Reader comments
Politician's personal life is the public's business

I understand your point, Bob, but I have to disagree to some extent. There has to be a line between any person's private life and your right to know. When will we stop the voyeurism? The problem comes when public servants use public resources for inappropriate purposes. And, it is a problem when they stand on their soapbox and attack others, then engage in similar activities. (Vitter, Ensign, Craig, Foley, Gingrich, Sanford, Livingston, etc.). At least with Clinton, we knew going in how he was. The voters know about Barney Frank's proclivities. The voters can decide, allowing for human weakness vs. off the charts hypocrisy. I can accept human weakness and mistakes, but the hypocrites I cannot accept. But we need to be careful about peering into someone else's bedroom. Those who do invite peering into their own.

I had to jump in here, even if just for the novelty of agreeing with Bob Bernick Jr.

Most people still do not cheat on their wives and politicians, entrusted with public money, entry into international conflicts etc should be very straight and honest in all their deallings.

What is true for Bill Clinton, Hart, and is still true for Barney Frank etc, must be equally applied to Republican sleazeballs, or those of any other party.

Point well made Bob.

How is it any different than wanting to know the personal life of an employee? We would get sued if we insisted on knowing the intimate details of our workers' lives outside of work, so what changes when it's a public official? As long as they do their job well and honestly, I'd rather not know how they deal with personal struggles.

Anything else is tabloid mentality.

Pols from both parties are caught with lowered pants. But there is a peculiar hypocrisy on the part of "conservatives" who shout loudly and sanctimoniously about the "amorality" of liberals and then plunge into sleaze themselves. Mark Sanford and Newt Gingrich are blazing hypocrites, that's all.

Anyone who cheats has broken a vow they made to their spouse and their god (I am assuming a typical marriage here).

If they break an oath like that, why should we believe they will keep any other oath they have made?

If ever there was a secion of society who should be scrutinised regarding their determination to keep their oaths, and their record on keeping or breaking promises, whether constitutional or marital, it is the public sector. This obviously includes politicians; clearly we need to be more careful about this in future.

"... being subject to kings, presidents, magistrates and politicians..."

What changes when it's a public official? Well, for one thing, I help pay public officials, and they're accountable to us. I think I have a right to know the personal and professional character of those I employ. Employees of a private business are accountable to the employer, not to me. The difference is tremendous.

I thought one of Bernick's best points was that if we know of a politician's proclivities and character before we vote, then we can make an informed choice. When the character flaws come out later, we certainly have a right to be outraged.

To Oh Please - just because conservatives don't like immorality doesn't mean they don't have human weaknesses just like the liberals. Based on your simplistic perception of hypocrisy, it must be better to have no moral character at all rather than stumble while striving for high moral character.

Despite the fact that this topic is clearly focused on sexual morality and fidelity, this would probably be a good point for the rabid "neo-con" haters to characteristically divert attention and spew about the morality of preemptive war, torture, hating poor people, etc. ad nauseum.

Clearly those on the right have feet of clay. So what? The politician that gets my vote is a "FISCAL" conservative. Matheson sometimes pretends to be one in order to save his bacon. So I vote for him, even though I think he is a hypocrit. The Republicans made the mistake of trying to convince the religious right that they were on board with them, that was bound to fail. They also tried to convince the fiscal conservatives they were on board with them. What can you expect. They are politicians. Sins of right still won't make me vote for socialist democrat.

The "simplistic" hypocrisy comes when a man bashes Clinton for his weakness and then is caught doing that same thing. Seems to be the definition of hypocrisy.

Yes, your definition of hypocrisy is very simplistic. If "the man" who bashed Clinton for his infidelity, then was caught doing the same thing, was as hard on himself as he was on Clinton, that's not hypocrisy - it's personal weakness and taking a stand against himself that's consistent with the one he took against Clinton. It's stumbling while striving. If he makes justifications for himself and claims to be morally superior despite his sins, then he is indeed a hypocrite.

Clearly you misunderstand the definition of the word "hypocrite". I took the liberty of consulting Webster's to help you out.

Main Entry: hypocrite
Pronunciation: ˈhi-pə-ˌkrit
Function: noun

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

It's pretty obvious that Sanford violated both.

NOT hypocrisy,

his wife kenw about it,

and they were separated, their relationship over.

Liberals expects a level of perfection from the right that no human being could possibly live up to.

unrealistic as it is is silly.


The Consetvative claim they are trying and striving, NOT that they are perfect.


Funny though, not any evidence at all from the left, that the right claimed they were or are perfect.

All I know of Sanford is that I saw him on the news accepting blame for acting in a despicable manner and humbly apologizing to everyone under the sun. Doesn't sound like a person who, as in definition #1, is putting on a false appearance of virtue or religion, but rather someone who acknowledged his lack of virtue and violation of religious principles. I have no idea how he felt about Clinton's indiscretions.

By the strict application of definition #2, I suppose then every person with a moral code is technically a hypocrite, meaning it is extremely difficult if not impossible for anyone to live a perfectly undeviating life in accordance with the moral code in which they believe. Even Jesus only railed against Scribes and Pharisees as being hypocrites, and did not call the sinners with whom he associated hypocrites. They humbly acknowledged their sinful states, and certainly were not perfectly living their beliefs. Jesus did not consider them hypocrites, although technically under definition #2 they probably were. They were not considered hypocrites because they were stumbling but striving.

To "To Scott"

No employer can inquire about the personal life of an employee. I employ two workers, and I could never fire them over personal indescretions without being sued. Yes, we pay the salaries of our elected officials. They are our employees. As long as they do their job honestly, their marriage fidelity is none of our concern.

Republicans are only human. Democrats are ammoral. We're not buying it anymore.

I don't care where he spends his time. I don't care if he ran off to another country to see a mistress. I didn't vote for him. I care that he preached how good Republicans are compared to that ammoral Bill Clinton.

Hypocrite!

Many employers can and do inquire about the personal life of potential employees. Some LDS-related organizations require a temple recommend to work there, and other religious organizations have their own unique standards as well, based on personal conduct and character. Even non-religious businesses have character clauses and look into personal lives. They look on Facebook, they Google, they use other investigative tools, some run credit reports, and they often pass over a candidate with drunken naked pictures out there in cyberspace.

Sanford's constituency certainly has the right to know about his character, and make informed decisions about whether to vote him in despite his foibles, vote him out, or take any other legal means to hold him accountable for misleading them.

At some point, even you would find specific personal conduct of public servants significant enough to justify public disclosure. You just haven't reached that point yet with Clinton or Sanford, apparently. But if your government representative decided he liked to date 12-year-olds - perfectly legal as long as no sexual activity is involved - I'll bet that would be repulsive enough that you'd like to know before casting your vote.

An employer cannot look into the bedroom of an amployee. It boggles the mind! Must we always peer into the private lives of everyone else? Stop the madness! My only knock on Sanford is his hypocrisy. That he followed his heart, even if it hurt his family, is a complicated matter and not one for me to judge. It is when he condems others then engages in the same stuff, that's where I have a problem. Be careful how and when you judge, it could come back to bite you. I'll leave it to God.