Anthony Weiner was stupid. Anthony Weiner displayed the critical thinking skills of your average tree stump. Anthony Weiner embarrassed himself, his wife, and Congress – at least to the extent you can embarrass a den of thieves and charlatans. Heck, Mom and Daddy Big Weiner probably should’ve thought seriously about aname change to save their son a lifetime of tedious jokes too. But then, the millions of people who dingle their dangly bits in front of any convenient cell phone camera are stupid too.
GO MEAT - Rep. Anthony Weiner is corn dog bitin' mad at himself over his sexting escapades.
Absent violating the law,what a person does in the privacy of their own photo booth is no concern of mine, or yours either. The famous and powerful may not put their pants on one leg at a time, but they still share some of the same foibles as the rest of the Great Unwashed. For example, extreme pride of your junk and wanting the world to see just how wonderful it truly is.
Americans expect their rich and famous to be clay-footed. We take delight – or sometimes faux sanctimonious objection – to their self-destructive behavior. It’s what keeps NASCAR growing – a car crash is an awful thing, but it’s damn sure interesting.
When a Dick is Really a Weiner
But mixed into those America’s Funniest Home Video-style crotch shots we harbor a mixed standard for celebrity behavior. The only difference between how the Honorable Mr. Weiner behaved and how “actor†Andy Dick behaves is occupation. When Dick shows his dick it’s sort of funny in that, “Look, that lunatic goob is at it again†way. When Weiner waves his Weiner, it’s a travesty of the first order, demanding resignation, eternal ridicule, and the opportunity to return to private life where he can waggle his Weiner or patronize Heidi Fleiss and no one would be the wiser.
That’s not to say I always give them a free pass. If the amateur photo enthusiast loudly preaches the opposite of what he doth practice, I assume he’s fair game for charges of hypocrisy and an extra spoonful of castor oil for his trouble. But that doesn’t mean I’m for firing them. Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, I’m talkin’ to you!
But if a little hanky panky is grounds for a Sharia-style stoning, we wouldn’t be able to raise a quorum in Congress or scrape enough tattooed thugs together for a pickup game in any NBA arena or NFL stadium in the country.
An assessment of their critical thinking skills is in order too. Getting a BJ under the Oval Office desk while fantasizing an S&M session with Angela Merkel and simultaneously negotiating a nuclear treaty probably is critical thinking gone intolerably awry. Getting a BJ under the desk while on a coffee break and there are no wars breaking out or financial collapses du jour, not so much.
And that stupidity thing?
They Got Elected Didn’t They?
Most of these pervs are nothing if not smart in their own way. They managed to get elected didn’t they? They know the consequences and carry on anyway. I don’t agree with the conventional analyst couch wisdom that they secretly want to be caught either. I think they do it because they spend all day with dozens of people telling them how wonderful and powerful they are and that anything is possible with only a Caesar’s slight thumbs down toward the losing gladiator.
They do it because of hubris. Their already significant egos become more grotesque the longer they listen to their own puffery. A few years of that and most of us would develop the mistaken impression we could will Tweets invisible, erase video tape, or lie ourselves out of a pinch like some new X-Man.
Remember, people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones – but breaking some glass will be the least of your worries.
Especially, if the stone bounces off some high and mighty’s head and smacks you square between the eyes.
Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 45
This seems like a big whopping difference between the sexes. Men I've talked to---all retarded so far except Lloyd (have to figure out how to kidnap and marry him....) seem to think something about this is normal.
It's NOT. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
I agree that by YOUR definition self pics of genitals = mental illness. For others they simply mean being stupid. For still others they may like it and if they do, it's no concern of mine. That applies to men and women and either way, it's none of my business. Everyone has their own threshold.
You're right, there is a double standard for the sexes and either way, it shouldn't happen and I don't think I proposed that in this post. My opinion would've been the same if he had been a she. I'm guessing yours would be as well.
I'd also disagree that all men = retarded. Some see your definition, perhaps Ken may, while others don't. I think someone who is bent on passing judgment on a personal issue regardless of whether it affects them or not is a little, well, retarded. However, I'd never apply it universally to an entire sex and it doesn't matter if I like the opinion anyway.
People are entitled to have their own opinions and act on them as they see fit. You see all men as pervs and what he did as perverted. Ken probably leans that way too. And more power to you.
The point to the post was that in the vast scheme of stupid things he could've done, this doesn't amount to much, particularly in a community where many peers do similar things. That doesn't mean I agree with it or think it's right.
Personally I'm way more concerned about whether he can handle the nation's problems than I am about his nudie pics. I'd rather make that determination a little more directly than via Twitter. I just don't see a strong connection between a position on the budget and his picture taking habits.
But then, I'm insane :-)
This was one of them funniest posts you've done, dude - two paws up
Those are valid points though I think it's a leap to assume he may lie about everything because he lied about sexting, though that might turn out to be the case. We don't know.
And if you standard is telling a lie = dishonesty in all things almost no one could be trusted. I'd wager even you may have told the occasional untruth in your time, but I don't automatically think you're lying about everything you say.
I'm not letting him off the hook. I'm just saying that he can govern his own sexual morals without my help or concern. As I said, if he broke the law, he goes. If he lies about something substantive, I wouldn't trust him if I had plausible proof of the lie or a reasonable suspicion. But whether you trust him is a personal choice and there is a way to remove him if you're convinced he's unfit...vote him out. That's what elections are for.
I just find it interesting thay many people passing judgment on him have done just as bad or worse and that their actions a form of dishonesty too. The question for me is if those less than honest moments are bad enough to discard him. Humans are humans, we all make mistakes and I figure a politician is entitled to the same treatment as you or me in the same situation.
All of us have digressed it is true, but few of us have engineered a national media misinformation campaign to save our butts. You could call that 'conspiracy to commit fraud' if you were so inclined. Unless we hold leaders, those who occupy positions supposedly reflecting merit to a higher standard, we lose in the end. Using the standard of 'stay in Congress unless you go to jail' fails to recognize the elevated responsibility of that position. Do you want him governing you?
"I just find it interesting thay many people passing judgment on him have done just as bad or worse and that their actions a form of dishonesty too."
Like who?
"The question for me is if those less than honest moments are bad enough to discard him."
Hell frick yes.
He is a piece of garbage. The man is a piece. Of. Garbage. I am left of the progressives. I'm not a republican. I'm not a libertarian. I'm a thinking person. I don't need to root for a team like a silly fan over some football. I don't need to "protect" my "teammates" or any liberal from their own deserved bad reputation and I don't need to disparage republicans just because they are republicans the way the usual low-intelligent gather "republican teams" do. Accountability is enough for me. Thinking is enough. I disparage dumbness--WHOEVER has it. I disparage abject filth and elective mental retardation--WHOEVER has it. It doesn't hurt me. My world is not torn asunder. Set alllll the garbage outside on the curb the same way. Weiner is garbage. Bye-bye. I loved what he said during a healthcare discussion that put idiot Morning Joe in a stupor like I've never seen. I linked to it. So what. He's done. Period. And any "progressives" who think otherwise are I think out-of-touch. That's my opinion.
This isn't bad taste. This is mental illness. Period. This is the lowest a male creature can go next to rape, murder or child molestation. It's rock bottom. There's nothing "sorta kinda" about it. There's nothing "harmlessly fun" about it. This is a sick man. This is some narcissism + self sabotage + entitlement complex of a whole different biochemical derivative from even the "normal" kind...
"Humans are humans, we all make mistakes and I figure a politician is entitled to the same treatment as you or me in the same situation."
It's not a mistake. It's mental illness. Something is actually wrong with this man. Something was wrong with the poor shirtless picture sending republican who resigned too.
I'm astonished that that is a question for anyone...
I'm a little astonished by the strength of your reaction and I obviously don't share it. I'd guess you've probably been uncomfortably close to this type of behavior before and I sympathize if you have. If not, my apologies for the assumption. However, I don't share your opinion and if that makes me "mentally ill" then so be it.
I would add one thing though. I've had a lot of severe mental illness in my family. I'm very familiar with it and its daily effects on people. I think I can say with some authority that no self-respecting mental health professional would say his "illness" is anywhere as severe as a the truly psychotic, mentally ill person you seem to see him as being. If he is that ill and "something is actually wrong" with him, then he needs treatment like any other person with a major disease not being called garbage.
I don't believe that my schizophrenic grandmother and mother and bi-polar sister are garbage. I suffer from clinical depression and I certainly don't think I'm garbage. I don't think several of my friends and their parents are garbage. I believe they all have problems and find it a little offensive to being equated to garbage.
So I'll leave the commenting at that because I fear a little for your own behavior.
Good luck.
And no, I've not been close to this behavior as you suggest, but I am female. And I know what it means to shut down unwanted penises and inappropriate advances your whole life in every setting and grow a bit tired. I had a stalker once (wasn't even scared) and poor thing; he picked the wrong woman. Trust I've cured him of this...But hearing of another grown man who thinks you might just need to see some underwear/genitals/whatever because surely there's a shortage of viewable penises for us women who are already turning our heads away every damn day. It's astonishing.
You may not know what it's like to be female and live your life with 50% of the population being some drooling oversexed brute hounding you like a rib eye. So yeah, he hit a nerve.
But let's even be clear--he didn't know these people's ages. And didn't care. Some prominent people I follow on twitter stuck their necks out for him trying to defend him before the truth came out. Now they look crazy. One of them said nearly nothing today. He didn't care about any of that. This was all about him and some nerve endings in his sorry genitals and what he needed and not the effects it had on absolutely everybody---including the American public that is underinsured and unemployed and overmortgaged and needs all of government to be thinking about them 500% of the time and not some nonsense like this. He knows how the media works, social networking works and how brand tarnishing works---party members rise and fall together to a real degree under a certain brand. And he didn't care. He owed his party better than that. He owed his aides. Everybody. Get your freak on if you want to, but be Bill Gates or somebody who owns most of the stock in your brand and only has to answer to yourself. Don't do this crap on the people's time--and he did. Twitter is NOT his personal domain. It's not a mistake. It's an extensive self-absorbed web of knotty--I say, "mental illness".
As you say, he handled his choices poorly and there's no defense for that and I don't offer one. I also think that far too often women end up on the short end of this stick. Sometimes men do too, including myself, but certainly not by the same degree.
At the risk of sounding like an apologist or that I'm attacking the women involved, accounts I've read indicate the women participated, I'd assume willingly, in the sexting for some period of time as well. I don't think they are garbage, I don't pass judgment on what they did, and I acknowledge not having heard full accounts from them. I only point out that it took two to tango in this case, at least for the length of time it went on. However, I strongly think that at the time they wanted the episode to stop, Weiner should've honored that request. Whether it was consensual or not is their business. If their behavior turns out to be criminal in some way I'm not seeing, that's a whole new ballgame. The legal system should work it out whether the alledged perpetrator is male or female. I can't say for sure, but I believe that was the case with all of them.
Yes, he had control of his actions, which is precisely why I don't think he is mentally ill, only a monumentally poor critical thinker. Truly mentally ill people cannot control their actions all or sometimes most of the time. Sometimes these episodes wax and wane giving the impression that they're more capable of controlings things than they are. One day you can control yourself, the next day not. I don't think that applies here.
In any case, you have every right to think he is mentally ill whether he is or not. You have every right to think his actions are, without exception, reprehensible beyond hope. You have every right to an opinion of what he did wrong and what he owed to anyone as a consequence. But my view is, that's an opinion that not everyone will share. And, I'm OK with that. You appparently aren't.
Not every man is a pud waver any more than all women are pure as the driven snow. Not every woman has a problem with what he did. Many, perhaps most, do. I'm sorry you've been so penily put upon. There are cads out there, but I don't think the majority of men are, at least in my experience. But then, we all have different experiences. We all have different opinions. We all have different views on the severity of what he did.
In my opinion, I think he simply listened to his own PR too long and believed himself impervious to normal standards of behavior. I don't think that's OK, but I don't think he's the worst example of man or woman to walk the Earth. I think he's mostly just a conceited goob.
I almost forgot. You might be interested by this article:
http://www.newser.com/story/120523/feminist-outrage-try-a-shrug-of-resignation.html
(WARNING: waaay too much information ahead):
I don't know these fancy terms, but I swear I don't know any women who like to sit around looking at some penises...Send them links to (1) an online shoe store and (2) some penises, and they're shoe shopping. I assure you: penises are not extremely interesting to women in general. They really seem waaaaaaay more interesting to their male owners than to us---yes, us like I'm speaking for a whole fricken gender which is factually impossible I know...But womens' brains may not all be "pure snow" but they're not comparably (to mens) driven by some body parts. And I can't for the life of me understand why men assume that they are if they have been in the world for any length of time past 8th grade. And boys started showing us their penises in 2nd grade...Even then they were sure there was something to see... (And to go all yuck-yuck, I mean what is the penis pic supposed to do exactly?) And I'd agree that typically none of this is my business---for example, I couldn't care less who all Tiger Woods bedded. That's between Tiger and his wife. I love me some R. Kelly, but I didn't care ever to see his video that got him in trouble---I just asked, "Was everybody grown?"...
But Weiner was a guy in the public trust who did not behaviorally belong to himself and who dimmed a whole political brand + butchered the trust of colleagues at a time when folks need government to at least look like a collective grown up. I mean is this where we are in the manual: "Ok Senators and Congresspeople, please don't put your genital images in the public sphere."
This is not "simply" a legal issue, because if it is , it won't affect his career at all. Well, it's going to affect his career, and that by definition means it wasn't an issue tidily confined to law.
But more yuck-yuck---what is the pic supposed to do? Make girls want to have sex? Impress them? Make them phone a friend? Seriously? Just no idea....The pic is really about HIM (again). He sent it for what it did for HIM.
(way waaaaaaaaay too much information): I remember when I first got the impression that men used girlie magazines to masturbate and I felt sorry for them...who the heck needs some magazines I thought? And I realized oh, ok, I guess it helps them. Females NEEEEEEEEEEVER need some pictures for some sexual desire. Nope...
I don't even remember the point now...in the sewer and can't get up....
But real seriously, you know it's bigger than all this because basically those women held his career in their hands indefinitely, and that's a big deal...Breitbart just "exposed" him first, but exposure was going to happen (or in its place, some money transferred or whatever)...The guy is serial...
"Truly mentally ill people cannot control their actions all or sometimes most of the time. Sometimes these episodes wax and wane giving the impression that they're more capable of controlings things than they are. One day you can control yourself, the next day not. I don't think that applies here."
I get your point. I think what's funky here though is the way he seems to have selectively controlled his behavior. Because if you're truly out of control, then why would all this political stuff be so orderly and then this one area over here is a mess.
Quick story--I know a person who had had brain surgery and who was prone to outbursts at colleagues. People just took it--"Well you know they had brain surgery" they would whisper. This was unacceptable to me.
I contacted upper management. Long story short; management intervened considerably. Do you know that person with the same operated on brain went on to truly alter their behavior. And that's what I detected in the first place---because they were aware of their outbursts. They knew it was deviant behavior. But they refused to manage it appropriately.
I didn't know what would happen (maybe a leave) but that was proof to me that folks can be called to a higher behavior even when managing some serious mental illness. But you have to call them.
Teri,
I almost forgot. You might be interested by this article:
http://www.newser.com/story/120523/feminist-outrage-try-a-shrug-of-resignation.html
Thanks for sharing this...I swear this thing to me is like---I can't even explain. But like there's a big component that's so primally "understood" by women. I mean I personally think women as far and wide as Michelle Bachman and Nancy Pelosi nearly feel the same way on this. Like, "lordhavemercy upon us all. Look at this d@mn fool right here." That's how I felt---and I detected this in a tweet by Arriana Huffington. Utter resignation, as Dowd says. And I got it when she said it. It's like what Weiner did is so gutter we are disgusted sure enough, but we're actually not compelled to rant in the streets because he has embarrassed himself more than our columns/opinions/outrage ever could...He is the parade of outrage.
My opening comment to a male friend the next day--swear to god--was, "So who do you think will get that seat?" It wasn't even a debate in my mind. A foregone conclusion that he's finished, and I think to most grown folks with 2 X chromosomes. Very primal, this resonance in the culture with many women I think...
Only half???? :-)
that is the only issue
and what ever happened to "Judge not, lest you be judged?"
If you had an employee who embarked on a company wide disinformation campaign in order to deceive his employer to avoid some public disclosure and you found out, you would fire him. period. Same applies here. Not for the tawdry crap at all but because rather than having an issue become public he then chose to (on "company time") conduct a series of lies to cover it up. If he would apply that strategy here, where else might he be willing to apply the disinformation strategy. That is the issue and that is why he must go. The willingness to dishonestly cover up.
Now, will there be the same outrage with Senator Beeson's "aborigine" comment as weiner's twitter trist?
A real study in gender difference maybe. In my limited circle and nonscientific public observations, people who knew on day 1 that Weiner was done seemed to be overwhelmingly two X chromosome people. Some male friends seemed to think (1) it's not the end of the world and (2) it's only a legal issue at worst.
I think there's an emotional IQ thing here. Maybe on average there are some more inclined than others to sense what the tribe will and will not tolerate. Not simply get mad at and pout and even try to kill over (like the Tea Party racists contingent over Obama's rise). But tolerate at a functional level: Weiner lost not some legal case, not the key to his office in D.C. but the trust of his colleagues and constituents. Tea Partiers cannot cause Obama to not functionally be president by normative legal and civil conduct. They have no power. Weiner's colleagues, however, can cause him to be ignored and not the beneficiary of a functional trust and legitimacy that's required in all political machinations.
I haven't watched a TV in months (though I am not anti-TV) and lack the full dose of coverage on this. But I never doubted whether it was "over" for him when the story broke. Others who didn't include two interesting commenters: Arrianna Huffington (who said virtually nothing; key word is virtually because her one sentence was brilliantly succinct and subtle and abject at the same time) and Charles Blow, who has wonderful radar on our culture across some areas.
I guess for me the issue of what he did concensually is is different than the issue of whether he should've been expelled or punished. If he didn't violate someone's space by stalking or breaking the law I figure it's none of my business, in much the same way it's none of my business what gay people do or what sexual practices a person (male of female) engage in. At the time of the post it wasn't clear whether he had or not. Had that been clear, I wouldn't have hesitated to ask him not only to resign, but would've taken it a step further and had him prosecuted.
The trust issue are another separate case for me. There was plenty of reason to mistrust him at the time and had I been a constituent I personally wouldn't have trusted him even at the time. Aparently, they don't seem much bothered by it though, because an overwhelming number of them didn't want him to resign. Then again, I don't fully trust any person in a position of power. Again, my position is that trust is between the trustee and truster. Each person needs to make that decision on their own. If you must depend in someone else's concept of trust, it doesn't mean much.
I also knew from the beginning he didn't have a chance in hell of surviving and think anyone who did is a bit of a Pollyanna. I was willing to give him the benefot of the doubt until I had some proof one way or another. Having gotten sufficient proof I might have had different responses depending on what the charges were and what the proof is. As you say, there is even a political brake on these types of cases. If Congress wanted him to resign, which they did, they could still marginalize if he didn't. The result would've much the same.
I can't speak for the other X-Men, but I don't think it was a matter of sex so much as a matter of the other issues involved.
Personally, if he was my rep. I probably wouln't have voted for him again, but that's one of the reasons I thought it was more of a decision best left to his constituents.
But as you say, the problem worked itself out, so it's a moot point.
wouldn't it be something if people in his district re-elected him with write in votes?
But he's leaving for a reason. It's no fun. He's just diminished in the minds of his colleagues. Plus, he really threw his colleagues under the bus by letting them stick their necks out in his early defense only to have to endure embarrassment for misplaced trust in the end. They do not like him much at all by now.
http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110612/OPINION02/106120308/Weiner-goes-Vitter-goes-too?odyssey=mod|mostcom
Here's the "rule" at work for me.
Swarzenegger's affair/lovechild. NOT my business.
Gingrich's affair: NOT my business.
Clinton's affair: NOT my business.
John Edwards' affair/love child: NOT my business.
Weiner's sexting with no actual contact: IS my business.
Tiger Woods' affairs: IS my business.
The reason is because marriage vows are between the parties and none of the NOT folks above created public records of their business and made it my business.
The problem with Weiner and Woods is that Weiner created a public record by using social networks that put his business in the street for street consumption. It's part of the official public domain, when you send a stranger in the general public pictures of your genitals. This wasn't hidden in his trash bin on his property. The only reason Breitbart could get it is because it was not private.
If Woods had "only" had 1 or 2 affairs, they wouldn't be my business. The problem is that he had too many affairs to be "practically manageable" under any veil of privacy. As an alternative, look at how Swarzenegger was able to hide his secret for so long because there weren't 40 women.
"Hearing" about someone having an affair isn't socially as "sticky" (lasting) in terms of imagery as is permanently being able to go online and see pictures of personal anatomy. We are not going to elect anybody to office whose genitals we can see on all our devices at a click. It's not going to happen...But a "memory" of an affair can age and be overshadowed by other memories. Bill Cosby, for example.
What the hell kind of logic is that?
You mean to tell me that you have no problem with Senator Vitter having a physical affair with a hooker, thereby leaving himself vulnerable to blackmail.
Yet you have a problem with Weiner doing something that teens do - the only people he hurt was his wife and family. What he did was no worse than what Brett farve did, and not as big an issue as someone who knowingly and blatanly broke his marriage vows
Oh I get it - Vitter's a republican and "Just a good ole' bou havin' fun"and Weiner's a Democrat, there fore a moral degenrate
**screeches brakes** WHAT?What the hell kind of logic is that?
Actually, it's quite consistent logic and nearly legal logic. In fact, it's so nearly legal that I could not be sued in tort for passing out fliers of Weiner's penis pictures pretty much under absolutely any circumstances. I could be sued for passing out such flyers if he had not himself first distributed them to a member of the general public---a member with whom he had no substantial relationship; had no reason or basis to expect confidence from; and had no legal as in marital contract connectivity with. Just a woman (or so he "hoped" if not actually assumed a legal adult female) in America. If I worked for his urologist and I copied the pictures out of his medical file taken during an exam and distributed them in flyers, for example. But as it is, he basically can't touch me legally no matter what I do with them.
"You mean to tell me that you have no problem with Senator Vitter having a physical affair with a hooker, thereby leaving himself vulnerable to blackmail."
I didn't mention Senator Vitter. I will. Simple:
Legally, Senator Vitter (a)either broke or did not break the law in the procurement of a prostitute. If he broke the law, that by definition creates a public record--whether he is arrested or not. Therefore, it's my business. The law is a public trust. Period. Any and all law breaking by a politician (or employee for example)--including Obama's and Gore's and Clinton's smoking of marijuana, Bush's cocaine use and Bush's and Cheney's DUIs or any politician's speeding tickets--is my business.
How much I personally care about any particular matter, is another matter. Â For example, Congressman John Lewis got arrested during the Civil Rights movement. There's a public record. So it's my business. Whether I negatively regard that record is another matter. (b) Vitter doesn't need a prostitute to be a basis for potential blackmail. Lobbyists de facto blackmail all the time, and pose a far greater danger to the electorate than one prostitute who can't impact and has no interest in impacting legislation.
"Yet you have a problem with Weiner doing something that teens do - the only people he hurt was his wife and family.
Fact 1: You don't know whether he in fact even hurt his wife. You don't know the terms of their marriage. So if anything, just on that point alone, you seem to be assuming things--which isn't logical to me. I have personally worked with married professionals--the husband is gay and the wife is a lesbian. Â They're married for professional reasons. It's not my business what they do sexually as long as it's in private. Â I have known people with open marriages--the woman is bisexual and the husband accommodates her. I have known gay male couples who have lived and been together for 15 years with open relationships.
Fact 2: I have no idea what gutter teens you assume are normative by virtue of this behavior. When I was a teen, you may have assumed that I smoked marijuana. I never have. I also never drank underage. And there was alcohol in our house.  Not everybody is in the gutter.  I didn't come from a "strict" family.  I could stay out as late as I wanted and I went out with guys who were much older than a normal teen's boyfriend. Sexually, they didn't get a thing. The point is, I never wanted to stay out late in general. Not everybody is gutter trash, who needs to break a law or sneak a drug and do something "lewd" to get some sort of a thrill. Big fat point number 1.
Big fat point number 2: In any generation, there are gutter trash teens and there are others with different values who conduct their lives differently.Â
And I have to tell you---employers today can tell you how many otherwise qualified candidates utterly disqualify themselves from jobs in the private sector---not the pickier public or elective one---because of the photographs on their facebook page---and they are typically DRESSED. If you look drunk and irresponsible,  forget about it. And rightly so, I say.
I think you have greatly underappreciated the role of imagery and what it says about the imaged but it is everywhere in our culture and mores, it always has been, and it's not going anywhere. Chrysler spent money on just a new logo--it's only slightly different from the old one, but boy does it have a different aesthetic effect when you see it. IMAGERY. Coca-Cola and Yoplait  spend millions on just bottle shape technology. IMAGERY. It matters.
"What he did was no worse than what Brett farve did, and not as big an issue as someone who knowingly and blatanly broke his marriage vows
No: what he did was no worse TO YOU. And YOU clearly don't represent the relevant humanity that has authority to be the decider of such breaches by  such folks in these quarters.  Secondly, you're confusing "degree" with "public domain".  They're two separate things.
You can have sex with 3 women who aren't your wife in private. You can send pictures of your penis to a stranger and never touch her but the pictures are online.  Any private company out there would rather hire the first person over the second. You either get that or you don't.
Again unless you have READ someone's "marriage vows" you don't know what was "broken" or what was not. Â I don't know the Brett story, nor do I care (same with Tiger Woods); he has an NFL employer with their own rules and policies, he has whatever family, and he has the law that binds us all. Â If he gets to play indefinitely then he does. Â But his ability to throw a ball isn't affected by a trust lack on the part of his offensive line. Weiner's professional functionality is absolutely thwarted by a lack of trust in his colleagues. Michael Vick's His prison time has not impacted how his arm moves and how much a WR believes in his ability to get him the ball. Â Apples and oranges.
Shout it all you like. The proof is in the pudding. If you were right, Weiner---determined to stay in office---never would have resigned.
"Oh I get it - Vitter's a republican and "Just a good ole' bou havin' fun"and Weiner's a Democrat, there fore a moral degenrate."
That's nonsense on its face. I've listed members of both parties. Â Republican Chris Lee is another who created a public record and resigned and should have. No, you don't get it. And the question you should be asking is if Chris Lee had to resign or felt he had to with only a missing shirt, why on earth would Weiner get to keep his job. One can wonder if you were this defensive about Lee.
There are others who conduct their lives differently - adult and teen (gutter or non-gutter). You're free to make it your business. Mad Dog is free not to. I'm free not to. Everyone has an opinion, unless your're trying to make the point that only your opinion means something.
At the end of the day, that was part of the post. I chose not to make it my business because I don't think it is. You chose to because you do. That doesn't necessarily make you a bad person, Mad dog a bad person, or Weiner a bad person except in the eye of the beholder.
--Obama "gets" that the optics of him as a Presidential candidate smoking a cigarette don't work. So you can't find a photo of him on the trail with a cigarette. But we "know" perfectly well he smoked.
--President Roosevelt, a polio victim, couldn't walk. But he knew the optics of a paralyzed president weren't favorable. So he masterfully hid it from the public (view clip beginning around 2:40), wearing braces and appearing to walk while being basiclally carried by his son and another man on either arm. It's nearly horrendous if dignified and courageous.
--John F. Kennedy had a lifelong back problem so severe he frequently walked bent over at nearly a 60 degree angle in private. This was reported by a journalism professor who was among the presidential photographers' staff during that administration. He said he was shocked when he first saw it and that just before Kennedy would go in front of the camera or the public he would swing himself up into vertical. Kennedy understood optics. He never let on how much pain he was in.
--Special ed Bush knew and said that the optics of him playing golf during war were a problem and went on a hiatus.
--The optics of Bill and Hillary expressing affection or hand holding too soon after the Monica affair wouldn't work and they both got it, and kept a distance for some time even though both knew they weren't divorcing.
--The optics of Nixon's 5-o'clock shadow cost him the presidential debate and by extension its argued by many, the presidency against Kennedy. Not a crotch shot---a beard shadow.
--The optics of Gore sighing repeatedly in the 1st Presidential debate were harmful.
--The optics of Bush 1 glancing at his watch for .8 seconds during a key debate were harmful. He went on to lose. This isn't nudity. A glance. Not at a woman's leg. A watch.
--The optics of Clinton walking toward an audience member in his town hall debates were favorable. People remembered it more than what he even said. He went on to win.
--The optics of Gore kissing Tipper were favorable and he got a bounce from debate 2.
--Reagan wasn't a genius. But as a former actor, he knew better than any president in history, as he said, exactly what angle of his face looked best from any camera and exactly how to hold his head and he played to it, even staffing to that effect.
--Even mediocre politicians in city government know well enough not to take pictures of your chest (never mind crotch) and share publicly. Men aren't removed from office due to affairs. Clearly. Detroit Mayor Kwame  Kilpatrick didn't lose support and his job due to hanky panky. He lost it due to an electronic XXX text message record.
--We can know a politician paid an escort. But knowing and seeing don't drive the same optics in politics (or the private sector). Optics matter. All the time. And smart politicians (CEOs, leaders period) don't argue about it. They know it and adjust. They know it and master it. Period.
Fast forward to a clueless piece of sh!t named Anthony Weiner on a national stage, however. He failed the optics test with flying colors and above all US politicians at all levels in history, known and unknown, county, city, state and national, not one of whom's naked crotches has ever been publicly viewed.
The South Carolina governor was clearly unstable to the electorate; his problem was less the affair---remember SC is a state that had an unbeatable for decades 2nd longest sitting US Senator and governor who was a segregationist and fathered black children whom he visited in college---but more the over-the-top sobbing press conferences he gave in explanation of it and wouldn't shut up from giving, and how he disappeared and was unaccounted for while governor while down in South America. There are numerous examples of presidents, governors, mayors and senators (you've named some) who had affairs and continued in office and were even reelected. Jefferson traveled with a concubine. A "plain vanilla affair" (vs. some of the 3-some and complicated gay relations I've read) isn't literally synonymous with ending a political career. It's how it gets managed and talked about and the narrative around it.