Is anyone else getting uncomfortable about the progression of the Anthony Weiner witch hunt? Wishing that maybe we could just slow this thing down and think it over a bit more?
As calls for his resignation apparently increase, here are some things to consider.
1) Imagine Nancy Pelosi saying that he should resign because he’s become a Democratic liability. Coming from Nancy Pelosi…
2) Here are a couple quotes from women who were on the receiving end of Weiner’s sexts.
“I think he has a weird fetish. It doesn’t make him a bad politician…or a bad congressman. It makes him a bad husband.”
—Las Vegas blackjack dealer Lisa Weiss, quoted in a NY Post article entitled, “Perv takes a ‘Hit’ from his Blackjack Dealer.”
“I certainly don’t condone his behavior, but I think that’s a personal matter between him and his family.”
Genette Cordova, the recipient of the Weiner boxer photo, in the NYT.
So…the women involved—you can’t really call them “victims,” can you?— seem more reasonable than the rest of us.
3) “Anthony Wiener’s Wife is Pregnant” — a New York Times headline yesterday.
This marks one of the lowest moments in the history of the New York Times. There is absolutely no news justification for printing this story. Write all you want about the political implications of Wiener’s behavior, the cultural meaning, blah-blah-blah. But to run an article in the New York Times saying that Huma Abedin is 10 weeks pregnant—or, as the Times put it, “in the early stages of pregnancy”—this being before the end of the period of greatest risk of miscarriage, when women generally don’t tell the world that they’re pregnant—is a profound and shameful violation of privacy for purely salacious reasons. The Times has disgraced itself. But then, so has most of the media in the matter Wiener.
4) Here’s a quote from Andrew Sullivan that I find worth considering:
….we have dispensed with even the pretense of any over-arching justification for this attack on Weiner. He hasn’t been accused of adultery or hypocrisy; he has committed no crime; it doesn’t seem as if he has spent any public money. No one he corresponded with complained. No harrassment is involved. And yet this case of doing something which is ubiquitous online is equated, in some cases, with Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s brutal alleged rape.
I’m just amazed at the resources of American puritanism. This is the first sex scandal I can think of in which there was no even faintly credible reason to do it, but pure partisan hatred, and no actual sex.
The New York Times has certainly dispensed with any pretense of justifying its coverage.
5) Here’s another quote from another Times article:
“Having the respect of your constituents is fundamental for a member of Congress. In light of Anthony Weiner’s offensive behavior online, he should resign.”
—Representative Allyson Y. Schwartz, Democrat of Pennsylvania
That’s a classic logical fallacy (wish I knew the name for it.) “Having respect from your constituents is important. Anthony Wiener behaved badly. Therefore he should resign.” See the missing sentence?
But people in Queens are pretty tough, and from what I can tell, opinion there is very much mixed about Wiener’s behavior. There’s far from a consensus. And Queensians certainly don’t need someone from Pennsylvania telling them what they think.
6) If people make the argument that politicians should be role models and Wiener clearly isn’t one, I think that’s certainly an argument worth taking seriously. But most people I talk to gave up that notion long ago…
7) Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican senator, just blocked the appointment of a Nobel Prize-winning economist to the Fed because he said the man was unqualified.
Is this more or less obscene than Anthony Weiner’s crotch shot? Is it of greater or lesser public importance?
8 ) The Oklahoma legislature just passed a bill banning affirmative action because, one white Republican explained, “blacks just don’t work as hard as white people.”
Is this more or less obscene than Anthony Wiener’s crotch shot?
9) Republicans are saying that Mitt Romney is not a viable presidential candidate because he refuses to disavow the science behind global warming.
Is this more or less obscene than Anthony Wiener’s crotch shot?
So, really, why are we driving this man out of office? Because he’s creepy? Because he treated his wife terribly? Or because he’s a vociferous and tough political critic of the Republican party, and this is a convenient—maybe deliberate, maybe planned—way to take him out.
If those are the reasons, fine, let’s put our cards on the table. But let’s not pretend that we’re being high-minded about it. This is a political assassination pretending to be a mercy killing.