Normally I would agree, Frank, except he was sitting governor who apparently lied, or at the very least mislead, everyone as to his whereabouts, and left the state and its business to jet off to Buenos Aires for five days to cry in his girlfriend's apartment. I think I've read that he may even have used taxpayer money to do it. It's just so bizarre! I said good for her, too, when I saw the wife wasn't standing next to him at that (totally deranged) press conference, in regulation demure suit and pearl strand.
Oh, please don't misunderstand, Frank. I think he's a dirtball. If he in fact used taxpayer money for his dalliance, then that is malfeasance in office. I was merely being skeptical regarding whether his personal morals have any bearing on his administrative skills, a purely academic matter. I think it foolish to insist that public servants be moral paragons myself. Next thing you know, they'll be asking journalists to behave.
Again, I generally agree; however, there is also an element of schadenfreude, because here is a man whose part of a class of politicians who've gotten into power in no small part by touting their "morality" and "Christian values" and decrying everyone else's. If HE is basing his fitness for office on those terms, then the exposure of hypocrisy is a big deal.
To be surprised - or shocked - by hypocrisy in politicians is, I am afraid, a sign of naivete. Consider this, for example.
There is nothing Republican about moralizing. There is a misperception that Christians are to be paragons of virtue and that they as a group are unforgiving of others' sins. Not so, and quite the reverse. The Christian knows he or she is a sinner, and is forgiving of others. Any other reading has nothing flagrant to do with any church I have ever been in, even the ones I don't like, and even the ones I find too much hypocrisy in for my own tastes. But it takes morals to be a hypocrite, otherwise there is no hypocrisy. If Sanford had no morals, he could just have said on the dalliance part, "Yeah, I was in Argentina on a fling, so what's it to you?, MYOB."Taking a different approach than what Frank W gives, opponents of Christianity would like to characterize Christians, and many would like to characterize all religious groups as mean-spirited somehow and immoral--thus the mischaracterization of the Republican party as expressed. And when campaigns get down and dirty, those are the type of negative fabrications that opposing party members would love to plant in all voters' minds, Christians included. It's part of the fashionable shallow debate process we all get continuously subjected to. In fact it is a play for the Christian vote, to show Republicans to be self-righteous and unforgiving.So then yes, to agree with Frank W, and take his point a step further, if we are to have morals, then everyone will be therefore and thusly guilty of breaking the commandments, whatever we determine thou shalt not do. You don't have to be a Republican to cheat on your wife. Clinton did it in the Oval Office, and then spent a year lying about, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars while the investigation went crazy, ultimately cornering him into fessing up. Without the Oval Office available, Argentina seems just as good a place.Yours,Rus