Clown shoes the size of oil tankers *would* be woefully inadequate..

Bad computer, bad..

"Though Sanford's been getting kudos lately for evincing love for both wife and mistress, in 2000, he cast the sole vote in Congress against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act." (The Nation)

Someone in this lengthy discussion probably notes the difference between a fall from grace (no pun intended) and an ongoing (very) late adolescent obsession. There's clearly little room in Sanford's soulmate-suffused consciousness for affairs of state.

He's either suffering a nervous breakdown and temporarily insane, or intentionally tanking his career. The only weird thing is the massive sympathy journalists have with this guy.

I think the journalists are more thankful for a story that continually writes itself than sympathetic.

There are no lack of Republicans that want Sanford to resign. I wanted him to resign after he first admitted his affair in Argentina, not because of the affair, but because of the arrogance and duplicity he showed putting himself out on the national stage while knowingly carrying on a career ending affair in the Gary Hart, catch me if you can, model. And what is it with all the details and extra information? If you are going to have a mid-life crisis meltdown can you please do it out of public sight. What is it with all of these middle aged male politicians of both parties? When they hit mid-life crisis can't they just buy a sports car, or get a hair transplant or something?

Aycharaych,

One reason I do not get overly worked up about moralizers, whether they be Fundamentalists (thou shall not commit adultry and bear false whitness) or self-interested do-gooders (thou shall not covet or steal) is that I consider it to be part of human kind. Religion came along for a reason. Putting brakes on ourselves and others is not necessarialy a bad thing. We don't always live up to those standards (I include myself) but by having a common framework we can exist cooperativly. I guess God will sort us all out later on.

The price you and I would pay for infidelity should be the price that Sanford should pay. Humiliation, divorce, estrangement are fair game. Trying to overturn an erection or criminalize personal behavior, a la Clinton impeachment, has it's own moral component to it. The first did not effect me but the second does.

"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?"

Maybe, if they're actually legislating hypocritically.

Could you provide an example?

The South Carolina governor, Mark Sanford, can cheat on his wife to his heart's content and make a mockery of the institution of marriage, but when he used taxpayers' money to have a sexual affair with an Argentinian woman since 2001 and made intentionally misleading statements about it to deceive his wife, 4 sons, and the public and "reimbursed" the public $8000.00 for the last plane trip falsely stating that the affair began in 2008, he lost all credibility. He's the South Carolinian version of pastor Ted Haggard but with access to public monies he misappropriated for personal pleasure. His political career was built on "FAMILY VALUES" and "FISCAL CONSERVATISM" rhetoric, but he spared no expense to jet off to Argentina like a Wall Street banker using bail-out money to sexually pleasure himself when school children in his impoverished state were denied the basic necessities of an education because of his political grandstanding in denying the Obama stimulus money. He is rewrapping himself in Jesus Christ to rehabilitate and resurrect his political career like King David. He is as SPIRITUALLY IMPOVERISHED as his state is financially impoverished, and that's why he should be indicted and criminally prosecuted for his crimes against the taxpayers.

These latest admissions may drive him from office for now, but Sanford still should be able to make a political comeback after a while, for the simple reason that all elected officials are lying hypocrites who abuse their public trust while in office. What's the big deal when he's just one of many?

No one in America who wins an election is a "good" or moral person, because the people who sincerely observe and follow moral values in their lives would not be able to do what is necessary to get elected (lie to voters and the press, abandon long-time friends, distort the votes and statement of opponents, attack those opponents' character and families, kiss up to lobbyists for donations, in short sell their soul).

The process ensures we only wind up with scoundrels in office. Sanford doesn't stand out much compared to his peers, so he should be able to come back eventually.

I'm so fed up with Gov. Narcissus -- why can't the personal responsibility crowd tell him to shut up? Or does the personal responsibility speech only apply to welfare recipients and poor teenagers in need of an abortion?

Trying to overturn an erection or criminalize personal behavior, a la Clinton impeachment, has it's own moral component to it. The first did not effect me but the second does.

Your typo above is side splitting..

Of course Sanford does not deserve impeachment for adultery (even though it is a crime in SC), he deserves it for misusing taxpayer funds for personal use and misfeasance of duty.

Keep in mind that is the Sanfords of the world who wish to criminalize private, consenting adult behavior.

Sanford fully deserves being hoist upon his own petard.

Joan, as usual, is so right. We have received FAR too much information from Mark Sanford. He just continues to talk publicly. Why?

It seems that Sanford has no close friend that he can talk with honestly - so he airs it all publicly and we know more than most of us ever wish to know. His wife strikes me as a cold fish who declared she did not care about his career. Probably she does not care much about the marriage either. Perhaps Mark was unable to discuss the marriage with her and what they could both do to make it better.

I do not think he should resign. I think he should shut up and do the best job he can possibly do as governor for 18 months. The disruption of a new governor would hurt S. C. more than the presence of an imperfect one.

If he has truly found a soul mate perhaps he needs to pursue that as he obviously has not been an ideal husband. The travesty is his four boys but the damage there is already done.

If we are fortunate enough to find a soul mate it is probably once in a lifetime. Do we pursue this or do we spend the next 30 to 40 years wishing we had?