As I understand (or, at least, thought I understood) things, so long as you're a "Democrat," you can engage in sex acts with youthful interns in the Oval Office, and be caught dead-to-rights suborning their perjury concerning same, and that's...no big deal.
And if you're a *gay* "Democrat," your boyfriend can run a brothel out of your apartment, and that, too, is...no big deal.
So why all the fuss about Anthony Weiner's relatively tame internet misadventures?
I'm genuinely puzzled. I honestly don't get it. What am I missing, here? After Barney Frank & Bill Clinton, I thought it was pretty much settled that the Dems can do whatever they want, sexually speaking, and that traditional rules about sex only apply to the "Repugs."
Comments (17)
Because he claimed his sexting was a hack, instead of just him being a moron, and Breitbart broke the story.
If it hadn't been all over Twitter for days, it would've been neatly ignored; as it was, between the buzz on social media, Weiner claiming that he was a victim (giving them hope that they'd be able to take down Breitbart) and the rumors that there was even MORE to come out... yeah, pretty irresistible. Plus, the guy says his name the same as hot-dog weiner, instead of "whiner."
It'll get swept under the rug soon, but hey!
Posted by Foxfier | June 7, 2011 11:42 PM
I have been confused by this one too, Lydia. And I don't think it's because he denied it at first. After all, Bill Clinton denied his escapades as well, including his infamous grammar and syntax defense, "it depends on what your meaning of the word 'is' is."
I think this has much more to do with the upcoming elections than anything else. I think the Dems are very nervous with the unemployment rate at sustained historic highs, the national debt producing numbers that no one has ever heard of, and the presidents energy policy of, "fill your tires with air and buy a hybrid minivan." The current administration's total cluelessness on all things American/decent/intelligent/cultural, etc., has given the Democrats a renewed desire for the other people in their party to show some moral fiber. If that actually filters down to applying it to themselves, our nation may be in for some good things.
Posted by Richard Gelina | June 8, 2011 9:06 AM
Uh... Sorry I called you "Lydia," Steve.
Posted by Richard Gelina | June 8, 2011 9:07 AM
Steve,
What am I missing, here?
His glamorous and accomplished wife. They are undoubtedly a DC power couple, but she is truly cherished by the Democratic elites while his firebrand tactics created a mixture of respect and annoyance.
I thought it was pretty much settled that the Dems can do whatever they want, sexually speaking, and that traditional rules about sex only apply to the "Repugs."
You know, John Edwards is on trial, and even without his official misconduct many liberals consider him a scumbag for his mistreatment of Elizabeth. So there is an extra bonus when a "family values" politician reveals his hypocrisy, but that doesn't reduce the disappointment of watching someone betray their marriage vows.
Posted by Step2 | June 8, 2011 9:53 AM
Bill Clinton and Barney Frank, hummm? Let's see. A person not wishing to be suspected of engaging in partisan hackery might want to mix and match. We certainly have a number of choices even if we leave out former Speaker of the House.
A married Republican governor who went MIA in order to visit his mistress in another country.
A Republican Senator who had an affair with the wife of his COS and had his parents arrange a payoff. This one was ignored by the media when it first came out.
A Republican Senator who seems to be up to his neck in both of the above.
A Republican Representative (now a sitting Senator) who arranged diaper play sessions with a prostitute during House votes.
The fuss is likely because there is a pronounced conservative tilt in the media, he lied and dissembled too long, and it's weird - not as weird as a Representative in diapers - but still weird and very bad judgment.
It also provides the media a break from having to deal with those trivial and annoying public policy issues (you know - the economy and budget) that they find so boring and, in any case, don't really understand.
Too often men in power, regardless of ideology or party, play fast and loose with the truth and their vows. The media generally ignores this until they don't. It's Chinatown, Steve.
Posted by al | June 8, 2011 1:35 PM
Well, with Clinton at least, I don't think the internet and social media had quite hit its current level of omnipresence, so things could be ignored a little easier. Frank probably get's a sexual orientation pass of sorts. But now, the liberal media is no longer in exclusive control, and are forced to address things or be seen as irrelevant (more than they already are, that is).
Posted by c matt | June 8, 2011 1:54 PM
Steve:
I have had similar thoughts. What is odd is that "hypocrisy" seems to be the only self-regarding sin in the liberal canon, even though hypocrisy isolated from a moral tradition makes hypocrisy into a sort of moral exclusionary rule rather than a substantive moral failing. So, you get these weird entailments: adultery isn't intrinsically wrong, it's only wrong if you claim in your vows not to stray; publishing erotic photos of yourself is not demeaning and degrading in itself, it's only wrong if you don't choose to do it or if you chose to do it but have judged others as wrong for doing it. Hypocrisy has been converted, at least in politics and religion, from a judgment about one's inner life not corresponding to one's public pronouncements to the behavior of the weak willed who preach against the behavior. The latter is not hypocrisy, for if that were the case then King David would be a hypocrite for having had relations with Bethsheba.
Posted by Francis Beckwith | June 8, 2011 2:27 PM
Dr. Beckwith,
The blogger "Zombie" had an excellent post recently about liberalism and the problem of hypocrisy:
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2011/06/06/why-the-hypocrisy-defense-is-political-suicide-for-liberalism/
A recommend it to all W4 readers.
Posted by Jeff Singer | June 8, 2011 3:11 PM
I am convinced that it is all in his name. The concept of a Representative Weiner showing his Weiner is just too ridiculous to ignore.
Posted by jvangeld | June 8, 2011 3:49 PM
I'd say that Fox News has what a dispassionate observer (that noble, mythical character) might call a "pronounced conservative tilt." The rest of the MSM - maybe not quite so pronounced.
I understand, though; when I was a kid, watching baseball games on TV, I could never understand why all the umpires' calls went against the White Sox. It just didn't seem fair.
Posted by cyrillist | June 8, 2011 4:38 PM
Hypocrisy has been converted, at least in politics and religion, from a judgment about one's inner life not corresponding to one's public pronouncements to the behavior of the weak willed who preach against the behavior. The latter is not hypocrisy, for if that were the case then King David would be a hypocrite for having had relations with Bethsheba.
Why would anyone think King David wasn't a hypocrite by either standard?
Going back to the examples in the main post, to say they were no big deal isn't the same as saying they should be inconsequential. Frank did receive an official reprimand from the ethics committee, and it was merely a reprimand because he was cleared of the serious charge Steve claims as indisputable fact. Clinton would have easily been censured if the Republicans hadn't been so hell-bent on impeachment. So the general assumption that liberals demand no consequences of any sort for sexual misconduct in public office is baseless, we are just less likely to impeach someone over it.
Posted by Step2 | June 8, 2011 4:56 PM
Hi, al.
Yeah, that's me: repiglican partisan hackery at your service.
I guess you think that there's something about the sad cases of Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, and a couple of others that conflicts with my point, here.
Heaven, not I, knows what.
"The fuss is likely because there is a pronounced conservative tilt in the media..."
Well, yeah, I s'pose that claim actually makes sense, from where you stand.
Brrr...
Posted by steve burton | June 8, 2011 9:03 PM
Hi, step2:
"...he was cleared of the serious charge Steve claims as indisputable fact..."
I don't get it. Explain, please?
Posted by steve burton | June 8, 2011 9:18 PM
The only thing about the story I found interesting is how reckless Weiner was. Is he stupid? Arrogant? Political office today (and probably back when) seems to attract a certain personality type -- a reckless alpha male with incredible sexual libido -- whether Democrat or Republican. But Steve's right, it's the same old story; perhaps it got the press because it's a rehashed popular plot -- one that Americans enjoy but wish to be seasoned a little differently (in this case, a sex scandal but with the interesting twist of the underwear shots). If I were to guess at the root of this story's popularity: it's definitely the underwear pic.
Posted by MAR | June 8, 2011 10:50 PM
The real question here is a sociological one about Americans. The fact that a man in a political position of power is recklessly hypersexual is probably as old as civilization (and for evo-bio reasons). The better question is why are Americans at this point in time so obsessed with the sexual lives of politicians. Since republicanism is basically dead in America, perhaps Americans are more interested in the mannerism of degeneracy, a shift that is not without historical precedent.
Posted by MAR | June 8, 2011 11:06 PM
I don't get it. Explain, please?
You left out enough details that the implication was that Frank was involved. If that wasn't what you meant to imply, I apologize.
http://mediamatters.org/research/200610050002
Posted by Step2 | June 9, 2011 6:57 PM
While the likes of Al are formulating conspiracy theories involving the malignant designs of the evil corporation known as Fox News, I will present the real reasons why this is news.
Reasons why this is getting attention in the media:
1. His name.
2. Slow news day. Oh, and don't release any more economic data. It's hard to spin what's already out.
3. His name.
4. Boner in underwear? Seriously? That's so lame even Republicans know it's a stupid idea, and that says something.
5. His name.
6. He looks like a little weasel. Destroy him.
7. His name.
8. What's the underwear supposed to do, make this appropriate? Apparently there's plenty of lil' Weiner, but no balls to back it up.
9. His name.
10. LOL! He's stupid. He doesn't know how to use Twitter.
Sure, Clinton likes fatties and Gingrich has the morals of a cat, but in the end, it's because stupid sells.
Posted by Patrick | June 11, 2011 2:38 AM