complaint because the matter can only embarrass you and injure your children. Your passive-aggressive efforts to harass your former husband will backfire in the long term. [2] Stop trying to play the victim if you want to have a new life of your own; real men don’t like women like you. Mark has moved on; so should you. [3] Please issue a brief statement and apologize for the “trespassing” brouhaha and state that Mark should be judged on his merits, not on the basis of any disagreements the two of you may have.
To South Carolina Republicans:
If you like Mark Sanford, vote for him. Don’t let political and media hypocrites in Washington control your vote.
To South Carolina media, a short editorial:
“There’s no ‘there’ there” to the latest Sanford “scandal.” Your vote for or against Mark Sanford should be based on his own merits and not on the basis of ongoing conflicts with his ex-wife.
Finally, to Mark:
Buddy, before you do anything further which can be mischaracterized and cooked up into a scandal, please call me.
Love to all.
———————-
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329; E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
———————-
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/
2013/04/17/can-mark-sanford-survive/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/
wp/2013/04/17/national-gop-abandons-mark-sanford/?hpid=z5
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/
wp/2013/04/17/sanford-deservedly-kicked-to-the-curb/
————————–
WHAT OTHERS SAY:
“Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…”
“The only American journalists that are “standing UP” [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”
ABOUT ANDY:
Andy is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He has forty-five years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on New Hampshire, national and international events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world. For more, go to: http://www.AndyMartin.com
Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and he is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.EnglishforAmerica.org
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
UPDATES:
http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin
Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]
————————–
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2013 – All Rights Reserved
————————–
The death of Chicago film critic Roger Ebert has generated an avalanche of media coverage. Andy Martin knew Roger Ebert casually but Andy knew Ebert’s era of Chicago journalism up front and personal through Andy’s links to Chicago media. Andy provides a unique insight into the passing of Roger Ebert and the era of Chicago journalism that probably died with him.
NEWS FROM:
ContrarianCommentary.com
“The Internet Powerhouse”
Andy Martin, J. D.
adjunct professor of law
executive editor
America’s most respected
independent author/investigator
“Factually Correct, Not Politically Correct”
you can call Andy:
NH (603) 518-7310
NTL (866) 706-2639
you can email Andy:
andynewhampshire@aol.com
you can write Andy by
faxing (866) 214-3210
Blogs/web sites (partial):
ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com
http://www.FirstRespondersOnline.us
ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com
To become a regular subscriber to our emails please send an email to andynewhampshire@aol.com and place “SUBSCRIBE” in the subject line.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Andy Martin writes on the death of film critic Roger Ebert and an era of Chicago journalism that probably died with Ebert
(CHICAGO) (April 5, 2013)
I set eyes on the City of Chicago for the first time fifty years ago. A half a century ago? It doesn’t seem possible so much time has passed. But time has passed, and with the passage of time Chicago journalism has changed as well. An era may have also passed with Roger Ebert.
Chicago was love at first sight for me. I was captivated by what the poet Carl Sandberg called the “City of the Big Shoulders.”
I had grown up in New England, from New Hampshire to Connecticut, and went to Illinois with the possibility that I could play football at the University of Illinois (“U of I”). I visited Chicago during Thanksgiving vacation.
Chicago had a long history of a vibrant and sometimes outrageous media environment. The Chicago cauldron was later stirred by Paul Zimbrakos at the City News Bureau (“If your mother says she loves you, check it out.”)(please see link #1 below).
The mighty Chicago Tribune owned “Chicagoland,” with one irritating exception. A scrappy tabloid, The Chicago Sun-Times, started by Marshall Field III, and carried on by his son Marshall Field IV (please see link #2) remained a liberal, independent voice in Chicago. The Field family fortune (“Field Enterprises”) was used to cover the Sun-Times’ losses. (Field also owned the legendary Chicago Daily News.) The cut-throat competition between the Sun-Times and Tribune continues to this day, although both papers are mere shadows of their former 1960’s selves.
But I get ahead of my story. I am not going to write about Roger Ebert the film critic. You already have scads of stories about that. I am going to write about the passing of Roger Ebert the newspaperman.
If one man is responsible for Chicago still being a two-newspaper town in 2013, that man is Roger Ebert.
Roger Ebert was editor of the Daily Illini (“DI”) my freshman year at the U of I. I never had any interest in being a student journalist although I later wrote a series of columns for the DI. But when I first met Roger and saw him in the old basement newsroom of the DI I was fascinated by his regal demeanor. He generated a “presence.” Roger was a “townie;” despite my New England origins I was a sort-of-townie because my mother was on the college faculty. I lived in the football dorm.
Ebert was an extraordinary editor and a very impressive student and I paid attention to his comings and goings where we occasionally intersected. Roger and I were never friends but I ran into him from time to time at licensed premises.
Eventually I became close with writers at the Chicago Daily News, and became a small part of a team that exposed corruption on the Illinois Supreme Court. One of my acquaintances from the U of I ended up at the Sun-Times. He became my eyes within Field Enterprises (I also did business with Field Enterprises as a broadcaster.)
From the late 1960’s to the mid-1980’s I was a regular visitor to the Sun-Times and Daily news newsrooms (The Daily News folded in 1977). Ebert had become a commanding presence at the Sun-Times. But Roger was much more than merely a film critic. He was the bedrock on which the Sun-Times continued to survive. The newspapers’ losses did not sit well with Field Enterprises executives even as Marshall Field V took control. Field V had a half brother in Alaska, Ted. Ted Field had little emotional connection to his sibling or to Chicago itself. Eventually Field Enterprises was sold off, wound up and divided among the heirs.
But Ebert endured at the Sun-Times. He was the “franchise” employee whose growing fame gave the newspaper a claim to survival.
The demimonde of newspaper writers hung out at Ricardo’s across from the old Sun-Times building (now the Trump Tower). The Billy Goat Tavern was also a popular watering hole, made famous by Daily-News-then-Sun-Times columnist Mike Royko. And for dead-enders there was O’Rourke’s on North Avenue, another bar with a media following.
Because I moved in with a woman I never acquired the habit of hanging out at Ricardo’s, the Billy Goat, or O’Rourke’s, although I lived a few blocks away. I was only an occasional visitor. I had friends that were there “regularly” and they kept me up to date on Ebert and others until Roger later left the scene.
Strangely, I can remember Mike Royko’s cubicle in the corner of the Sun-Times newsroom (after 1977). But while I remember seeing Ebert’s space I don’t remember where it was. Irv Kupcinet, also a Chicago mainstay, had an office and secretary a floor about the newsroom. I saw Ebert moving around. (After the Daily News folded the editors had merged the two newsrooms.)
Ebert and I continued to occasionally bump into each other and I found him a fascinating personality – writer, drinker, critic – until he married and adopted a more sedate lifestyle.
As I said, after Ted Field came of age Ted demanded the dismantlement of Field Enterprises. The Sun-Times lost its wealthy parent. Over the years the Sun-Times was purchased by other media organizations and today remains a stand-alone paper (that is now printed by the Chicago Tribune). Both the Tribune and Sun-Times have gone through bankruptcy.
The Chicago media world that existed from the mid-1960’s to the early 1990’s is no more. Death and retirement have claimed just about everyone. And Thursday, death claimed Roger Ebert.
I always found Roger an extraordinary character. For anyone to spend 46 years with any organization is unbelievable in the modern world. Although I knew Ebert had an excellent financial arrangement with the Sun-Times the Tribune would have lured him away in a Chicago Minute, as it eventually did Mike Royko. But Ebert stayed with the Sun-Times, and the Sun-Times survived in large part through Roger’s star power and loyalty.
The University of Illinois is spread across two small towns, Champaign and Urbana. Urbana is the smaller and homier of the two. My first house off campus was in downtown Urbana, where Ebert had grown up. He loved the Princess theater, and I went there with my girl friend at the time. I got to know Urbana well during my undergraduate studies and law school, from the Kroger supermarket to the News-Gazette bureau.
To understand Ebert all you have to do is know Urbana. Roger was a small-town guy with his name in lights in Hollywood but his values still anchored in Urbana. Ebert may have gone to Hollywood but he does not appear to have “gone Hollywood.”
Roger Ebert was a world-class celebrity, but he was still rooted in Urbana, at the DI and in the values of loyalty and consistency that kept him at the Sun-Times for 46 years. In my opinion, he kept the paper alive.
An era in Chicago journalism died with Roger Ebert.
RIP, Roger.
[In preparing these remarks I went back and checked my files. I had written Roger on April 25, 2007 offering any assistance he needed.]
———————-
MEDIA CONTACT: (866) 706-2639; CELL (917) 664-9329; E-MAIL: AndyMart20@aol.com
———————-
LINKS TO THIS STORY (cut and paste the entire link below and not just the underlined portion):
Link #1
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=1088
Link #2
http://www.nndb.com/people/981/000163492/
————————–
WHAT OTHERS SAY:
“Andy Martin is revolutionizing journalism… [Andy] brings to online journalism what Rush Limbaugh [brings] to radio or Michael Moore to film: sleek little stories that fit into larger political narratives…”
“The only American journalists that are “standing UP” [to Obama] are, Andy Martin…”
ABOUT ANDY:
Andy is a legendary New Hampshire, New York and Chicago-based muckraker, author, Internet columnist, talk television pioneer, radio talk show host, broadcaster and media critic. Andy’s family immigrated to Manchester 100 years ago; today his home overlooks the Merrimack River and he lives around the corner from where he played as a small boy. He has forty-five years of background in radio and television. He is the author of “Obama: The Man Behind The Mask” [www.OrangeStatePress.com] and he produced the Internet film “Obama: The Hawaii’ Years” [www.BoycottHawaii.com]. Andy is the Executive Editor and publisher of the “Internet Powerhouse,” www.ContrarianCommentary.com. He comments on New Hampshire, national and international events with more than four decades of investigative and analytical experience both in the USA and around the world. For more, go to: http://www.AndyMartin.com
Andy has also been a leading corruption fighter in American politics and courts for over forty-five years and he is executive director of the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute. He is currently sponsoring www.AmericaisReadyforReform.com. See also www.FirstRespondersOnline.us; www.EnglishforAmerica.org
He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law and is a former adjunct professor of law at the City University of New York (LaGuardia CC, Bronx CC).
UPDATES:
http://www.twitter.com/AndyMartinUSA
http://www.Facebook.com/AndyMartin
Andy’s columns are also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com ContrarianCommentary.wordpress.com
ContrarianCommentary.typepad.com
[NOTE: We try to correct any typographical errors in our stories; find the latest version on our blogs.]
————————–
© Copyright by Andy Martin 2013 – All Rights Reserved
————————–
