Nope! That's in there. See the second to last paragraph: "Mr. Ensign’s wife also issued a statement, affirming her commitment to her husband."

I agree with James' comment – This wouldn't be any story if it were not for the hypocrisy. Schadenfreude is so pleasurable.

Conflating a bible thumpin', Promise-Breaker, holier than thou, virulently anti-civil rights for all with the rascally Big Dog is pretty disingenuous.

In this case I really only had a very small point and tried not to draw any specific conclusions – hence the lack of commentary. Instead, when I saw this story I just wanted to document yet another case of hypocrisy among conservative Christians who are public crusaders for conservative views of marriage and family. Indeed, the fact that he was a spokesperson for marital infidelity and an evangelical Christian is the only reason that I posted it. I don't know how he would have behaved if he was a different person or an atheist. The fact remains, however, that his Christian morality did not provide much of a barrier from living a contradictory life. That is about as far as I would wish to go in terms of making a point about this story. I am certainly not trying to make a point about hypocrites in general, Christians in general, or even people in general.

What can humiliate a man more than a private failing made public? If Ensign were not a public figure and a spokesperson for marital fidelity there would be nothing here to comment on at all. The inner workings of private lives can seldom be understood by onlookers. There are any number of circumstances that might alter one's perception of this man's behavior. Remember, Christians acknowledge their own sinful nature. Pointing out this man's personal failure to uphold his own standards seems pointless. Can anyone say that he would have behaved differently if he were an atheist? A hypocrite is a person who hides or denies their inconsistencies. This man has openly admitted his mistake. That fact has restored his integrity as an honorable man in my estimation. We are all human. And although I'm an atheist, I don't see atheists as being morally superior to believers. It is best to argue on the basis of ideas not on the basis of someone's personal shortcomings. For that's all this is, one man's personal shortcoming. What political headway can atheists make by pillorying a man who admits his own faults?

I was very disappointed by Clinton's efforts to weasel out of his predicament – Do you remember? He said, "That depends on what the meaning of ..'is'.. is." He really made an ass of himself. If he had admitted his "indiscretion" from the onset the matter could have been resolved and probably without all the noisy clamoring for his impeachment.

Zip

BTW – I love your site. and I read it daily.