A lot of people have commented that Sanford's personal life is his own, and they do not care whether he had one (or more) affairs as long as it did not interfere with his official duties. Some seem critical of those who do feel it matters.
Regardless of whether some people think adulterous sex should come into play in determining if a politician resigns, the fact is that to most Americans, adultery affects how they feel about a politician--particularly when it is committed by someone who has condemned others and voted for the ouster of others for doing even less than he acknowledges doing.
If John Edwards had won the nomination and his affair emerged prior to the election, would it have affected whether you voted for him? Considering the available alternative, I likely would have voted for Edwards anyway, but I have no doubt the discovery of an affair mid-campaign would doom any presidential candidate.
For me, it is not merely about someone's private sex life. A married politician's decision to have an affair seriously calls into question his or her judgment. Politicians know they are under scrutiny and that the media sharks are continually circling in their search for a drop of blood. Politicians know most voters will not stand for such moral failings, which is why they always pretend that they have none. Because of the probable fallout from being discovered, affairs have the potential to compromise a politician.
One could argue that if nobody cared, as seems to be the case in Italy with Berlusconi, sexual escapades like Sanford's need not be an issue. Major political sex scandals seem to involve only male politicians thus far, which begs the question: Would a standard of "sleep with whomever you want" be gender neutral? After all, females who sleep around in high school or in college are still branded "sluts," while boys who do so burnish their reputations as "studs." There is no evidence to suggest this distinction fades away in later adulthood. Could Sarah Palin or Jennifer Granholm get away with admitting not only one affair but several sexual escapades?
Plus, in Sanford's (Livingston/Gingrich/Vitter/Ensign) case, we have the issue of hypocrisy. Any politician who positions himself as a "moral compass" or attributes his political decisions to his "Christian values" then reveals that he did not apply this compass to his own behavior makes one question what serves as the basis for so-called "moral" decisions. It makes it clear that these politicians' actions boil down to nothing more than political pandering.
Some politicians, like President Obama, are role models for thousands of children. How many parents want a role model like Bill Clinton or Mark Sanford for their children--married men who taks advantage of their powerful position to receive sexual favors? Men who take huge risks for little gain beyond ejaculation?
The truth is that many men (and women) commit adultery. Our biology suggests we are not meant to be monogamous or perhaps we are meant only to be serially monogamous. Those who succumb to their biologically driven urge to cheat on their spouse are not necessarily bad people or bad employees. When we elect an individual to lead us, however, we entrust that person to exercise restraint, to behave more circumspectly than the average person. We trust them to look after our own affairs and not pursue their own, possibly at our expense.
I opposed the impeachment of President Clinton. This was partly because I am a partisan Democrat and partly because I could not stand to see the salivating Republican wolves win. Part of it was because I believe Bill Clinton is a good, smart person.
So I feel like a hypocrite myself to not have wanted Clinton impeached yet to want Sanford out of office. I must admit that part of this desire stems from wanting revenge for Sanford's vote to impeach Clinton for doing even less than Sanford did. Certainly Sanford should be held to the same standards to which he demanded others be held(aside from King David, apparently).
I also feel Sanford disregarded his official responsibilities, but perhaps that is merely an out I latch onto to justify my desire to see him leave. If I am being honest, I must admit I want him to resign because he is an utter cad and continues publicly slapping his wife with comments like his mistress is his "soul mate" and he'll "try to fall in love with his wife again."
Why should someone so insensitive and so lacking in empathy have the power to make decisions about things like whether stimulus funds extend unemployment benefits or provide healthcare for constituents? Or to decide whether gay people can marry? Is it any surprise that someone who treats his wife so callously opposes things to help those in South Carolina and the US who are suffering the most?
And then the truth about why I want Sanford to resign but did not want Clinton impeached hits me. I want Sanford to resign because, in view of his publicly held positions, his "sin" seems so much greater. Clinton was forgiving and understanding of the problems others had, which made me more inclined to forgive and understand his foibles. Clinton recognized that we all make mistakes.
Someone whose actions show him incapable of forgiveness--for the "sin" of being unemployed or the "sin" of lacking healthcare or even the sin of "not having sex with that woman"--has no right to expect to be forgiven.
Clinton felt our pain; Sanford feels no pain but his own.