I think your reaching on the assumption that the quote pertains to Clinton lying to his wife and not on him committing perjury. I don't think many will buy that except left-leaning partisans.

“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]

In the first one he only says that anyone would have to go if they face these ALLEGATIONS, not that they actually broke a law.

In the second one Sanford talks about the effect that lying has, which is undermining trust (and that quote also mentions that Clinton must go because he lied to his WIFE, if nothing else).

In other words Sanford is saying that the mere allegation of impropriety or the loss of confidence in a business or political official is enough reason for that person to resign.

In the quotes you gave, Sanford says nothing about Clinton having to go because he broke a law.

So he broke no laws but has no principles. Swell.

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

Lets go with, Is their any indication that he broke any laws? nope.

Let's not jump to conclusions

“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]

Sanford on the other hand broke no laws. I'll refer you to this NPR article

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?st…

<snip>

So what happens when a chief executive goes off the grid? Did Sanford, in addition to breaking his marriage vows, violate any requirements of his high office — other than probity — when he was incommunicado?

“I don't think so,” says James Underwood, the leading expert on South Carolina's Constitution and author of a four-volume history of the document.

“He perhaps acted imprudently,” Underwood said, just moments before a teary Sanford, father of four, confessed during a news conference that he'd made himself unreachable in South America to spend time with his paramour.

“But I don't think he violated any technical provisions,” he says.

<snip>

“It doesn't seem to present much of a problem with the constitution as an absolute fact,” says John Simpkins, a Charleston School of Law professor.

<snip>

I think you need to rethink your own “cognitive” thoughts a bit.

Governor Sanford BROKE the “Chain of Command” in my state (SC) leaving us with NO immediate response capability in the event of an emergency. For this action and this action ALONE he should be impeached! I don't care that his wife didn't know where he was or not. I don't care he had an affair. I do care that his staff either covered for him or did not know how to reach him and he had not released power of authorization to the Lt. Governor as ANY Governor would have if they were going incommunicado.

Spin the rest of the story anyway you want but dereliction of duty makes him a dangerous liability to our state.

Now should he be attacked publicly?

For 15 years Gov. Sanford presented himself as a rabid family values candidate and has now been caught in dereliction of duty due to his INFIDELITY!

Are we not to point out the hypocrisy of this man's actions and beliefs?

Remember this man publicly demanded Clinton resign for his “infidelity” with Lewinsky.
At least Clinton never disappeared and left us with no chain of command.

I believe you should rethink your post LEONIDES because it smells of Republican hand wringing more than a true cognitive thought on the proper response to this issue.

Did he break the law? nope.

Does an affair mean he can't do a good job? nope. Unless you think that Thomas Jefferson, FDR, JFK, Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton all were awful.

Sure he wasn't a very good husband, but he has been doing a fine job as Governor of my State and I vote for good political leadership, not for good husbands.