You forgot Edwards...I know he's pretty forgetable.

i think Chris Matthews had a "big number" of like 23 "major political figures" involved in sex scandals post clinton / lewinski. 

oh, and spitzer wasn't the last democrat, patterson was. he admitted his affair shortly after assuming office and of course, has not resigned. i think maybe people either gave him the benefit of the doubt that his blindness made him "accidentally" sleep with another woman or just feeling some sympathy and glad  the "blind guy got a lil." just kidding...in any case, people pretty much gave patterson a pass.

also recently were the mcgreevy ordeal (resigned) and sf mayor gavin newsme, who pretty much had the same experience as ensign (and did not resign).

it's funny. we all talk a lot in discussions and academic circles about our system being so pure and our "office above the man" and all that....then most of the time, for both parties, these politicians stand up, like sanford did the other day, and start making delusioned, grandiose comparisons like him and king david from the bible. and they insist that the people need them, and only them, to save them from whatever evil darkness lurks waiting for them to step aside. and this isn't only about sex scandals, but most of the trouble that politicians find themselves flirting with. 

and we, the people...the suckers...let em get away with it all the time. sometimes, we seem to be holding the "lawmakers" and people in government, who should be held to a higher standard, to a lower standard. 

and i'm not saying i endorse ANY standard...but i wish the people would agree on a consistant one and one that is not based on that persons beliefs, causes or political party. 

but that's probably wishing for way too much. 

Sean, for once you and I agree.  on me.

why is the private life of anybody in politics used as a measurement on how well he or she can do his job? Someone cheating on his wife does not disqualify him as a competent politician in his resort or means that he would automatically also cheat on those that elected him. That is absurd. You  mix morals and politics in a unhealthy way and only get dissapointed, so just relax and try to be more french and let private life be private.

Those who criticize such behaviour loudly and preach morals are mostly those who secretly desire it, and there are numerous examples throughout history for that. Just take prude victorian england and the rise of the gothic novel. There was never a more amoral period, but it all happend in the "gentlemens clubs" and behind the scenes. Dracula was popular, erotic horror.. go figure. They raised the age of consent to 12 so that poor families couldn't sell their daughters to perverts, all while the society was prude and faithful on the surface.

Just hold people to standards that are realistic and don't make them out to be people that have to be better in every way than the rest of you mere mortals.

I don't vote for someone because I trust his character, I vote for someone because that person convinced me with his or her political goals and policies. Whatever happens in private life does not really mix with whatever proposals there are for the economy, foreign policy etc.

I guess there is a mentality difference here, a leader in the US is foremost a moral example and then a politician, whereas here (in Germany)  people are only politicians and nothing is known about their private life at all, and nobody wants to know aside from yellow press periodicals. I think Kohl had a long affair with his secretary, but who cares? Schröder is married for the 3rd or 4th time, it wasn't an issue. I don't even know what the husband of Angela Merkel looks like. There is a silent understanding with the press that familiy and private life is off limits.

Well, it IS entertaining.. and people love to watch how the mighty fall.

You want the ideal perfect moral family guy with business savvy and hard stance in important issues, wise yet strong etc. ? - look in fairytales, that's the only place such people exist. But then the white house does look a little bit like a castle.. maybe it is an attempt to create a pseudo monarchy? A good wise king who needs to be able to be viewed as a perfect example, with a wife, beautiful children, a pet and nice hobbies so the yellow press has something to report, all that pomp and circumstance in protocol and uniforms and dadada, your very own american version of Happily ever after.. pfft.

It seems that I simply have a different expectation of someone I vote for.

Being a crook or not is not linked to private life. I hadn't really thought about the angle of corruption, criminals should be kicked out, tried and sent to prison. I just don't see how that is linked to wether someone is faithful or not.Someone cheating on his wife is not automatically corrupt and someone not cheating on his wife is not automatically a saint. I concede to your point but my leniency was more towards private issues.

*grin*@optimistic .. I always thought that was amongst THE most american characteristics.

Seems it use to be

oh oops, wrong subject... err...

Right... thinking that your significant other / congressman would not cheat on you is optimistic, this is what I personally think. (I give benefit of doubt)

Thinking that your significant other / congressman will not cheat on you THIS TIME after you caught them doing it in the past (and they were CAUGHT, not came clean on their OWN accord because they felt terrible crushing guilt!) is extremely naive.

If there was no catching involved and the person came on their own and admitted wrong doing, then it would be optimistic to trust them again, maybe OVERLY optimistic... more optimism than I would allow. But being caught red handed? the only thing a person caught red handed regrets is getting caught.

Examples: You are a boss... you hire an employee, you do not put a hidden camera because you trust they will not steal from you - mildly optimistic.

Your employee comes forth and gives you a wad of bills, they admit they have stolen money in the past, say they are returning it all now, they feel terrible guilt about it, and quit the drug / alcohol / whatever that drove them to it. If you trust them again and still not install a hidden camera you are - moderately optimist

Same employee does it AGAIN... - extremely optimistic, a little naive, to beleive this is really the last time...

You catch an employee stealing red handed, he says it was the first time, promises to change, says it is all due to addiction problems, and swears up and down that he will never do it again. Trusting them at that point will be purely NAIVE; optimism is no longer a part of the equasion here.

Note that this case, it is a much more minor offense than cheating on your wife, or betraying the public. So the threshold for a person to skim a few bucks from the register is much lower than that for betraying a spouse or skimming millions when they are already rich and powerful. and as such reflects more severely on their morals. If a politician comes clean on their own, it is still somewhat naive to think they don't have ulterious reasons (Such as, being practically caught and hoping to lessen the remifications)

you can say that it is DANGEROUSLY PREJUDICIAL to assume that a person who cheats on his wife will backstab you in other areas. I will go ahead and do it anyways because I don't enjoy being fucked over. Enjoy the fruits of your naivete.

Just remember, you brought this on yourself.

there is no such thing as gutter language. The term shit was actually invented to be a "non offensive" term for feces. Then it became offensive so crap was invented to be a non offensive term for feces. Then it became offensive so crud became a non offensive term for it. Now people are saying that crud is offensive and are making up new terms. The whole thing is just plain stupid.

No, thats NAME CALLING... If I called you a "F----- Piece of F---- -----" I would be name calling and proof of having no argument. If I use fucked over instead of screwed or fudged over or fuffed over or whatever is currently "not offensive" to the idiots who focus on the ancilary issues, then all is fine.

If I decide to enter a child raising relationship via a monogamous perversion of a previously religious contract (aka, US style "marriage"); then yes I would never cheat, because it is a major betrayel of trust of a person that should be significant to you. However I am highely unlikely to enter such a relationship.

The opposite has been the case. As I matured and learned, I came to the conclusions that the notions of "everything is always shades of gray" that has been hammered in via liberal indoctranation facilities (school) is bullshit, and that in reality SOME things ARE black and white. While many things ARE shades of gray as I have been taught, not ALL things are.

From your profile I see you are 31, while at 25 I am younger than you, it is not enough to make a difference. Age is not the reason for our disagreement at this point.