Posted on 06/10/2011 4:15:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
Rep. Anthony Weiner has achieved something by behaving so spectacularly shamefully. Unless I miss my guess, he has revived the concept of sexual morality. Even for a jaded nation, this is one sex scandal too far. We've had it. Our capacity to remain non-judgmental on sexual matters -- as we've been tirelessly instructed to do for 40 years -- seems to have reached its end point.
The national reaction to Weiner's conduct, in contrast to previous sex scandals (and there have been too many to count in the past two decades), has been not amusement (though jokes made the rounds) but disgust. When even the ultra-liberal New York Times reaches for terms like "profoundly squalid," it's safe to say we've arrived at a new cultural moment: "Judgmentalism" is back.
Admittedly, we are groping our way toward minimal dignity unsteadily. A Washington Post columnist, among others, dusted off the cliche that it's "not the crime, it's the cover-up." Former DNC Chairman and Senate candidate Tim Kaine sounded a similar theme in calling for Weiner's resignation: "Lying publicly about something like this is unforgivable, and he should resign."
Lying is immoral. Lying in the flagrant and utterly discoverable fashion that Weiner did is also idiotic. But as this disgrace demonstrates so graphically, it's not always just the cover-up. Would things would be materially different if Weiner had freely confessed to sending crotch shots of himself to assorted young women on Twitter? No. So let's please retire the Watergate platitude. It's not just the cover-up; it's the behavior.
Because we are so out of practice at condemning even utterly shameful conduct, we look for security in law. "Remember," a constituent cautioned, "he has broken no laws. He has not used campaign funds..." Ah, well, that's all right then. Weiner himself, explaining his decision not to resign, said, "I don't believe that I (did) anything that violates any law or any rule."
Is legality the only relevant standard? The question is not whether Weiner deserves to go to jail, but whether he merits the honor of holding elective office. And actually, Weiner is mistaken on the matter of rules. According to the rules of the House of Representatives, members are required to conduct themselves at all times in "a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House." Anyone think this is a close call?
As we claw our way back toward some minimal standards of dignity, we must grapple with the legacy of President Bill Clinton. It's exquisitely ironic that -- of all people -- Weiner apologized to the reportedly angry former president. It seems Mr. Clinton performed the wedding ceremony 11 months ago for Weiner and his wife, a longtime aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In this telling, Bill Clinton is playing the role of Ward Cleaver? Mind-boggling.
The curdled condition of our culture is not entirely attributable to Bill Clinton, but he certainly merits dishonorable mention. His refusal to acknowledge shame cemented an age of shamelessness. Mr. Clinton fought ferociously -- and dragged the country through a tawdry impeachment spectacle -- on the grounds that sexual behavior was a mere trifle. His defenders, remember, hotly denied that mere sex could be relevant to a president's (or anyone's) public role.
"It's just sex," they protested. It was a private matter. Why are you so interested? What's wrong with you?
More, they argued that lying about sex was perfectly normal and even admirable. He was trying to spare his family. Everyone lies about sex. Those who were trying to drive a president from office for dallying with a 21-year-old intern and lying about it were the ones who needed reformation.
Obviously, the stakes are very different for a sitting president than for an N.Y. congressman. But it does seem that the mood is, at long last, changing.
"I can't (defend him)," pronounced Senator Harry Reid, D-Nev. Rep. Allyson Schwartz, D-Pa., who heads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (and clearly has political motives, but that's fine), offered a complete refutation of the Democratic Party's position during the Clinton impeachment. Urging Weiner to put us out of our misery, she said, "As Americans we have the right to expect better behavior from members of Congress, leaders of our country. I don't think we should accept it."
When it was Larry Craig, Eric Massa, Mark Sanford, or Eliot Spitzer, we had our giggles. But with Weiner, the smarminess seems to have finally provoked a gag.
Not even Jon Stewart is laughing. "I hope it's not true," he said in all seriousness last week.
Why? It's only sex, right?
“Remember?”
I certainly do. It seems to have been the beginning of the current ascendancy of the obnoxious Progressive movement we’re experiencing.
Just the way totalitarians operate, the Progressives have cultivated the entry of sociopaths into the Democrat Party.
They do very well at insulting, denigrating, smearing and slandering their opponents. (They are sooooo good at it.)
One hopes that their visceral, venomous hatred will spew forth back in their faces and paint them with the brush they use against others.
IMHO
=========================================
I can well understand the political strategy of letting the Dems hang themselves. But in the near future, the Pubbies should consider this:
The House GOP majority should make all the dirty Weiner info/photos/tapes, etc, come out piecemeal at Congressional Explusion hearings. Execute a political death of a thousand cuts. Let Dems stand up in the well of the House and DEFEND WEINER as he twists in the wind.
Pinning it ALL on demoncrats would be a plusperfect political strategy for 2012. Ohaha would be paranoid.
=================================
One of the most obvious issues here is Weiner's Me-First arrogance----the display of his utter contempt for Americans and our Republic......that HIS hold on political power matters more than the integrity of our sacrosanct rule of law and the survival of our govt.
This is not the American way of life.
Moreover, I emphatically agree with other posters-----Weiner has labeled himself a national security risk-----subject to blackmail and other extortionate demands.
Weiner has to tuck it in, and resign.
All politicians have a fatal flaw----they are madly in love with themselves. Weiner AND Clinton's sexploits were a way to feed their massive egosThe problem with WEINER is that he's not a Christian and he's one of .. 'Those People'...
A 'Professional Politician'
That's become our real problem, 'those people' who couldn't get a Real Job if their life depended on it, and that's WEINER.
I saw a blurb on Drudge (I think?) that that's one reason he won't resign, he can't. He needs his congressional paycheck to live on. Well too bad for him. He's a PIG and disgraces The Peoples House by setting foot on the grounds.
Let him apply for a job at a Deli making Pastrami Sandwiches. I'm sure there's plenty of Deli's in his district that would hire him. He may even get a whopping $15.00 an hour. And after closing he can sweep the floor and eat the crumbs. He may even get lucky and find a whole Kosher Pickle in the trash that he can take home for Huma to munch on.
EXCERPT Weiner doesn't have a business or law degree to fall back on........he took home $156,117 in 2010,....his wife earned $154,000 in 2009, federal records show. He owes between $10,000-15,000 on his Am/Ex, as per financial-disclosure forms. If he steps down, he could grovel to cable TV execs for "analyst" gigs that hopefully pay more than the $825 he gets for HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher." Weiner's reputation is in ruins....lucrative jobs may be hard to get.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/can_afford_to_quit_the_dc_day_job_b W10b5FRwsvEJxDTyi7MYI#ixzz1Os0frpro
==========================================
I emphatically believe Weiner's staying put as a strategy----knowing Ohaha and the Dems will buy him out to make him disappear lest he screw up their election plans.
Remember how putrid Rahm got the gate AND the mayoralty of Chicago? You can bet Weiner won't go until he gets enough money to makeup for the earmarks he's been pilfering.
Watch Weiner score several high paying sinecures---maybe a cable talk show, a makework no-show job at a NY govt agency, several lobbying jobs, a tax-exempt "foundation to help" victims of sex crimes (funded with Soros money).
Very true.
BJ is the "most popular" Dem pol today.
Spitzie in 3 yrs has had 90% of his sins cleansed by the MSM. He'll be back in politics soon.
Weenie still has majority support among his constituents.
Among Dems, all the women want them, and all the men want to be them.
” Watch Weiner score several high paying sinecures-—maybe a cable talk show, a makework no-show job at a NY govt agency, several lobbying jobs, a tax-exempt “foundation to help” victims of sex crimes (funded with Soros money). “
You nailed it.
And taught a whole generation of young folks that oral sex is not sex.
THIS JUST IN Chris Matthews: Weiner in Trouble Because He Offends 'Culturally Backward' Christian Conservatives
NewsBusters ^ | 6/10/11 | Geoffrey Dickens
FR Posted by SanFranDan
On Thursday's Hardball, Chris Matthews determined that Demo Weiner could be in danger of being forced out of Congress by Blue Dog Dems who face uphill battles in red states because, as he put it, "people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally - you can say backward if you want...don't like this kind of stuff."
During a discussion about Weiner's chances of survival, after being caught sending lewd pictures to women via Twitter, the MSNBCer claimed the liberal congressman didn't have to worry about his culturally superior constituents in New York - the "56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens" who "can live with this guy."
Instead Weiner had to be concerned with his Democratic colleagues fearful about re-election in the "conservative culturally part of the country."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Chris M. is a psychopath.
“Among Dems, all the women want them, and all the men want to be them.”
Who said the Devil doesn’t exist?
Just asking.
How is Bill Clinton qualified to marry anyone? Supposedly, he performed some function [not at all clear what] at Weiner and Abedin’s wedding?
Couldn’t Chelsea Clinton’s husband hire Weiner at the Hedge fund he is starting?
The NYT says it's OK, so it must be /sarc
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/10/nyregion/10weiner.html
“We are clawing our way back toward some minimal standards of dignity.”
National Review gave that subtitle to this story. I wonder if this scandal would get the same reaction if there was no Great Recession?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.