God, I hate hypocrites. How disgusting is it that the leading progressive news outlet should go on this holier-than-thou preachy rant that any fundamentalist would envy:
Family values? Mark Sanford cheated on his wife, and only when caught admitted that he had done so with a “handful” of women, over the course of his marriage.
Honesty? In addition to his wife, Sanford lied to his staff and his constituents, when he claimed he would be hiking the Appalachian Trail, but was actually in Argentina with his mistress.
Personal responsibility? Sanford was a governor, and while hiking the Appalachian Trail in Argentina with his mistress, he could not be reached by either his family or his staff.
Integrity? Sanford soon will appear in court for allegedly trespassing in the home of his now ex-wife, the woman to whom he was married when he was hiking the Appalachian Trail in Argentina with his mistress.
Since when do progressives police people’s sex lives? Hello?
You can hate Sanford’s politics all you want but you have got to love your principles more than you hate Sanford. It is either OK to impose ultra-religious morality on people and judge their professional performance on the basis of their morals or it isn’t. If we criticize Christian schools for firing teachers who have sex outside of marriage, then how can we possibly criticize voters for not punishing a politician running for secular office in a secular country for not upholding a strict Christian code of behavior? Even Jesus abstained from this exaggerated, prissy outrage about anybody’s mistress, by the way.
The most hilarious thing about the article is how it ends:
Sanford also is a hypocrite, having during his previous tenure in Congress voted to impeach President Clinton for his personal behavior. But to Sanford’s supporters, both in South Carolina and elsewhere, hypocrisy clearly doesn’t matter.
It is very cute when people whose hypocrisy makes such a blatant show of itself accuse others of being hypocritical.
Come on, folks, if we can’t just keep to criticizing politicians for their voting record and have to resort to rummaging in their underwear, then shame on us.
Clarissa's Blog 
I’d say that they were mostly just pointing out his hypocrisy, but pointing out that your opponent is a hypocrite seems to be a surprising ineffective political tactic.
LikeLike
The outrage about “his mistress” made me feel like I was hearing a street preacher.
LikeLike
IOKIYAR. That’s what the progressives are mocking, the Republican voters’ willingness to throw away all the family values outrage about teh gayz destroying marriage and teh loose women wanting birth control and access to abortion if needed.
“It’s OK If You Are Republican”
Obviously the voters don’t care if Sanford went AWOL and out of touch on the taxpayer’s dime.
Please, Republicans, quit flapping your pieholes about “family values” and making scapegoats of large segments of the U.S. population. (Let’s see: gays, transgender folk, women who use birth control, non-Christians, non-Evangelical Christians (“you know those Episcopalians aren’t really Christian”), non-anglo immigrants, children who have the temerity to be born to poor women, …).
LikeLike
So the response is to engage in the same kind of bedroom policing?
LikeLike
If he demands we follow rules that he refuses to follow himself, that reveals A) he thinks he’s entitled to do things normal people aren’t, and B) he’d openly lie about his politics to get support. Both of which are very dangerous things for a politician.
I don’t care about Sanford’s sex life, obviously. I don’t think meat-eaters care I’m a vegetarian, either, but if I screamed about how meat-eaters were evil and stooooopid while also enjoying a steak dinner for myself, wouldn’t you say that’d reveal something important about my character?
LikeLike
This is precisely where the problem lies in my opinion. We create an illusion of a personal relationship with politicians by discussing and caring about their characters and personalities. This is something we don’t do with any other person we employ. Only the politicians, the parental figures par excellence, evoke this deeply emotional reaction.
In reality, it has zero importance whether Sanford believes the crap he spouts about the family values or not. What does it change for us whether his anti-woman, homophobic agenda is sincere? Bush Jr. was completely sincere in what he did (I believe), but what did that help us?
The real problem is the nature of these horrible conservative beliefs. The characters or personalities of the people who promote them, however, change nothing for us. By fixating on Sanford’s personal life, we make it seem as if being a perfect husband somehow made his political agenda more palatable.
Whenever an election cycle begins, we start hearing endless analysis of who is a good or bad spouse or parent. I think these discussions should just stop. They are evidence of the tabloidization of politics that I, for one, can’t stand.
LikeLike
I see your point. You’re right. It’s just upsetting from the perspective of a gay guy that they don’t have the same problems with adultery as they do homosexuality, even though they violate the same set of rules.
I guess I was being too emotional about it. It’s hard not to be, but I don’t think that’s an excuse.
LikeLike
As a measure of society’s general unhealth, liberals are also very interested in narcissistic supply.
I tell you, that concept explains very much. I think it pretty much covers most of identity politics. We can understand why rich, white people embrace its postures as a means to gain status. At the same time, you will not see them making friends with anybody who is genuinely oppressed.
Strange but true story: When I returned for further education after my bachelor’s degree, I wrote a letter to explain my interests, which must have come across as strange. I said something like: “There is this invisible thing that people are using to transact with each other. It’s like energy shifts around and this is vitally important to people; it’s a whole invisible economy. I’d like to identify this invisible economy and find a name for it.”
I’m sure I was probably more vague than this, and so perhaps did not seem to be expressing any craziness — I’m not sure. I did not receive a reply.
But now I understand what this invisible quantity of energy that shifts from one person to another is called: “Narcissistic supply”. I understand why people plunder each other for it — at least I understand why in theory. My perceptions were not off about this. There really was something going on. There still is.
LikeLike
It’s really no one’s business but Sandford and his wife’s who he fucks. I’m really tired of hearing what politicians do with their genitals. Maybe everyone who runs for office should be chemically castrated, would that make the country happen do you think? Or maybe their brains could be removed and implanted into emotionless robot bodies. I welcome our new Cyberman rulers.
Yep, I’m really tired of hearing what government persons do with their underpants regions.
LikeLike
Personally, I would prefer that my governor not disappear, without forwarding phone number, for several days. It is bizarre that Sanford would do so, and that supposedly the office staff and Lt. Gov. did not know where he was or how to reach him in case of natural disaster or other occurrence requiring deployment of the National Guard, which is initiated by the governor.
Liberals hope that the social conservatives stay home in disgust and disillusionment. That is not going to happen. The “authoritarian follower” personality drawn toward Protestant conservative pastor-centric megachurches can tolerate a LOT of cognitive dissonance. The pastors have discovered that they can get money and influence from being reliable allies of conservative politicians, and stir up their congregants. The social conservatives have their own parallel media universe that operates on the IOKIYAR principle, and many may not know that Sanford went AWOL. And some conservatives are cynical about politicians but “vote while holding their nose”.
LikeLike