What Congressman Anthony Weiner and President Bill Clinton have in common:
1. Both engaged in sex related activity that most Americans consider offensive.
2. Both aggressively lied about it to everyone.
3. When finally unable to avoid the truth, both apologized but refused to resign their offices in the federal government.
Differences:
1. Clinton actually had sexual physical contact with at least one other person other than his wife.
2. Clinton lied under oath according to a federal judge.
3. Clinton engaged in his offensive activity on federal government property: the White House.
4. Clinton was the other person's boss.
It seems to me that the behavior of Bill Clinton is far more offensive than that of Anthony Weiner. The main difference between these two lying weasels is that Clinton is far more likable.
The hypocrisy of the millennium award goes to those members of the Democratic party who wanted Clinton to stay in office in 1998 but want Weiner to leave office in 2011. I'll give President Obama a skate on this since he was not a public figure in 1998 and no one knows his position on Clinton, if any. However, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and many others have embraced mendacity with a force seldom seen even in our nation's capitol. They kept Clinton but want to expel Weiner.
We hear that Weiner's continued presence in the House of Representatives is a distraction. Compared to what? A presidential impeachment by the House, followed by a trial in the Senate? That was a distraction for months.
Many of Weiner's colleagues seem concerned that he will rehabilitate himself through therapy and move beyond the reach of resignation. Redemption follows contrition and Weiner has taken the first step.
I'm not clear on whether members of the House have the constitutional authority to expel a member or whether it is merely a House rule. My view is that only a member's constituents should remove their elected representative, either through recall or election.
No comments:
Post a Comment