Sanford's shame, Part II

If we're talking collectively, this would actually be more like Part MM, then Part II. And yes, I know my post title is unoriginal, but what is there to say about Mark Sanford that hasn't already been uttered by someone else?

Perhaps this.

Did anyone really ask Sanford to divulge all that he has so freely confided to us? Perhaps we learn through all this that, at least in some matters, there really should be limits to full disclosure, or at least, admonitions towards self-censorship. Do none of us blush anymore? If Sanford is a reflection of the larger culture, then it seems we really are coming full circle, back to the Europe of old (and probably, of the present) where most high-profile figures had a mistress or two on the side. Some of my more cynical friends would assert that we never have been other than that, but I would beg to differ and cite Washington, Adams and Madison as exhibits. (Yes, I did skip Jefferson, hardly a moral exemplar in this area.)

I wish we could be spared the drama, but I fear we won't be unless Sanford gets off of the public stage completely. Certainly, his newest budget initiative is not high priority on the list of the media that are covering him; they would far rather hear more confessionals about "trying to fall back in love with Jenny" (his beleaguered wife) and his efforts to put the memories of his "soulmate" behind him. Oh and yes, there were other "crossings of lines" with additional women, too. How does a man have a soulmate who isn't the woman he is married to, while becoming too familiar with several others, as well? It all becomes a confusing soap opera, not to mention a disgustingly maudlin one.