Britney Spears can’t go to a coffee shop, have an expresso and read the paper. That kind of freedom is not available to the poor girl. If I do something stupid in public a few people may see and shake their head but it won’t be on Fox News the next day. If Russell Crowe gets drunk the paparazzi will be there recording it.

One day I was at a certain place I used to go on my lunch hour. I saw Tommy Lee Jones approaching. He was going to pass close by but didn’t see me because his head was bowed as if he was deep in thought. He was a few feet from me when he suddenly became aware of me. He was startled. A look of fright came over his face and in his eyes and he almost came to a halt. Neither of us said a word. He quickly saw that I was not a threat and moved on. I realized then that he probably had to be on his guard all the time. Sad.

Paradoxically, however, the Sanford emails have served to humanize his affair and make it clear it was no fling. That doesn’t mean they should have been published, however.

I personally know two couples whose marriages completely and irrevocably fell apart in the very early yrs. Nonetheless, they nobly (?) decided to stay together “for the children.” They live separate lives, live in separate rooms in their house, communicate primarily via email, and are only together when participating in activities involving the children. For the last 12 years or so, they continued this charade without even their respective families suspecting a thing. Even when they became aware, the chaade was continued with regard to the rest of the world — including their children. These children have grown up in a home in which the parents can’t stand each other, and in both cases it is one of the parents who has no compunction about regularly making snide, demeaning, and critical remarks to the other — IN FRONT OF THE CHILDREN. This is under some misguided notion that such behavior will teach the children what a loser one parent is, while convincing them that the other parent is noble, self-sacrificing and the one who merits all their love and loyalty.

This does not work. Children generally want to love both their parents. After all, they are part of both these people. Less than the constant conflict maintained between the parents, there is no question that such behavior undermines the self-esteem of the children. Also, as they emerge from the “young child” ages, they become keenlym aware that their home is not like their friends’ homes and a great deal is amiss. I have always been of the opinion that contrary to the intent of creating a “normal” home life, it is much more damaging to the children. They are learning just what a loveless marriage is, and absorb the example they have witnessed every day of their loves, that perhaps this is the way things are. This is what marriage is. Frankly it galls me, and especially when there are extense flare-ups, when the parents fall into no holds bar behavior, it is horrible.

I don’t know the extent of problems between Gov. Sanford and his wife, but it is existed for some time. Some men feel entitled to seek to satisfy their sexual “needs” outside of the house, but do not seek a relationship. Others are not necessaily looking for either sexual fulfillment or a full-blown relationship, but it is not uncommon during these difficult times, that an understanding “dear, dear” friend, in whom the troubled spouse can confide, and probably find comfort and sympathy. Frequently, this sets the stage for unintended consequences, like falling in love.

We have lived through many generations of Congressmen and even numerous Presidents who have been unfaithful. Some find it a way to affirm their feelings of goodness; for some it is an affirmation of power and a means to shore up damaged ego. Whether we learn of the affairs during their public service, or afterwards, does it change the nature of the work they do and the results attained? This surely is a consideration that has been completely lost in this era of media titillation and infotainment. Aside from wondering how a newspaper would have access to the private emails of the parties involved without having had access to their computers, the publication of the private emails between Gov. Sanford and his paramour disgusted me most! I was surprised that even Fox News reported some of these publications — I was most surprised as I have come to expect them to be somewhat above the fray in this regard. We have long been mourning the deterioration of MSM. We now have confirmation that they have descended to the level of tabloids like The National Inquirer.

Most of us were around when we had a president who not only had a history of serial affairs, but was even arrogant enough to screw around with a very young girl, in the oval office on the people’s time. And many in this country felt it was “no big deal.” In the last couple of years, we have witnesed numberous witness stymie their careers by not only having affairs, but breaking the law while doing so (Gov. Spitzer; Gov. Blagoyevich) and one Governor who was forced to admit that his sexual proclivities were not what was assumed by his marriage, and we learned he was gay, and had rewarded his partner in inappropriate ways.

Politicians are entitled to private lives. They are human but not super-human. The politicization of politicians private lives has gone way over the line. Those who flaunt such things in front of the public probably deserve judgement. There is no absolute, and those who keep such things within the sphere of their private lives should at least be accorded privacy unless their lapse effects their job responsibilities.

Most distasteful was the publishing of the very private emails between Gov. Sanford and the woman in Argentina. I don’t know how they were retrieved without physical access to either of their computers, but that should be a crime. It’s one thing when a crime has been committed and law enforcement takes possession of computers for investigation. It’s a whole other thing for such information to be retrieved and published in MSM for public titillation or to further political destruction. It’s pure voyeurism and the public is NOT entitled to know. We are all aware of the deterioration of the MSM, but EVERYone published excerpts, including Fox News, to my surprise and disappointment. Does anyone remember the days when only the National Enquirer would do this kind of thing? Yuck!

The much hackneyed (I’m not saying YOU do it) charges of hypocrisy leveled at Republicans only serves to point out the fact that objective moral standards still exist in society, however tattered they may be (and I’m one of those males who has not strayed from his wife and never wanted to). I would rather that such standards actually be injected into politics, as opposed to their being no standards at all.

I would prefer that the Republicans get back to the old tried and true principles of governance that limited government, a free market economy and a strong national defense represented for their Party. Those were good principles that could again attract voters but instead the GOP wastes its time and energy on demagoging on immigration, promoting religion, trying to make sure the gays don’t marry and other inappropriate and increasingly irrelevant issues.

I could care less whether your run of the mill GOP member screws around on his wife or not. That’s between him, his spouse and his lover and is none of my business. It’s a bit more relevant to me when it involves a GOP leader because they are in the public eye and in a position of leadership and being stupid with their weenie means they are idiots and probably not fit to lead. They put themselves in a position to be pressured or blackmailed if they can’t keep it zipped up.

It is more difficult for me to be forgiving about the moral transgressions of Republicans, especially if the politician himself has played the Morality Card very often and very hard in his career. Hypocrisy on that level turns my stomach. I consider it to be much more moral to provide for the safety of Americans through a strong national defense than to try to see to it they only have sex when, where and with whom celebrities like Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson deem proper.

Some and not all of those people who gleefully revel in flinging the “Hypocrisy!” clarion call at Republicans are actually betraying a badly disguised contempt for religion. And I’m not saying YOU are doing that, because I get the sense you are not that kind of guy. But it’s out there and it’s corrosive.

The contempt is for the hypocrisy, not for religion. I’m not “gleefully flinging” the hypocrisy word. That would mean I am happy about the hypocrisy that runs through the Republican leadership like marbling in a fifty dollar steak and I am decidedly NOT happy that religion has assumed such importance in the Republican scheme of things – but that doesn’t mean that I have contempt for religion per se. On the contrary, I have respect for religion unless misguided practitioners of a particular religion attempt to impose their religion on me. Then I get my back up since proselytizing is a condescending form of aggression.

Be as religious as you want to be and promote your religion in your house of worship and your home. Just don’t let it take over your politics. Religion is or at least should be about individual salvation and not about politics.

Also, it annoys me when religious folk assume that morality can only be found and practiced through religion. Religion doesn’t own morality.

The much hackneyed (I’m not saying YOU do it) charges of hypocrisy leveled at Republicans only serves to point out the fact that objective moral standards still exist in society, however tattered they may be (and I’m one of those males who has not strayed from his wife and never wanted to). I would rather that such standards actually be injected into politics, as opposed to their being no standards at all.

Some and not all of those people who gleefully revel in flinging the “Hypocrisy!” clarion call at Republicans are actually betraying a badly disguised contempt for religion. And I’m not saying YOU are doing that, because I get the sense you are not that kind of guy. But it’s out there and it’s corrosive.

The emails read to me like a standard-issue infatuation that could be set aside as time passes but they are from months ago and the fact is that he hasn’t been able to get rid of his fixation on the lady. There is nothing standard about the trip or the news conference. I think this guy could be dangerous to himself and maybe others. Somewhere along the line a screw came loose.

Beautiful women throw themselves at them all the time.(opportunity)

A politician is a social animal and they all attend myriad social functions as a part of the job.(opportunity)

Men, as a group, will do anything for sex(I am one of the exceptions:-).(predilection)

If I had to place a bet in Vegas and there was a way to arrive at an accurate figure I would bet that it is at least 50%.

If you are a Democrat an affair is not a big deal – if no law was broken or a lot of the taxpayers’ money was not used or if you didn’t compose steamy love letters that later come to light – in short, if you didn’t act like an idiot in some manner that can be used against you after the affair is exposed.

If you are a Republican you have a problem because your party, mainly since Clinton, has above all become the party of morality. This started out as method to provide stark but hypocritical contrast between your party’s members(pun intended) and Clinton’s party’s members but in subsequent years has become a monster that occasionally bites your head off because in reality no political party has a monopoly on morality.

If you are a Republican who is so stupid as to compose steamy emails to your paramour that are later leaked by someone on your staff

(a previously spurned lover? a disgruntled staff member whom you have slighted? a staff member paid off by your enemies? All three?)

that are published in the local newspaper,

who sets up a false trail and excuse for his absence

which was guaranteed to raise questions even if it were true

but who subsequently gets caught in the local airport disembarking from a returning South American flight,

who characterizes his surreptitious trip at a news conference as “crying” in Argentina,

who rambles incoherently at said news conference,

who has made a bunch of enemies even in his own party …

you will end up resigning your office.

It’s over for him. Not because of the affair, but because he’s the sitting governor of a state and he went AWOL…to South America, for pete’s sake. What if a disaster hit SC when he was gone?

I’d probably feel more sympathy for the guy (if in fact he’s in the midst of some kind of personal breakdown) if we weren’t being treated to these mea culpa press conferences on a regular basis now. Enough already. Get off the stage Mr. Sanford so the MSM can focus on Obama’s disasterous economic policies, the health care power grab…

Oh wait. Never mind.