GLARE OF THE SPOTLIGHT, Part 2 - Exposing the Two Faces of Mark Sanford

Mark Sanford is the gift that keeps on giving to us bloggers! First the South Carolina governor disappears without his staff knowing his whereabouts. Then there is conflicting information on where he is. Next, a hastily called press conference in which he admits that he had an extramarital relationship.

But wait, folks, there is more. Today there is news that he says he "crossed the line with other women" -- the newest euphemism to describe hanky-panky by politicos. Still, in the end, I'm not inclined to make much of it...

Except that Sanford already made much of it himself, and so he sets himself up for criticism. After all, as I often tell you, my dear readers, this blog is not about politics, it is about communication of all sorts. And when public figures say one thing about morality and then do another person, we have the right to examine it.

You have probably seen the evidence on umpteen other blogs. That as a member of the U.S. House, the dis-Honorable Rep. Mark Sanford voted to impeach one William Jefferson Clinton because he found his actions "reprehensible." That when fellow Republican Infidel Bob Livingston was found cheating, Sanford found him guilty of lying under "the oath to his wife." And that he was was against gay marriage because such unions would undermine the institution of marriage. (As though cheating doesn't.) As one wag on Twitter put it, apparently Sanford thinks that marriage is between one woman and one man and one Argentinian woman.

There aren't too many people in public life who can claim to be so perfect. One notable example to the contrary was Senator Joe Lieberman's public examination of Bill Clinton's behaviors with Monica Lewinsky. I say "examination" because "condemnation" seems much too harsh a word for the serious, temperate and dignified way with which Lieberman chose to handle the issue. And I dare say that, given his reputation as a religious and spiritual man, an observant Jew, Lieberman had the moral authority to make the statements that he did.

My point is that if you are going to be a public scold, you better be pretty clean of those sins yourself. Sanford tried to earn political capital on the backs and backsides of others. Now he must answer for his own transgressions, and others are about as forgiving as he was, which is to say, "not much." It serves him right, and it is a lesson for all in the public eye.

NEXT UP: The Gosselin Effect of a Ubiquitous Camera