Remember the old joke where the woman is asked if she will have sex for a million dollars and then is offended at being called a whore? “We have established what you are, the only debate is price.” (I know the quote is off, work with me here!)

A politician that cheats on their spouse has already established that they will take the chance on destroying the lives of the people closest to them for the price of sex. The only that that isn’t known is how much or which temptation is the price for possibly destroying the lives of people that they don’t care for nearly as deeply (the voters). Common sense would have one think that the price would be much less.

Come on people! This is a no brainer! What have we come to that this even needs to be debated?

I don’t care how much they SEEM to separate their public and private lives, as Gray might say, “Are you talking to the honest man or the lying monkey?” I say that if you have to separate their public and private lives in order to award them moral merits, you enjoy delusion.

I think that infidelity for love rather than lust is more sympathetic. But it doesn’t change the fact that it’s infidelity, and thus represents either poor judgement or untrustworthiness or both, and thus suggests the person is unfit for high office. (Should be rejected by voters, that is; not should be disqualified.)

What confirms and magnifies the result is the outcome. If the infidelitous politician makes amends, one may forgive (but not forget). If on the other hand, the pattern repeats, the judgement is even more clear: both bad judgement and untrustworthiness. Such people should be rejected by voters.

In Sanford’s case, his motivation may be sympathetic, but his behaviour is unforgiveable. Abandoning his post is akin to abandoning your children for the weekend to go on holiday. It is a breach of the trust vouchsafed him by voters.

However, even a politician who is careful to avoid their affairs affecting their work has poor judgement. Infidelity is a political liability, which reduces one’s ability to do one’s job due to criticism by the public, the media, and political opponents. It is thus a betrayal of one’s allies, one’s political platform and the voters who trusted you to represent their interests.

Politicians live in the public eye. Indefensible behaviour is exactly that – indefensible.

JFK stole the 1960 election. How damn tricky was that?

JFK’s dad bought him a Pulitzer for a book he didn’t write. He lied about writing his book. He lied about his military service (his was the only PT boat rammed by the enemy. He was asleep on duty. The navy started court martial proceedings until the politicians interceded.) He lied about his health. He lied about the missile gap. He lied about the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis.

Nixon’s mistake was thinking that he wouldn’t get hung for doing half of what Kennedy and Johnson did.

While the federal government goes far, far beyond its innumerated powersin dealing with issues today, I also think the public’s right to know other’s–especially politicians–private lives has grown into a monumental sense of entitlement. Much that crosses our screens is none of our business.

I do think Sanford is very much in love with this Argentine woman, or thinks he is, and his marriage is probably toast. Where all this impinges on our right to know is his being missing-in-action or AWOL, so to speak, as head of South Carolina. I don’t begrudge his leaving the country. I do think his leaving in such a clandestine manner shows very poor judgment and weakness.

I like a man, and a woman, who can cry and also own mistakes, learn from them and move on. His press conference made me a bit uncomfortable and frankly I don’t know what I think about Sanford’s political future. I doubt that he cares that much either in all this turmoil.

My bet is he will end up marrying the Argentine, finish his term and move to BA at least part-time. He may be washed up, but he now may want to be washed up.

I do not believe this indiscretion should cause him necessarily to resign as governor, unless he goes AWAOL again and pulls anymore disappearing acts without prior notice.

The whole thing makes me sad for conservative politics however and can’t be good for the country right now.

Yes, I agree with neo. Obama is utterly amoral. We have never seen the like in any previous President (including Jackson). He is after raw, naked, total power and will destroy anything in his way.

I can’t trust anyone who cheats on his wife. I’ve forsaken friends over this.

When you are dealing with somone with a monkey on his back, women, drugs, booze, money, you never know when you are talking to the person or the monkey.

Obama is not amoral in his private life, however—that is, towards his family. His amorality is political in nature, and it is fairly profound.

And Sy Hersh’s book on JFK has been thoroughly discredited. Talk about liars, Hersh is the champ! Lies, lies, and more lies