>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And what do you know, another self-righteous moralist was cheating on his wife. I'm shocked, shocked, I tell you. <vbg>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It almost makes you long for the good old days when it was Democratic politicians who couldn't keep their pants on ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>C'mon, don't ignore the (a-hem) upside for Republicans -- at least this time it involved heterosexuals. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually I pity the guy. These things are not for public sport. He should invite all first-stone-caster types over for a big "family" cookout after resigning. Leaving w/o redirecting governing powers to the lt. is what has no excuse. Next is reasonable questioning about any tax-payer monies involved. Oh wait. Isn't he a first-stone-caster type anyway? Haha Figures.
>>>>
>>>>I think the issue is not so much the affair (at least it didn't involve a cigar in his gubernatorial office), but rather the absence without a clear emergency action plan in his absence and the lack of knowledge and planning with the state. Just as Clinton's affair was not about the affair but rather perjury. I know some folks see dishonesty and breaking a marriage vow as an example that the person would not honor a contract with the people as well or look out for their best interests instead of his own, but I'm not sure that can be true in all cases.
>>>
>>>In my view, there are two issues here. The first is the question of his leaving without setting up back-up. That's irresponsible.
>>>
>>>The affair itself is an issue only because he promoted himself as part of the "family values" group. If you're going to present yourself as better because you're for those family values (however defined), then you ought to behave that way. Otherwise, you're a hypocrite and you deserve to be taken to task for it.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Do you know a politician (regardless to party) not supporting family values in public? Try to answer this simple question impersonally and you may find yourself accusing any walking about politician in hypocrisy.
>
>But some make that a big part of their political persona, while others do not. And those who do make it part of their agenda tend to have a very narrow view of what constitutes a family.
>
>Tamar

I guess that 'narrow view' is just a euphemism on your part meaning traditional family. Imho, supporting 'broad view' in this issue and then branding adultery as hypocrisy is somewhat self-incriminating.