That's not to say I feel pity for him. If he were not like so many other Republicans we've witnessed over the years who strongly condemned Bill Clinton for his behavior only to then see these same characters commit the exact same sin(s), then I would feel somewhat badly for his circumstances. However, Sanford was one of the more vocal advocates for impeaching Clinton. He was, and remained, one of the many holier-than-thou Republicans who tossed rocks in glass houses.
But the hypocrisy doesn't just stop with adultery. Sanford said the following in his press conference:
I am here because if you were to look at God's laws, there are in every instance designed to protect people from themselves. I think that that is the bottom line with God's law -- that it's not a moral, rigid list of dos and don'ts just for the heck of dos and don'ts. It is indeed to protect us from ourselves.Sanford makes the case that man is inherently evil or has a very dark side that God's law is supposed to protect him from. It's as if man is capable of doing many bad things, all the time, and if it weren't for God we'd be a nation of 24/7 sinners.
What a lovely view of life and mankind! That if it weren't for God we'd be a bunch of ravaging savages, committing unspeakable atrocities and spreading chaos. Is this what the religious right truly believes?
Oh, and if it's true what Sanford portrays about man, the need for him to be protected from himself, than doesn't that argue for regulation in our capitalist society? If we are inherently capable of wrong doing, and many in the country are not aware of "God's law," then one would think regulations should be in place to serve as a check against man and his dark side. Heck, even guys like Sanford (and Ensign) -- who presumably know God's law -- were not able to resist giving in to their evil or dark side.
I wish one of the reporters at his press conference posed these questions to him.... Again, the hypocrisy and inconsistent logic runs well beyond anything sexual in nature.