Replies

Thank you!!! It is gratifying to see at least some people on this forum "get it." People who aspire to make or enforce laws that govern the rest of us should first and foremost have the self-control to govern themselves. I am a woman and therefore do not understand how any man could risk his career and reputation just for a few moments of sexual release. If sex is so important to you that you have to pay for it when you aren't getting enough of it from your wife, you should find another line of work so you can be with your wife every night. If it's the "thrill" of illicit sex that you cannot resist, you have bigger problems that are also not good in a person who is making laws for the whole nation.

My experience of being around many adulterous men in my career is that men who violate their marriage vows will violate other rules and laws, too. They come to believe that the rules simply do not apply to them, and the longer they get away with the adultery, the more it "adulterates" them and they think they can get away with anything. I worked with a few men in a previous Administration who ended up going to jail for bribery and other abuses of power, and every single one of them was also an adulterer. Bill Clinton is the ultimate example of this type of man. But David Vitter sounds to me like he is cut from the same cloth. Even worse in some ways, because as a Catholic he has committed a mortal sin by violating the sacrament of marriage.

Thank you. Excellent arguments. I, too, have been around elected officials (including my state's former Senator) who made a huge mess of their personal lives over having an affair. The very nature of politics invites this type of behavior through long working hours away from family and the adulation of supporters or political groupies. If one does not have a strong moral core, one is going to succumb to the temptations.

And what makes people think that failure in this area doesn't translate to failure in others? Haven't we had enough recent history to demonstrate the folly of thinking that "personal life does not affect public life"?