Hmm. He knew the woman for eight years but was “romantically involved” for just one.  Reminds me of the following, heard when taking a Teaching Company audio course on comparative religion taught by Robert Odean, a religion professor, now president of Minnesota’s Carlton College:

As a young, impressionable student at Cambridge University, “reading,” in the Oxbridge sense, the New Testament with Anglican bishop and liberal theologian J.A.T. Robinson, Oden asked Robinson whether, as Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount, to lust after a woman is as bad as committing adultery.

Robinson’s response: “You know, it probably is the case that to lust after a woman is as bad as actually committing adultery, but it sure couldn’t be as good!”

What strikes me is ( and which is mentioned in a story below) is the gleeful delight some commentators take in the fact that a Republican conservative man of faith betrayed his marriage, his family, his friends who also trusted him, and his constituents.

Would it be better if it were not a Republican, but a Democrat who did the same? Some people failed to note that Clinton was was behind the Defense Of Marriage Act and he was a cheater.  Barney Frank would of course be in favor of same sex marriages so it’s not worth noting by liberal Democarts that he had a homosexual prostitution ring operating out of his house?!!

It’s almost yawn worthy. Religious man involved in extramarital affair and the liberal MSM cries “hypocrisy” and says ,“Next time he should spend more time reading his Bible.”  Actually, the world would be a much better place is everybody followed the Ten Commandments.

Everybody has times when they are hypocrites. Statistics show that as a group liberals spend less money on charities and less time in charitable activities than conservatives, yet liberals jaw on about how religious folks should care for the poor. Cry “hypocisy” and you better start looking in the mirror, because we all have it there somewhere about something.

My favorite coment was by the woman who commented on Sanford’s writing ability. I thank God that my e-mails are probably so boring that nobody would care what they say. ;^)

FenelonSpoke writes: What strikes me is ( and which is mentioned in a story below) is the gleeful delight some commentators take in the fact that a Republican conservative man of faith betrayed his marriage, his family, his friends who also trusted him, and his constituents.

Of course most people do not take delight for the reasons noted above.  The take delight in the extraordinary hypocrisy that has been exposed.

In the letters, Ashvin Shah writes about Republican politicians and the ideals they espouse: I have no patience for such politicians if they continually demonize others who fail to live up to those ideals while they themselves do not.  Then in his letter, Henry Lowenstein says: Mr. Sanford (the title governor should no longer apply) is a hypocrite of the highest order.

Those two comments together really hit the nail on the head.

They take gleeful delight that he was a hypocrite who was exposed, but of course liberals never are hypocrites. Totally expected comment from the liberal MSM. As I said “yawnworthy”  Politicams are narcisscists. They cheat. Yawnworthy. McGreevey cheated. Hypocrites come in all flavors.

Th nail has been hit on the head so much it’s not even worth noting. MSM shoud just phone in their work when any of it has to do with people who are religious who are conservative.

It is possible to believe in standards and fail miserably in meeting them.  This is called sinful human nature.  Read St. Paul.

Does this mean, #3, that Democratic politicians with sex problems are not as bad, because they never had behavioral standards to begin with?  That seems an overstatement as well.

Quite frankly, there needs to be standard ethical standards for all politicians.  We have entrusted them to the highest offices in the nation, but we can say “oh, because this one is Republican he (or she) has to be held to higher standards then the Democrat, who can get away with a pass since they have no professed values”. Or independent, or whatever.

Frankly, if adultery is enough to force a Republican out of office, it should be enough to force a Democrat out of office. If writing a book and accepting royalties and speaking fees is enough to force a Republican out of office, it should be enough to force a Democrat out of office. Etc.

IIRC, there was supposed to be a bi-partisan congressional ethics committee formed a few years back, to make sure ethics concerns were addressed equally between the two parties.  Strangely, most of the serious offenders (Kennedy and Frank) were to serve on the committee.  I wonder what ever happened to that? They sure don’t seem to be very active.

Jim Elliott
Florida

#4 - Ah, the mention of Jim McGreevey.  He was on the Today Show yesterday and was spouting all the correct pastoral phrases.  He seems to have been diligent in his graduate studies at General Seminary.

If Sanford gets to stay in office, maybe McGreevey should be ordained!  Both, just sinners.

RE: “I have no patience for such politicians if they continually demonize others who fail to live up to those ideals while they themselves do not.”

Yes indeed—I’m reminded for instance of the progressive Episcopalians who proclaim their own values of inclusion, affirmation, acceptance, civility, non-judgementalism, compassion, and non-prejudice, “demonize others who fail to live up to those ideals” and then proceed to display rejection, exclusion, hatred, and bigotry of those who hold beliefs opposing their own.  It’s wonderful to simply note, periodically, every week or so, the usual demonstrations of hypocricy on the left.  But . . . those “values” aren’t really the prevailing values of society—and it shows when people violate moral boundaries.

RE: “The take delight in the extraordinary hypocrisy that has been exposed.”

Actually they’re not delighting in the hypocricy—they’re delighting in the hoped-for effects of pointing out the hypocricy.  Here’s a comment from another thread that fleshes it out a bit more:

But it’s just expected that those erstwhile leaders who despised the conservative ideals that Sanford represented and who also believed that Sanford represented a threat to certain of their goals and visions will have immense glee and excitement.  They hated what he stood for.  Therefore they’re thrilled that he’s proven to have feet of clay and that a potential rival to their own ambitions has been eliminated.

There is, of course, also the constant hope by those who are opposed to social-conservatism that if a proponent of those ideals can be shown to have moral failings in contradiction to his stated ideals then perhaps we can cease to have those standards at all.

It’s the same old saw.  If someone has said “same-gender sexual relationships are disordered and immoral” and then it’s learned that he himself has engaged in same-gender sexual relationships, the cry is not merely that he’s a hypocrite—but that his original stance is therefore flawed and wrong.

That’s the hoped-for takeaway, anyway.  Of course, hypocrisy is a sure sign of an existing moral standard.  Sanford’s secrecy merely demonstrates his knowledge—and society’s knowledge—that what he did was wrong and affects our trust of him in other matters as well.

The trade-off for hypocrisy is deconstruction of society’s unpopular moral standards—something that social liberals dearly hope for.

Hence, again . . . the glee and delight, because of the opportunity it appears to represent.

Fortunately, again, we have the shock and horror of society with regards to Sanford’s actions, demonstrating again that no matter how hard progressives try . . . society’s standards often remain far more obdurate than “logic” or “open-mindedness” might dictate.

Which is quite a relief for those of us who also articulate and promote conservative social values.

Mr. Haynsworth (#7 above):

“#4 - Ah, the mention of Jim McGreevey.  He was on the Today Show yesterday and was spouting all the correct pastoral phrases.  He seems to have been diligent in his graduate studies at General Seminary. If Sanford gets to stay in office, maybe McGreevey should be ordained!  Both, just sinners. “

Neither of them any more than me.
It may make my life easier that my sins aren’t as lurid as theirs, or that when I fall, it’s not so public.  It doesn’t make my sins any less.

kathrine asks: Does this mean, #3, that Democratic politicians with sex problems are not as bad, because they never had behavioral standards to begin with?

Obviously you infer something I don’t imply ... that Democrats have no behavioral standards.  Frankly I believe our standards to be quite high.  And before answering I might ask ... Do you intend “with sex problems” to mean those who commit adultery?  I’m going to take the liberty of assuming you do.

So ... are Democrats who commit adultery better?  No, they are not.  But they are less likely to be hypocrites on the subject.  You see, Democrats do have moral standards ... they don’t as often pretend that they alone have them. 

Sarah writes: Actually they’re not delighting in the hypocrisy—they’re delighting in the hoped-for effects of pointing out the hypocrisy.

There is little reason to delight in hypocrisy other than to expose in for what it is … with the hope it will be less present in both government and society. 

As for the public spectacle ... as long as there are inquiring—prying might be more like it—minds who want to know ... the dirty laundry of our leaders will be aired in public.  Sex and “dirt” seem to be forever on the minds of far too many.

And … NO ONE is suggesting we espouse adultery as a virtue.

I do not understand why anyone would have glee in the Sanford case.  As a SC resident the emotion I feel is anger.  This man has turned out to be nothing but a liar and a fraud.  You can’t believe anything he says.  Every story he tells turns out to be a lie or half truth, and it gets worse every day. 

Further, while he may profess to be truly sorry for the pain he has caused his wife, children, friends, political supporters, blah, blah, blah, the facts indicate he is really only sorry he was caught.  After the statement by Jenny Sanford today, it seems perfectly clear to me that had someone not tipped off his political rivals as to his absence, this affair would still be going on, and he would most likely be booking future trade missions to Argentina on the taxpayer’s dime.

I suspect that Sanford will remain in office _and_ McGreevey will be ordained, when neither should be.

Where/when/how are sinners subject to ‘moral force’ (in this world)?  Seems like the “Actions have consequences” poster found in many junior high school classrooms is, indeed, an empty caution.

RE: “There is little reason to delight in hypocrisy other than to expose in for what it is … with the hope it will be less present in both government and society.”

Not certain why you would hope for less hypocricy.  Are you saying you hope fewer people will sin?

Of course not.  You’re just hoping—like the liberals do—that people will set lower standards and not talk about those standards as much, particularly the ones you don’t like.

RE: “As for the public spectacle ... as long as there are inquiring—prying might be more like it—minds who want to know ... the dirty laundry of our leaders will be aired in public.  Sex and “dirt” seem to be forever on the minds of far too many.”

I have no difficulty or problem with the “public spectacle”—it’s a good thing, indicating that people are horrified over the violation of moral standards of Mark Sanford.

As I said above, the moment we have less hypocrisy is the moment we have further deconstruction of society’s unpopular moral standards—something that social liberals dearly hope for.  Secrecy and hypocrisy is the value that individuals put on moral standards, when they violate them and do not wish others to know.

Now—we just need to work for more of that horror over a bunch of other moral standards.

We’re workin’ on it . . . ; > )

I dream for the day when all our statements and actions match.  That’s the kingdom, and worth working for.

But until we get there, Sanford is a human being, a man.  Heh - if Strom Thurmond’s personal record had been revealed, perhaps he would have been out of office much earlier.

FFV #10, is it your impression that most Republican politicians say that “only they” have moral standards?  I don’t see that.  Let us agree that politicians of all varieties sometimes turn out to be sinners in contradiction of their stated standards, whether those are sexual behavior or corruption (oh, the multitude of examples!).

With the very unfortunate examples of Bill Clinton and John Edwards in recent years, and the chorus of Democrats in the former case insisting that lying, even perjury, about “only sex” isn’t a career-ending move, the schadenfreude of a number of Democrats over Sanford is less than impressive.

But Katherine—Clinton and Edwards don’t count.  They’re not opposed to gay marriage, abortion, and other social conservative ideals.  Thus they are not “hypocrites.”  ; > )

But Sarah—Clinton tried to use the line that he was “protecting his wife and daughter,” and Edwards actually campaigned on the strength of his marriage and how much he loved his cancer-stricken wife, while playing on the side.  Hypocrites both, although their expressed standards were personal, and not general, I suppose.

The idea that all or even most of the hypocrites reside on only one party is laughable.

“Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive”.

But Katherine—in order to be a “hypocrite” there must actually be a standard for the person.

Did Clinton actually violate his own “standards”?  Er . . . doesn’t appear that he did . . .

I agree with you about the hypocrites not residing in one party.  For instance, liberals claim to be open, inclusive, and compassionate.  Obviously they often rejecting, exclusive, and hateful.  That’s hypocrisy.  But if you have no sexual standards . . . than how can you be a hypocrite?  There’s no standard to actually violate.

I have no difficulty or problem with the “public spectacle”—it’s a good thing, indicating that people are horrified over the violation of moral standards of Mark Sanford.—Sarah

Do you honestly believe this, Sarah? I certainly don’t. Since we don’t have public lynchings anymore, this is the modern means of satisfying the need for bloodlust that some seem to have and it’s a means of lurid entertainment.

I very much doubt that many are TRULY horrified by the “violation of moral standards.” They’re just enjoying the spectacle. Some are, no doubt, heaping it on Sanford in a self-righteous show of thanksgiving that this man got caught and was being punished when they themselves hadn’t been yet. Hawthorne wrote exceedingly well about this type of thing.

Some of our finest presidents and even a Founding Father or two had extra-marital relationships. It was whispered about but not made public, in FAR more religious times than these. Why is that?

Sarah, hypocrisy is not about violating ones own moral standards.  Hypocrisy is about accusing others of violating your standards when you are violating them yourself. 

While your distaste for people you consider liberal is abundantly clear from your posts, I firmly believe most Americans, liberal or conservative, have high moral standards.  For example, I have no doubt that both Clinton and Edwards knew what they were doing was wrong and felt remorse for having done it.  I have no doubt it violated their own moral code and religious belief.  The fact that people do not always fulfil there personal moral code is not the test of hypocrisy.  We have all failed in that regard.  Hypocrisy, is the priest on Sunday morning giving a sermon on the sin of adultry while he is having an affair, or the poltician who campaigns on a need to elect someone with family values while having an affair.

So if we use Clinton as an example, calling on him to resign because you believe he committed a crime, or had an affair in office is not hypocrisy, unless you have commited a crime or had an affair in office, then it is.

RE: “Do you honestly believe this, Sarah?”

Yes, Teatime.  The moment public spectacles cease over an elected governor flying off to Argentina for Father’s Day weekend in order to be with his lover, instead of his family is the moment we simply, as a society, accept that there is not a sexual moral standard to which we adhere.

It is, in fact, the moment that we become France or Spain. 

RE: “While your distaste for people you consider liberal is abundantly clear from your posts . . . “

Nonsense.  I have friends who I “consider liberal”—and who consider themselves liberal as well, for that matter.  I do have immense distaste for the ideas of secular progressives—and my contempt for the happy bleats from secular progressives whenever they discover a conservative “in sin” knows no bounds. 

RE: “I firmly believe most Americans, liberal or conservative, have high moral standards.”

Oh I do too—just different moral standards.  ; > )

For instance, secular progressives think it appalling to smoke in bars or not recycle.  But they certainly don’t beleive that it is appalling to have abortions or support gay marriage [sic] or adoption.  They’ve decided that same sex relationships are neither disordered or sinful.

So yes—secular progressives and conservatives have “high moral standards”—but not the same ones in many cases.

Back to the point—the joy that libs feel when conservatives violate their own moral standards is simply that libs wish for a number of the moral standards that conservatives believe to no longer be accepted—or promoted—by those same conservatives in society.

That’s all the glee is about.  And I’m naming it and pointing it out.

I personally—as I’ve also repeated several times—think Governor Sanford should resign, even as I respect both his social and fiscal conservatism immensely.

Regarding your beliefs about Clinton’s “remorse” I simply don’t believe it—I personally believe that he is most likely a sociopath, but obviously that won’t ever be proven.

Sarah - I agree with you for the most part.  I would add, too, that Clinton, Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy were not “hypocrites”.  However, their supporters and excusers were.  If you listen to talk radio and read letters to the editor and bylines in newspapers, it almost always sems like it is the liberals and progressives who assert that they are not “hypocrites”.