Why Anthony Weiner Need Not Resign

On Monday I posted about the Anthony Weiner scandal and got a great comment from Travis Mushett asking me about Weiner through the lens of FDR and what we now know about the 32nd president:

Just curious: how do you feel about FDR? He, too, "violated the trust of one of the people who he is supposed to love the most in this world." He also "straight up lied to his constituents and the nation" about his deteriorating medical condition by going to lengths to hide it. But you're going to run into few people outside of the Randian right who claim he wasn't a top-notch president who led the country through some damn dark times.

Now while I like Weiner, I wouldn't put him in FDR's league. However, I'm also inclined to say his personal failings didn't make him less of a politician. People fuck around. People lie about fucking around. Politicians lie to save their own asses. This isn't news. And I'll take a passionate, intelligent, experienced, eloquent, and significantly flawed Anthony Weiner over an inoffensive milquetoast any day. What he did was sleazy, but if I want moral guidance, I'll go to church. If I want a talented advocate for progressive policies, I'll go to Weiner.

In terms of FDR's health: there is no doubt that his capacity in his fourth term was severely diminished and that he should not have held the position he did during such an important time in history. However, because of his diminished mental capacity and the conspiratorial actions of his physicians, many believe that FDR did not even know of his declining health and that it was his physicians who put up a facade of healthiness, not FDR. While I am not saying what happened with FDR was right in any way, I think the comparison between FDR and Weiner here is a stretch.

In terms of FDR cheating: there is evidence that both parties in the FDR-Eleanor marriage were disloyal and they may have had an unspoken agreement about their union.

But pretending that they did not, then it certainly stains FDR as a person. Were I alive and voting back then, I would certainly think twice about voting for him because of it. However, there is no evidence (as far as I have seen) that when confronted by a media body that FDR denied his relationship with any number of women.

Now many have been calling for Weiner to resign, which I think is a little overkill. I had called for Spitzer's resignation, but that's because he broke the law. Weiner did not break any laws that we know of and really has no reason to resign unless he wants to (which I would suggest, but not say is necessary, based on the fact that he has a lot of personal matters to deal with).

What I am more upset about is the fact that, as Travis said, Weiner is a passionate, intelligent, experienced and eloquent guy who could do a lot for the progressive cause in this country, but he has severely hampered his effectiveness in Washington over bullshit like this. So yes, I would take a Weiner over a Gillibrand - I would much rather have someone who knows what they're doing and knows how to get their message across rather than someone who just follows the pack. However, I would much rather have someone with Weiner's capabilities who has the common sense to not do what Weiner did, or at least the common sense not to get caught, or at the very least someone with the common sense to handle it better than Weiner.

Because, again as Travis says, rampant infidelity pervades national politics. There's a reason that lobbying is an industry with a lot of attractive females. Think about this: Anthony Weiner was cybering and sexting while being an effective progressive three weeks ago. The difference between now and then is that he got caught, and then lied about it. If Weiner had faced the media and said, "Yeah, that's my dick. I'm not perfect and my wife and I have some work to do on our marriage. That's it," then I'd have a lot more respect for him. Instead, he comes up with this ridiculous hacking story, sticks with it way too long, and through the process lent credibility to Andrew Breitbart.

So I could forgive Weiner for thinking with the wrong head (though depending on who ran against him, I don't know if I would vote for him). What I can't forgive him for is the way he handled it. He'll be a less effective legislator because of it and he empowered Breitbart. So while I don't see the need for him to resign, I don't think he'll fully recover politically from this. If you subpoenaed the phone/Facebook/email records of every Congressman, I'd be willing to bet a good amount of them would find themselves in Weiner's position. So again, it's not that he was doing it (though it would certainly be nice if he didn't), it's how he handled it after being exposed.

Photo - Anthony Weiner (Politico)

Let's Clear Some Things Up About Anthony Weiner

As I predicted in the lightning round of my podcast yesterday, the picture of a penis in boxer shorts did, in fact, belong to Congressman Anthony Weiner. I was skeptical at first considering that this was coming from Andrew Breitbart—a certified crank—but as soon as Weiner said that he could not say whether or not it was his dicture (my made up word for dick picture) I knew it was his. So the announcement that he had sent someone racy pictures—up to six people, to be more accurate—did not come as a surprise.

I was going to wait to talk about this until next week's podcast, but Twitter, of all things, has led to this blog post.

During the height of Weinergate, Newark Mayor Cory Booker tweeted that he did not believe that Weiner had sent out the photos; that "He's a smart man & wouldn't use a public forum 2 send such a pic. No story, let's move on." Now, I like Cory Booker. I like his Let's Move! Newark campaign. I think he's done a lot for the city. However, that does not mean that he was right about Weiner. In fact, he was wrong. So I called him out on it.

I wasn't a jerk about it or anything, but I pointed out that he would have to admit that he was wrong, because he was. Being the gracious man that he is, he took it in stride and admitted that he was wrong but would not apologize for believing the best in Weiner. Fair enough.

But the responses I've had from others—ranging from "Booker doesn't have to apologize" to "It's Weiner's personal life"—are completely missing the point. First of all, I did not say Booker had to apologize, just admit he was wrong. Secondly, Weiner's personal life is relevant for two reasons.

Reason number one: he lied. He straight up lied to his constituents and the nation. I like Anthony Weiner's politics. I think he's one of the only members of Congress willing to stand up to the absolute jackassery that takes place on Capitol Hill so often. With this debacle, however, Weiner has essentially neutered himself in Washington. He pretended to be the victim of a crime in order to try to get out of a mistake that he—and only he—made. He insisted that his account was hacked when he knew all along that it had not been. Not really the kind of quality you want in someone who represents you.

Reason number two: marital infidelity is a bigger deal than many think. Now, it's not like Weiner was some family values, "down with the gays" kind of shortsighted person running around spouting the sanctity of marriage. But he is married. Assuming that he and his wife Huma Abedin did not have some arrangement where he was allowed to do what he did, he violated the trust of one of the people who he is supposed to love the most in this world. If he is willing to do that, how much do you think he cares about his thousands of nameless and faceless constituents? Do you think he cares more about them than his own wife?

Now, if Weiner had not been married or otherwise in a committed relationship reason number two is irrelevant. But even if rule two is irrelevant, he still lied through his teeth to say his Twitter was hacked. Weiner has compromised his position on Capitol Hill, and as much as I agree with his politics, I don't want him representing that ideology because his effectiveness will continue to decrease. I'd rather have a representative who didn't ambiguously cheat on his wife and then lie about it. Is that too much to ask?

Photo - A clothed Anthony Weiner (Wikipedia)

The Fallacy of a Debt Ceiling

As Michele Bachmann and Anthony Weiner squared off on CBS' Face the Nation about the government debt ceiling, I realized how useless it was to debate something like this. The United States government's debt ceiling is some intangible, unenforceable idea like New York City snow removal; it's a great concept but rarely, if ever, executed properly.

The reason that the debt ceiling is so ludicrous is the fact that no matter what the ceiling is, the government will continue to spend money like a soon-to-be divorcee (but without the promise of a good alimony later). Look at the national debt since FDR:

Nixon got us going on a nice little steady increase of the debt, but Reagan took the ball and ran with it. Bush obviously takes the cake for greatest increase in the shortest amount of time, and rest assured that Obama will not shirk his presidential duty to further indebt this country at an insane rate. The scary thing about this? During Reagan's time when the debt became a major issue we weren't fighting two real wars and propping up failed banks/car companies/etc.

So while we can appear on Sunday talk shows and engage in worthless debate about an imaginary number that will be summarily ignored or raised as needed, the real issue of the actual debt goes unheeded. Think about this: the two options that the parties were fighting about at the end of the Congressional term–extending Bush tax cuts and/or extending jobless benefits–both add to the national deficit (don't worry, our leaders on the Capitol chose both, thus doubling down on debt). It's incredibly disingenuous to fight so hard to add to the debt, only to wait for the day after New Year's to argue about the debt.

And what would happen if we were to reach this debt ceiling and head to a "government shutdown" as Weiner likes to put it? Would everything just stop? Would materiel stop flowing into Iraq and Afghanistan? Would the TSA and other homeland security agencies stop (barely) functioning if we reach the debt ceiling? Probably not. If there were to be a "government shutdown" this is what would most likely happen: members of Congress and other non-essential government employees would not show up to work, Fox News and MSNBC would be rife with whiny politicians and pundits and the Capitol would be quiet for a few days until everyone realized the uselessness of the debt ceiling and it was raised again.

So what is there to do? Beyond electing David Stern as president, instituting a legitimate debt cap and enforcing a dress code (if only to get Charlie Rangel's "fashion" under control), there is little that can be done to right America's way. The Tea Party is all talk, Democrats are certainly not willing to tackle the debt, Republicans are too focused on social issues and the major corporations that sway elections benefit from a never-ending spending of government money. In other words, taxpayers are just along for the ride.

Graph found at On the Issues

Election Day Hangover 2009

It's amazing what $90 million can get you these days. One of those things is the mayoralty of New York, though you'd have to fork over a little more (or a little less, perhaps) for a mandate and/or the respect of your constituency. As predicted, Michael Bloomberg defeated Democratic challenger Bill Thompson, but what was surprising was the slim margin separating the two men (51%-46%). So what does that mean for third term Bloomberg?

Some may have you believe that Bloomberg has lost some political capital because of the slim victory, but let's look at the guy for a second. He's not going to pussyfoot around just because he didn't dominate the election. This is a man who abolished term limits, which had been affirmed twice in the 1990s, just so he could stay on for an egotistical third year. Bloomberg is not exactly tactful; it may be harder to get things done because liberals can point to this election, but in reality Bloomberg tends to get what he wants (exhibit A: a third term in a two-term limit city).

Another good question being floated around: what if Anthony Weiner had run? Well we may have a Democratic mayor right now instead of an independent(ly wealthy) one. We can sit here and play the what if game all night, but suffice it to say how appropriate it would be for someone named Weiner to step up and show that the Democratic party actually has some balls.

And just a quick aside to the state of Maine: WTF? New England states have been the leaders in the fight against sexual orientation inequality and you go and pull this? I love how conservatives espouse minimal government intrusion (watch how quickly they'll cry about gun laws) but then approve the state-backed prohibition of marriage for an entire group of people. Marriage equality will happen one day, it may not be tomorrow, it may not be next year, but it will happen, and when it does history will not treat those who fought so hard against equal treatment for all that kindly. Peace.

Photo - Bloomberg wins third term (Times Online)