"I personally find it a bit wierd when someone has a prurient interest in other's personal lives."

You mean, like calling people's families "abominations" and spending millions of dollars to keep gay marriage illegal?

Yeah, that's weird to me too.

adultery is by NO means a "non-partisan problem."

I have one problem with the ego-driven pecadillos of bleeding heart democrats, and quite another with the private adultery of public sexual moralists.

The public moralists who fail to meet their own standards of private morality have to be held accountable, because their own behavior proves that they are philosophically dead wrong.

It's our duty to point at them and say "you are attempting to use LAWS to codify and enforce sexual morality, while you yourself are living proof that doing so is doomed to failure. You cannot and MUST not use your power to expurgate your private shame and fear."

If Mark Sanford were willing to leave MY private choices alone, he could expect the same courtesy from me.

John Edwards sure can.

Bill Clinton kinda could.

Anyone who commits adultery but does not ALSO oppose GAY ADOPTION, for god's sake, deserves one kind of treatment.

Mark Sanford deserves another.

My intention was to stay out of this thread, as Fester has basically said anything I would've said, only more articulately. However, I was struck by your point about the difference between philandering by those who have not made a point of public moralizing, and those who have. You've put forth some real food for thought, and I thank you for that.

Hypocracy also means people who insist on absolute "privacy" but cannot respect privacy in others people's lives. I include people who use personal information to essentially blackmail or gain leverage over others. This can mean "outing" people or destroying people based on sex, straight or gay. Forcing a politician to resign is a great example of that. In a democracy we hold elections ("elections not erections" sounds like a good jesse jackson slogan).

One of the consequences of the Republican's moralizing is that they take away from the serious message of strong families. The reality is that broken families cost all of us dearly, most of all the children. Many sexual libertarians joke about moralizers peeking into other's bedrooms but then scream murder and moralize when those same people resist and resent paying for the natural consequences of divorce, poverty, single parenthood and AIDs. I sometimes think that what the liberals are attacking is not hypocracy or moralizing but making sure the the public keeps slopping their trough. I could do without both.

So, if I understand the both you correctly, someone who preaches "tolerance" and then exhibits "intolerance" of persons and opinions, with whom they disagree, is more reprehensible than some lout who spews bile without regard to sensitivities?

I'd say that its the false moralists of the world who are the "louts". Mind you, conservatives do not have a patent on hypocrisy. Spitzer built his reputation on being a moralistic do-gooder, and Edwards made a political point of presenting his marriage with Elizabeth as the picture of romantic bliss, but yes, I do agree with Emily that is especially reprehensible for someone who has railed against the choices and relationships as others as being immoral to then turn around and betray their own relationships. I have a problem with the Rev. Haggards of the world who rail against the "sin" of homosexuality while engaging in homosexuality. I have a problem with the Strom Thurmonds of the world who call for segragation while sleeping with Black women, and I have a problem with people who went out of their way (and still go out of their way, like Giuliani) to condemn the sexual proclivities of Democrats while doing the same thing.

I'd love to hear a non-partisan argument why you disagree.

...in your construction, who are the "louts" who "spew bile without regard to sensitivities?"

Seriously, you haven't been paying attention since at least 1996, have you?

-- dust1969

We've got responsibilities, too, you know, to not bite every baited hook about sex scandals that come along, losing sight of what our legislators are actually there for. That argument should have been made for Clinton, it should have been made for Larry Craig, it should have been made for Edwards, and it should be made now.

The most rational argument I've seen so far for giving Sanford's behavior even 5 minutes of our time is that it's hypocritical. At least that provides some ammunition to challenge his own attacks on others as well as any attempts he might make to legislate moralistically.

Joan has a good eye in pointing out that Sanford's more outrageous behavior is what he's been doing for and to South Carolina.

Compare how much press this sex scandal is getting to say, how much press was devoted to the fact that the Bush administration knew darn well there were no WMD's when they were scaring the tarnation out of us just to sell us all on the idea of invading another country.

This isn't just the media's fault, either, it's our fault for responding. Every time we get all up in arms about some stupid sexual impropriety we reassure those who want to use that as a political weapon - yeah, ok we're all on board here.

Hold elections, not erections!

I personally find it a bit wierd when someone has a prurient interest in other's personal lives.

I'm not really interested personally in the intimate details but I find Governor Sanford's performance utterly hilarious.

That so many would be theocrats are so utterly unable to follow the strict moral precepts they wish to push upon the rest of us under force of law is a source of endless amusement to me.

Clown shoes the size of oil tankers would not be woefully inadequate for this circus hypocriticus maximus.

It's remarkably instructive to recall that the sin Jesus the Christ most often and most vociferously condemned was that of hypocrisy. The Christ did not impart this lesson just to be flapping His Holy Gums, hypocrisy is uniquely destructive of the moral fabric of a society since it is the fertile soil in which cynicism is most apt to flourish.