Anthony Weiner is reportedly resigning.
This is what the New York Times says:
WASHINGTON — Representative Anthony D. Weiner has told friends that he plans to resign his seat after coming under growing pressure from his Democratic colleagues to leave the House, said a person told of Mr. Weiner’s plans.
Our long national tweet is over.
Clearly the Vancouver loss last night pushed him over the edge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNew dilemma for NY dems: NOW how do we redistrict to accommodate the two seats we lost in congress as a direct result of our suffocating taxes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's too bad. He made a good poster boy for the Democrat Party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDavidR, I agree. I wish he were sticking around. But there's one thing that will make Democrats to the right thing - the risk of lost votes. He's definitely not resigning out of some moral obligation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTranslation: the Clintons arranged a well-paying do nothing job for the Weiner, so his sham marriage to Hillary's 'attendant' ends quietly.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis resignation is appropriate. Did NRO take the same position and demand David Vitter's resignation for paying prostitutes?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe'll see your Vitter and raise you a Clinton......
Give it a rest. What do you want, for the NR to declare, "my God, Kevin's right! Fold it all up, folks. We can't go on."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI honestly don't know what, if anything, the NRO posted about Vitter or Ensign for that matter. The many weiner posts excoriated him for his behavior, which is appropriate. I simply want to know if NRO is consistent in applying such standards of behavior to Republicans as well. If NRO did my hat's off to them; if not then ask yourself why Vitter and Ensign got a pass.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI didn't bother to look at everyone who posted an opinion on Vitter, but I did look at the editor's (posted below). It is interesting that she thought he should resign, but only because what he did was a crime. If he'd done it with his secretary, she thought he could keep his job. Interesting indeed.
Also, Vitter actually posted here in The Corner last January (second link). I also find that interesting.
External Link
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMod Lib: Thanks for the research. I ask Ms. Lopez to explain her double standard, but she has the luxury of ignoring inconvenient comments like ours.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIs it a double standard to say that a crime requires an ouster, but an affair does not?
Or that an affair alone does not, but on line predation which may have involved minors, did involve unsolicited explicit material, and was covered up by lies and the encouragement of others to lie, does?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGopher: exactly. Ms. Lopez did a post re Vitter saying it was a "crime, a bad crime" and that he "probably" should resign. Nothing like the chorus raised here on NRO against Weiner.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo the problem is not that she didn't take the right position on Vitter, but that her organization didn't say it loud enough to suit you.
Sorry, Kevin, but Wiener is an unsympathetic character, even to people on the left, and he invites comment in a way that Vitter did not. It should be no surprise that a pugnacious, self-righteous publicity hound would get more of what he craved (i.e., attention) that a guy who did his job with some sense of decorum. If he got more coverage, maybe it has something to do with the media blitz he orchestrated. Compare that to Vitter's response, and ask yourself which way any organization is going to point the camera.
You might as well run around LA saying, "But the Clippers SHOULD be loved as much as the Lakers."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGopher, are you seriously saying that whether a rep/senator is likeable and/or in the media a lot is the basis for determining appropriate moral character and legal culpability?
No doubt the NRO bloggers and others enjoyed Weiner's self-inflicted wounds in part because of his abrasive personality, but that doesn't explain why the NRO didn't take a firm and consistent stand on Vitter and Ensign with respect to their compliance with moral and legal standards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, in direct response to what you said, I am saying it is the basis for how much attention he gets. You complained that NRO didn't cover Vitter as much as Wiener, and I explained it, as to a child.
As for the ultimate cost politicians pay for indiscretions, Vitter payed a prostitute, while Wiener sexted, possibly to minors, lied, encouraged another to lie on his behalf, and broke House rules by using House resources to do it all. Your comparison of Vitter's apples to Wiener's oranges may differ from Ms. Lopez, but she didn't exactly exonerate Vitter, as one might think after reading your whining posts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGopher: apples and oranges? Nonsense. Double standards aren't the sole province of the left. Why do you and others who respond to my comments resort to ad hominem taunts like "to a child" to try to validate your points? Generally such attacks reflect an insecurity with one's position. As a professor of mine from law school said: "just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your argument."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice way to slip in your educational background, as if that gives you authority. But as my grad school professor in Political Science said, "Lawyers don't know more, they just like to argue."
As for the allegations of ad hominem attacks, take it any way you want it. I tried to make it as plain as I would to a child, and the description was of my methods, not of your level of understanding. But being as how you didn't get what I was talking about, even though you are the one who introduced the original complaint, well . . .
And yes, it is apples and oranges. Both had moral failings, but from that point they split. One had an actual affair,the other virtual. One lied in a cover up, the other didn't. One broke house rules, the other didn't. One committed a crime, the other may have. So a straight up comparison is a tough sell. You can disagree with Ms. Lopez, but lawyers make cases turn on less differences than there are between Vitter and Wiener.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI will agree with you on one point: double standards are not the sole province of the left. I appreciate that you do see the problems on the left, and don't excuse them on the right.
But you can't seriously argue that the right does it less than the left after comparing Chris Lee to Anthony Weiner. Now THAT is apples to apples. So please drop the Vitter comparison, and try working with cases that more closely resemble each other.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExactly. On issues of conduct of elected officials, the NRO and many of its commenters have employed a double standard. I'll keep that in mind the next time I read a comment like "Democrats always lie, are hypocrites, employ double standards, have no integrity," I'll keep in mind that they are no different from what they criticize.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMan, I hate this. Either Kevin went off line, or realized his own inconsistencies and went silent, but I'll never know which.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse