But the larger point is, should the public take into account a candidate's actions in his or her personal life when considering him or her for public office? I'd say “yes” and I don't think there's anything wrong with this.

But I agree with you when you wish that people would take into account other sins such as pride, greed, love of power, etc when it comes to analyzing candidates.

I think hypocrites are “a dime a dozen” in politics because careers rest on the ability to sell oneself, and you do this by telling a targeted group of people whatever they want to hear.

I think it says more than we want to know about the “American character” that the public (or more accurately, our media) bases their opinion of John Edwards on an affair to the exclusion of his political message.

John Edwards commited adultery. I'm not sure how he voted in the DOMA vote. I don't make any excuses for any of these philandering politicians because of their political party.

I guess that my point is that Sanford (just like Bill Clinton) was a hypocrite. Both of them went on about the “sanctity” of marriage that must be “protected” against same-gender marriage. And both of them flouted completely the sancitity of their marriages. Both of them publically appologized for their adultery. However, neither one to this day has ever apologized or repented for the hypocracy that both have shown in supposedly “defending” marriage against same-gender marriage.

Having said that, there are a number of issues that are important to me. Sanford was a very vocal proponent of impeaching President Clinton for his indiscretions. He also claims to be a supporter of DOMA and opposed to equality for gays in marriage, presumably using the “sanctity of marriage” argument. How hypocritical.

There are also questions surrounding his misuse of state money to pay for at least this latest trip/tryst in Argentina. That misuse, if it is found to be true, should be reason enough for him being removed from office, if not prosecuted.
He has stated that he will “pay back” every penny of state money he spent. Well, he better; but that doesn't excuse the crime.

Finally, I get the strong impression that Sanford's apology and stubborn refusal to resign, combined with the constant trickle of tawdry and tedious detail about the affair make me feel he is performing a sort of public flagellation. How unseemly. He probably understands that media consumers' prurient penchant for scandal may actually make a martyr out of him – a poster child for the victims of double standards, if you will. Ironic, considering his political stance on marriage.

Frankly, I'm tired of the love triangle of sex, politics and scandal. It is a distraction. I just want to make sure this man is doing his job, is not pilfering state funds for personal dalliances, and is not hiding behind a mask of sanctimony while applying an unreasonable code of conduct to everyone but himself.

Jesus said:

Mathew 23

“27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.”

[NOTE: I only put in below Gov. Sanford's opinions about marriage]

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mark_Sanford.htm#Civ...

No civil unions; define one-man-one-woman marriage. (Nov 2002)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

This Sanford case is similar in some ways to other of our modern scandals, but it is also different. In his public appearances, Sanford still gives us the impression that he's really in love with this Argentinian lady and if he had managed to successfully sneak back into his office, that it might not be over. But to me, the biggest factor is the extent to which the Republican Party, (which had held itself out as the party of family values) has failed to match its talk with its walk. There is a long list of Republican presidential wannabes whose chances are diminished by their own transgressions.

No one of any political persuasion can take any pleasure at the potential break-up of a marriage – especially one in which children are involved. To me, the most important question is not whether Sanford continues his term as governor, but the salvaging of his marriage.