I'm sorry, but this one really got to me... in your article, you claim,

"Yet, each of these instances needed to be made public because they represented a violation of the public’s trust. For one, John Ensign, Republican senator from Nevada, did not have an extramarital affair with just any woman, but in fact one who worked for him.

The case of Texas Federal District Judge Samuel Kent further exemplified professional indifference. As if it weren’t enough that he pushed himself on two uninterested women, he did so in his own federal office. The 33 months in prison to which he was sentenced is a just punishment for not only his deplorable, individual actions, but also for his ethical disregard at the office.

And of course, that brings us to Mark Sanford, the pitiful Republican governor of South Carolina. Apart from taking time off for frivolous, base reasons, Sanford used public money to finance his jaunt to South America. He has since gone on the record saying he plans to reimburse the state for the funds he used, but the damage has already been done."

Just previously, you mention how you that the scandals involving President Clinton and Governor Spitzor were public intrusions into said "private" matters.

Mr. Green, you do realize that the Lewinsky scandal involved perjury, and the Spitzor scandal involved the sponsorship of a prostituion ring in New York, both of which happen to be illegal for anyone and everyone; regardless of their political status. When people explicitly break the law, the issue can no longer be considered a private matter.

And the Clinton affair occured in HIS public office, with a White House employee (intern), so according to you this would have been grounds enough for the initial public reaction to the event.... due to "ethical disregard at the office" of, in this case, the Presidency of the United States.

There are simply too many blatant contradictions for one to be able to take this article seriously. The arguments made are altogether utilitarian in nature.