The Argentine mistress is a problem for the man's marriage. Hypocrisy is a problem for the electorate. If a politician is going to make other people's privacy public business, that politician had opened the door on their own privacy.

So we are agreeing then? It is the hypocrisy that is the business of the electorate, and so unless it is for the purpose of demonstrating hypocrisy, sexual antics are none of our business?

I think that lying to the public about anything is a problem, although I don't think a person's sex life is the public's business (again, unless they want to make anyone else's private life public business). Cover ups are covered under law, and so is using your position to coerce someone into sex. People who do that ought to be prosecuted.

The trouble with that is, again, a matter of privacy. And also, one where the devil may be in the details. What if that person has an arrangement with their spouse? What if their relationship is an open one? What if their marriage was arranged and now is more a partnership than a romantic connection? Marriages and other such things take many forms, and that's between the partners. What happens in the bedroom is no one's business, unless someone makes other people's bedroom happenings into public business. At least, in my estimation. Your oaths are your own to define and keep. Your deity or lack thereof is your business (again, unless you make it part of your public ad campaign, etc).

I think I should point out that I am exclusively talking about public office holders - senators, state senators, school board members, and the like.

They have a job to do. That's why we hire them. I think we are generally far too obsessive about people's bedroom lives, and place way too much emphasis on that when it comes to evaluating their work as public servants.