-
Obama’s Far Left Hand
May 15, 2013 | 133 comments
-
The Left’s Captive Mind
May 8, 2013 | 85 comments
-
A Sportscaster Comes Out As Christian
May 1, 2013 | 291 comments
-
The Price of Obama’s Islamophilia
April 24, 2013 | 196 comments
-
The Perverse Logic of the Left
April 17, 2013 | 138 comments
A Further Perspective
Clinton’s Precedent
The Weiner scandal and the left.
According to the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, “we’d be better off if lawmakers gambled more with their private parts and less with the public good.”
For Milbank, the Ryan plan is a greater scandal than Congressman Weiner sending lewd pictures of himself to young women. Milbank tries to be bipartisan in his odd point, throwing in some Democratic policies he considers reckless, but it is Congressman Ryan who gets the most ink. Ryan is a more dangerous figure than Anthony Weiner by Milbank’s lights for having proposed a plan to restructure Medicare without drawing upon “bipartisan solutions.” Apparently there is nothing more sinister than that, for these “behaviors” have very dire “consequences” for the country, according to Milbank.
Over at MSNBC, liberals also strained hard to spin the scandal against Republicans and expressed disappointment with Nancy Pelosi for throwing Weiner “under the bus” by launching an ethics investigation against him. Weiner was clearly a valued guest on the network and will be badly missed. It should be noted, however, that MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell did a retrospective segment on the Gennifer Flowers scandal, with one liberal guest grudgingly admitting that she was more than an “acquaintance” of Bill Clinton. Now that Clinton occupies a protected position in the pantheon of the world elite, it is acceptable for liberals to make such concessions. At the same time, they are not going to blame Clinton for debasing American politics and making it safe for the likes of Anthony Weiner. The liberal elite is more comfortable comparing the “reckless” Congressman Ryan to Weiner than comparing Bill Clinton to him.
Were Weiner a Republican, no “debate” over whether or not he should resign would even occur. He would have been gone by the end of his press conference. But since he is a Democrat who is “right on the issues,” media liberals have accorded his fate several days of debate. Unfortunately for him, he is not as valuable to the left as Bill Clinton, so he won’t survive. At the end of the day Weiner is just a useful but expendable attack dog for Democrats, some of whom resent his barking at them for compromises they’d made.
Most in the media had complacently accepted Weiner’s story of being hacked, though it was clear from his evasive self-investigation (he said he had hired a lawyer and private security firm to look into the matter) that he was fibbing. One knows a pol is guilty when he announces that he is conducting a self-investigation. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried that one too (and got away with it) after a series of women accused him of groping them. Once ensconced in the governorship, he promised to get to the bottom of his own scandal.
The liberal discussion about Weiner, as Milbank’s column suggests, still borrows from the fallacies and sophistries of the Clinton years. Weiner’s problem is that he doesn’t hold a powerful enough position for liberals to feel the need to use them as tenaciously as they did during the impeachment. “Lying about sex” is no big deal, they said about Clinton, who lied not just to the media and public like Wiener did but to a grand jury. “One’s private life is irrelevant to one’s public duties,” they said of Clinton who had exploited an intern in the White House.
In all the post-mortems searching out reasons for why Weiner felt invincible, one would think these corrupting notions from the Clinton years would loom larger than Milbank’s culture of recklessness thesis. Weiner, in fact, apologized to Clinton, who had officiated at his wedding. The halo on Clinton’s head grows brighter as the Al Gores and Anthony Weiners around him bite the dust. But perhaps Clinton should have apologized to Weiner for setting a precedent that made pols think they could take similar risks and get away with it.
About the Author
George Neumayr, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is co-author, with Phyllis Schlafly, of the new book, No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George Neumayr
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/06/09/clintons-precedent
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- We Have Her Example
- Boys and Girls
- Downton’s Class System — and Ours
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Darin| 6.9.11 @ 6:53AM
If an elected official will lie about this, there's no reason to believe they won't lie about other things. It's a matter of character and trust (or the lack thereof).
SonOfSam| 6.9.11 @ 8:18AM
Darin, this is not merely about the lies or the "lack of trust" -- I never trusted this POS in the first place. The bigger issue here is that Weiner is a Big Government liberal, which means he thinks that he and his fellow libs are so smart, and "we the people" are so stupid, that OF COURSE they must plan our lives for us. People like Weiner, Obama, Pelosi, Frank, Dodd, Reid, etc etc believe that it is their duty as "progressives" to tell us what kind of lightbulbs we can use and what kind of detergent we can put in our dishwashers and laundry machines, to say nothing of the billion news rules and regs spewing out of ObamaCare -- "we have to pass the bill before you little people can find out what's in it". (My wife is a physical therapist, and she can tell you first hand all the treatments, techniques and equipment for patient care that are being denied because of these new rules)
The sad fact is of course is that these "progressives" aren't all that bright, and in Weiner's case, he's dumb as a bag of bricks. Seriously, he doesn't know how to use Twitter? He really thought that as a married man he could send penis pics to a coed half his age and consort with porn stars, and there would never be ANY consequences for that?
To all the predictable libTrolls who will post here, I say this to you: I will stay out of Weiner's private life when he butts his big nose outta mine. And that goes for the rest of that pathetic tribe of would be Big Brother nanny state know it alls
Ned| 6.9.11 @ 11:36AM
I still prefer the "Clancy Option" to solve the problems in the District of Corruption: a 747 and disgruntled pilot (doesn't necessarily have to be Japanese), during the State of the Union address. Nobody watches the "speech" anyway, except pundits and other pols, so it would just wind up being a big "Do Over" for government.
Alan Brooks| 6.9.11 @ 8:27AM
Saltpeter for all government officials.
SonOfSam| 6.9.11 @ 8:42AM
Not all of 'em; like any group of people, I'm sure of 'em are decent. For the Weiner brigade though, I'd add sandpaper underwear to the saltpeter.
Regalos | 8.27.11 @ 2:11AM
it is true that not all the same, but it seems they never learn and are not making the same errror, on this occasion is to this scandal, then there will be conflicts of interest, I think in the end if there must be some kind of sanction or corrective for anyone not do its job.
Nancy in NC| 6.9.11 @ 1:38PM
Weiner's wife is a Muslim. Does that strike anyone as odd? I can't imagine a Muslim marrying a Jew. What gives?
Muslim woman are often genitally mutilated. Perhaps that would explain Weiner's weird behavior of a 13 year old boy. Now if we can only figure out why he's such a liar. Oh, I forget...he's a Democrat. They get a pass on lying.
What a scumbag.
Alan Brooks| 6.9.11 @ 4:45PM
Sexual revolution takes all the fun out of sex.
John Dietrich| 6.9.11 @ 7:16AM
This is not a simple matter of lying. It is an issue of widespread pathology. To say that Weiner's behavior was immature is an insult to the immature. Weiner and his defenders have a distorted view of the world.
Denver Todd| 6.9.11 @ 7:44AM
If I were to steal a pencil at work, I would be tarred and feathered and told that I will never work in this town again. But Weiner lies to the American public and it is no big deal. I just don't get it.
Teaghan| 6.9.11 @ 11:08AM
Really, a teacher caught doing this, a soldier in the armed forces, a supermarket manager would all have been fired if caught doing this. What makes these miscreatants above being held accountable? It's sickening.
Darin| 6.9.11 @ 12:03PM
Congress already exempts themselves from many laws they force on us. I guess they also exempt themselves from ethical behavior (Ted Kennedy, Charlie Rangle, Nancy Pelosi, etc.). I'd call them pond scum, but that would be an insult to pond scum.
C Smith| 6.9.11 @ 8:37AM
A letter to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott during the Senate impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton:
The Honorable Senator Trent LottThe Senate of the United StatesWashington D.C. 20510Date. Jan 1, 1999
Dear Sir,
On the first Tuesday in November, 1992, I went to Republican Headquarters. My wife was there making calls on one of many phones. I recognized others too. Surprisingly, every phone was manned by someone from either my church or the Christian school my children attend. Even the woman coordinating the entire affair was a dear friend who worshipped with us. I remember reminiscing as I contemplated what the coming hours would determine: I recalled how my children had in the preceding weeks carried campaign literature door to door. I remember how my wife flawlessly hand addressed literally thousands of letters for local Republican candidates. I wondered what would come of the Saturday after Saturday I had spent with so many others of conviction in platform committee meetings, addressing the spiritual direction of the party. And I remembered the flyers in plastic baggies that I distributed in the rain the night before. Senator Lott, this was typical of the passion and conviction that believers once had for the Republican Party… passion and conviction that has all too often been replaced by feelings of violation, abandonment, and betrayal.
Over the last six years, the Republican Party has proven that conviction and courage are a rare commodity: Republican leadership allowed a pro-abortion governor to deliver the State of the Union response. Republicans failed to oppose the nomination of a Supreme Court justice whose opinions often resemble those of early 20th Century anarchists. The 96 Republican campaign was little more than a "going away party" for a nice old man who reportedly bragged that he had not even read the Republican Platform. I could go on Senator Lott, but I think you can see why I didn’t even bother to go to Republican Headquarters this last election… AND I WASN’T ALONE!
We now stand at the crossroads Senator Lott. The House has HONORABLY determined that it is the rule of law, not public opinion, that must be followed. The house has resolved that there IS to be a trial. And you also have said: "We [the Senate] need to go forward and do our CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to hear the evidence.'' (emphasis added) Yet, a day or two later, you proposed the means for terminating the implicit constitutional mandate for a full Senate trial! Senator Lott, how can you take what you have called your "constitutional duty" so lightly, the "constitutional duty" you swore in an oath with your hand upon the Bible? Senator Lott, have you forgotten that it is the "oaths" that we honor or dishonor, that is the substance of the matter that now confronts the Senate?
The Constitution gives the Senate "the sole Power to try" the President. No other authority on earth has that Power and no other individual has greater Power and responsibility in holding this man accountable then you do as Senate Majority Leader. Our President has forgotten his oaths…Senator Lott have you forgotten yours?
Your leadership in this matter will determine the future of the Republican Party. It will determine whether it is the party of conviction or merely the "moral" equivalent of its opposition. If you take a stand for a full Senate trial with witnesses and the admission of all relevant evidence, it will cost you something. Courage and conviction always cost something. The coliseum in Rome is still stained with the blood of those who refused to betray their convictions… and their contemporaries will not betray them now. Your leadership will determine whether those who have made the most significant contributions to the Republican Party will remain part of it or will consider it an abomination. Sadly, if the latter, the Republican Party literally "WON'T HAVE A PRAYER"!
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....rayer.html
davelnaf| 6.9.11 @ 8:43AM
Ah, liberal hypocrisy; so entertaining in its many variants and ways. It’s the only thing libs don’t put a price tag on and charge us for.
Darin| 6.9.11 @ 12:06PM
Actually, liberals aren't being hypocrites because they have no standards to which they can be held. So if a liberal calls a conservative a hyprocrite, the best response is to inquire by what standards the liberal can be measured. Conservative standards are known. Liberal standards are non-existant.
ncatty| 6.9.11 @ 9:48AM
Don't resign, run for re-election, and win. He is a useful distraction.
Teaghan| 6.9.11 @ 11:10AM
We don't need the distraction. We need to be paying attention to what obama and his henchmen are doing while destroying our country.
ncatty| 6.9.11 @ 12:39PM
Weiner is a distraction to THEM, not us.
irish19| 6.9.11 @ 4:32PM
True, true. It is only fitting that the new (one-eyed?) face of the Dhimmorat party be A. Weiner.
PAUL| 6.9.11 @ 10:01AM
They are men without honor, if their wives can not trust them, no one can. This is not hard to understand - do not lie, do not cheat, do not steal, and do tolerate those that do. If a man does not have the respect of his wife, he is not a man.
J.C.Eaton| 6.9.11 @ 10:09AM
The author captured well the essence of Clinton's deleteriousness: His presidency made the whole country a crappier place to live.
PAUL| 6.9.11 @ 10:17AM
J.C. - yes, and he and his wife harmed the moral fiber of the country to protect themselves - they killed shame in this country - both of them should be out of the public somewhere, waiting out their days until they face judgement. It is telling that Ms. Hillary is the Sec State and Bill is celebrated by the left, basically shows that honesty and character do not matter - a nice lesson to kids.
Steve A| 6.9.11 @ 10:40AM
Is it just me or does anyone else out there sense a major momentum shift? Not just this Weiner fiasco. It feels like the MSM is growing weary of carrying the water for Obama on the economy. How much longer are they going to continue to lie for this guy. He is not making it easy & I think they are running out of ways to lie for the guy. It's embarrassing to watch.
Teaghan| 6.9.11 @ 11:11AM
Nahh, they will lie as long as they're told to. By the White House.
Anommynous| 6.9.11 @ 11:21AM
"Weiner was clearly a valued guest on the network and will be badly missed."
Hey, Spitzer got his own show at CNN after his scandal, so why can't Weiner get one at MSNBC?
Nancy in NC| 6.9.11 @ 1:38PM
He would fit right in.
ncatty| 6.9.11 @ 2:59PM
Call it the "SpitzerWeiner Show." The faster you say it, the funnier it sounds.
marion| 6.9.11 @ 1:04PM
If this type of behavior is no big deal to the liberals, why would Weiner lie about it in the first place? He knows the mainstream media is in his corner, as are the feminists. Why not just come out of the gate on the attack and say this is my private life and it's none of your business. But he didn't, so the reason for lying must be that these people do know they have done something wrong that others will find despicable. Despite the actions themselves, the lying is even more disturbing. How do all those favorable liberal feminists and media people justify the lying? What gymnastics do they want to do to explain away that bad judgement call?
Anthony| 6.9.11 @ 2:00PM
The LSM, or as I call them, the Order of Lewinsky, is the 4th column of the leftist establishment.
As such, they rally to the aide of a fellow leftist reprobte such as Anthony's Weiner, because they recognize him as one of their own.
It's very simple, leftism, in all its forms and manifestations, is totally corrupt, and needs to be destroyed or America is finished.
weddingdresses | 6.10.11 @ 2:02AM
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.And welcome to our wedding dress online shop.
weddingdresses | 6.13.11 @ 2:50AM
Article is very interesting,thanks for your sharing.I will visit this site.
insanity | 6.13.11 @ 10:55AM
nice post
Anna | 6.20.11 @ 10:06PM
Yeah ,, Hahaha , you are right . welcome to visit www.sexdollusa.com .cheapest price and best serviser will be your best choise.our Adult toys