A Liberal defends Weiner

J. Robert Smith
The New Republic's John Judis is one vexed liberal.  Judis, writing in the New Republic castigates Democrats as "weenies" for pushing Anthony Weiner to resign his congressional seat.  For Judis, Weiner's tweeting exhibitionism wasn't illegal, so why should Democrats give the heave-ho to the left's favorite, pathologically shameless attack dog? 

As Judis puts it:

 ...a sex scandal that involved no illegal activity-that is not a firing offense. A politician may resign out of embarrassment, as Representative Anthony Weiner did, but that doesn't justify other politicians from his own party, including the president himself, calling for his resignation.

Judis' argument that Weiner's cyberspace flaunting wasn't illegal, hence, why all the fuss, points to -- shall we say -- the intellectual and moral decay that increasingly plagues the left.

For Judis, moral judgment is, doubtless, a very private and subjective matter.  For Judis' sake, let's separate "moral" from "judgment" for an instant.  Let's examine judgment -- or Weiner's judgment.  And for the time, we'll set aside Weiner's lying after the fact and making false accusations.    

Weiner was tweeting smut photos of himself to women across the Republic.  Weiner did so assuming the recipients were adults -- and, for that matter, women.  But anyone barely in the know knows that cyberspace is filled with fakes -- latchkey kids who fill time before mom and dad come home cruising websites and chat rooms posing as adults.  And, incidentally, cyberspace is inhabited by all sorts of unhinged personalities who have a vampirish taste for the lurid and obscene (See, Weiner, Anthony).

Weiner, being the really smart man that he is, and the liberal who's top priority is the children, must at least have had a flickering thought he was risking transmitting his porn star photos to women who were really girls -- or, for goodness sake, boys posing as women. 

The children, John, remember the children.  The Democratic Party can't use the children to justify every leftwing plank in its platform if one of its leading representatives is flirting with kiddie endangerment.    

If we're following the logic of your argument, John, the Democrats should have waited for Weiner's smut photos to have landed in the hands of a minor before urging him out of Congress.  Think that's sound judgment, John?  How would that have rebounded on the Democrat Party?

The left may shrug off a possible Weiner porn-to-kiddie delivery, but do you honestly think that average Americans think as you do, John -- or as do other blinkered left-wingers?  Most sober and sensible Americans favor preventive action in these cases, and that means outing Weiner -- as was done -- and pushing him out of Congress and, one hopes, into rehab.  Why would anyone want to wait for Weiner to have transmitted a dirty photo of himself to a kid before lowering the boom?  Not having stopped Weiner now simply would have emboldened him; he was brazen in his actions as was.  Who can say that underage females wouldn't have been his next targets?    

Weiner being pressured from Congress also sends a signal -- however feeble these days -- that men and women in responsible positions are to pay prices for actions that risk gravely damaging others -- yes, especially the children that lefties are so fond of using.  But that's morality; and we know morality is very private and subjective, huh?

The New Republic's John Judis is one vexed liberal.  Judis, writing in the New Republic castigates Democrats as "weenies" for pushing Anthony Weiner to resign his congressional seat.  For Judis, Weiner's tweeting exhibitionism wasn't illegal, so why should Democrats give the heave-ho to the left's favorite, pathologically shameless attack dog? 

As Judis puts it:

 ...a sex scandal that involved no illegal activity-that is not a firing offense. A politician may resign out of embarrassment, as Representative Anthony Weiner did, but that doesn't justify other politicians from his own party, including the president himself, calling for his resignation.

Judis' argument that Weiner's cyberspace flaunting wasn't illegal, hence, why all the fuss, points to -- shall we say -- the intellectual and moral decay that increasingly plagues the left.

For Judis, moral judgment is, doubtless, a very private and subjective matter.  For Judis' sake, let's separate "moral" from "judgment" for an instant.  Let's examine judgment -- or Weiner's judgment.  And for the time, we'll set aside Weiner's lying after the fact and making false accusations.    

Weiner was tweeting smut photos of himself to women across the Republic.  Weiner did so assuming the recipients were adults -- and, for that matter, women.  But anyone barely in the know knows that cyberspace is filled with fakes -- latchkey kids who fill time before mom and dad come home cruising websites and chat rooms posing as adults.  And, incidentally, cyberspace is inhabited by all sorts of unhinged personalities who have a vampirish taste for the lurid and obscene (See, Weiner, Anthony).

Weiner, being the really smart man that he is, and the liberal who's top priority is the children, must at least have had a flickering thought he was risking transmitting his porn star photos to women who were really girls -- or, for goodness sake, boys posing as women. 

The children, John, remember the children.  The Democratic Party can't use the children to justify every leftwing plank in its platform if one of its leading representatives is flirting with kiddie endangerment.    

If we're following the logic of your argument, John, the Democrats should have waited for Weiner's smut photos to have landed in the hands of a minor before urging him out of Congress.  Think that's sound judgment, John?  How would that have rebounded on the Democrat Party?

The left may shrug off a possible Weiner porn-to-kiddie delivery, but do you honestly think that average Americans think as you do, John -- or as do other blinkered left-wingers?  Most sober and sensible Americans favor preventive action in these cases, and that means outing Weiner -- as was done -- and pushing him out of Congress and, one hopes, into rehab.  Why would anyone want to wait for Weiner to have transmitted a dirty photo of himself to a kid before lowering the boom?  Not having stopped Weiner now simply would have emboldened him; he was brazen in his actions as was.  Who can say that underage females wouldn't have been his next targets?    

Weiner being pressured from Congress also sends a signal -- however feeble these days -- that men and women in responsible positions are to pay prices for actions that risk gravely damaging others -- yes, especially the children that lefties are so fond of using.  But that's morality; and we know morality is very private and subjective, huh?