Good subject for research. We'll soon find out

I believe politicians are really hypocrites when they refuse to be leaders. It they want to force others to do something, they should subject themselves or their families to the same. The most hypocritical politicians are the ones who pass laws that they expect others to follow but not themselves.

Did Sanford sign legislation about infidelity? Has he ever fired someone for cheating on their spouses? How does that compare to the Democrats repeatly passing sexual harassment laws and then figuring out ways that those same laws to not apply to themselves?

I suppose with the various sex scandals in the GOP these days their new motto is, “Make love not war.”

That's one way for them to make a comeback.

Absolutely not.

But, is a politician who demonizes and legislates against gays and then turns out to either commit gay acts or be a gay himself a hypocrite? Absolutely yes!

Is a person who preaches moral values, and family values and God-fearing, bible-thumping principles and then violates those principles, a hypocrite? Absolutely yes!

Does a Party or a movement that has moral values, family values, religious principles etched in stone in its platform , runs on such a platform, rubs the opposition party's nose in it, hypocritical? Absolutely yes!”

I don't have a problem with that — we all fall short of our ideals at times; like I said above, people are people. I do have a problem with those people holding up higher standards for others than they hold themselves to. Now, it's possible that Sanford will realize through his personal experience that sometimes lightning strikes and you fall in love and it is an overwhelmingly powerful experience. This could very well change his understanding of why, for example, being gay really isn't a choice, and why teenagers have sex despite abstinence-only education and we should therefore teach them about contraceptives, why adultery shouldn't be a crime (as it is currently in SC — brings up a whole 'nuther can of worms), why presidents shouldn't be impeached because of sexual indiscression, why there is more to sex than God and children. I don't know what will happen there, time will tell. His career's DOA anyway, so it's not impossible.

“I guess I'd believe that certain commenters were more genuinely outraged…” I've been outraged at the policies he has espoused for a long time, and this doesn't in any way change how I feel about those policies. I hope it changes the way HE feels about them.

“what David Letterman has to do with all of this…” Just because DL was the most recent to say something totally inappropriate in the slut-shaming category does not mean that he has a copywrite on the practice. And lefty commedians certainly aren't the ones constantly trying to put into policy laws that make it difficult for young women in this regard.

“Aside from the fact that you misrepresent what social conservatives believe”

How do you figure?

“A hypocrite doesn't actually believe what he says or pretends to believe”

I didn't use the word “hypocrite”.

To answer your basic question, perhaps people can simultaneously believe that certain behaviors are morally wrong (either with or without a concurrent belief that such behaviors should have bearing on legislation and policy) but still be human beings with faults and failings?

Does a person have to have a clean driving record and never let the spedometer get over the limit in order to believe that we should have speed limits?

I'm not saying that leaders shouldn't walk the walk, but failing to live up to one's standards is not the same as hypocrisy. A hypocrite doesn't actually believe what he says or pretends to believe, while the policitians like Sanford appear to believe that their actions are wrong even though they were too weak to resist the temptation.

I guess I'd believe that certain commenters were more genuinely outraged about leaders who don't practice what they preach if the standard were also applied to people like Al Gore (inhabiting a minimansion and flying private jets, and paying indulgences) or other liberals who say one thing but do another.

All that said, it would be nice if the Bible-belt social conservatives like the SC Gov could get their noses out of the personal lives of other people, stop trying to legislate “Christian Family Values”, stop blabbering on about the “sanctity of marriage”, stop the slut-shaming of young women, stop trying to keep birth control out of the hands of young people, and stop trying to argue for the sake of policy that sex and marriage are for the sole purpose of procreation. I really don't understand how someone who is obviously engaging in sex for the pleasure of it, someone who is cheating on his wife, someone who is most certainly using birth control, and someone who has defiled the sanctity of his own marriage and family can with any credibility make any of those issues part of his platform.

“I doubt Republicans are any more or less morally bankrupt than Democrats.”

Especially Washington, and likely the opportunity to move up the ranks to get to Washington, seems to corrupt all — all are at least susceptible. Look at what happened to the post-1994 GOP “revolution” (as well as the personal conduct of some associated with this).

In the case of Washington, it's an obvious consequence of Washington's being far too large and powerful.

I fear that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Using mind control techniques developed on his home planet, Obama has unleashed an army of seductresses in order to eliminate the men who stand in the way of his reelection in 2012. Based on the timing of the Sanford and Ensign affairs, it appears he launched the offensive before the first primary of 2008.

I know this seems like a far-fetched theory, but it will seem a lot more plausible should Huckabee or Pawlenty ever hold the confessional press conference.