Weiner did a bad thing and being pro-abortion doesn’t give him a pass

A few months ago a movie came out based on a premise that was, for me, an entirely new concept:  a Hall Pass or, license from ones spouse to have sex, once, outside of marriage.  (I understand that the movie, which I didn’t see, ultimately made the point that having an affair isn’t as easy or attractive as it seems.)

I thought of that movie when I read Amanda Marcotte’s outraged article about coverage of the wanking Weiner.  Unlike Kirsten Powers, who was mad at Weiner for lying to everyone and making a fool of her, and who figured out that Weiner is a sexual predator, not a ladies’ man, Marcotte is furious at the media for being interested in Weiner’s dangerous and predatory sexual predilections.

There are two things deeply wrong with Marcotte’s article.  The first is her claim that the media investigated Weiner’s sex life.  After castigating Weiner for “stupidity” and Breitbart for “sleaziness” — and I’m so naive that I thought Weiner, who sent x-rated pictures of himself to strangers, was the sleazy one — Marcotte zeroes in on the true source of her rage:

This scandal may represent the end of the presumption of sexual privacy for politicians, and possibly even for journalists, activists, and bureaucrats—anyone whose public humiliation could benefit the ideologues wed to the politics of personal destruction.

What she seems to forget is that Weiner’s stupidity encompassed more than making his privates public.  It was he who started the hounds on his trail when he tweeted to all umpteen thousand of his followers a picture of his semi-public privates, outlined showily against his undies.  (Shades of Gary Hart, although Marcotte may be too young to remember the red flag that Hart waved before the media bull.)

Even after that first careless act, had Weiner immediately done his groveling mea culpas (think of Hugh Grant, who did a masterful public self-abasement after being caught with a prostitute), he could have gotten away with the thing with the damage limited to a whole lot of embarrassment.  (At this point, you’re supposed to think of Barney Frank, who was forgiven the gay prostitution ring being run out of his home.)

Instead, Weiner upped the ante by accusing Breitbart of the federal crime of hacking his account, accusing the entire conservative political movement in the United States of hacking into his account, coaching porn stars to lie on his behalf, insulting members of the media (“jackass”), and generally lying through his teeth.  That goes beyond “stupid” into sociopathic.

Bottom line:  Marcotte’s fundamental premise is wrongheaded.  This wasn’t about the media hunting for information about Weiner’s sex life, although Weiner’s foolish sexual behavior was the starting point.  The frenzy was all about the other stuff, the carelessness, the personal malevolence, the lying, and the manipulation.  When it comes to someone in political office, each of those qualities is entirely newsworthy because voters are handing their little piece of the country over to this person.

Working off of that factually and morally wrong foundation, Marcotte ups the ante on her stupidity.  She seems to claim that, because Weiner is pro-abortion and pro-gay, he has a hall pass when it comes to sordid sexual shenanigans:

Prior to this scandal, the media and political operatives had to at least pretend that a politician’s sex life had some bearing on the public interest before they picked up the pitchforks.  Being an adulterer wasn’t, in and of itself, a matter of public interest. There had to be a hook. If you were a social conservative who advocated for using the government to control the sexual behavior of consenting adults, for instance, then you were held to your own standard and your adulteries were considered public business. If you opposed gay rights, your own history of same-sex relations was fair game. If you broke an anti-prostitution law you vigorously enforced on others, like Eliot Spitzer, you had no reasonable expectation of privacy. Arnold Schwarzenegger had a long past of being accused of sexual harassment, so the state of the marriage he used as a shield matters. Even at the height of the national panic over Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Clinton’s detractors claimed that it wasn’t the sex that was the issue, but the perjury. No one believed them, of course, but the claim at least paid tribute to the idea that the private sexual choices of those who support sexual privacy are not the public’s business.

But with this Weiner scandal, there’s not even the veneer of an excuse in play. Weiner has an outstanding record supporting sexual rights of others, with100% ratings from NARAL and Planned Parenthood,and has a strong record of support for gay rights. No laws seem to have been broken, no public trust compromised, no campaign irregularities indicated, and there’s been no suggestion that his flirtations interfered with his ability to do his job. The entire rationale for the scandal is that Weiner isn’t living in accordance with strict social mores regarding monogamy, and that’s it. Even the whining about how he lied when initially confronted is hollow. In the past, lying when someone asks nosy questions that are none of their business was considered a socially acceptable white lie. (And really, who among us would be a paragon of transparency with Wolf Blitzer waving a penis picture in our face and saying, “Is this yours?”) The pretense that it has to matter to the public in order for the public to get involved has been dropped.

Color me stupid, but I’m pretty sure Marcotte is saying that, because Weiner is the feminist’s delight politically, he gets a free pass when it comes to tweeting his crotch shot to the world, lying, slandering, manipulating and, oh, yes!, let’s not forget, preying on women and demeaning and humiliating his wife.

I can just see it now:

Wife:  I can’t believe you had sex with that . . . that slut!  And then you tweeted it to all your friends.  God, I hope that at least you used a condom.  And then to lie about it.  You lied to everyone, and you even got your brother to stand up for you when that tweet first went out.  I’m so humiliated.  I thought you took our marriage vows seriously.  And what about the children?  What’s little Johnny going to say to his friend?  I don’t know how little Tina is going to hold her head up.

Husband:  But Honey!  I gave money to NARAL and Planned Parenthood.  And have you forgotten how how we went together to campaign against Prop. 8 in California?

Wife:  You’re right, Lover.  I totally forgot.  You really are a good man who cares about gays and women.  You earned that hall pass.  [Making kissy face sounds.]

Fade out as they walk off to the bedroom, hand in hand.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

The Bookworm Turns : A Secret Conservative in Liberal Land, available in e-format for $4.99 at Amazon, Smashwords or through your iBook app.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Charles Martel says

    Remember the little media twit who said she’d have gladly fellated Bill Clinton because he was so staunchly pro-abortion?

    The mindset involved here is pathetic. I feel genuinely sorry for people who are so in love with their genitals that they become the basis of their identities and their reason for living.

  2. says

    Color me stupid, but I’m pretty sure Marcotte is saying that, because Weiner is the feminist’s delight politically, he gets a free pass when it comes to tweeting his crotch shot to the world, lying, slandering, manipulating and, oh, yes!, let’s not forget, preying on women and demeaning and humiliating his wife.

    So.

    That’s what feminists and Democrats said about Kennedy.  That girl he drowned should be proud that she helped launch that Great Lion of a Man’s political career. That’s what they said. Online. In public. So, is this something new about the Left? It ain’t new.

  3. says

    people on the Left and in the Democrat party, believe their powerful leaders have the sanction and authority to do anything they want to women they control.

    This is why they can work with the Islamic Jihad. Most of the time they agree with each other, even if their ultimate goals are incompatible. Their methods are very compatible. Their psyches are very compatible. Their evil is very compatible.

  4. says

    Btw, I’ve been hearing  some talk that a lot of couples in california are having what they call “open marriages”. Meaning so long as both husband and wife accepts a certain person, either get to have sex with that person. Keeps things “interesting” as they said.

    Yeah, only in California perhaps.

    This may or may not exist where I live… but I certainly know people don’t talk about it if it does.

  5. Libby says

    This reminds me of how NOW reacted to Clinton’s behavior w/Lewinski vs. Clarence Thomas. They’ll put up with just about any bad behavior in order to get their way on “womens issues” such as abortion, and will miss no opportunity to smear an opponent of their agenda. Things like principles, and sticking up for women’s rights where it actually counts (such as in honor killings and genital mutilation on US soil), are nowhere in the equation.

  6. says

    Marty, the position of women in the Leftist cause is on their backs. That’s what they said and they said the truth, back before they felt the need to hide their agenda.

    There’s little point talking to them. They are enemies. And with everything that entails.

  7. Charles Martel says

    Open marriage has been a topic of discussion for decades. I doubt that aside from people like Jesse Jackson, Bill Clinton or some Hollywood actors, that all that many people do more than just talk about it.

  8. Libby says

    What Marcotte fails to grasp is that if Weiner wanted to engage in this type of non-monogamous behavior he could have chosen not to marry, where pledging monogamy is part of the standard vows. I wonder if it even occurred to Marcotte to consider Huma’s knowledge and acceptance of Weiner’s actions?
    Weiner also could have chosen not to enter politics, where people expect a certain level of decorum, and where this type of behavior would be scrutinized, publicized and used against him.

  9. says

    Libby says “Weiner also could have chosen not to enter politics, where people expect a certain level of decorum, and where this type of behavior would be scrutinized, publicized and used against him.”

    That is a totally excellent point.  Unlike Charles, I do know people who have, shall we say, somewhat unconventional marriages.  (I hasten to add here that I am not cleverly trying to talk about myself.  I am a boringly conventional person.)  These people adjust their public lifestyles to their private practices.  They do not run for office, they do not have facebook accounts, and they do not do other things that would expose them outside of their select circles of like-minded friends.

  10. Charles Martel says

    Libby, as Kissinger noted, power is an aphrodasiac. Looking objectively at Weiner, the guy is a little schlub masquerading as a metrosexual. Whatever cachet he has comes from his office. Whether radical feminists like it or not, women are attracted to powerful men, so the combination of a man’s high position and women’s willingness to bed highly placed males is a very strong one.

    The nice thing is that most men in Weiner’s position are more adult and moral about these matters than he has turned out to be. I would say the same thing about most women, although it would be impossible to include the pathetic Marcotte among them.  

  11. Libby says

    So true, Charles, the position greatly enhanced his ability to garner these young tweeties. He certainly couldn’t have made it in some of the other professions where this type of behavior is expected and glorified, such as actor, rock star or athlete.

  12. Charles Martel says

    Ymar, Book lives further south in the county than I do. The closer you live to the Sodom of San Francisco, the friskier your neighbors are likely to be.

    (If I were Zach, I’d illustrate this response with a Pompeiian mosaic of people frolicking in the nude, but my URL Rolodex isn’t as big as his.)

  13. suek says

    I have all sorts of mixed feelings about this situation…
    The fact is that it _appears_ that he _didn’t_ “have sex with that woman”…all he did was send photos.  That doesn’t exactly come under the heading of adultery.  But at the same time, there’s something definitely abnormal about it…sort of a reverse voyeur kind of thing.  I’m suspecting that he motivated by one of two things (maybe both): either exaggerated exhibitionism or the theory that “if I show you mine, you have to show me yours”.  Either one, however, is an act based on self-satisfaction.
    So…where does that leave his wife?  And about that wife…she’s a muslim.  That alone raises all sorts of alarm bells in my head.  Muslim women are not permitted to marry outside islam.  If she’s truly muslim, she can’t object to his having another wife…but these women aren’t physically intimate – does that count?  And he’s at least nominally a Jew – and married a muslim.  Is he out of his mind?  So you have a woman who is either non-compliant with islamic law or has left islam, married to a Jew.
     
    I suspect they won’t be doing much traveling to the middle east.

  14. Mike Devx says

    Does anyone know the actual laws surrounding sending pornographic photos over the Internet?  I truly have no clue if, say, Weiner could be in any legal trouble for sending XXX-rated photos…

    Weiner’s worst is out there now.  A full on self-clicked photo of, as the Church Lady would put it, all of his naughty parts, engorged and tingling.  (Isn’t that special?)

  15. roylofquist says

    Weiner’s problems did not begin because of a sexual peccadillo. They began because he was a mean, nasty son of a bitch. He personalized things. If he had grown up in a genteel, civilized neighborhood as did I he’d be on his third set of teeth.

  16. says

    Mike DevxDoes anyone know the actual laws surrounding sending pornographic photos over the Internet?  I truly have no clue if, say, Weiner could be in any legal trouble for sending XXX-rated photos…
     
    If something can be conjectured, there is porn made of it. There’s an entire Web domain for pornography. 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx  
     
    In any case, Weiner’s messages were meant to be private. It’s very easy to forget to set messaging to private. 
    http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-facebook-party-2011-6 
     


     

  17. says

    {Note to moderator. None of the following links are inappropriate.}

    Mike Devx
    Does anyone know the actual laws surrounding sending pornographic photos over the Internet?  I truly have no clue if, say, Weiner could be in any legal trouble for sending XXX-rated photos…
     
    If something can be conjectured, there is porn made of it.There’s an entire Web domain for pornography. 
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.xxx  
     
    In any case, Weiner’s messages were meant to be private. It’s very easy to forget to set messaging to private. 
    http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-facebook-party-2011-6 
     
    By the way, whatever happened to David Vitter? 
     


     

  18. Charles Martel says

    The drawback to thinking you can protect yourself by sending a message privately is that privacy exists only as long as the recipient says it does.

  19. Mike Devx says

    This comment text-area form is a really bad piece of software work.  I’ve rarely seen worse.

    At least that’s true of its javascript-engine within the Safari browser.  It is truly horrible.

    Strikethrough doesn’t work.  Underline doesn’t work.

    If you cut and paste and then italicize what you’ve cut and pasted, ALL SORTS of things start going wrong.  There are even characters that you then type that you cannot delete.  Neither backspace nor delete work.  Up and down arrows start jumping you around within the form in a manner that is completely non-standard.

    If you preview what you’ve written, and then post it, what get’s posted doesn’t look like what you previewed.

    When you cut and paste, if there’s anything the engine doesn’t like, you’re not warned – when you post, the comment simply will completely disappear.  Even if want to try to repair, it’s too late – the comment is completely gone.

    It’s a mess.  I’ve never seen such poor quality control.

    If you stick with basic text only, you’ll be ok.

  20. Gringo says

    Mike Devx: So what else is new? Book’s commenting software used to be OK, but the “new improved” version  has been as as you describe for quite some time. Well over a year, I would guess.

  21. Mike Devx says

    Yeah, Gringo, I know, sorry about the side-kvetching.  I don’t consider it “Book’s commenting software”; she’s got to put up with it as anyone else does.  

    I forget the bloghost’s identity, but the commentary software is theirs.  As a software guy it’s hard for me to understand how they could with any pride keep it out there in its current state.  (As I’ve said before, and apologize for doing so yet again, underlying javascript processing rules and keystroke mgmt appear to be the main culprits. I’ve kvetched a number of times on my personal hatred of javascript.  I recommend they start over from scratch, making the paste-function text only, and then simply using all other standard rules for keystroke mgmt within a multi-line text edit form.)

  22. Care says

    May we never forget, it is always about Character.  CongressMan Weiner does not have the Character to handle the current.  Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

Leave a Reply