Do you realize this means not only not lunging into vastly more interventionism but in reducing the size and scope of Washington by two-thirds or more?

It's the right thing to do but it will never happen, sadly.

I look forward to the day we can have another leader like Grover Cleveland or Calvin Collidge who take their oath to uphold the Constitution with the utmost sincerity, and stay within the bounds of the powers granted to the President.

Let me paraphrase his comments:

That is such horse manure about perjury. You want to talk about perjury? You want to talk about lying under oath? You want to talk about obstructing justice? Then, let's talk about breaking one of the most sacred oaths: The oath Bush took, twice, when he said “I, George W. Bush solemnly swear to…”

Iraq war based on lies, torture, illegal wiretapping, U.S. Attorneys firings,…. need I go on?

I didn't realize that a “noted fiscal conservative” is someone who uses South Carolinians' tax dollars to fly to South America for an extramarital affair.

OK Leonidas?

“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]

“Personally, I think it is time to let it go. One day is enough. We have more important things going on in the world.”

How many months did we go on 24-7 about a certain president's indiscretion? (Sorry, it was about a president lying under oath about oral sex)

“If Mark Sanford had cheated on his taxes instead of his wife, he would have been a cabinet member by now.”

After reading what wikipedia says about it, I'd have to say that Sanford isn't a hypocrite. He does know that what he did was wrong, he isn't claiming beliefs that he doesn't have. He clearly believes that what he did was wrong since he has apologized and asked for forgiveness and seems quite sincere.

so, there you go – it's not about hypocrisy.

Here's what I found:

from Wikipedia:

Hypocrisy is the act of pretending that one has beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards that they do not actually have; this is usually done in order to mask their actual motives or feelings; falseness.

The term hypocrite is widely misused. Many persons state that hypocrisy is the action of 'not practising what you preach'. It is easy to see the resemblance, and completely understandable why there has been widespread confusion. However, this, like many others, is an incorrect definition. The following instance is a demonstration of a misuse

Father: You know, it's wrong to swear.
Son: You hypocrite!
Father: How so?
Son: You always swear.
Father: That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

The father is correct, as opposed to the son, who isn't. Had the father stated he doesn't swear, (assuming that the son is correct in saying he always swears) he would have been a hypocrite. Had he not actually agree with the statement, again, he would have initiating a hypocritical situation. The possession of the belief is what labels the situation, not the practice of the belief. Self-contradiction is not necessarily synonymous with hypocrisy. As Samuel Johnson remarked in Rambler No. 14:

“Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practise; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.”[1]

(there is more on wikipedia)

“The bottom line, though, is I am sure there will be a lot of legalistic explanations pointing out that the president lied under oath. His situation was not under oath. The bottom line, though, is he still lied. He lied under a different oath, and that is the oath to his wife. So it’s got to be taken very, very seriously.” [Sanford on Livingston, CNN, 12/18/98]

“We ought to ask questions…rather than circle the wagons for one of our tribe.” [Sanford on how the GOP reacts to affairs, New York Post, 12/20/98]

“I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally (to resign). I come from the business side. If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.” [Sanford on Clinton, The Post and Courier, 9/12/98]

“The issue of lying is probably the biggest harm, if you will, to the system of Democratic government, representatives government, because it undermines trust. And if you undermine trust in our system, you undermine everything.” [Sanford on Clinton, CNN, 2/16/99]

Here's the former chair of the SC GOP:

Dawson, one of the architects of South Carolina's GOP resurgence this decade and runner-up in the race to become RNC chairman earlier this year, said “character and integrity matter to our party.”

“It's important to hold our leaders accountable, and Gov. Sanford has flunked that test.”

As for the governor's 2012 presidential prospects, Dawson said, “he was a contender, and that’s over with.”