Sandford Is Done

[Jocassee]

South Carolinian speaking up here.

What I don't understand is why when the press says "Sanford is done" that it is so. I would still vote for him. Even over Palin. Easily over Palin.

[mtnbkr]

Romans would not have considered having a mistress to be an issue at all.

Were Romans in the habit of touting "family values"?

Chris

[Jocassee]

Were Romans in the habit of touting "family values"?

Chris

For the record, Sanford did not run on "Family Values" but on fiscal conservatism. That said, family values are pretty well respected in SC by default.

[Racehorse]

I have a hard time trusting someone who can't keep promises to those closest to them. If he won't do what he promised his spouse he would do, why would he keep promises made to constituents?

Adultery is indicative of weak character. It shows me that a person will not stick to principle when tempted, but only when it's easy.

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I can't vote for adulterers.

[Balog]

I have a hard time trusting someone who can't keep promises to those closest to them. If he won't do what he promised his spouse he would do, why would he keep promises made to constituents.

Adultery is indicative of week character. It shows me that a person will not stick to principle when tempted, but only when it's easy.

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I can't vote for adulterers.

Yup. No matter how much people try to rationalize it away (It's his private life!) or even laud him for admitting it (They all do it anyway!) betraying your spouse and family is far more vile and reprehensible than taking bribes or hooking your buddies up with sweetheart .gov contracts. It's a fundamental violation, not the inconsequential thing so many would have us believe.

[longeyes]

The Romans were morally quite conservative when it came to "family."  You don't stop valuing family because you go to a gladiator show now and then.  Don't trust the sandal operas with their depiction of orgies 24/7/365.  The Romans were a tribal people like any other, despite their cosmopolitan sway.

[Balog]

History fail. Roman culture (depending on what era Romans we're talking about) may have had an emphasis on some "family" values, but they were not a sexually moral people. Two words: temple prostitutes.

[roo_ster]

Two words: temple prostitutes.

That's one way to fill the pews...

[lupinus]

History fail. Roman culture (depending on what era Romans we're talking about) may have had an emphasis on some "family" values, but they were not a sexually moral people. Two words: temple prostitutes.

This is true.  The Romans were VERY moral people by and large.  However, their morals were their own.  It wasn't immoral to have a mistress in the slightest.  Abandoning your family for said mistress was immoral however. 

The more coming out on this and the more I digest it the more I am moving away from him to be honest.  I still give him props and consider it a measure of character that he owned up to and admitted it quickly.  But that, combined with going AWOL, leaves an ever more sour taste in my mouth the more I think on it.

[Balog]

As with everything it all comes down to worldview. If you think morality is a subjective societal construct vs an absolute standard, well.... Hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone when you can't agree on the meanings of words.

[MicroBalrog]

As with everything it all comes down to worldview. If you think morality is a subjective societal construct vs an absolute standard, well.... Hard to have an intelligent discussion with someone when you can't agree on the meanings of words.

Oh, I am a great believer in objective morality. I still disagree that there is only one pattern of personal and sexual behavior that is moral.

[Balog]

Oh, I am a great believer in objective morality. I still disagree that there is only one pattern of personal and sexual behavior that is moral.

"I believe in absolute morality" is great. "Morality is whatever I want it to be" is somewhat less useful.

[Jamisjockey]

Oh, I am a great believer in objective morality. I still disagree that there is only one pattern of personal and sexual behavior that is moral.

What part of making a legally binding sexual agreement (marriage license), and then breaking it, is moral?
We're not talking about swingers here.  We're talking about a man who's broken the public trust by
1) going AWOL. 
2) Saying he is a man of moral conviction, parading his beautiful family out onto TV, and then breaking his legally binding marriage vows.

You're a smart guy, but I'm not sure you understand American politics as well as  you think.  We still expect our politicians to be who they say they are, even though secretly we know they aren't. 

When I go into politics, it will be well known which interns I'm sleeping with.... 

[mtnbkr]

When I go into politics, it will be well known which interns I'm sleeping with.... 

ie none of them.

Chris

[Jamisjockey]

ie none of them.

Chris

Thread win!

[MicroBalrog]

[qute]
You're a smart guy, but I'm not sure you understand American politics as well as  you think.[/quote]

Oh I understand that this will reduce Stanford's chances at electoral success. I also don't think that adultery is okay (except within the confines of an open relationship, in which case it's not really adultery), but I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.

Where I live, we just had a minister convicted of taking bribes and he's whining that he's been racially discriminated against because he got four years in prison while another minister (who got caught stealing money from a Holocaust memorial charity) got five.

I'm sorry if I can't help but think that a guy like Sanford is awesome as compared to the idiots I observe in office in my own country, on a daily basis - or, to that end, the guy who's in charge of your country, right now.

[Jocassee]

[qute]
I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.

In a sane world, yes. Unfortunately we do not live in that world.

[Nick1911]

I also don't think that adultery is okay (except within the confines of an open relationship, in which case it's not really adultery), but I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.

//sigh

How is holding socialist viewpoints a crime?

Furthermore, why should it be?  Isn't the whole point of democracy that everyone can believe what they want, vote accordingly, and the majority vote picks the president?

We got President Obama because that's exactly what most people wanted.  I contend that is exactly how things should be.

[Jamisjockey]

[qute]
You're a smart guy, but I'm not sure you understand American politics as well as  you think.

Oh I understand that this will reduce Stanford's chances at electoral success. I also don't think that adultery is okay (except within the confines of an open relationship, in which case it's not really adultery), but I don't think it's a world-shattering crime as compared to taking bribes or being a raving socialist.

Where I live, we just had a minister convicted of taking bribes and he's whining that he's been racially discriminated against because he got four years in prison while another minister (who got caught stealing money from a Holocaust memorial charity) got five.

I'm sorry if I can't help but think that a guy like Sanford is awesome as compared to the idiots I observe in office in my own country, on a daily basis - or, to that end, the guy who's in charge of your country, right now.

No, but its certainly hard to trust someone who's been out playing hide the one eyed willie on the taxpayer dime.  Is it too much to expect truthfullness from elected officials?  I contend it is not too much to ask.

[Balog]

So Micro, you're saying he's the lesser of two evils? 

[MicroBalrog]

How is holding socialist viewpoints a crime?

Oh, it's not a crime in the sense that you shouldn't go to prison for it. But I think it's reasonable to argue that people who hold non-socialist views, like you and me, should not vote for socialists,

So Micro, you're saying he's the lesser of two evils? 

From what I know about Stanford, he's not ideologically perfect (nobody is), but he's definitely on our side.

It distresses me that people disqualify candidates who are overall good based on some single issue, or minor offense like this, and then proceed to mount a candidate with the ideological consistency of a Dire Jelly, and then go "But look! He's the lesser evil! HE's marginally less incredibly evil and corrupt than the other guy! What are you going to do, not vote for us or something? You need to be MATURE!"

[Balog]

The difference here is that you consider a fundamental betrayal of trust a "minor issue." One can only assume this comes as a result of your "sex positive" worldview where who what when and where you stick it aren't a big deal.

[MicroBalrog]

It's interesting that you keep using that word combination to describe me. I take it as a compliment, of course, but I note I originally used it  on APS to criticize the sex-positive community.

[Balog]

It's probably the most polite way we have to characterize your belief system. 

[Sergeant Bob]

There are two things I can't abide by in people, liars and cheaters. He is both.