Hey hey hey you skeptics!!! :)

Maybe he did exactly what he says he did. Let's pretend that he did.

He STILL had an affair and subjected those of us who read articles to a BS mysterious trip story. Then his wife played dumb. Poor sons...I feel sorry for the sons...why don't parents think of their children if they can't think of their spouses?!

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but there's another aspect that often goes overlooked: in the modern age, what constitutes "corruption"?

Put another way: How much are we willing to forgive to get the best person for the job (or, how much would moral turpitude of some level actually reflect on ability to govern)? (See: Geithner, Timothy)

I think that affairs will always figure in to how the public evaluates personal integrity in pols during elections, but at this point, we're kind of hard to surprise with this stuff. It's hard not to see marriage vows as the kind of public commitment you'd like your elected officials to honor, even if they break them on "their own time."

But I think most people are willing to overlook personal failings in politicians that they otherwise. Bill Clinton is the textbook example of that, but Rudy G provides one too.

I don't trust the personal integrity of any public figure unless I know them personally. I don't "like" politicians and I don't really like politics because I think it's all crap and fluff.

But, I interpret politics to mean that there's a professional integrity requirement. The person can be a complete moron who is dishonest in her/his personal life, but wears a different hat when it comes to doing her/his job. Until we do the ultimate background check and quality assurance where we micromanage all of their personal lives, we will run ourselves ragged reacting to everything.

I don't know how well that will apply in reality because we don't want politicans running more wild than they already are. Doesn't Europe have a more liberal approach to politicians' lives?

I think you have to look at individual cases for answers, and you have choose the areas of behavior that you're really going to let affect your evaluation.

Personally, I'd also consider the person's reaction to whatever the failing was. While I'm kind of amazed that we'd get a Sec. of Tres. with previous tax problems, his reaction to the issue was well-handled in my opinion and didn't make him seem unethical. If you've ever screwed up your taxes, you can see how it could happen and it wouldn't really mean you were dishonest or even particularly careless. But it's still weird that you could go on to run the US Treasury. I kind of want more of an anal retentive accountant type there, with apologize to all accountants who might read this.

I think what bothers me with adultery is that it seems to almost always involve an expectation of getting away with breaking a pretty public vow. If you're willing to be deceitful in this one area, why would a reasonable person assume you'd be honest in other areas? And marriage is purely between the two people involved or it wouldn't have the cultural significance that it has.

If you're willing to be honest in this one area, why would a reasonable person assume you'd be honest in other areas?

Beyond moral conjecture, there's no valid and reliable proof of the connection. What other immoral but legal things "can't" policians do without having their political honesty questioned?

How do you regard a person's basic character? I tend to think by a certain age, you're going to have patterns set, and while you might have occasional lapses, marital infidelity is a big enough decision that it's a significant tell.

ETA: [Apparent] marital fidelity alone wouldn't establish anyone's creditability for me; it's just that's its absence seems significant. And adultery is illegal in a lot of states, so it may not make sense to limit your request that way.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6...South-Carolina!

It's fun to quote the Daily Kos.

I'm a huge proponent of fidelty. I despise cheaters and I won't get on that soapbox.

But, when it comes to politicians, the infedility itself isn't the dealbreaker to me. The context is. Bill Clinton's Oval Office Orgasms and this governor's stupid mysterious trip for which government employees had to play dumb (I don't believe he flew without anyone knowing the where and why) say to me that the politicians have blatant disregard for a position and the responsibilities and amentities that come with it.

If Clinton had done his cigarisms in a hotel on his own time and if this governor had seen his mistress without this hoopla, I wouldn't politically care. I would only morally care and think they are cheating bastards. My moral care doesn't have to translate to much, especially since we aren't talking about illegal conduct.

Yes and no on all counts.

i think we have gotten to the point not that we don't care...but moreso we are NOT surprised.

Now while I am not surprised that he had an affair...admittedly, that was the last thing that came to my mind when I initially read the story.

Being that he had a history of just disappearing probably should have rang a bell (but then I got other things on my mind) regardless of the affair, him just up and running out like that with no word to anybody, was strange enough on the face of it.

Back to the bigger picture, the reason why most of us look the other way on the affair issue is, some of us got some of our own drama going on so to a point....these actions 'humanize' the politicians...on the flipside of all of that, some of these actions also tend to reflect how they treat the office...this is why i come back to the question of on whose dime was his little trip on?

Let's get past the affair for one moment and Im willing to make a prediction...if he didn't spend any govt funds, then he may get a slap on the wrists and carry on with his career with some tarnish and no, he may wind up being lost in the pack come 2012....his wife may leave him or wind up on 20/20 or Dateline...if that money was on the people's dime, in light of teh stimulus debacle...all hell will break loose.

Isn't adultery a crime?

Yes, in South Carolina, although one would have a perfectly reasonable argument that a law against adultery is unconstitutional.

ETA: Cite to SC law: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CODE/t16c015.htm

I didn't think the laws against adultery are still upheld aside from adultery being cause for divorce.

I think at this point it's generally seen as a waste of time and resources to bring criminal charges against someone or prosecute them for adultery.

From the legislature's point of view, I could see where it would be a bad PR move to repeal a law against adultery (although that's what's probably been done in most states). On the other hand, if someone were to actually get convicted for it, I could also see the courts declaring the law unconstitutional.

I remember there being talk about it in NY during the Spitzer thing. I don't know if NY still has the law on the books.

The law is the law.

That cut and dry, eh?