I don’t think you can be at all sure that people on the other side of the partisan divide feel just the same. For you, it is by definition not a moral issue. For many of them, it absolutely is.
On a lighter note, I liked the Philadelphia Daily News headline for this story:
Sanford and Hon
Of ocurse, now I’ll hear the theme song to that show in my head whenever I see him, but that’s okay.
That is an excellent point. In fact, I’d say most people who strive for something worthwhile in their lives seek ideals they cannot fulfil. If you are living your ideals in every way, you probably need better ideals.
The difference (and you knew ‘the difference’ was coming. I’m somewhat liberal and this may be affected by that, but I am trying to see your point, but I still see a difference) is that environmentalists try to lead by encouragement (yay! let’s recycle everything!) whereas sex-moralists lead by punishment and finger-pointing (so-and-so put his kolga in someone else’s moto! They should be locked up. Separately.). At the very least, the schadenfreude is more easily felt.
My apologies - I was answering posts sequentially, and I didn’t see yours until just now!
But mind if I say this? There really doesn’t appear to be that much more to say about the Sanford story itself. He’s back, we know where he’s been, and even the emails are out: there’s probably no more surprises there. Some people are going to make some noise that he should resign, but the Lt Gov apparently still makes Sanford look pretty good by comparison. What’s to hijack?
Sometimes a conversation just takes a turn, and it’s done so. In this case, why not just move it to GD and let it be what it’s turned into?
Their behavior is largely consistent with their feeling the same. I suppose there could be some other explanation, though.
I’m not interested in a debate on republicans’ behavior and what it means, especially at a federal level and since I’m highly unlikely to trust your interpretation of it. In any event, I assume my larger point has been made if not conceded.
DSYoung, you may have your thread back. 
Because we still have the very important follow-up to deal with which is: how long until he manages to resign or be impeached. 
Y’all want to debate whos party produces the worse hypocritical lying scumbags, off to GD with ya and start your own [del]war[/del] thread. 
Anybody see any pictures of his girlfriend. I have not even seen wifey pictures. She is not standing by her man. (at least in public)
just saw a teaser for the local news on abc which showed his wife giving a statement through her car window earlier today.
of course, with the present world wide news story, this will go on the back burner for a bit.
More on the Mrs.: South Carolina's first lady, scrutinized - CNN.com
As to the question of hypocrisy, from CNN.com today:
*A key South Carolina Republican cited Sanford’s past criticism of Bill Clinton and accused the governor of hypocrisy.
“He was saying our elected leaders need to stand firm on principles and values, and one of those is strong family values,” Glenn McCall, a member of the Republican National Committee, told CNN by phone.
“What he said is hypocritical if he doesn’t step down, because he was right with what he said about Clinton and others. When you are an elected leader, we hold you to higher standards.”*
I bet this guy’s not too broken up about the death of Michael Jackson.
Just wanted to let you know that I saw what you did there. And it made me
On hypocrisy, a thoughtful blog post:
Better yet, from the Diamond Age:
Both of those blog posts are arm-waving, insubstantial bloviations. The first one tries to change the definition of hypocrisy, for one thing, but the underlying fallacy behind both of them (and which is endemic to moralists in general), is the idea that other people’s sexual behavior should have any per se public relevance, absent any criminality or public corruption. They both whine like babies that criticizing only the public hypocrisy ignores the “immorality” of the nookie, completely missing the point (as is the wont of all moralists) that, other people’s private “morality” is none of their fucking business. They also either intentionally mischaracterize or simply misunderstand (probably the latter, since they’re stupid) the attitude of those who aren’t moved to get out the pitchforks if a politician cheats on his wife without hypocrisy as representing de facto approval of cheating, when the reality is that we just don’t think it’s our business.
The 2nd blogger, in particular, is a blithering nutcase who goes so far as to say that anyone who doesn’t get as huffy as he does about other people’s sex lives has no belief in right and wrong. That’s completely asinine. Just because you think a particular behavior is none of your business, doesn’t mean you can’t still think it’s unethical.
But if you deem it unethical and it is done by a public official, why is it none of your business? I honestly don’t get this reasoning. Assume you consider the behavior unethical. Assume this person’s profession places them in a realm when ethical behavior is or should be of primary importance. I don’t understand what seems to be to be a completely artificial balkanizing of behavior into “public” and “private,” as if how one acts in one realm couldn’t possibly be of relevance to how one might act in the other.
I realize it would be very easy to overstate the importance of personal morality, and I tend to agree that lots of things, especially sexual things, that public people do are still nevertheless no one’s business bu their own. But to assert, as you appear to be asserting, that private unethical behavior has no relevance whatsoever, strikes me as naive.
I will say this, I give his wife props for letting him take this shitstorm on himself. Her answer was great regarding his political future: “It’s not my concern.”
Awesome.
The same reason I don’t think it’s my business if the guy fixing my car cheats on his wife or cheats with his buddies at poker. It has nothing to do with what I’m paying him for.
I do not agree that an elected official’s private sexual ethics (absent any criminality) is of any relevance to his/her job. I don’t even care if they’re my idea of a “good” person. I expect that they won’t do anything illegal, but as long as the way they vote the way I want, I don’t care if they’re Caligula in their private lives.
Incidentally, if conservatives think that marital fidelity is so vitally important an indicator of a person’s fitness for office, why did they decide to vote for an adulterer over a faithful husband in the last election?
It seems like maybe they don’t really believe it’s that important. I never hear them giving Dems like Obama or Jimmy Carter any credit for NOT being cheaters. If marital fidelity is a credential for office, why isn’t it ever given any value for Democrats.