The Governor of South Carolina.

[plain 12]

Kind of off topic, but very funny:

I just saw Conan O'Brian, and he did a great bit called "Sanford or Steele".

He quoted stuff, and Andy had to guess if Mark Sanford said it, or Danielle Steele. It made me LOL.

[BJean 16]

Yeah, if this Argentinean woman could just act and then die of an "overdose", then they could have their very own Jack Kennedy.

My argument with infidelity by a public official isn't with me wanting to impose my moral values on everyone else. It's with the fact that it sets them up for blackmail. Having an affair is not against the law. It also doesn't necessarily compromise one's ability to do one's job. Although in the case of Sanford, it cetainly did.

Most politicians affairs are not even known to the public until years later after their deaths when someone decides to write a book and interview hundreds of people.

If affairs always caused people to be unable to do their jobs well, America would be in worse shape than we're in and we wouldn't have been able to become the strong nation that we are. Think of Jefferson. Think of Wahington. And no doubt many others of our original constitution framers and officials.

How do you check a person's morals when you look at their resume and do an interview? You don't. Unless they have been so indiscreet that it has become a problem, you'd never know if you hired a philanderer. If people lie to their spouses, they'll certainly lie to their potential boss.

You can't legislate morality. You can't make everyone take a lie detector test. Even if you made that a requirement, dishonest people can beat lie detector tests anyway.

It's beginning to look like the people who protesteth too much are the ones we need to take a harder look at, morality-wise. And that's not just true of our public officials.

Take a look around you. What do you see? Do you happen to know of anyone who has been unfaithful? My guess is, yes.

[BJean 16]

Some of the British papers prove how entertaining they find their royalty and political figures' personal lives to be. Guess we are the same way, but we get morally outraged instead of just realizing that it is interesting and sometimes amusing.

[plain 12]

Having an affair is not against the law. It also doesn't necessarily compromise one's ability to do one's job.

It's not against the law.....but you certainly could argue about the issue of compromise. And infidelity always goes towards the issue of decision-making. Marriage is one of our oldest and most basic contracts. IMO, if a politician is willing to break that contract, then why should I believe that politician will keep the contract he/ she makes with the electorate? It's like your example of small theft / corporate theft.

If affairs always caused people to be unable to do their jobs well, America would be in worse shape than we're in and we wouldn't have been able to become the strong nation that we are

Or maybe America would be much better shape and be a stronger nation if people simply kept their vows. Glass half empty, glass half full.

It's beginning to look like the people who protesteth too much are the ones we need to take a harder look at, morality-wise. And that's not just true of our public officials.

I don't get what you're saying here. Please elaborate.

[inri09 0]

while infidelity may not be illegal (although it doesn't help in divorce court), and it does not necessarily interfere with work, for a leader, it doesn't say a lot for honesty and integrity.

In this case I think it goes farther than can he hold down a normal job. Not only is he a governor, but his talking with the press shows he is not thinking clearly. Without typing all the ridiculous quotes, how can the legislature be convinced that he is worthy to be trusted and followed?

I'm surprised at the number of people trying to defend this based on, a lot of people have affairs...

Just a last comment, the Clinton problem was not of adultery, it was of perjury. That one always gets them going, no matter what side you're on....have fun.

[BJean 16]

Clinton's problem was that he was a Democrat - primarly. And don't say it wasn't his adultry that got him into trouble - that was his achillies heel and it also goes to the question of whether our elected officials should be doing it - like I said about one's vulnerability to blackmail, earlier.

[plain 12]

Clinton's problem was that he was a Democrat - primarly.

Believe it not, if it had been a republican that had gotten a blowjob from an intern in the oval office (while doing government business on the phone!), tried to get that intern a government job, and then lied about it all under oath......I would have been just as outraged.

I'm not REALLY upset at Sanford because he's just a governor of a state that I don't live in. Politically, he's done (or he should be). I don't consider myself a republican as much as I consider myself a conservative, so I don't mourn him as the "fallen savior" of the republican party (I privately think that people who strongly align with party politics are sheep....part of the problem, not the solution). All in all, not that big of a deal. I feel bad for his wife and kids, though....not just for the broken marriage, but because his long, oddly detailed "confession" reveals him to be a freak!

[BJean 16]

Clinton would never have been impeached, would never have lied, if it weren't for his innapropriate sexual behavior and his need to hide it from his wife. On other matters regarding Bill's life, I doubt if he would have felt the intense need to lie that he obviously felt about his behavior on that score. (pun intended) And given his sexual proclivities, the Republicans wouldn't have had such a golden opportunity to dog him for his entire presidency which, not surprisingly, wound up in an impeachment hearing.

You gotta remember that it was a Republican dominated Congress, and they had the votes to impeach. But when it came to physically removing him from office, they didn't have the guts. And rightfully so. If his lie had actually been a highly unlawful offense, they would have given him the boot.

Everybody (practically) lies about infidelity. Republicans like to say the lie is why he was impeached, but even if he hadn't lied, they would have found a way to do it. They'd been working on it for over 7 years and were bound to come up with something. Few people can live under the scrutiny that Clinton had over him.

I'm not making any excuses. I wasn't a big Bill Clinton fan, that's for sure. But I am remembering quite well how the whole thing went down.

[BJean 16]

plain, I agree with you about Sanford. I am especially sorry for what all of this has to be like for his children. They certainly don't deserve this.

It almost looks as if he is trying to run his wife off. The fact that she "understands" and may have been willing to stay with him may be just the opposite of what he's wanting to have happen. Maybe the dude is so moonstruck he's willing to do just about anything to dump his wife and hook up full-time with his Argentinian hussy. :-)

And obviously one of the reasons people were initially so aghast at his behavior is because he gave the impression that he was such a straight arrow. Speaking of arrows, now he's been "shot through the heart" as Bon Jovi would say. Tsk, tsk. For shame. *she says shaking her good finger at him*

[BJean 16]

And plain, in theory I certainly understand your disdain for people who are willing to stay with one particular party even if they are not crazy about the candidate. But I don't agree that they are singularly wrong for backing a candidate because of his or her party alignment and I certainly don't believe that people who are strong Republicans or Democrats, are necessarily sheep.

Since political parties stand for certain issues, you can separate the man/woman from his/her party to some extent, but if what you believe in are Republican values, voting for a Democrat won't further your cause. In fact, it will give the opposition more power. That might not be very important to you, but don't kid yourself, it is important to the big picture.

[plain 12]

And plain, in theory I certainly understand your disdain for people who are willing to stay with one particular party even if they are not crazy about the candidate. But I don't agree that they are singularly wrong for backing a candidate because of his or her party alignment

Ah, but that's the key....those people are backing the candidate BECAUSE of his party alignment, not because they believe he's the best candidate. Now, I'm pretty sure you voted for Obama because you thought he was the best candidate (seems you were an Obama supporter from the start, from what I can recollect....but correct me if I'm mistaken), not because he's the democratic pick, and that's cool. People who voted for Obama or McCain simply because of party....how is that helping America? That's helping the party!!

and I certainly don't believe that people who are strong Republicans or Democrats, are necessarily sheep.

That's your opinion. It's my opinion that strong party advocates will swallow anything the party bosses hand down: "Vote X,Y,Z if you're a republican / democrat". If people vote straight ticket, that signifies to me that they're not thinking about the individual races.....that they're just phoning it in.

Since political parties stand for certain issues, you can separate the man/woman from his/her party to some extent, but if what you believe in are Republican values....

Ah, here's a great example of what I was talking about. What are Republican values, anyway? Are there no pro-choice republicans? Are there no gay republicans? Are republicans the only party that believes in the right of the individual citizen to bear arms? See what I mean?

....voting for a Democrat won't further your cause. In fact, it will give the opposition more power. That might not be very important to you, but don't kid yourself, it is important to the big picture.

In reality, you're totally right. In a two party system like we have, if you don't vote republican, you're voting democrat, and vice versa. That's the thing (imo) that's slowly strangling our country. I keep hoping somebody will come along that values the country above party. That's why I voted for Kinky Friedman for gov.......voting for Friedman probably gave Rick Perry the election, but you know, I'm going to keep on voting the person, not the party.

[BJean 16]

You don't understand about party platform, plain? It'd be good if you read about the different stances that the parties stand for.

Sure there are things that the Democratic party has in their platform that I don't necessarily embrace, but I have to always consider the alternative. That being the Republican party platform which I disagree with nearly entirely. (A few exceptions, to be sure.)

But I don't really have to go on a rant to explain the wisdom of my position. Your last paragraph pretty much says it all.

Keep up the fight to get an Independent party if you believe that is the right thing to do. But don't be surprised if your vote for just the man, winds up electing the person who has poor values and bad judgment and a man whose political party you happen to disagree with vehemently. I have to add that you'd possibly not only be putting the opposition's political party in control of public policies, but also in control of your future.

[KartMan 58]

In full disclosure, I can’t say that I really understand a multi party parliamentary system but to me, it sounds more appealing that our simple two party system. In our system, you really only get the two choices. The Dems and GOP have strengthened themselves so much within the system that no outsider would even stand a chance. Even Ross Perot who had tons of media attention and lots of cash never stood a chance. At least with a parliamentary system, those fringe voices get a seat at the table and have to be brought into a coalition government. Once the coalition is formed, the majority party has to listen to them to some extent or risk breaking up the coalition.

When I get political mail, the first thing that gets thrown away is anything that looks like a party line vote on a slate of issues.

[BJean 16]

You know maybe someday our system may change. If there is enough support for it and someone to champion it, perhaps it is not out of the realm of possibility. And I am certainly not opposed to change - we could use a good shaking up I think. I've worked for elected government officials and it is sometimes quite disillusioning to see, up close, how things really get done behind the scenes.

But as for politics in the here and now, I stand by my post.