I think your post misses the point. It’s not a matter of whether marital fidelity is a desirable personal standard but what happens when it is widely flouted by those in power who have publicly promoted it as part of a “family values” agenda.

"Whether those who promote and uphold standards of conduct and moral ideals themselves always live up to such standards and ideals has nothing whatever to do with the validity and importance of such standards."

But the effects of their failure are not benign. “Do as I say and not as I do” breeds cynicism on the part of the electorate who then ask themselves, “Well, why should I resist temptation when those bozos in public office are fooling around all the time?”

Moreover, those “bozos” can pass harsh laws if they are not held accountable to them. While adultery is not a criminal offense, soliciting sex in a public place (“the men’s room two-step”) is; and it reeks of hypocrisy when the person caught doing it is a legislative homophobe.

It also begs the question of whether this is a standard we should hold officials to at all. Take NYC on the day of 9/11. While there’s been some gripping, as there always is when an individuals receives accolades for a group effort, that Rudy Guiliani’s role was overblown. Yet I think most people were pretty glad he was in charge on that day. Had adultery been a standard to which we hold public officials accountable, someone else would have been in charge and the casualty level might have been far higher. While you can certainly be incompetent and a philanderer, do we want to exclude competent individuals simply because they have cheated on their spouses?

If Republicans were [more] prone to preaching about other people's intimate lives, Democrats have now caught up. So by your participation in that preaching, are you giving the greatest flattery, or are you stooping to their level?

Sober Jones

Salon for example.

Anyone ever point their fingers at Sarah Palin?

They did leave Bush's paramour alone for some reason.

It should be obvious why male politicians have affairs and female politicians don't (that we know of). Male social standing is a key ingredient for female attraction, and politicians of both genders have high social standing, for awhile anyway. For male attraction, female social standing holds no additional attractive properties. So there it is....simple. The real question is, who cares ?

From the webpage:

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending that one has beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards that they do not actually have; this is usually done in order to mask their actual motives or feelings; falseness

For example, a doctor who smokes yet advises a patient that smoking is dangerous to one's health is not incorrect in this advice merely because the doctor also smokes. Also, a doctor who truly believes smoking is dangerous yet smokes is not a hypocrite simply because he/she practices dangerous behavior. Instead, to accurately label as hypocrite a doctor who advises patients that smoking is dangerous, the doctor would have to actually believe smoking is not dangerous yet in front of others pretend to believe the opposite, regardless of whether the doctor also smokes.

So this means that, strangely, Sanford thinks infidelity is wrong but just because he does it doesn't make him a hypocrite. His advisements on the campaign trail and to his fundamentalist followers to refrain from cheating is "righteous advice" but it is ok for him to cheat because in his mind - his beliefs - he thinks it is wrong.

Even if Wiki is true I still think that there is serious cognitive dissonance to act one way and believe/speak another (Dems don't gain votes for preaching committment). This is simply proof of mental illness in Sanford and those who defend him. I think that each side is looking past one another because each has a different definition of hypocrisy.

Sanford's father was handsome? Governor Sanford himself is not IMHO. This is a story as old as the hills. People screw around and then they lie about it. It's just more obnoxious when these guys with zipper problems preach about being righteous moral types. He should have told people how to get in touch with him in case of an emergency. Otherwise it's none of our business. And he's not handsome.

"Excellent point. Among the born again, "Christianity" means whatever they say it does while they go on to do whatever they darn well choose. I guess that's part of the appeal, unlike orthodox Judaism and Islam, where there are strict rules that have to be followed. As the saying goes, "the problem with being born again is that most people are born again as themselves.""

So now all (or at least most) born again Christians are hypocrites. Quite a broad brush. There are millions of Christians in the USA, but when a handful of politicians and preachers are hypocrites, then that confirms they are all bad. The only way to never be a hypocrite is to never hold to any standard. It’s sad, but the tolerance of the left seems to only extend to what they already approve. Tolerance used to mean putting up with what you don’t approve of.

Eugene's First Law of Sexual Dynamics: "If there's something one man can do better than another, there's a woman who'll sleep with him for it."

I think Chris Rock said it better:

"A man is only as faithful as his options"

Sadly, I'm a man with few options.

The assertion that Conservatives and Christians want to dictate what happens in the bedroom is a false argument. Part of the problem goes back to the “is and ought” distinction another pointed out. We proclaim what ought to be (which if you don’t agree, why be bothered by our free speech), but understand the human reality that not all will agree. In fact many of us, not all, but many, champion the freedom we have to life secure in our homes. The problem we have is the culture at large is constantly forcing the bedroom into the public square and then accusing us of trying to legislate or get into the bedroom when we express our opinion of what we believe should be.

And no, being against gay marriage is not trying to get in the bedroom; again, marriage is a public issue - sex is (or should be) private. Consenting adults are free to engage in the bedroom as they desire, they are not necessarily free to have public sanction, at least not until the public votes it in.