FIRST, lemme just say it's nice to see that some on the Right have learned the meaning of "hypocrisy". So maybe "honesty", "integrity", and "equity" won't be far behind.
I'm kiddin'. They already know "equity". Just not in the sense I mean.
Let's just start at the end. Hell, it's like the question about Vivaldi's concertos: did Medved write twelve paragraphs, or one paragraph twelve times?
But the nearly universal liberal position that Clinton—who, ironically, officiated at Weiner’s 2010 wedding—should never have been impeached but that Weiner must go for the good of the country? That awkward straddle makes no sense on any logical level.
I guess we can add "irony" to the list.
Is there really a "nearly universal" "liberal" "position" that Weiner should resign? You'll have to forgive me for not giving a shit. Okay, I (call me a liberal and that porn stache finally comes off) suggested that Weiner should resign, because of Anthony Weiner. Not because of the law. Legally, it's his business. Maybe his district's, if they have a recall procedure. It's also the House's, I suppose, but the odds that the House would actually remove him are microscopic, and if it did it would owe an apology to every other Congress in the history of the Republic. So there's one answer: Clinton should not have resigned because of a concerted partisan effort to remove him, but should--as he did--have stayed and let their bluff play out. Weiner should resign if he feels he owes that as a duty to his constituents. He doesn't. Welcome to the real world, Michael Medved. That's the end of the story, legally.
By the way, voters in Weiner's district--presumably as "liberal" as they come--want him to stay. But maybe Medved means a different universe.
None of the accusations against Weiner so far involve workplace harassment or sexual predation with members of his staff or other government employees. Clinton admitted to a protracted dalliance, including oral sex, with a White House intern.
Including oral sex! Dear me. I wish I'd known that at the time.
Okay, again: I seem to recall an "almost universal" insistence from the Right that the case against Clinton "wasn't about sex"; I don't seem to recall anyone holding Bill Clinton up as a paragon of virtue. An awful lot of people in the mid-90s seem to've run smack into the concepts of oral sex and lying for the first time, and to've required assistance to the nearest fainting couch. It wasn't believable then, and it's not believable now. He got caught in a perjury trap. He should have been smart enough to avoid that on personal and legal grounds. Had he been a private citizen he probably would have, because if he'd been a private citizen the charges never would have been raised. There are a million divorces in the US annually, Mr. Medved. At least one party lies in nearly every one of 'em.
So here's another difference. Weiner, as I said the one time I paid attention to this, as opposed to having it hurled at me, wasn't engaging in sex, so far as we know. He was engaging in juvenilia. What Bill Clinton did something like 40% of married people engage in at some time or other; what Anthony Weiner did no one over 22 should even be capable of.
Tell ya what, though, Mr. Medved. We agree about the Democrats. Fuck 'em for calling for Weiner's resignation. Fuck Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Fuck these people for not just shutting th' fuck up. Don't they pay attention to what makes the Republican party so formidable?
And can I just mention, as a hidebound old fuck, how much I enjoy the Vietnam syndrome at work here? The Right lies about a situation for a decade, gets called, and loses; fifteen years later it's back asking why no one believed it. Jeeze, all Ho Chi Minh had to do was surrender.