Posted on 06/24/2009 11:55:36 AM PDT by ianschwartz
I put no demands on anyone, reality, is what it is. If a family values propionate gets caught, it is always a disaster, when a democrat liberal gets caught, it is a resume enhancement.
The affair was not nearly as important as the irrational bizarre, circumstances under which it was revealed. The man clearly had some kind of stress related breakdown. Remember Eagleton?
MATTHEW 7:1-5:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
This is obviously telling people not to be hypocritical. The Bible does not instruct us to close our eyes to wrong doing. There are actually a number of passages directing us TO JUDGE, but to judge rightly. So, don't be a hypocrite, that is the sum of that verse, often used by people to club Christians over the head.
Mostly what I recall is how we throw our own to the wolves, puff out our chests about how good we are for it, then watch as Democrats gain seats.
You got any evidence Sanford resorted to the kind of tactics Clinton did to cover up HIS affair... If you don’t, then you must have drunk the Dem kool-aid that Clinton’s impeachment was “all about sex” and not about the fact he was a lying treasonous criminal scumbag.
_______________
BB:
The Governor was OUT OF THE NATION for 5 days and NO ONE in State Government could FIND HIM. Not the Lt. Gov., not the Senate Pro Tem, Not HIS OWN OFFICE.
In the State Constitution, duly elected officials are bound to be available to carry out their official duties, OR they must designate those duties as prescribed by law. Mark Sanford FAILED to transfer his authority (and MAY have actively avoided doing so to cover up his real activities), leaving SC vulnerable in the event of an emergency — earthquake (SC IS prone to them), severe weather, terrorist attack, etc... This is DERELICTION OF DUTY. Potential Count #1 in Impeachment proceedings.
Mark Sanford also used a State Vehicle for personal purposes, and may have falsified the REASON for his travel, and almost certainly falsified WHERE he was travelling. This is MISUSE OF STATE PROPERTY. Potential Count #2 in Impeachment proceedings.
Mark Sanford MAY have used State funds and resources for his trip to Argentina — purchasing tickets, gas for vehicles, hotel reservations, meals, etc — and perhaps falsifying THOSE records to cover his tracks. If so, that is FALSIFYING STATE RECORDS — Potential Count #3 in Impeachment proceedings.
Mark Sanford was already hated by Liberals in SC. He was already hated by the “good ole’ boy” Republicans in the State. NOW he has offended his BASE supporters among Conservatives. He has NO “moral authority,” no credibility, no standing to continue to govern. His BEST way through this is to RESIGN. That would be the honorable thing to do. If not, He SHOULD be impeached.
You are justifying his immoral and potentially illegal behavior based merely on the fact that “Bill Clinton got away with it.” I don’t judge “right and wrong” based on what my opponents can get away with. I base my judgments on the ethical stature — honestly, integrity, fidelity, dedication to oaths and vows — expected of public servants throughout American history.
I don’t CARE what the Democrats have to say about Sanford — but I DO care about whom I support and what they do to betray my trust. D or R or I makes NO difference to me. But, in the event that you want to start the campaign to go back and re-try Bill Clinton and file charges agaisnt him, I’ll support you 100%...
It is disingenuous to watch politicians quote the Bible and talk about family values, to court voters with their piety, then expect those concepts to be dropped from the conversation when things go south, as they often do.
If a politician leaves talking about their faith out of it, then I agree with you - it shouldn't be an issue.
But, if like Mark Sanford, they talk about their "moral legitimacy", then the tactics they used on the way up are the ones that will bite them on the way back down.
It is flat out silly to expect everyone to stand by and resist the urge to point out Mark Sanford's hypocrisy. It goes against everything we know about human nature.
At a recent Executive board meeting of three county party’s I attended, I was embarrassed that a lady got up and stated she was reluctant to nominate or front candidates from her district because they were Mormon, as she was.
She mentioned the reaction from Evangelicals towards Mitt Romney (who I don’t support, but not because he is Mormon).
This attitude is what I mean, that candidates must fit into someone’s perceived church, or do not apply.
In all honesty, I am unsure what to make of this. On the one hand, I recognize that some Evangelicals dislike the Mormon faith. On the other hand, I (and many others) have been accused more than once of being "anti-Mormon" because I will not support Mitt Romney. The willingness of some to blame their failures on "anti-Mormonism" is very real.
Without more information, I really cannot comment except to say that I am not an Evangelical, and Mitt Romnney's Mormonism doesn't play a part in why I'd never ever vote for him. His liberalism and his utter inability to have an opinion that he didn't garner from polling data does. I would absolutely vote for a Mormon if they had ideas that meshed with mine.
In the meantime, like I keep saying, Dems circle the wagons and retain their candidates who represent their view well and we end up where we are, under Democrat rule, completely.
If we want to stop being judged on moral issues, we have to stop running on them. There is far too much moralizing in politics, far too much pandering. It is a double-edged sword, as we've seen this week and before. We'll continue to see it as long as we allow or prefer politicians who pander.
For the record, I'm not calling for God to be removed from the equation. I am for politicians living a good, moral life rather than talking about it endlessly.
I’ve laid out Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, as have others.
As long as we run the party as an extension of someone’s church, we fall into their traps.
No one wants to hear it and thinks more theolgically based candidates will work better.
It hasn’t yet!!!
Saul Alinsky didn't force Mark Sanford to take a mistress after criticizing Bill Clinton for doing the same, and Saul Alinsky didn't force Sanford to use taxpayer dollars to fund trips to see that mistress. He did that all by himself. The Rules for Radicals aren't needed when we have clowns like these on "our" side.
As long as we run the party as an extension of someone’s church, we fall into their traps.
I agree.
I think what I'm saying is that as long as we run the party like a church, we cannot even pretend to be shocked when people fail & the media/the public at large calls us on it.
No one wants to hear it and thinks more theologically based candidates will work better.
You've got my vote. I'm more than a little tired of politicians preaching piety while living a lie. Frankly, I'd much rather see them quietly living lives of morality than talk about it.
It hasn't yet!!!
I don't know what it will take to change things. A significant portion of the population seem to need/want being preached to by politicians.
But, as I said, as long as that happens, the fallout will also happen, and that dims the chances of the GOP regaining a majority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.