Good point as always on the tax cheat angle. Typical selective consciousness.
As far as the Sanford deal, I am a believer that this is really a South Carolina state problem and the rest of us don't really have a dog in the fight.

This may disturb you S.A. ,but in a way I agree with the Dems.

It is MY belief that as a Republican/Libertarian he SHOULD be judged on higher standards ! He knew darn well what the party was about yet , selfishly , he denounced what the party stood for AND became an Oath-breaker!

He became a TRAITOR to his state , his party , his wife and his family.

I have no use for idiots like this .

"Hang the S.O.B. out to dry ," I say !

Take off the lenses that seemingly render you incapable of viewing anything through from a perspective other than Dem./MSM v. Rep./Fox (although one might assume they are mandatory blog issue). People enjoy seeing the pious fall on their sword far more than they care to pay attention to another well-worn story of duplicitous tax avoiders. The media knows that much.

Before I take off said pair of glasses....tell me how you reconcile your theory with the fact that the John Edwards affair got almost no coverage.

If sex and scandal and piety are the main interest points how is it that a former Presidential candidate (and at the time a current candidate for Attorney General) fawns publicly over his cancer stricken wife...(remember how "courageous" it was for Edwards to continue with his campaign when some thought that maybe he should be devoting himself to the time together that they had remaining?)...but at the same time is running around on her and even conceiving a child.

I mean, it could only get more sordid and juicy if to protect himself Edwards had had a paid campaign staffer take credit for fathering the child.

Oh, wait, that actually happened!

So as fall as the pious falling on their own sword, John Edwards trumps Mark Sanford in any honest appraisal.

We still get Larry Craig jokes on Late Night talk shows and it took the National Enquirer to tell us about John Edwards.

How do you wedge this into your theory on the decisions made by the newsrooms?

And let me rule out one possibility: Out of sheer decency the newsies were just trying to "protect Elizabeth".

Two words: Bristol Palin.

Flail about with your John Edwards and Bristol Palin red herrings - I wasn't disputing that issue. You are ignoring the fact that your penultimate question was why do philandering republicans get flogged in the media to a greater degree than democrat tax cheats. Stewart commented, "good point." I happen to disagree that it is a rep/dem issue. In fact, I wish tax cheats and their ilk warranted harsher treatment in comparison to wife cheats. But they don't. And it is not driven by a liberal bias; it is driven by the fact that the media will run a story regarding a sanctity-of-marriage type misplacing his willie far more extensively than they will a story about a hypocrite who misplaces his W-2.

Then again, maybe I haven't done an "honest appraisal" of the issue.

I realize that sex sells better than tax cheats. Everyone realizes that.

But when the question is raised about the wall to wall coverage of Sanford verus the dearth of John Edwards coverage it is always explained that the Republican scandal gets more coverage because of the hypocrisy angle.

So if it isn't a Rep/Dem thing shouldn't then Sanford and Edwards get the same amount of coverage? Both were caught with their paints down after having flaunted their family values.

Of course, they did not receive the same coverage. You could even argue that the MS was protecting Edwards.

Both were sex scandals. Edwards' was even far juicier and happened at a time he was being considered for AG.

So in this case it wasn't a sex issue v. a tax issue.

Please explain now the disparity in coverage.

Too many words, Nat. Try this:

Bon:

If it is the sex then why does Sanford warrant more coverage than Edwards?

If it is the hypocrisy then why does Sanford warrant more coverage than Geithner et al?