all this media driven moralizing sickens me....

[mike_c]

For Pete's sake, DUers-- puritanism is SO seventeenth century! This Sanford hand wringing is the sort of noise conservative fundies and their allies make when anyone in public life turns out to be human after all.

Let them who are without sin cast stones, and all that. The rest of us should direct our attention to more important things. Surely there are some actual issues and events that merit all this moral outrage? Somewhere?

[MineralMan]

1. Like President Obama, we're capable of doing more than

one thing at a time. Sanford represents the essential hypocrisy of the "Value Voter" Republicans, and is a topic worth discussing.

At the same time, we are discussing dozens of other topics today. Democrats can do it all.

[el_bryanto]

2. Well, yes, of course

But on the other hand, one of the key components keeping us from making progress on those issues are moralistic Republicans like Samson. So I guess taking a moment to kick him, and by extension his movement/philosophy, while he's down isn't the worst use of time.

Bryant

[mike_c]

5. but by "kicking him when he's down..."

...we buy into his own moral code-- and frankly, for most folks, it's just as hypocritical. Maybe not directly-- that's reserved for others who've had an affair (I did, many years ago). But in a broader sense, none of us is perfect, so circling to shame Sanford for being human is just plain nasty, IMO. It's the sort of thing school children do, and GOPers.

:puke:

[Blue_Tires]

10. precisely

Sanford screamed up and down ten years ago that Clinton was an embarassment to the office and to the voters, and as a result should resign -- I just want him to follow his own ethical advice...

[el_bryanto]

11. Is it effective? I am certainly willing to be convinced. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. I am actually relieved that he was up to no good with a mistress -

because MY thought was that he was up to no good with Rove, Cheney, et al, getting prepped for 2012.

So he's screwing around? Meh.

[mike_c]

9. meh, indeed!

:thumbsup:

[Blue_Tires]

4. it's the hypocrisy, of course

from one of the GOP's top "defenders of traditional marraige", and you did of course see some of his choice comments back during the Clinton days, right?

[mike_c]

7. see my response #5....

[damntexdem]

6. Criticism of Puritan hypocracy is always called for.

Has been since The Scarlet Letter -- and is still needed today. These scum went after Clinton's presidency on the basis of his hanky panky, have repeatedly called for the resignation of others for similar acts, and have pushed a homophobic agenda behind the facade of 'family values.' Those like Ensign and Sanford have earned every bit of moralizing that they now have to endure, and much more than the media will ever throw at them.

[mike_c]

8. by invoking the same moral code as the basis for derision?

That's JUST as hypocritical! And SO conservative!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. It's hypocritical to point out hypocrisy?

:crazy:

[Crunchy Frog]

12. It's not about puritanism, it's about the hypocrisy.

It's never a problem to point up the hypocrisy of the holier-than-thou Republicans.

[Crunchy Frog]

13. It's not about puritanism, it's about the hypocrisy.

It's never a problem to point up the hypocrisy of the holier-than-thou Republicans.