Washington Times editorial on Sanford last Friday

[mahatmakanejeeves]

The editorial about Gov. Sanford in the Friday Washington Times has to be seen to be believed. They came to his defense, on the grounds that he is a hypocrite. That, they believe, is much better than a moral relativist. At least a hypocrite has a sense of right and wrong, even if he doesn't live by his own rules. A moral relativist, on the other hand, doesn't acknowledge the concept of right and wrong, and that is unacceptable.

Sanford's tango

We appreciate South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's hypocrisy. With no tongue in cheek at all, we say American society desperately needs more men of his character.

It might be an odd moment to point this out, but it is far better for a governor on a personal "odyssey" to be a hypocrite than a relativist. At least a hypocrite has standards, albeit ones he can't always live up to. A relativist has no standards; everything is relative, remember? And militant relativists are more offended by standards themselves than by adultery.

Edited: Pat Buchanan has come to his defense as well. "This is between him and his wife," words to that effect.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. LOL!

When did the Onion buy out the Wash.Times?

[Happyhippychick]

2. "American society desperately needs more men of his character."

It seems the GOP is chock full - enjoy!

[damntexdem]

7. Just defending the sanctity of traditional adultery.

Adultery should always be between one man and one woman -- preferably both married to other parties.

No moral relativism there.

;-)

[Happyhippychick]

8. LOL!

[RandomThoughts]

3. I think a moral relativist, as they put it, would be a sociopath

The way they describe it at least.

Most people know the difference from right and wrong, but some just judge the action as something they would hope they would not do, or something they don't think people should do. Or if good something all should do.

While at the same time not judging the individual.

There is a difference from knowing what actions are bad, and saying a person is bad. You can look at someone as flawed without judgement, and still hold to account for actions that are wrong. There is also not making claims of certainty to allow for learning, if you are certain about everything you would never learn anything.

[asjr]

4. I am beginning to believe that Pat

Buchanan and other right wing nutballs receive money in their pockets the instant they open their mouths. This must be called Right_wing charity.

[zbdent]

5. Ugh ... I had to click on the link ...

only because I wanted to download that editorial and save it for use in the future ...

Saved as an HTML on my hard drive ... I hope that it doesn't ruin my drive ...

[orwell]

6. Interesting that they had to use moral relativism...

...to attack moral relativism.

[Skittles]

9. of course the Washington Times has to praise hypocrisy

they are hypocrites themselves (do we even need to guess what they had to say about Clinton's failings?)