I’m sure we’re all equally sick of Weiner, but after watching him interviewed in the street yesterday, I just couldn’t resist the urge to throw my two cents into the mix.
Does being a sexually-immoral, degenerate pervert make one a bad leader? Maybe. Maybe not. Being a foul-mouthed, abrasive, obnoxious, arrogant little jerk doesn’t prevent one from being a member of Congress (if it did, there’d be hardly any democrats there at all. Come to think of it . . . not a bad idea). What about cheating on your new (and pregnant) wife with numerous women via the internet and telephone (he himself called these sordid involvements “relationships,” so obviously, they were more to him than getting his rocks off by sending photos of his scrawny, repugnant little body to anyone who claimed to admire him)? This is edging into unacceptable in a congressman, not so much for being a sexually-immoral, degenerate pervert but for being that stupid, that unable to see how this behavior could lead to either blackmail or scandal. Anyone whose judgment is that poor should probably not be allowed to cross the street without supervision, let alone hold a position of some power and influence.
But being all of that AND using government resources (funded by we, the people) to engage in this bizarre and self-destructive behavior is truly problematic. As is his apparent inability to accept responsibility for his actions. His presser was a joke (the best part by far was watching Andrew Breitbart at the beginning), and while I actually did feel sorry for Weiner briefly (I’m a soft-touch and want to believe the best in people and almost automatically accept words of regret, apologies, etc.), I was quickly reminded that he was only doing that, only saying those things, because he knew that more was coming out on him. He was backed into a corner and wanted to save his job. Period. He doesn’t regret what he did, and he doesn’t feel bad about anything except getting caught.
Accepting responsibility would have been owning up when the first image went out on his Twitter account. Instead, he lied to everyone: his wife, his colleagues in Congress, the Clintons, his two friends (well, maybe there’s only the one, but I’m giving him benefit of the doubt that he may have two whole friends), the press, and the people. Heck, he called one journalist a “jackass” and was condescending and nasty throughout the interviews that he initiated with the press, all the while knowing that everything (and more) was true. He also had his staff call the police on reporters who were trying to question him. Add to that the Alinsky-style smear and deflect crap–that same tired “vast right-wing conspiracy” crap that all leftists trot out when they are caught, and the active attacks on Breitbart’s character, even going so far as to perpetuate rumors that Breitbart was guilty of a federal crime . . . well, Weiner’s just beneath contempt, isn’t he?
All this talk of how Clinton survived his sex scandals in the same breath with talk of Weiner’s is befuddling to me. Yes, I know that Clinton officiated at Weiner’s wedding last year and that his wife is a long-time aid of Hillary, but there the comparisons end. The trouble with the comparison is two-fold. One, Clinton was the president; Weiner is a lowly congressman. Two, Clinton was well-liked by both his colleagues in the democrat party and by the people. Clinton was charming (still is, I guess), and he was likable. Even if you hated him, you kind of grudgingly liked him a bit, too. Or at least I did (and still do, I guess–not as president, of course, just generally, he’s not offensive in his manner). That’s not to say these two factors should count equally, or even that the likability factor should matter at all. Well, wait, yes that is exactly what I am saying.
People really don’t like Weiner. Even among his own circle of commie loons, he’s not finding a single person to stand up for him (indeed many in his own party want him to resign, including *cue Twilight Zone theme* Bill Clinton, and Harry Reid said for Weiner “to call somebody else” when asked what he’d say if Weiner called him for advice/support), and this is just as much a function of what an unlikable human being he is as it is of his behavior. We all know that the left would be circling the wagons around Clinton, even today, if he did the same exact thing. He would have lied, sure, but he would have been charming about it, he wouldn’t have alienated everyone, as Weiner did and seems capable of doing simply by opening his mouth. Indeed, with the exception of Alan Grayson, I can think of no one that the dems would be so quick to run away from in a scandal–indeed, Grayson didn’t get any support when he ran for reelection in Florida–the dems wanted him gone. He was a liability. Just as Weiner is.
If he manages to keep his job after next week (Congress will be back in session on Monday, and we’ll see what they do), Weiner will never again enjoy the free reign he once did to lambast conservatives and point his icky finger at everyone else. He will always be the leering degenerate freak he appears to be in every photo he sent out (well, of his face, anyway), and the photo that should always be put up if he gets another serious interview is the Weiner and his “pussys” photo. No way am I putting that on my blog, but this one is perfect–purrfect?–because not only does it capture that disgusting perverted leer but it also shows that he hasn’t mastered the fine art of creating plurals of words that end with the letter ‘y’ . . . a tricky lesson most often taught to second graders.