It's a good question that Seth Masket asks. I've been asking the same question myself. Not that I didn't love Clinton but it's rather interesting to hear that Clinton is disappointed in Weiner! At least Masket admits that on raw elements, what Clinton did was worse. Weiner has not actually had sex with anyone!
I think it’s fair to draw comparisons between the two scandals, although, if anything, Clinton’s was probably worse, as it involved a) actual physical contact with another person and b) lying under oath to keep it a secret. And sure, we remember and revere Clinton as a highly skilled politician today, but to wag your finger on national televivion and state defiantly that you “did not have sexual relations with that woman” and then completely reverse that statement half a year later does not actually attest to great political acumen. So why will Weiner suffer more politically for his scandal than Clinton suffered for his?
http://www.psmag.com/politics/how-anthony-weiner-isnt-like-bill-clinton-63481/
I admit I've been a little disappointed to see Weiner's apparent unraveling. I would really have loved to see him get in. I've been a booster of his since 2011 in my first post.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defense-of-anthony-weiner.html
So what is different? I mean what Mark Sanford did was certainly much worse than Weiner and the supposedly family values conscious conservative SC voters took him back. David Vitter has never stepped down. Do only Democrats turn on scandal ridden politicians?
Of course, not always as Clinton certainly attests. Then there is Elliot Spitzer who still looks good to win Comptroller. The most compelling argument I've heard is simply Weiner has very few legislative accomplishments as opposed to both Clinton and Spitzer. It is true that in 10 years in the House Weiner passed only one bill; although if this proves that he's light on accomplishments this was also true of Paul Ryan-who's passed only 2 bills since first elected in the late 90s. Another politician with a lot of attention but little legislative heft is Michelle Bachman.
So there can be other was of making an impact clearly. The one thing I always like about Weiner is that Republicans hated him; part of what burns me about burying Weiner is that this is Andrew Breitbart's legacy. Why please him from beyond the grave?
Ok, back to Masket. His reasoning is largely the same as mine up here-basically Clinton was President at the time, had been re-elected twice, was presideing over a very strong econmy and had a strong number of achievements:
"Basically, because Clinton was already president at the time."
I think it’s fair to draw comparisons between the two scandals, although, if anything, Clinton’s was probably worse, as it involved a) actual physical contact with another person and b) lying under oath to keep it a secret. And sure, we remember and revere Clinton as a highly skilled politician today, but to wag your finger on national televivion and state defiantly that you “did not have sexual relations with that woman” and then completely reverse that statement half a year later does not actually attest to great political acumen. So why will Weiner suffer more politically for his scandal than Clinton suffered for his?
http://www.psmag.com/politics/how-anthony-weiner-isnt-like-bill-clinton-63481/
I admit I've been a little disappointed to see Weiner's apparent unraveling. I would really have loved to see him get in. I've been a booster of his since 2011 in my first post.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-defense-of-anthony-weiner.html
So what is different? I mean what Mark Sanford did was certainly much worse than Weiner and the supposedly family values conscious conservative SC voters took him back. David Vitter has never stepped down. Do only Democrats turn on scandal ridden politicians?
Of course, not always as Clinton certainly attests. Then there is Elliot Spitzer who still looks good to win Comptroller. The most compelling argument I've heard is simply Weiner has very few legislative accomplishments as opposed to both Clinton and Spitzer. It is true that in 10 years in the House Weiner passed only one bill; although if this proves that he's light on accomplishments this was also true of Paul Ryan-who's passed only 2 bills since first elected in the late 90s. Another politician with a lot of attention but little legislative heft is Michelle Bachman.
So there can be other was of making an impact clearly. The one thing I always like about Weiner is that Republicans hated him; part of what burns me about burying Weiner is that this is Andrew Breitbart's legacy. Why please him from beyond the grave?
Ok, back to Masket. His reasoning is largely the same as mine up here-basically Clinton was President at the time, had been re-elected twice, was presideing over a very strong econmy and had a strong number of achievements:
"Basically, because Clinton was already president at the time."
"Yes, the nation had heard rumors about Clinton back in the primaries in 1991, but those were largely being pushed by people with either political or financial axes to grind, and, probably more importantly, there was no paper trail, virtual or otherwise (except for a non-salacious and possibly doctored tape). Clinton more or less admitted publicly to having strayed on occasion, and he and Hillary said that they’d moved past that and that their marriage was strong. So he got a pass. Democratic activists functionally struck a bargain with Clinton, with them willing to help him get elected on the condition that he’d keep his pants zipped. And this arrangement worked, at least for a while."
"His infidelity really didn’t again surface as an issue until 1998, when he had already been president for a term and a half. By that point, Democratic activists and other liberals had a lot invested in Clinton. They’d backed him repeatedly, and he in turn had produced a pretty solid record of accomplishment. The economy was booming, the deficit was turning into a surplus, he’d signed trade agreements and handgun restrictions into law, signed the Family and Medical Leave Act, fought valiantly for health care reform, etc. It was possible at that point to see Clinton’s indiscretions as something that the country just needed to tolerate in exchange for having a competent and productive chief executive. To toss Clinton over the side would have meant disregarding the progress he’d made, and it would have also meant giving into journalists (who were delighting in the sexual details while piously calling on Clinton to resign) and Republicans (who seemed to be elevating presidential fellatio to the level of treason). So even though Clinton had broken his bargain, liberals stuck with him."
"Why are liberals tossing Weiner aside? Why not? Unlike Clinton in 1998, Weiner is far from indispensable. There are other competent people running for mayor. He has no political power today, and no particularly impressive record from his days as a member of Congress to draw upon. His main activity then was to antagonize Republicans—certainly a valid goal for some, but hardly the sort of thing you go to the wall to defend. As Coates writes: “It is wholly sensible that those of us who believe the liberal project is about more than embarrassing Republicans would not want Anthony Weiner as a pitchman.”
"With Clinton, it could be argued that his dalliances were the price we had to pay for progress. With Weiner, his dalliances are the price we pay for … what exactly?"
The price for embarrassing Republicans? I got admit I give a high price to that. Anyway I'm in one of the stages of grief-mostly regret. I still wish that NY Democrats would reconsider. On the other hand, NYC Dems need to elect the best candidate to win the Mayor's Office back this year after being in the wilderness for 20 years. It seems this year the Dems have a golden opportunity to take it back-it's really their's for the taking. So much as it pains me, maybe Weiner could be the one way to make the general election close.
No comments:
Post a Comment