But so much for introductions.

If it were not for the predictably tragic consequences, it might be sport to watch the South Carolina Republican Party's quadrennial parade of wingnuts, unreconstructed Confederates, Bible-beaters and general wackaloons race one another for its gubernatorial nomination. I say it's predictably tragic because of the powerful Republican primary electorate; you might accurately think of them as you think of the last half-cup of coffee left in the pot at the end of the day, having rested on the warmer since early morning: They are just as strong, just as dense, just as bitter. Consider Arlen Specter's plight at facing the condensation of his own Republican primary electors in Pennsylvania, then consider that Arlen Specter could never have been elected in South Carolina in the first place. Now you have the sense of things here.

So it might be sport to watch the quadrennial Republican parade except that you know its going to yield the truly lowest common denominator who appeals to that crowd. And you know that voters in the general election, thanks to a whole host of factors, will acquiesce, will skip the polls altogether, will rationalize, will grit teeth, or will flip a coin and vote for that nominated fool. It has happened with only one exception since Dick Riley left the office triumphant in the 1980s, and that was when the unassuming and underestimated Jim Hodges rode the issue of video poker to a surprising win in 1998. Remember the late Gov. Carroll Campbell, still celebrated by modern South Carolinian Republicans as might-have-been presidential material, buoyed by deep, deep family pockets? Remember the unfortunate Gov. David Beasley, trapped in a holding pattern over his own head but cushioned by similarly deep-pocketed family banking interests? Indeed, Hodges offered a breath of fresh air, straight talk with a soft voice and soothing manner, and genuine folksiness that came from being "just plain folks."

That is, until the Republican machine retooled its quadrennial parade and minted the gubernatorial nomination of Mark Sanford in 2002.

It is easy to forget, after the excruciating debacle of Sanford's term and a half-plus, that he was not at all newly-minted in the spring of 2002 when he dispatched Lt Governor (and mustachioed head of South Carolina's milk-marketeer family) Bob Peeler. He had served, in fact, a storied six years in the U.S. Congress, representing the coastal "Low Country" region where his Floridian father had established a "plantation" abode, to which the older Sanford removed his family in young Marshall's -- later known as Mark's -- childhood.

That was the appropriate time -- the six years of his service in the U.S. Congress -- for the judgment of Mark Sanford to begin, because it coincided with an episode in American history in which officeholders of a certain sanctimony orchestrated the process by which they would sit in judgment of the American president.

In early 1998, when rumors of an alleged affair involving President Bill Clinton surfaced in Washington, some Republican leaders cautioned against driving the president out of office, suggesting that a weakened Democratic president might be just the tonic for a resurgent Republican Congress.

But a principled thirty-something Congressman from Charleston, South Carolina, opined to the Charleston Post and Courier that Clinton should, for the good of the country, step down.

He was Mark Sanford.

Sunday, February 1, 1998 There is a theory that Republicans wouldn't mind having a battered Clinton around for the next couple of years. Such a scenario would help the GOP win upcoming legislative and electoral battles, the thinking goes. Charleston's congressman says it's not worth it because a weakened Clinton clinging to office would be bad for the country. And what's bad for the country is bad for everyone, including Republicans, said 1st District Rep. Mark Sanford , R-S.C. "I don't know how that could be good for anybody,'' Sanford said. "I don't think it's good to have anyone who's wounded in that high an office.''

Six months later, following Clinton's infamous speech to the nation in which admitted his indiscretion, Mark Sanford reiterated his view to the Post and Courier.

Saturday, August 22, 1998 Also on Friday, 1st District Rep. Mark Sanford , R-S.C., weighed in for the first time on Clinton's address on his relationship with former intern Monica Lewinsky and on the military strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan. On the first matter, Sanford said Clinton "told us what we all suspected, or maybe even knew. The speech was him saying, `Yeah, I did it, and I hope you don't care.' I don't know if the American public is going to be willing."

The next month, talking to The State newspaper of Columbia, Sanford used the release of Ken Starr's magnum opus on the affair to repeat his view that Clinton's indiscretion warranted resignation.

Saturday, September 12, 1998 Republican Rep. Mark Sanford said he found the report "deeply unsettling," and said that the CEO of a company or the principal of a high school would have been fired or would have resigned in similar circumstances. He said the president should step down.

And when he had the opportunity to put his opinion into the form of legislative action, he voted to initiate an impeachment hearing on Clinton's indiscretions.

Friday, October 9, 1998 Rep. Mark Sanford said the hearings would allow the country to start the process of putting the scandal behind it. "If you let these dark clouds hang over our heads in Washington, you'd have people saying, 'The president lied; I can lie, too,' " he said. "Or you'd have the second evil, which is two systems of law - one for powerful people and one for the rest of the people."

Owing in large part to Republicans' full-frontal impeachment attack on Clinton, the party lost seats in the mid-term congressional elections and Speaker Newt Gingrich stepped down, opening the door for Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisiana to take the seat. But then Livingston admitted to his own indiscretions, giving the Republican conference a cold shock just as it prepared to carry the impeachment fight into the Senate. The Associated Press reported that most House Republicans would still support Livingston's bid for Speaker, but one curiously -- and pointedly -- did not: Mark Sanford.

Friday, December 18, 1998 Livingston spokesman Mark Corallo said, "There has been no talk of resignation. The Republican Conference is solidly behind" the speaker nominee. South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford said Thursday on CNN's "Crossfire," "The bottom line is he still lied, he lied under a different oath, the oath to his wife."

Sanford's aggressively haughty criticism of the Speaker-designate incensed Livingston.

According to The State, Sanford wasn't chagrined in the least.

Saturday, December 19, 1998 The emotions are feverish. Ask Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford. He knows. He's experienced it. The Charleston congressman made the mistake of going on national television Thursday night and criticizing House Speaker-designate Bob Livingston, a fellow Republican, for his admitted past sexual "indiscretion." When Sanford returned to his Capitol Hill office, a message was waiting for him. Call Livington's office. The Louisianan's staff gave him a tongue-lashing. Why did he do it? It was so unnecessary, the staff told Sanford. The South Carolinian, no shrinking violet, was his straightforward self. He told the Livingston staffers that if the speaker-designate had a problem with what Sanford said on CNN's "Crossfire," Livingston could call him.

...

A crush of media representatives peppered lawmakers off the House floor about the speaker-designate and wondered out loud whether Livingston might not be forced to step down before his swearing-in Jan. 6. Sanford declined to soften his criticism of Livingston, however. "Did he lose some of his moral authority? Certainly," Sanford said, stressing he was not going to be an apologist for a Republican who had done wrong.

Sunday, December 20, 1998 GOP U.S. Rep. Mark Sanford of Charleston, who charged that Livingston violated the most sacred of oaths when he cheated on his wife, cautioned Republicans not to carry the private vs. public life issue too far. "I think we've got to be very careful as a party not to make perfection a standard," he said. Democrats were careful not to attack Livingston for his indiscretion. They saw little value in it. But some conservative Republicans, mostly those identified with the religious right, reacted angrily to his admission. Sanford said Livingston lost all moral authority to lead.

When Clinton's next State of the Union Address came, Sanford told the Post and Courier that interpreted the president's continued focus on his work as strategic:

Tuesday, January 19, 1999 WASHINGTON - What is the proper way to treat a president who has been impeached, is on trial in the Senate, and will march into the House tonight and likely deliver glowing news about the country in his annual State of the Union address? First District Rep. Mark Sanford , R-S.C., says he doesn't know. "Absolutely, people are going to be struggling with their respect for the office and whatever personal thoughts they have for this particular president," said Sanford, who, like other GOP congressmen from South Carolina, voted to impeach President Clinton.

...

However, indications are that Clinton has adopted a strategy of showing Americans that he has moved on to other business and that the trial has not affected his ability to do his job. "It seems part of a fairly well thought-out strategy," Sanford said.

Need a "bottom-line" review? Steve Piacente of the Charleston Post and Courier delivers it.

Sunday, February 21, 1999 First District Rep. Mark Sanford , R-S.C., voted to send all four articles of impeachment to the Senate.

So when America's chief executive officer was caught having had an affair, Mark Sanford first said the president should resign, then voted to initiate impeachment hearings, then voted to impeach the president in four separate Articles of Impeachment.

Now the same Mark Sanford stands as South Carolina's chief executive officer and admits to having had an affair.

South Carolina's Constitution includes no provisions for the removal of a chief executive by any other entity -- by the judiciary, by the legislature, by the people themselves -- for such choices as Clinton and Sanford made. The lack of an impeachment process leaves to Mark Sanford himself the decision whether or not to vacate his office.

As Sanford himself said, a corporate CEO under similar circumstances would be fired.

As Sanford himself said, resignation by such a wounded chief executive would be best for the people's interests.

As Sanford himself said, a chief executive who has broken his oath to his family has lost all moral authority to lead.

So I leave it to observers from outside South Carolina as I began it: Now is not the time to begin judging Mark Sanford. That time began long ago, at about the time he began to judge another of the same offenses.