In french, an orgasm is called " Le Petite Mort". Little Death.
And that is all the french I knows.
So what if my position isn’t universally held? I’m right, they’re wrong. You were asking why non-hypocritical cheaters don’t get the same amount of flack from the left as hypocritical ones. The answer is that most of us on the left don’t see private sexual behavior of elected officials as being publicly relevant. The only way it can be made publicly relevant is if it involves some illegality (e.g Spitzer), or if it exposes public or legislative hypocrisy. Only the former should be potential grounds for resignation, though. Getting called on hypocrisy is just a natural political consequence of getting caught at it.
I’m not going to be forced to make an argument that I don’t personally believe in about there being some absolute right to nosiness and sanctimony based on the fact a person has taken public office and therefore has no right to privacy, much less private mistakes.
But I also think that lots of people don’t want lying scumbags in public office, period, because they rightly are suspicious of anyone’s ability to segregate those areas in which they are allowed to be immoral and dishonest (private life) and those in which they are not allowed to be immoral and dishonest (public life).
You left out the “IYO,” unless someone died and made you the arbiter of what is publicly relevant, in which case let’s see those credentials.
I never limited my observation to what “most of you on the left” see or don’t see, nor do I believe I even expressed much confusion about that. But yours is not the only position, or even the only valid position, despite the delusions of grandeur evident in such declarations as “So what? I’m right, they’re wrong.”
A prurient obsession with private conduct, under the guise of “supporting values”, is the deliberately-chosen platform of only one party.
So your point is that despite the lack of hypocrisy, philandering Dems don’t look all that great. Agreed. But mine is that, if they don’t look all that great, well, so what? Their actions don’t undercut the work of the party. Both parties are going to have scummy individuals. LBJ was a world-class asshole in many ways, but passed the Civil Rights bill and Medicare. FDR wasn’t faithful to Eleanor Roosevelt, IIRC, but he passed the New Deal, and presided over our role in WWII. Jimmy Carter is one very good person by all accounts, and was an extremely ineffectual President.
Niceness and goodness are important qualities when choosing your friends. It’s hardly essential in choosing one’s elected representatives, or even Presidents.
For those asking me for an example:
John Kerry owns a powerboat that probably gets less than 1 mpg. His wife owns a Gulfstream jet. She also owns several homes and a fleet of vehicles to serve them.
They are the authors of This Moment on Earth: Today’s New Environmentalists and Their Vision for the Future.
Now, normally the car and boat a person chooses is a private act, right? But when a person is being somewhat noisy on a particular issue, by the reasoning employed here, we can question their actual commitment to the cause.
I don’t think I disagree with that.
I think it would be going too far, though, to say the cause is a failed or useless one because of these examples. One probably wouldn’t say this about environmentalism - so I wonder why so many would jump all over Christianity or traditional marriage because of similar examples.
Perhaps we are looking at the wrong places - politicians are often great spokespeople but often aren’t models of conduct. Good environmentalists are found all over, but might be scarce on the Hill. Same with decent people of faith - they might not like having to go to K Street.
Right, they both had girlfriends on the side.
But there’s a difference between “essential” and “relevant.” There’s is still a disconnect in “sure, they’re lying scumbags, but so what?” that is IMO pretty striking.
I’m not at all arguing the extreme right position that perfect personal rectitude is an absolute requirement for public office, such that anyone who ever set a foot wrong, no matter how small or brief a misstep, is disqualified from public office. (Who then could serve?) And I am frankly surprised to see you and Dio apparently arguing the extreme opposite position: That personal morality is of absoultely no relevance whatsoever. That is the position that you at least seem to be embracing with such comments as “so what?” As I’ve already said, the “so what” is that for many people the attributes of sexual cheating (dishonesty, disrespect, elevanting your personal desires over your obligations) are things that absolutely are relevant in a public servant.
And I am not talking about how they “look,” what they appear to be, I’m talking about admitted conduct that reflects badly on who they are, be they republicans or democrats.
YO! FOLKS!!! Take your hijack to another thread!!! 
Getting back to the thread’s purpose, the knives are already out, and they are being wielded by the Republicans.
I give him 'til Monday, then he’s gone. Sad to say, that’s actually scary, given who the Lt. Gov. is.
Once again, it’s perfectly possible to be a scumbag in private and be a good legislator while in session.
Once again, it is pefectly reasonble to believe the above statement describes the exception rather than the rule.
Hey, what more do you need?
Agreed that Sanford will probably be gone within days at most.
I don’t think private sexual behavior is any indicator at all over whether a person can be professionally competent and ethical.
I would liken it to a car mechanic. It’s of no relevance to me whether my mechanic cheats on his wife. All I care about is if he can fix my car.
Now if he’s professionally dishonest, then I do care, I don’t think there’s any correlation between marital fidelity and professional ethics.
Can you give me an example of something the Kerrys say in their book that advocates against owning such vehicles and property?
Right now, all you’re saying is that they’re advocates for “the environment,” so they can’t have nice toys. Really, you need to think out your examples before you type them in here, to make sure that they are in fact examples of some sort of hypocrisy.
That’s what I was going to say. Has John Kerry publicly said it’s immoral to own a boat or a private jet.
A person truly concerned about the environment doesn’t use vehicles that are seriously detrimental to the environment, when there are alternatives. He/she tries to minimize his/her impact on the environment.
But politicians are rarely truly committed to the positions they espouse. What they do is say that, if they were elected, they would be in favor of governmental actions that have a positive effect upon those positions. It’s up to the individual to decide whether that represents potential hypocrisy or not.
Now take the stupid hijack to another thread, please! :mad: 
It may be true for many people, but a lot of people haven’t really caught up with the reality that, at least at the Federal level, we’re converging on something like a de facto parliamentary democracy. Almost no Republicans cross party lines anymore on major votes, and while Dems do so more often than the Republicans do, the Dems also do it a lot less than they used to.
While it would be nice to get back to the old days, they are, for the time being, history. In this environment, the most important attribute of a Congresscritter is whether she’ll vote to support or oppose the President’s agenda, especially on cloture motions.
Among potential Congresscritters with the same likely voting record, good character is certainly to be preferred to bad. But I’d rather have someone who’s a lying, cheating scumbag who’ll vote for universal health care legislation with a robust public plan, and an effective carbon cap-and-trade bill, than the most wonderful person in the world who’ll vote against both. And I’m sure that people on the other side of the partisan divide feel just the same, only with ‘for’ and ‘against’ switched.
I didn’t make things the way they are, but given that they are what they are, I can’t see having a different set of priorities.
Well, first, a public officer is obviously very different from a car mechanic in what we expect him or her to do, the authority we give him or her, and the judgment we expect that person to use. Second, all I care about regarding a mechanic is both if he can fix my care and if he will fix my car without screwing me in the process (metaphorically speaking). His personal ethics might well be relevant to making that judgment.
I don’t know if there’s some scientific corrolation, but I certain see why constituents might be concerned to discover the fact that a man lies to and disrespects his wife and places his personal gratification above his obligations. What I don’t understand about your position is your perfect confidence that a person who misbehaves in one area of his life will not act similarly in others.
I’m not saying that every person who has an affair is a bad person. But unlike you I’m also not saying the fact is completely irrelevant.
I think environmental concerns would be an easy example.
It would be like someone catching Al Gore dumping motor oil in his backyard.