I've been watching the endless coverage of the Anthony Weiner twitter fiasco for the past week, culminating with Monday's embarrassing spectacle of apologies and admissions, and experiencing the full range of emotions. Having taken a deep breath, I've got a few comments.
A virtual horde of disgusting people and organizations, the NY Post, Andrew Breitbart, Fox News to name a few, will be taking a victory lap for the next few days and it will be hard to watch. If Weiner survives, I think the hardest thing for me to forgive is his vindication of these media parasites. The fact is, Weiner was crazy to think he could conceal this pattern of behavior once it was in the public domain. And while I applaud the instinct to tell the press to go fuck itself when questions of private conduct arise, I am surprised at how amateurish his response was. Having watched Anthony up close on a number of occasions, I think he was caught truly off guard and was as much trying to protect his marriage as his public reputation -- pretty normal human response if you ask me.
I know reporters are bored -- Chris Matthews said as much last week when the story broke noting that the old press corps guys love this kind of stuff because it serves as the comedy relief to the more serious subjects they cover. But, to my memory, we already litigated the issue of whether or not voters care when politicians lie about sex. They don't. In New York, they especially don't. Bill Clinton is a beloved figure in retirement, Newt Gingrich is the modern equivalent of a troll under a bridge. I think the standard is pretty simple; if a politician 1) uses his office to engage in abusive or illegal sexual behavior or 2) engages in behavior that he publicly decries then their private conduct is on the table. If not, then legal conduct is not the public's business. Simply put, Weiner's sexting habit is Huma's problem, not mine and not any of his constituents' either. Would anyone allege that his private antics have distracted him from his duties? Or that he hasn't worked hard for his district? No one could with a straight face. But wait, I hear the cries of "but what about all the lying?" I've seen Anthony Weiner walk into a public forum loaded with the most conservative constituents in his district and tell them honestly, without equivocation of his belief that terrorists could and should be tried in New York. It was a subject he could easily have avoided, but he opted to tell the truth because he was making a point he believed in. I draw a bright-line, as most adults do, between lying about public matters and lying about private matters. We wasted two years in the 1990's figuring this out and I can't imagine that opinions have changed. If a reporter asks a question they have no business asking, they shouldn't be surprised if the response is a lie or an insult. Throw in the fact that the questions from the press are motivated either by prurient interest or personal animus, and I give Weiner a total pass on lying to the press on this. Also, the lines being drawn between NY-26 former congressman Christopher Lee and the Weiner situation are nonsense -- Weiner never ran for office on a pro-marriage, family values platform as Lee did. Frankly, I laughed when Lee was exposed, but could have cared less whether he resigned or not -- that was his and his constituent's business. It is also significant that Lee's photo was turned over by the creeped-out recipient not a political hack.
Speaking of the press, I find it amazing (depressing) that none of them can successfully unravel the mysteries of health-care (by simply reading) but they can scrutinize every pixel of Weiner's cock shot like it was smuggled intelligence in a micro-dot. This case shows once again, that an outspoken democrat will be run to ground by the New York press and that dubious sources such as Breitbart and the Post will be instantly believed and repeated regardless of their past track record of inaccurate or misleading stories. Don't agree? Look at the difference in coverage that the New York papers gave to the very public lies of Councilman Dan Halloran (subsequent posting).
