I am the lone democrat in a family of conservative republicans and I am already hearing comments like "Bill Clinton was considered a hero but let a republican make one mistake, etc..... Dear Lord! John Ensign and Mark Sanford both said that Bill Clinton should have resigned as a result of his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Sanford called Clinton's actions inexcuseable. Now both Ensign and Sanford have been caught with their pants down and there is a public outcry for them to live up to their own statements: resign because of their behavior. But the response is that those suggesting that they should resign are to quick to condemn and not willing to forgive. Give me a break! This is totally about Sanford's own statements about politicians getting caught with their pants down. Hypocrits

it is interesting to see someone's political career being so magnificently destroyed by the self destruct button. the today show just played part of an interview where sanford admitted "physical contact" with numerous women over the past couple of years, but says of his affair with the argentine woman :it's "a love story"-"she is his soulmate".

crash and burn!

I'm in favor of Sanford resigning, but I'm not sure that the issue with Bill Clinton was exactly the same. The affair was a factor in his impeachment, but it was really just the subject about what he was accused of lying under oath about. Or am I misremembering the scandal?

I suspect that if SC investigates Sanford's trips to Argentina, the issue will escalate to something clearing resignation worthy, but it's hard to make the claim that an affair alone necessarily disqualifies a politician, if we're using history as our judge. (Personally, I've already said I consider it disqualifying, but I don't think history bears it out as a matter of expected conduct. Do you think we'll never hear from John Edwards again, for instance?)

I think using Clinton as the standard is kind of strange because "his affairs" were caught up in sexual harassment allegations and dishonestly about the affairs. I mean, the Bimbo Eruptions (was that the term?) were fairly common knowledge even at the time he first ran for President. I think people forgave him the affairs pretty easily. The expectation that he could avoid testifying honestly about them in a lawsuit related to his similar behavior was too much to ask though. Being President + the affairs + using the actual oval office for tryst + arrogance about avoiding telling the truth = a different set of problems than this particular dumbass in South Carolina.

I can't figure out why no one can get him to stop talking. I understand that the media probably doesn't want him to, but is there no one, personally or politically in South Carolina who can just say, "enough, buddy, enough." "Think of your kids, dude, and shut up."

No, you're remembering correctly.

He keeps on saying crazy stuff, too! "Crossing the ultimate line...soulmate...blah blah blah."

Haha seriously. When I heard that "crossing the ultimate line" nonsense I couldn't believe anyone would actually say that.

I think he needs a priest that he can privately confess to.

I know I've got the denomination wrong (well, he's Episcopal, so he could find a priest, but confession might be weird), but I think might be what's driving him. He wants to confess everything and then hope to be forgiven.

Since I don't think Jenny's willing to play that role, and I love her for that, he's using the media, which is the wrong call.

I agree with that analysis. Maureen Dowd wrote in her column today "a news wire is not a spiritual adivser" but apparently he missed that memo.

There is confession among Episcopalians (formally called "Reconciliation of a Penitent" in the Book of Common Prayer), although SC tends to be fairly low church, so maybe it's not done so much there.

Frankly, I think there's a really interesting religion angle to all of this that the press, not surprisingly, is missing for the most part.

He's acting like Jimmy Swaggart!

I had wondered if Anglicans/Episcopalians had dropped confession entirely since there was a desire to get away from priestly intermediaries for the OP (Original Protestants).

To me, it seems like such a basic spiritual need to respond to, although I find the Catholic requirement too intense to be comfortable personally.

Don't most protestant denominations preach confession through prayer to God?

I think so. I'm (kind of a lame) Roman Catholic, so I'm not 100% sure.

I realize that I may have written that post about confession stupidly. I didn't mean the idea of confessing sins in general as much as I meant a sacrament involving a priest that you confessed to.

It's the priest's response to the confession that I think gives people a real sense of forgiveness sometimes. Your faith in your forgiveness is backed up by someone immediately.

Yes. I think it is something that the Anglicans got away from originally -- it started making a comeback with the Oxford/Anglo-Catholic Movement in the 19th Century.

So far as I know, Luther was the only one of the Reformers who advocated retaining personal confession to a member of the clergy, though I don't know that it has ever been widely practiced among Lutherans.

And shoot, these days even the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship has an order for what is essentially private confession, though I've never heard of anyone using it.