This guy's fucking toast. Give it up.

The correct answer is "none of your fucking business". But the pearl-clutchers run this country.

McArdle's not there to help anybody but herself.

@1 - So what if he is?

It's an opportunity to at least raise a little awareness. I don't think Dan is trying to "Save Weiner". He's reacting to the reaction, as is his right.

I was talking with a friend the other day about the "do you you think she knew and was okay with it" question. My opinion was, no way. If they did have some sort of "arrangement", I'm guessing she would have said, if you're going to do this, you should take some basic effing precautions to make sure it doesn't get out (fake accounts/names/etc.). If she knew he was doing it, I would hope she would have helped him be less of a moron about it.

This is pure political theater. The Rs lost a seat in N.Y. and they figure they can get the Ds back with Weiner. He should tell the people that want him to go to fuck off.

Oh Megan McArdle, what a dumb ass bimbo. I have so enjoyed the many times that Matt Taiibi has taken this bitch to school.

Most New Yorkers don't actually care, and will vote for him instead of Donald Trump the fame whore when he announces his bid for the seat.

Oh my God, this is such BULLSHIT. The hypocrisy here on SLOG is breathtaking. We all had a good laugh about Vitter, Craig, et al, and now that this creep who is a "champion of the poor" has been caught in the same net, the backpeddling is leaving skid marks on the floor.

Sex is a red herring in this case. The real issue is character and judgment. This professional politician, new husband, and expectant father committed a colossal act of poor judgment. He was trolling for new online pussy and he got caught and then lied about it. Nobody between the ages of 9 and 90 can claim ignorance of the risk of his behavior.

This implies one of two things. Either Wiener is a mentally ill, or he thinks the rules don't apply to him. In either case, he's more than demonstrated he lacks the judgment to hold such an important office.

I really don't think this Weiner has to be toasted. I mean, it's not a Spitzer proportion offense. He was just a little bit bad.

Here in Mexico City we have a politician who's wife died under highly suspicious circumstances and he remarried a much younger woman immediately. It's in the tabloids, but nobody is calling for his resignation.

Maybe this has clouded my judgment, but I cannot believe this congressman needs to resign over something slightly above the level of looking at internet porn.

@10, while I tend to agree with you, the problem is that, if followed to it's logical conclusion, we end up with a country run by cloistered nuns. Real people have flaws and failings. Convince me this affects his ability to do his job (media circus aside) and out he goes.

The problem is that this reaction is in itself a reality. There's always two things to every event: the event itself and the perception of it. And even if the perception is completely fabricated or unrooted in reality, it becomes a real thing in of itself if it affects future events.

So as much as I want to say that all of this is a tempest in a teapot, that all of this should be strictly between Weiner and his wife, I recognize that the public-at-large's perception of this is going to have a good deal of weight -- and the recent revaltation that his wife is pregnant has just upended everything IMO.

I am reminded in some ways of that SL letter we had some weeks ago, where an affair was exposed in a very cruel way by the daughter (wherein the father wanted to punish her, separately from all the fallout). I noted then that one interesting thing about that case was that even had the affair been sanctioned by all involved spouses, it could have still blown up with the daughter's discovery because the way she brought in people other than the participants/spouses.

Same deal here. The public perception would be the same regardless if Weiner had his wife's written permission to do all the sexual texting he wanted.

Meh. Very irritating. Takes attention away from real issues, costs us an otherwise excellent politician from our side. *grumble*

@12 If Weiner had said, "Yes, it's me, I did it, it's embarrassing, and that's the last thing I'm going to say about it.", then yes. I'd agree with you. But what he did do was claim he was a victim of a hacker and a "vast right wing conspiracy". He played the victim when he knew damn well he really did it.

What makes this infinitely worse is how in the world did he think he could get away with it? For fuck's sake, Twitter dick picks?!? He may as well have posted dick picks on his House web page. A man who panics when the shit goes down, and attempts to deflect responsibility, while typical for a pol, shows he lacks the character and judgement to hold high elected office.

1) do we care about this guy other than the whole weiner fiasco? I mean is he a good enough congressman for us to be all upset about this?

2) I totally bet hillary and bill have an open relationship. Like i'd put money on it.

@10 He's mentally ill??? Mentally ill?

Have you ever read any world or US history? If so, can you find for me a time--save our very recent past--where it wasn't a given that men in power had sex, lots of it, on the side?

Do you not remember the GOP men who were GUNNING for Clinton along the same bullshit lines--"it's his character, he's defaming the office!, he lied about an affair!!"--when they ALL committed adultery? And that *their* adulterous affairs were public knowledge? But, no, those hypocritical and manipulative blowhards wrap their dicks in some "I once was lost but now I'm found" narrative of religious redemption and all is forgiven.

The guy's an idiot for doing something so stupid politically--but what if that risk is the turn on?

If he doesn't have an open arrangement with his new bride (and it's not our business either way), he's a cheating asshole. But none of this says JACK about his political competence or career, let alone that he's somehow mentally ill.

I personally think he was a fucking idiot for lying, but I also don't expect any political figure--or even lay person--to immediately tell the truth when caught in an affair or sex scandal because we live in such a childish culture that is so ashamed of sex while lusting for salacious gossip about the sex others are having.

I mean, really, you listen to this sanctimonious crap clogging the airwaves and you could think that no adult has every had phone sex, took a naughty photo, used a sex toy, watched porn, or cheated on someone. Profits and divorces rates show otherwise.

Which again, suggests that what we really need in terms of public education is sharper bullshit detectors and more common sense when it comes to sex.

I

In High or Royal Society the existence of lovers has long been tolerated or assumed.

Even when Lady Di was sneaking out at night, all the Dukes and Queens were like "just don't let it hit the streets, dearie".

Look a pregnant middle aged lady likes nothing more than to have her hubby "serviced" by other girls so she can have some time off.

The only travesty of it is the non-comprehending Commoners who think the rich should be like you and I.

I think he is right to wait this out. The public has a short attention span. All it takes is one big new news story and nobody will care about this at all. Remember when Obama got Osama and it was all we could talk about and his approval ratings jumped over 50%? A few weeks go by, unemployment numbers come out...and Mitt Romney is polling ahead of him.

There's another possibility: Maybe his wife didn't know and does give a shit, but is still more or less OK with it.

Perhaps before he went on TV and confessed, they had an adult conversation about it in which he explained himself. He needed some attention, and thought this was a relatively chaste way to go about it. Never meant to hurt her. Never considered meeting these other women in person to try and sleep with them. Maybe he told her that he's a bit of an exhibitionist (which she probably knew already), and that this was his way of expressing that, and that he hopes she can forgive him for it.

And, chances are, if she hasn't forgiven him yet, she will soon. Because really, what is he guilty of? Stupidity, yes. Lying, yes. Horniness, yes. But he did not cheat on her in the usual sense of the word; in fact, he seems to have deliberately chosen a form of getting his rocks off--electronically--that by definition does not involve actual physical contact with another person.

In my view, if she loves him at all, she'll stay. Particularly with a child on the way. If she leaves, takes his alimony, and starts a new life, then I would conclude she was looking for a way out anyway.

But there's way too much nuance in all that for the McArdles of the world to grasp. Not to mention the fact that NONE of this is our business in the slightest, and I, along with everybody else who isn't Mr. or Mrs. Weiner, have no idea what the reality of their relationship actually is.

@16 "but what if that risk is a turn on". Really?

You've been hooked by the distraction that this is about sex or American's childish, Puritanical attitudes.

Weiner, a politician with a rising star career, pretensions for becoming Mayor of New York, send UNSOLICITED pictures of his dick to women he DID NOT KNOW, though a medium that has been proven time and time again to be unsecure and public. He's either an idiot (which I doubt), pathologically narcissistic (which I think has been demonstrated), or believes he's exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us.

Personally, I could care less how many staffers, interns, college volunteers, and women off the street he's banging. The fact that a man that has no excuse to NOT KNOW BETTER did this is an indictment of his ability to operate in public, a core part of his job.

"Nobody between the ages of 9 and 90 can claim ignorance of the risk of his behavior. "

Actually, lots of people over 40 or 50 don't understand how the privacy settings on Facebook and Twitter work.

"The fact that a man that has no excuse to NOT KNOW BETTER did this is an indictment of his ability to operate in public, a core part of his job. "

This, exactly. The man is deluded and has a narcissistic personality disorder. I don't see why we need people like him in or close to power.

I've got to agree with Westside forever. I've liked Weiner's politics in the past, but this is so incredibly boneheadedly stupid it just baffles my mind. I don't know what goes on inside their marriage and I don't particularly care. Whatever happens because of this is between him and his wife.

But to the rest of us out here on the outside, it looks utterly insane and out of touch with reality. Plenty of people get their dirty talk on using the internet. They also manage to do it without plastering their faces, dicks, waxed balls and a sign saying "THIS IS ME" all over the internet. It would be a lovely world if we could all prance around slapping our genitals on everything we liked without repercussions, but this is not that world. A person with an ounce of sense and perspective who is in the public eye as Rep. Weiner is should have been following the rules of the world he lives in, not in some imaginary ideal world.

#22 I don't disagree with you, but narcissistic personality disorder is par for the course for politicians. If the expression of their neurosis is limited to sexual stuff, I don't think it really matters very much to their constituents. I'm sure it's a bigger deal to his family and friends.

@19 "he [chose] a form of getting his rocks off--electronically--that by definition does not involve actual physical contact with another person." Agreed, and he also didn't establish an emotional connection with a particular person (which might be much more threatening to his wife, even if kept online).

@22:

Name a politician at ANY level of government who DOESN'T possess most of the characteristics of a "narcissistic personality disorder". Hell, it's practically a REQUIREMENT for public service, because for one thing it provides a dependable psychological defense mechanism against this very sort of intrusive prurience.

And if lying is the standard we're going to set for disqualification for public office, then I would submit NO HUMAN BEING ON EARTH could possibly pass that test. We ALL lie, some perhaps only on occasion, for example when pressured to reveal private information to a public literally slavering to view their dirty laundry.

The simple truth is that anybody who says they've never lied - is lying.

@ 20: My understanding is that he sent these pictures to women he was flirting with online - he wasn't flashing strangers. Have any of the women complained? Do you know something I don't? Because if it was a consensual part of internet flirting rather than spamming dick pix as you imply, then it may have been foolish, but it was also legal and none of your damn business. Do you actually know otherwise?

Dan, who is this Mrs. Wiener -- Anthony Weiner's mom? Huma Abedin didn't change her name when she got married, so show her some respect and don't change it for her. And just drop the use of "Mrs." altogether, unless you're addressing someone who is over 60.

It's a fucking cock for chrissakes. Fucking grow up; it's not like he was skull-fucking women to death with it.

This illuminates an essential double-standard in the western aesthetic. The female form, apparently, is beautiful when nude, even when unsolicited (except if the woman bothers to use her tits for their intended purpose); the male form, especially when nude, is a bleeding intimation of Grendel and violates all with its mere presence.

Everybody in the English-speaking universe goes loony when it comes to sex.

maybe she hasn't said anything about her pro-, con-, or neutral feelings because she doesn't actually owe The Public a window into HER emotional state regarding HER marriage? why on earth do we think we're entitled to know anything about this private citizen?

@20 yes, really. Sexual self-sabotage is a very real phenomenon. People can and do eroticize the very risk most stupid in light of their career choice. The point of that however, you missed entirely--it was to say that we don't fucking know what he thought about what he was doing or what his marriage is like.

Every character attribute you've listed, by the way, echoes exactly the point i made in terms of what draws some men to political power--i.e. narcissism and entitlement. So, you missed that point too. Or do you sincerely believe Clinton learned his lesson with Monica?

And, you say I'm hooked on the puritan angle but then argue that this debacle requires us to question his job competence and performance? This has ZERO to do with his job competence or performance. It only has anything to do with his public IMAGE because we have a such a puritan hypocritical public that the GOP can and do exploit to the hilt for their own gain. He accidentally send a DM to his Twitter feed. Yes, he could have been smarter about all of that, but it doesn't have shit to do with his job as congressman unless YOU, not me, really think that a guy's horniness sheds light on his ability to do his job. You are deluding yourself if you think most men in positions of power don't possess some degree of sleazebag.

Again, find me an adult who hasn't had phone sex, hasn't sent a racy photo (whether solicited or not, it's commonplace to the point of fucking yawn), etc. and then consider that a subset of those probably made the horrible mistake of sending it to the wrong person by accident, sharing it with an untrustworthy person, etc. He is undoubtedly stupid in the risks he took to get off but for the love of god stop trying to make that bullshit argument that you can extrapolate from that to destroying his entire career, especially when the sexual scandals on the other side of the aisle involve actual CRIMES and those fuckers still have their jobs!

@10: We had a laugh at the hypocrisy of anti-sex, anti-gay, pro-legally-regulating-other-people's-sex-lives-to-match-an-ideal-up-to-which-they-themselves-apparently-can't-live politicians turning out to be big fucking hypocrites. That doesn't make us hypocrites. Also, if lying publicly (and somehow thinking that in an age of digital media and 24/7 infotainment one won't get caught) demonstrates poor judgement or mental illness, then this is true of about 110% of our elected officials, +/- 10%. Granted, "everybody else does it" doesn't make lying OKAY (I DO think it makes Weiner either an idiot or a masochist), but it does mean it's unfair to criticize him for politically expedient selective truthfulness while giving anyone/everyone else a pass. Either nail 'em all up, or shrug it off and move on (like we do every time anyone says that cutting taxes spurs economic activity, in the face of literally all of the evidence). Also, re: both #10 and #20, what are these "rules that apply to the rest of us" from which Weiner thinks he's exempt? Rules you'd like to apply to the rest of us? I have no clue what you're talking about there. Anyone with a webcam and a broadband connection can do what Weiner did, and many do. Have you somehow missed the entirely fair "Chat Roulette is mostly guys masturbating" meme?

@17: "In High or Royal Society the existence of lovers has long been tolerated or assumed." Aw, shit, I agree with a statement you made. When marriages are political contracts that have nothing to do with love or sex-as-pleasure (only sex-as-procreation, to produce a "legitimate" heir), this makes total sense.

@26: Self-aggrandizing or self-advancing lies, lies of opportunity, lies of omission, white lies, disingenuous framing, confabulation, rationalizations, self-delusion, willful ignorance, hypocrisy/doublethink, irony/satire; I agree: "Everybody lies."

@33 I think we're going to disagree on one critical point that is at the heart of this.

Projecting and protecting image is absolutely job #1 of a professional politician. Without doing this effectively, they can do nothing else.

It doesn't matter if Weiner is a horn dog with a camera phone, a heroin addict, a horrible tax cheat, or any other human failing. His #1 job is to project an image that supports people's decision to vote for him. He knows this. As a national level politician, people are paid a lot of money to make sure he knows this. And he fucked it up in the most selfish, reckless and sack of hammers stupid way possible. His irresponsibility and the completely weasely way he handled the aftermath show what's wrong with him, not his private behavior which doesn't mean squat.

@28 Agreed. Let's all call her by her name, Ms. Abedin.

@34, I'll give you a simple example of what I mean by "the rules we all live by".

Nobody who has been on the internet for the last 5 years would have any expectation of privacy. And if we, as civilians used that tool to send dick picks to people we didn't know, hoping by this trolling to pick up new online tricks, we would reasonably expect that:

A: these pictures, sent to strangers, would not stay private

B: that you could behave this way with impunity indefinitely

C: that once they went public, it would totally destroy your reputation

I mean for fuck's sake, this JUST HAPPENED to Brett Farve. Does this guy just live in a bubble where there are never consequences for his actions?

@37 Some of us still hope we can move to a world where people are not "destroyed" for acting human. Even politicians, but also the rest of us. Many private things come out in public, yes; perhaps the next Weiner will do what Weiner should have done - told everyone to mind their own business.

@35 Guess what? The people who matter--his constituents--do not want him to resign. So, apparently, they too can see beyond unreasonably fake images of moral righteousness and focus instead on the job he's done for them.

@38 EricaP, I agree. He should have stood on principle instead of lying. But I too would understand the impulse to do so in light of the hysteria and cowardice that has followed. I am very worried about the precedent this sets for public figures--it sets an impossible standard of conduct for potentially great people who could do good things.

@Comte 26:
sure, there is a degree of narcissism in politics, but there are plenty of people for whom that degree is not pathological:
Among the Democrats - Obama, Waxman, Franken, a whole range of people in the executive (Lisa Jackson, Christy Roemer) - a large number of less publically known but still quite influential Reps - Schakovsky our Rep here in Chicago for example etc. etc. Mind you, I'd still rather have a deluded democrat than a 'sane' Republican, but Weiner's district is pretty much unlosable for a Democrat - so why settle low?
For me that's really crucial here: I think Weiner is worse than a generic NY Democrat. If Weiner steps down he'll be followed by one. I see no reason to defend him.

@ 31: OK, in Cordova's case that was definitely out of line; the other women mentioned seem to have had a more sexual relationship with him. But even Cordova says:

“I certainly don’t condone his behavior,” she said, “but I think that’s a personal matter between him and his family.”

It was stupid, and in at least one case even sounds creepy, but there's a disturbing circular logic at the heart of this:

A: He shouldn't have done it.
B: Why? It wasn't illegal.
A: Because people were guaranteed to find out and then get upset and criticize him for it.
B: But why are people upset? It's none of their business.
A: Because he should have known people would get upset.

I'm much more bothered about the "I was hacked" lie than anything else, but compared to all the other shit going on in Washington (involving, you know, mass murder and imprisonment without trial and torture), I really can't give a shit about this juvenile nonsense, and it just makes me happy that the traditional media is going down the tubes. Fuck them anyway. (Except Megan McArdle, who doesn't deserve to have sex at all. This is the same fucking idiot who argued that there were no villains at Goldman Sachs, and claimed that humans aren't like bonobos, at all, because they just aren't! < foot stamp > )

But most of all I'm disappointed he didn't just say "so fucking what?" in the first place. I long for the day when a politician being attacked for being a sexual human being actually has the guts to say "it's none of your goddamn business, next question." Years from now when all of the candidates will have incriminating Facebook photos and Livejournal entries and so on in their pasts, all of this will seem incredibly quaint and childish. Or so one can hope.

Thank you Westside Forever for all of your points. I agree 100%!

Personally, I've been a big fan of Weiner's politics for a long time, and I generally thought I didn't care about sex scandals so long as they weren't made by someone with a hypocritical family values platform. I've also been practicing consensual, honest non-monogamy for at least a decade, so I'm certainly not mired in traditional social values.

But I am really outraged by Weiner in this case. First of all, not just the stupidity of his actions, but also the fact that his wife is a public figure. He isn't just lying to and humiliating his spouse, he's doing that to a State Department figure with a following of her own. The fact that they're newlyweds and she's pregnant also seem to make it worse (just seems like a good time for a guy to be extra supportive, and hyper-honest).

But the worst thing about his lies is the way he gave Breitbart credibility! And played to all of us who know Breitbart will edit the truth to tank people who don't deserve it. So we bought it when he fed us those lies, knowing full well they were lies, and he should have known the truth would come out soon. The next time Breitbart does this, it will be a lot harder for his victim to come out and accuse him of making it up, and for us to wholeheartedly believe that to be the case, without the nagging memory that he was right about Weiner.

As a liberal, I'm sad to say I think we'd be better off if he did step down. He is a distraction, and it really is entirely his own fault.

The guy goofed BIG TIME. He accidently sent a private tweet as a public tweet. (Doh!) And he reacted like any civilian would in that situation; he freaked out. If something like this has ever happened to you, you know the panic generated makes you totally irrational. I once sent an email TO MY BOSS that was snarky and offensive and about him personally. (He is/was a total unethical asshole. Just saying). I meant to send it to just one person in a string of emails, but of course hit the "send to all" button. And, And!...I had a scheduled meeting with him 20 minutes after I sent it. How many times did I hit the "recall" button?!? Thank the fucking gods neither he nor anyone else opened that email before it was recalled, or I would have had to concoct some story about how I had a computer virus or something, and then would have been fired, anyway.

Live and learn. I'm extremely careful about such things now. I feel very lucky that I dodged a bullet fired from my own gun, and somewhat sympathetic to congressman Weiner. Also, a little disappointed, I can't help it.

@43: he's doing that to a State Department figure with a following of her own.

And you think THAT somehow makes it worse? What is she, fucking royalty? "Well honey, I decided cheating on you wasn't that big a deal, because you're not a public figure and you don't have any followers, whatever the hell that means, and I really wouldn't want to upset them."

You sound like that retard crying about people being mean to Brittney Spears.

And it's not "entirely his own fault". What he did was reckless and stupid and, frankly, the kind of game I expect from clueless virgins their first year in college. But the public's reaction is the real issue, and people are responsible for their own reactions. If everyone shrugged and said "so what, it's tame, lame, and none of our business", shitbags like Breitbart wouldn't have any power at all.

While I'm not a fan of hers, I think you're being unfair to McArdle, who explicitly allowed for the possiblity of non-monogamous partners giving a pass to these things. Just like you, she said it was unlikely that it was the case here. But it's clearly the case in DSK's marriage.

@10 - Actually, what Vitter, Craig, et al, did was illegal. What Weiner did was just dumb.

@ Dan savage

You should have read megans whole post before you went aggro on her. First she isn't a bible thumper. Second she doesn't have a problem with open relationships. Third she wasn't " pounding nails into his hands and feet". You come across as kind of an uninformed dick on this post.

What Anthony wiener did was sleazy not illegal just sleazy. Hes been married for less than a year and he already has half a dozen online girlfriends. He's 46 and taking pics of his penis and emailing them to strangers. Try to imagine a 46 year old 160 lb man with no shirt on sitting in the dark and taking pictures of himself in bodybuilder poses, and then sending them out to strangers online. Cause that's what he did. Is this the best liberal new York city has to represent them in congress?

If anyone is still looking at this thread, Megan's response is worth a read:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch…