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?
Bill Clinton, the President of the United States was the defendant in a sexual harrassment case. Paula Jones an American ctizen was the plaintiff.
It was proven that Clinton committed the felony crimes of Perjury, Obstruction of Justice, Abuse of Power and Witness Tampering.
Even out of the original 15 Articles of Impeachment that was not one about sex.
Bill Clinton was and is a felon.
Unlike Clinton, Weiner can’t protect abortion all by himself, so he is expendable.
Clinton, Spitzer, and Weiner. A rapist, a prostitute’s John, and a scumbag of grand proportions. The standard bearers for modern liberalism.
“Clinton, Spitzer and Weiner. A rapist, a prostitute’s John, and a scu&bag of grand proportions. The standard bearers for modern liberalism.”
The scariest part of the whole thing is that a larger and larger proportion of the electorate love them.
IMHO
We need to get more "European", don't you know!
Weiner, according to the left, is only guilty of lying to cover up what he did. He says he lied because he felt ashamed. But if they truly believe there was nothing wrong with what he did, why the shame and coverup ?
According to Weiner, Libs, & Co., if he immediately tweeted “oops, my nasty picture went public” and laughed it off, and the next day when questioned laughingly admitted that he did it, and then when more evidence of showing several years of this type of activity with numerous women became public, just laugh it off and admit that he did it... if he reacted that way he would still be fine. No Congressional investigation, no press hounding him, no calls to resign. Because he would just say mea culpa, you got me, this is something that I do. Then all he would have to deal with would be his wife.
If libs truly felt the lying was the only problem, then the above scenario is what we should have seen over the past few days. Since there is no problem with “a little lust” in the eyes of libs.
Right ? Am I missing something ? Why the shame ?
After the DSK affair, even the French are starting to question their attitudes towards enabling their leaders.
Alas for NBC, we cannot. For this one simple reason:
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
As John Adams noted, our entire system of government depends upon us and our leaders being “moral and religious”, and in the context of the time, that means Christian. That is what makes incidents like the Clinton matter and even this one more than mere disgusting episodes- they actually endanger the Republic. Weiner’s conduct reflects upon the dignity of the office he holds- that of a Representative in the US Congress. Bill Clinton dragged the Presidency itself into the mud. In both cases they stained the institutions by their conduct. Our elected officials should reflect what is best in us, the people, and Weiner should be bounced out of Congress by the Congress itself, and Clinton should have been removed from office. As for Europeans being an example of anything, why would we want to emulate nations that produced such figures as Louis XIV, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin? A long study of European history is replete with examples of how NOT to govern. Let NBC take its business to the Old World, if they think it is so great.
And still they rallied on the White House lawn for him -- led by MY congress-slug, Sheila Jackson Lee.
Four legs good, two legs bad. He's a Dummy-Rat.
Because they know better. The Democrats are displaying mens rea, they knew they were wrong during the Clinton scandal(s) and clung to power anyway, sustaining a perjurer, rapist, and long-term, structural traitor and Manchurian candidate against the purgative capacities of the People and Congress for the sake of keeping the patronage and power of the White House in their factious, perverse, and deeply-undeserving hands.
Odd how things work out. If the House was near a 50/50 split, they’d probably be rushing to defend Weiner as they did Bill Clinton. And Gabby Giffords, not being able to vote on bills, would be more disposable.
If there are congressmen or their aides who read this forum I’d like you to read this post carefully.
Weiner has disgraced the House of Representatives in a way that is very, very damaging. His actions are leading many in the populace to question whether your House of Representatives is a serious government institution or just another “bad-girl delivery system”.
Eject Weiner. He has already damaged you. And this is not a good time to be damaged.
What does the head of the DNC have to say? She is usually all over the press giving us her opinion on the evil Republicans. Debbie... where are you?
The People themselves are corrupt, and we saw Clinton and his cronies working feverishly -- and successfully -- during the Clinton scandal(s), to deepen the corruption and lower the bar, before it could be revealed to the People that The Rapist was a perjurer, too.
Remember? Clinton's hey-boy Dickie Morris polled people who told him that, if it could be shown that Clinton had perjured himself in the Paula Jones case, they would stop supporting him and favor his removal from office instead.
That was the genesis of the Clinton-Morris "it's only sex" defense and their appended sub-meme, "all men lie about sex [= "they all do it", \ lying = normal and okay]".
I think the difference with the Weiner scandal is that it has pictures. It is one thing to bandy about words like: “rape”, “sexual harassment”, “infidelity”, etc., it is entirely different to look at actual pictures of a naked man. Also, it doesn’t help that the Edwards trial is going on at the same time, and there is a sex tape coming that will be viewed by all on the internet. A picture is truly worth a thousand words.
Interesting thought .... if real power was at stake, and Nancy's gavel was teetering in the balance, would the 'Rats fight for their bad boy?
Point is, though, that they were hoping that the economy would turn at least a little bit and HouseRats could sneak back in on Obozo's coattails next year. Weiner is taking that away from them, so they are hurrying to make him, and his scandal, and the headlines and Leno jokes, go away.
So in that sense, insofar as power is their only motive, ever, they are pursuing power by preparing to expel Weiner instead.
If 'Pubbies thought like 'Rats, a dozen GOP congressmen would be on the phone to Weiner right now, telling him how they think it isn't so bad and that they wouldn't vote to expel him ..... and that they'd really like to have him around as a poster-boy next year ....
I hope he fights like hell.
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.