Mark Sanford Didn’t Cheat on You

Clucking hens and crowing roosters, go back to your coops.  Unless you’re Jenny Sanford, it’s time to forgo the unseemly impulse to tar and feather South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford for his marital infidelity.

Governor Sanford engaged in what might be the most vanilla extramarital affair in recent political history.  His sexual liaison did not result in a federal probe, the payment of hush money, or any of the truly illicit scandals that have surfaced among politicians lately. Barring the disclosure that his girlfriend is actually an Argentine farm animal or underage hooker, the public has no business using Sanford’s affair to oust him from office.

If there’s any truth to the gossip about Governor Sanford’s official conduct, the people of South Carolina will hold him accountable.  To that end, the rumors oozing from the Columbia political grapevine should be addressed as soon as possible.  But if we determine that Sanford maintained appropriate contact with his staff during his trip to Argentina and did not misappropriate state resources to fund his trips, his affair is no reason to abridge his gubernatorial term.

The governor experienced a moral lapse.  But this isn’t some fable in which the king’s transgressions expose the entire kingdom to drought and famine. Mark Sanford broke vows he made to his wife Jenny, not to his supporters and not to the people of his state.

If you don’t like a guy who cheats on his wife, don’t marry one.  Don’t befriend one.  Go ahead and sympathize with his wife. Call him a hypocrite and a scumbag, and be grateful he’s not your spouse.  But remember that point: he isn’t your husband and you’re not his jilted wife.

There’s no reason to assume infidelity in marriage is a precursor to a politician’s betrayal of his constituents.  Violation of marital trust is a very different animal than violation of public trust. And personal integrity just isn’t a reliable measure of professional integrity.

Can a man act as a politically principled, trustworthy leader while betraying his wife’s trust and his own ideals?  Distasteful as it might seem, the answer is yes.  The pacts we make are independent of each other, and we’re capable of maintaining surprisingly rigid compartmentalization in our lives.  It is entirely possible to be a loyal friend and a cheating spouse, a diligent employee and an unreliable friend, or even a successful governor and an unfaithful husband.

South Carolinians voted for Mark Sanford believing that his moral compass pointed in the same direction as their own.  His compass spun out of control for a short time, but that doesn’t mean his values and vision for the state are any different than when he was elected.

Mrs. Sanford may or may not be able to forgive her husband’s affair. But for the rest of us, there’s nothing to forgive.  Did citizens go to the voting booth looking for husband material or to elect a principled conservative to lead a reform movement in South Carolina?

I don’t need my politicians to lead by example, I need them to be exemplary leaders.

So let’s quibble about whether Mark Sanford is a good governor.  Let’s pick apart his conservative principles and see if his achievements measure up to our expectations.  And if and when he runs for office again, we can decide whether to hold Sanford’s moral failures against him.

But let’s leave these affairs of the heart to be sorted out by Mark and Jenny Sanford.  They don’t need our input and scarlet letters are simply passé.


38 Responses to “Mark Sanford Didn’t Cheat on You”

  1. Seanette on June 30th, 2009 8:30 pm

    I have to disagree with part of this. If he’s lying to his wife and his God, and breaking his promises to God and family, he’s demonstrated that he is dishonest and cannot be trusted to speak truth or to do what he pledges to do.

  2. Jenn Q. Public on June 30th, 2009 9:56 pm

    Seanette, thanks for the comment. I realize that’s how most people respond to cheating politicians. In fact, my immediate, visceral reaction is exactly the same which is why I didn’t write about this scandal when it first emerged.

    But I spent quite a bit of time mulling this over and realized that if we held every politician to this sort of standard, we’d either have way fewer politicians or way fewer standards.

    I’m not suggesting we shouldn’t strive for squeaky clean leaders, just that we’re all fallible and that personal failures don’t necessarily translate to professional failures. I don’t expect this to be a popular idea, but there’s substantial evidence to back me up. We lionize our founding fathers, but how many were faithful husbands? Should we disregard Martin Luther King, Jr.’s civil rights accomplishments because he didn’t respect his marital vows?

    As I wrote, I know it’s distasteful to even consider, but a man’s pledge to fight for low taxes, limited government, and individual liberty is not broken when he gives into extramarital lust. And I fully believe politicians can be trusted to govern fairly and fulfill their campaign pledges even if they aren’t the kind of people I want married to my sister.

  3. Seanette on June 30th, 2009 10:08 pm

    I still can’t trust someone to keep his promises to me when he’s broken ones he’s made to God and to his family. If he’s breaking the really big promises he makes, why should I think he can keep any other?

    I think we’ll have to agree to disagree here. :)

    Dunno about you, but I’m not sure fewer politicians would be a bad thing. ;)

  4. Jenn Q. Public on June 30th, 2009 10:31 pm

    Seanette wrote:

    Dunno about you, but I’m not sure fewer politicians would be a bad thing. ;)

    I can’t argue with that!

  5. PatrickKelley on July 1st, 2009 8:27 pm

    Anybody can mess up, and when you get right down to it, everybody WILL mess up at one point or another in their lives. But, on the other hand-

    THIS character didn’t just mess up and have a fling of a few weeks duration. He went to the extent of lying to his staff and telling them he was, of all things, “hiking the Appalachian trail”. What did he pull that out of? And this was over the father’s day weekend.

    This demonstrates a person who is more than a flawed individual prone to make mistakes in certain areas. This is a person who is out of control. Can you picture him if he were to be a drug addict, what extent he would go to to support his habit and try to cover it up?

    Vote for him if you must, but I would think that in South Carolina, of all places, you shouldn’t have that much trouble finding a good, trustworthy, Republican conservative politician that you should be willing to give this a pass.

  6. Jenn Q. Public on July 1st, 2009 9:25 pm

    Patrick, do we know for certain that he lied to his staff or is that just media speculation? I haven’t listened to the audio of the new AP interview that was released today, so I don’t know if there was some dramatic new admission. But until now, I thought the news had been that his staff chose to tell the media that he was hiking, not that Sanford used that excuse with his staff.

    Re: his trip being during father’s day weekend, why not? The Sanfords were separated and his wife wanted him to stay away from the family so it’s not like he could have spent that time with his kids.

    If Sanford was eligible for reelection (which he isn’t due to term limits), I wouldn’t necessarily vote for him if there was a better candidate. But until someone makes a mistake, we have no idea what kind of candidate they will end up being. We only have our hopes and dreams that we project onto candidates (hence the election of Obama.)

    As far as having better conservative Republicans in South Carolina, believe me Patrick, they’re few and far between. Most of the people who call themselves conservatives here vote for cigarette taxes and helmet laws, and against government accountability.

    BTW, I’m not giving Sanford a pass on a personal level. I think he’s a dog and if he was my husband, the divorce papers would be awaiting his signature. But he’s not my husband and it isn’t up to me.

    As far as we know, this scandal hasn’t caused Sanford to break any campaign promises so there’s no reason to demand his resignation. If he wants to continue his political career in the future, people can choose to hold the affair against him at the polls.

    On a related note, people outside of South Carolina don’t realize what a disaster it will be if our lieutenant governor takes office. He has a frightening record of ethical lapses in which his actions have actually endangered people’s lives. In an ideal world, I wouldn’t have to choose between these two men, but if I do, I’ll choose Sanford every time.

  7. PatrickKelley on July 1st, 2009 10:34 pm

    You might be right. I don’t mean to come off as a judgmental jerk, but I’m just sick to death of politicians in general. That’s meaning all of them, from both parties. They like to get up on stage and pontificate about morals and values, and then you end up with this stuff. It makes you wonder just how much goes on with other people you never ever hear about.

    I’m just glad this came out now, instead of close to the next election. Can you imagine the impact if this came out during the Republican primaries, and he was one of the top contenders? Or worse, the nominee? The Democrats and media would have a field day making him the poster boy of Republican conservative hypocritical morality.

    Bottom line, all these guys are just arrogant schmucks who think they’re entitled to do this kind of stuff, so long as they don’t get caught. But they sure love to lecture the rest of us, don’t they?

    One good thing about it, guys like this are walking, breathing advertisements as to why Americans should go back to taking control of their own lives and destinies and making politicians accountable to us again, instead of allowing them to make us accountable to their agendas while playing us for suckers. It’s sickening.

  8. Jenn Q. Public on July 2nd, 2009 12:39 am

    Patrick, don’t worry, I don’t think you’re a jerk, and I don’t have a problem with being judgmental. :)

    It’s definitely a good thing this came out now. Imagine if McCain had picked Sanford as his running mate.

    And I agree that most politicians are arrogant schmucks. When the Sanford news broke, I tweeted that the problem with so many people in politics is that they think they’re untouchable & have a huge sense of entitlement.

    Your last point is an important one. We all need to worry more about our own lives and limit government involvement to sorting out situations when my rights and your rights come into conflict.

  9. Mark Sanford Didn’t Cheat on You - Smart Girl Nation on July 2nd, 2009 12:44 am

    […] This opinion piece originally appeared on […]

  10. Eclectic Radical on July 6th, 2009 2:16 pm

    Well, on at least one occasion he took advantage of a government-paid fact-finding/diplomatic junket to South America to see his girlfriend on the taxpayer’s dime. And more recently he went MIA from the state capital without informing anyone in the state government which he is supposed to, ummm, run that he was going anyplace. Neither instance is a huge example of professional responsibility in a politician. So there are some genuine political questions about the affair, as opposed to the typical politician’s affair in which the politician cheats on his wife and it becomes a political issue because of the cheating. His disappearance from Charleston without any kind of legitimate notice to any state officers (and it should be noted that the governor’s chief of staff is NOT a state officer) was already a political issue before it led to the revelation of the affair. I’d say his conduct as governor is worth questioning.

    Most political affairs, regardless of party affiliation, don’t really have genuine political aspects beyond the affair itself, but this one clearly does. Saying otherwise is simply wrong.

    I won’t deny that the degree of moral and religious hypocrisy in this matter bothers me a lot too. Self-proclaimed ‘Christians’ who wish to rewrite national law to conform to their pastor’s reading of the Bible should be able to manage the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to be a trifle more important than the often contradictory minutiae of Leviticus. People who want to make the state the legal arm of the church annoy me enough in the first place without having to commit acts that would get them thrown in jail if the Dominion comes into being in their lifetime.

  11. Jenn Q. Public on July 6th, 2009 2:49 pm

    Yeah, yeah. Sanford lied, people died. Oh wait, no they didn’t.

    See paragraph 3 of my post. I explicitly state that his official conduct should be reviewed. But this post is about the larger issue of extramarital affairs in politics and my opinion that a cheating spouse doesn’t necessarily make a bad leader.

    Sanford’s hypocrisy doesn’t grate on me because I’ve never met anyone who lived up to his or her ideals 100 percent of the time. I am more annoyed by those seek to punish Sanford as though he cheated on their sorority sister. Whether or not Sanford broke the law is important, but most of the calls for his head have to do with his affair and what it says about his character. Our nation needs to move beyond political witch hunts based on teenage insecurities.

  12. Eclectic Radical on July 7th, 2009 2:12 am

    I can’t disagree that a cheating spouse is automatically a bad leader. In this particular instance, Sanford engaged in behavior that calls his leadership specifically into question as well. Hence it’s a bit more than a ‘vanilla affair.’ Of course no one died over it, and the degree of vitriol with which the matter is being bandied about has a great deal to do with the same American national qualities that lead us to elect moral warriors on the religious right in the first place. We’ve never entirely stopped being a Puritan country and we all seek to disapprove of our neighbors to make ourselves feel better about ourselves. I am sure Republicans on the religious right will continue to attempt to profit from those attitudes, and as long as they do then they will continue to pay the price Sanford is paying for this kind of scandal. It’s a situation where someone digs their own political grave with their own political rhetoric.

    I agree with you about political witch hunts, and certainly none lives up to their own ideals 100 percent of the time. Not even me, despite my best efforts. However, my ideals do not include a legislative demand that everyone else live up to my ideals or face criminal penalty or loss of constitutional rights for that failure. I’d say that small difference is writ very large in the minds of many people (both the secular humanists opposed to being forced to accept religious legislation whose values they do not accept and classical Protestants like myself who believe very strongly in the separation of Church and state) who resent having our personal spirituality and morality legislated from the statehouse or DC. Those who wish to legislate against what they perceive as the moral failings of the heathen are making a moral statement of superiority that ‘the heathen’ are going to resent.

    That’s the big issue, really. Christian conservatives make a claim of moral superiority that is denied by an accurate reading of their own religious texts, and seek to impose their standard by law based on that superiority. When they show themselves to be as human as ‘the heathen’, then ‘the heathen’ are going to be understandably irked. Trying to minimize the very real facet of ‘moral reform’ whose real aim is quite simply to make everyone keep dirty secrets in the closet so no one is offended in a dark mirror of the equally objectionable ‘political correctness’ of the left is simply not going to work for a lot of us.

  13. Eclectic Radical on July 7th, 2009 3:11 am

    Let me correct the awkward first line of my last, which I just now read and clearly garbled. I meant to say I can’t disagree with your take on the fact that a cheating is NOT automatically a bad leader. Sorry, I type too fast sometimes. :)

  14. Jenn Q. Public on July 8th, 2009 1:29 am

    I understand the liberal reaction to Sanford – he’s made himself low hanging fruit. It’s the puritanical response from the right that goads me.

    Not that I think it’s our business, but I could understand the impulse to shame Sanford for his affair if conservatives believed that the potential for public censure would deter future extramarital affairs. But everyone knows that’s not true. If you look at the comments on my post at Smart Girl Nation (see the trackback link above your first comment), you’ll see that for social cons, this is all about punishing Sanford for his infidelity and “lack of character.”

    I agree with your points about moral superiority, but I would argue that most laws on the books are designed to outlaw “the moral failings of the heathen.” It’s just that with murder, theft, and rape we’ve come to a moral consensus, and with gay marriage, abortion, and other contentious social issues, we haven’t.

  15. Eclectic Radical on July 8th, 2009 4:25 am

    Well, generally speaking (in my own liberal frame of reference), the government’s task is to deter or punish sins that harm other individuals or society in ways in which some form of recompense or punishment can make some pretense of a difference, while more personally and privately harmful sins are the subject of personal conscience or civil suit. Murder, rape, and theft all violate the natural rights of others and so are clearly criminal under a system designed to ensure those natural rights.

    Homosexuality and abortion are very controversial and contentious issues, but even from the most traditional religious point of view homosexuality is a sin that harms only the sinners and no one else. It’s clearly not a matter for government intervention. If one believes a certain way, someone may be damned to hellfire and one may wish to save their souls… but the government is not intended to be instrument to save their souls or visit temporal hellfire.

    Of course, this is based on my own civil libertarian philosophy. The mileage of others may vary. Still, I’m sure you have to concede that murder, rape, and theft protect victims from more than just being offended. ;)

  16. Jenn Q. Public on July 8th, 2009 7:12 pm

    The homosexuality example doesn’t really work here since it’s not a currently a crime and the vast majority of Americans don’t want to get involved in policing gay sex. Gay sex and gay marriage are very different.

    But you must realize that liberal nanny staters are just as guilty of legislating against sins that only harm the sinner, perhaps even more so. Trans fats, clove cigarettes, and failing to wear seat belts may not bring on the wrath of God, but they most certainly bring out Democrats in full force to protect us from ourselves.

    Obviously laws against murder, rape, and theft not only protect our delicate sensibilities, but our rights to life and liberty. As I wrote, there is an overwhelming moral consensus that those crimes are wrong, and the legal and constitutional issues are clear. My point is that other rights and wrongs are not so cut and dried. That’s why we have jurists, legislators, and the democratic process to help us work through the murkier issues.

    I’ll stop here before I wander even more off topic.

  17. Eclectic Radical on July 9th, 2009 5:36 am

    Well, I am opposed to most liberal nanny state laws, personally. I vote against them when they are on the ballot and I certainly don’t write in support of them. I’m a social/economic liberal and civil libertarian, not a PCer. No fear. I certainly agree with you on your argument about the nanny state versus the religious state, and I’m against both. :)

    My personal opinion, and I know individual mileage varies a great deal, is that the nanny state and the religious state are both examples of the ‘tyranny of the majority’ Alexander Hamilton was worried about in the Federalist Papers. The democratic process clearly can’t protect the rest of us from them if the majority is inclined to pass them, but that doesn’t make them acceptable or right and so I do what I can to present alternate views.

  18. Jenn Q. Public on July 9th, 2009 6:25 am

    I agree with your last comment. I think we’re both libertarian on some issues which is why we’re able to agree on more issues than one would expect. Unlike you, I don’t see a religious state as a serious threat in America right now, but I have very little contact with Moral Majority-type Christians, so maybe I underestimate their influence. From my perspective, the difference is that the nanny state Dems are mainstream and the hardcore Religious Right is in the minority, even among Republicans. But I agree that we’ve got to keep an eye on both.

  19. Eclectic Radical on July 9th, 2009 8:12 am

    The nanny state Dems ARE more mainstream than I like. This is natural because the idea that government can do good when it is appropriate is too easily extrapolated into the idea that government should do all the good it can. I believe there is a significant and important difference between the two positions.

    I know you live in the South too, but I don’t know details about your precise location and social circle nor do I have any intention of asking if it’s not offered. I live in a largely rural area on the TN/VA border that is not just ‘the South’ but very definitely ‘hillbilly country.’ There are more people like me here than one might expect, but the majority of the voting public consists of Moral Majority-type religious right Republicans of the Cal Thomas stripe. Much more importantly than the voter-base, the majority of the Republican candidates for office are of this stripe as well.

    One of our two GOP Senators won election in a tight race he was predicted to lose with a tv commercial depicting his young, single black opponent’s dates with white women. Not any inappropriate affairs or scandals, just noting his opponent was a black man who had at least one white girlfriend. He managed to add misogyny to racism by throwing in a condemnation of said white girlfriends as ‘his bimbos.’ More importantly than the commericial itself is the fact that kind of commercial WORKS here in TN.

    I’m as uncomfortable with the corporate-police-state-fascism idealized by neoconservatives as with the theocracy idealized by the religious right, and those two groups between them control the balance of GOP power and no one can be truly accepted as a leader or valid spokesman of today’s GOP without the approval of both. Look at the public pillorying of respectably conservative Charlie Crist and Jon Huntsman (neither one exactly an anarcho-socialist)for their support of Obama’s economic policies, which themselves were more safely Hooverian (with a few New Deal touches) than socialist. Witness the transformation of Mitt Romney (who once ran against Teddy Kennedy from the left, promising to legislate for federal gay marriage) into a culture warrior and John McCain’s embrace of the very religious right leaders he had vocally repudiated as bad for the party in 2000. Witness the VP nomination of Sarah Palin, on whom we emphatically disagree and on whom I’d rather not say more.

    The ‘Moral Majority-type Christians’ who you consider a minority among Republicans ARE, in many ways, the Republican Party. They are the voting bloc most reliable in their turnout, the group Republican candidates in most districts in most states must please to be nominated or elected. They are the special interest group with the largest seat at the table and most reliable for the largest amounts of money. Their leaders are the most influential vote-getters. The ‘bright young Republican stars’ like Palin and Bobby Jindal come from their numbers.

    I’m NOT going to pretend that the nanny-state does NOT have a lot of mainstream support in BOTH parties (especially at the state level) when it comes to things like marginalizing smokers, forcing unfunded mandates of auto insurance, passing seat-belt and motorcycle helmet laws, and quite a bit more. They do. As, essentially, an anarcho-socialist (in core philosophical ideals, I realize the utter impossibility of functioning anarchy or a truly socialist economy on any pragmatic level and I don’t advocate or want either) I don’t like that influence. I believe people are infantile enough on their own without active legislation legitimizing infantilism. However, I think the desire for a nanny-state is a natural confluence of the fact that many modern adult Americans ARE fundamentally infantile and the fact that many people feel the need to insulate society so such people do not get hurt.

    Of course, corporate-police-state-fascism is a confluence of the fact that so many modern Americans are fundamentally infantile and the fact that many people feel the desire to perpetuate and profit from it. So the two problems have the same cause and the only solution, really, is to keep trying to educate people to realize their potential as individuals.

    Right now, as conditions exist, I am less repulsed by the nanny-state than by the corporate-police state or by the bald-and-repugnant social Darwinism that anarcho-capitalists of various stripes offer in its place. It’s the least of those three evils.

    I try to advocate for a mature, adult relationship between the members of society as what we are… interdependent individuals sharing the same existence.

    To fall prey to small bit of plagiarism, the thing about saving the world is that it inevitably includes whatever you happen to be standing on at the moment. :)

  20. Jenn Q. Public on July 9th, 2009 6:50 pm

    I think you know where I stand on Obama’s economic policies. No need for a rehash here.

    I love this sentence: “I believe people are infantile enough on their own without active legislation legitimizing infantilism.”

    Your description of your area of the country is shocking to me. Growing up in the Bronx (and living mostly in the Bronx or Manhattan until 2 years ago) that sort of racism in politics is not something to which I’ve really been exposed. Then again, I was not especially politically aware until a few years ago.

    I now live in a suburb of a small urban center in South Carolina. Even seeing the occasional confederate flag, my husband and I have witnessed far less overt racism here than we did in NY, but more bigotry against gays. (The SC GOP platform still includes a section about preventing gays from becoming teachers.) I’ve found that most of the Republicans in the state legislature are basically pro-life, anti-gay marriage Democrats, and while the occasional GOP activist spews some ridiculous racist nonsense, I haven’t seen enough campaigning here to know if racism and sexism are particularly evident. But believe me, I’ll be watching for it as we move into the 2010 campaign.

  21. Eclectic Radical on July 9th, 2009 9:34 pm

    Being in a reasonably urban area CAN make a difference… urban Memphis and Nashville can be very cosmopolitan, it’s still the South but there is a broader range of people with a broader range of views and as a result there is a greater feeling of tolerance. Knoxville is a college town where being a good football or basketball player is far more important to the locals than race. But the smaller the towns and the moral rural the setting, the worse it gets. I used to live next door to a neighbor with Nazi flags in all the windows of his trailer in lieu of curtains… and our mutual landlord expressed a certain sympathy with the attitudes that might lead one to choose such a display.

    I am used to some degree of racism in politics. I come from Los Angeles, originally, and ethnic identity politics there can be nasty. There is also quite a bit of discussion of the ‘immigration issue’ that is less concerned with illegal immigration than with not liking Mexican-Americans. On the other hand, I grew up in a suburban town so ethnically mixed that there were no such thing as ‘white’, ‘black’, or ‘Latino’ neighborhoods. Everyone lived next door to everyone and the dividing lines were economic rather than racial. Despite my experience with racism in politics (admittedly far short of the lovely Senator Bob Corker), however, I had absolutely no experience with genuine hatred for one’s neighbors because of their race.

    So I understand being shocked.

  22. free google adwords on July 13th, 2014 4:41 am

    Hello colleagues, its fantastic piece of writing concerning cultureand completely explained, keep it up
    all the time.

  23. fun run cheats on August 5th, 2014 2:50 am

    You will most probably have to do, Trushkina continues.

    Mobile phone and play games on the Internet.
    These frosted jellies are situated at the top slots. Its attractive feature can surely influence any person to at least a dozen phones to choose from, and become angry from time
    to time. Any developer who fun run cheats worked on the Internet or
    get activated on simulation. These mobile free online games for your next preferred
    Android Games.

  24. iron force cheats android no root on August 8th, 2014 11:51 pm

    If you’re even mildly into Rock music you’ll enjoy iron force hack this
    list of over 50 games like Trivial Pursuit, Jeopardy and Wheel of
    Fortune, such as: new games for free of charge. We have made its access more prominent.
    Digital fingerprinting is integrated into the ultimate one to be attracted
    to Java ones and many variations. In the event of which solid state drives are preferred when it concerns contracting out companion. By far the most widespread platform used to downloading this
    entertaining medium.

    My web blog: Iron force cheats android no root

  25. head soccer hack password free on August 9th, 2014 1:14 am

    You can receive more scores or coin rewards once you begin to take a look
    at below collection of mobile phone in the head soccer cheats coming years to come.

    Meanwhile there are specific to the mobile game fan, then games in the power of your trusted casino website.
    AbductionAbduction is an exciting play caused quite a stir
    earlier this year with its high quality picture formation.

    Feel free to visit my page … Head soccer hack password free

  26. swtor free cartel coins on August 9th, 2014 9:31 am

    I’ve been exploring for a little bit for any high-quality articles or weblog posts in this kind of space .
    Exploring in Yahoo I finally stumbled upon this website.
    Studying this info So i am happy to convey that I’ve a very excellent uncanny feeling I discovered
    just what I needed. I so much for sure will make sure to don?t overlook this
    website and give it a look on a relentless basis.

    My page swtor free cartel coins

  27. Terence on August 13th, 2014 12:09 am

    Excellent blog post. I absolutely love this site.
    Keep writing!

    my blog post – laser eye surgery (Terence)

  28. on August 20th, 2014 6:38 pm

    First up having puppy training an animal is fully grown. Basic training for dogs that is formed at
    the vacuum cleaner? Event ActivitiesSaturday is an extremely intelligent
    one, we need.

    Look at my blog post; dog training –,

  29. Fanny on August 20th, 2014 6:47 pm

    Always reward your dog jumps up to a puppy training dog
    lover; if it is better to carry out a desired deed and offered you combine gestures with verbal instructions.

    Here is my blog :: – Fanny

  30. Dario on August 20th, 2014 7:08 pm

    Member fees are $56 for eight sessions dog training techniques on Monday
    that lets players create and develop. He provides more helpful information on Dog Training is the owners of pets to stay put.

    Feel free to visit my web blog: (Dario)

  31. on August 20th, 2014 8:33 pm

    Hmm it looks like your blog ate my first comment (it was super long) so I guess I’ll just
    sum it up what I submitted and say, I’m thoroughly enjoying your blog.
    I too am an aspiring blog writer but I’m still new to the whole thing.

    Do you have any helpful hints for novice blog writers?
    I’d really appreciate it.

    Look into my web-site; Dorman HELP! 42058 PCV
    Valve Grommet (

  32. toronto long Term Disability lawyer on August 20th, 2014 8:39 pm

    Hi there! Would you mind if I share your blog with my twitter group?
    There’s a lot of people that I think would really appreciate your
    content. Please let me know. Many thanks

    my web site: toronto long Term Disability lawyer

  33. Stella on August 30th, 2014 7:28 pm

    hello!,I like your writing very a lot! proportion we communicate
    extra about your article on AOL? I need a specialist in this area to unravel my problem.

    Maybe that’s you! Taking a look forward to look you.

  34. on September 10th, 2014 9:53 am

    You really make it seem so easy along with your presentation however I
    in finding this matter to be really one thing that I feel
    I might never understand. It seems too complex and extremely huge for me.
    I am taking a look forward in your next post, I’ll attempt to get the hang of


  35. racing rivals cheat on September 13th, 2014 6:21 pm

    GamePop is racing rivals cheats available
    in varieties making it more difficult. The user friendly and posting an ad in mobile sports at cost effective way of containing multiple balls.

    As it only takes approximately 18 MB of your desired degree.
    While professional gamers usually have matches scheduled,
    amateur gamers play games on your mobile as you go through the popular analog control of the
    historical rock, at the free versions. Subscribe to the development of existing game concepts.

    my website :: Racing rivals cheat

  36. fuck app on February 8th, 2022 5:47 pm

    I know this site gives quality depending content
    and other information, is there any other web page
    which gives such data in quality?

  37. Anonymous on March 12th, 2022 10:27 pm

    […] […]

  38. login on May 17th, 2022 1:47 am

    What a data of un-ambiguity and preserveness of precious familiarity concerning
    unexpected feelings.

Leave a Reply