There are news reports that Anthony Weiner has contacted former staffers to ask them to come back to work for him as he prepares to run again for office, including a possible run for mayor of New York or public advocate. Weiner left office after repeatedly lying to his constituents, colleagues, and the media about sending nude pictures of himself to women and accusing people of hacking into this phone. Women stated that they felt harassed by the photos that were sent without their solicitation or consent.
This moves has been expected given Weiner’s $4.5 million campaign war chest . . . and an obviously narcissistic personality. If he runs, the public would pay him an additional $1.5 million.
Weiner, 47, reportedly wants to run while there is the opportunity for public matching funds, which are due to expire after the 2013 election.
Besides mayor, Weiner is reportedly looking at public advocate office with a $165,000-a-year salary as a way of “cleansing” his career. It would be an odd choice for a man who just recently lied repeatedly to government officials, voters, and friends while engaging in conduct viewed as sexual harassment by women receiving these pictures.
Source: N.Y. Post
The only person who is morally pure is a newborn.
Most interesting, intelligent people on both sides of political spectrum have some “interesting” history and mistakes.
Lets safe the outrage for acts that impact the voters directly (like outsourcing their jobs), or acts that have caused real lasting permanent damage (Iraq war, afghan war).
Since Bush lied about WMD in Iraq, I have become a little jade with the faux outrage that is applied disportionately to Democrats when compared to Republicans. Until the balance is restored, as far as I am concerned Democrats have a ‘bye’ on these minor peccadillos.
IMO Clinton and Spitzer (and many, many republicans; I am not being partisan) have proven themselves unfit for power; and so has Weiner. Clinton, in particular, is directly responsible for signing the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act that has led to the current economic crisis and the transfer of trillions of dollars worth of wealth to the banksters. He has not “redeemed” himself, he has simply become less of a target with time, increased secrecy and reduced scrutiny, because he is no longer a public player or useful target.
Clinton’s famous promiscuity throughout his life is unlikely to have changed. I do not expect Hillary’s studiously blind eye to it (except when politics demanded she feign shock, shock I say!) has changed either. What has changed is his level of exposure and level of financing, which has boosted his ability to be discreet about his sexual excursions both in this country and out of it. I would not mistake “no tabloid news” as “evidence that nothing is happening.”
Remember the line Blouise provides above, Clinton did it “because he could.” Well, now he heads up a charity that throws millions around; he is a powerful player on a world stage and he no longer answers to anybody, he can go just about anywhere, at any time, with anyone, on a private jet, and stay in ultra-private hotels, without anybody knowing where he is or what he is doing, and his wife is guaranteed to be otherwise occupied with a public schedule 95% of the time.
What do we think Bill does now, just because he can?
As for Spitzer: Same deal. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, and Canada, and in many other first-world countries (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Australia, Japan), and where it is legal, discretion can be purchased.
Spitzer is a private citizen now, making a lot of money as the host of a TV show. I would assume the lack of tabloid headlines is a combination of a lack of tabloid interest and an increase in the discretion he can now afford, not the sudden growth of a conscience.
Redemption, like not being caught again?
Clinton and Spitzer have redeemed themselves; so will Weiner.
I remember a line Clinton delivered in one of his interviews about the Lewinsky scandal. In regards to using the Oval Office he was asked why he did it. He thought for a moment and then responded, “Because I could.”
That phrase reveals a destructive pattern of thinking that is his tragic character flaw. The scandal is now part of his legacy and will follow him down through history.
Remembering that Greek drama had a communal function outside of just entertainment (Morality plays etc), Aristotle’s “Poetics” lays out the character flaws of a tragic hero.
Clinton, Weiner, and Spitzer all fit the bill to a greater/lesser degree. Once revealed, there is no way I would want any of them working for me in any position of power because I would have to spend far too much time and money supervising them.
He lacks embarrassibility. That, to me, is a major problem for a public person. You can’t trust a person who won’t believe himself covered in shame when he does something that is actually demeaning to the public image of responsible leadership. And do it to people who get put into a similarly embarrassing situation by your own actions? Ugh!
I also liked Weiner politics, but if you can’t keep your pants on, maybe he should see if Magic Mike needs some more dancers.
@Mike: My point is that I’ve learned and grown from my past behavior and that Weiner should be given the opportunity to see if he has learned.
You have learned and grown in private, and only the judgment of yourself and your intimate associates is what matters.
I see no point in letting Weiner learn and grow IN PUBLIC, with the power of a public budget and office to wield. It is like having an alcoholic try to recover while working full-time as the owner of a liquor store.
What you call “stupidity” I call a lack of self-control; stupidity is the inability to perceive the probable consequences of one’s actions; a lack of self control is letting a compulsion override the examination of consequences, even when such an examination is within one’s power.
Weiner did not suffer from stupidity, he suffered from compulsions to which he surrendered, even though he undoubtedly knew he was risking his career. He is like an addict, not a dummy.
I wonder if Hebrew National will be one of his sponsors?
sexually [active] life.
“That statement pre-supposes that the cause of the problem is “stupidity,” when clearly neither Weiner or Spitzer are stupid. Or do you mean, “stupid to get caught?””
Tony,
Intelligence and stupidity are unrelated. You may or may not agree, but I am a very intelligent man. Beyond that I am a kind and empathetic person, who has been a “feminist” all my life. While not famous, or powerful, I’ve managed to have some attention from women in my life. While I’ve been scrupulously faithful to my marriage vows, prior to meeting my wife I led a sexually life.
There are things about my sometimes cavalier treatment of women that haunt me to this day, not because they were akin to Weiner’s behavior, but because they were at times stupidly hurtful. As for Spitzer’s behavior, I’ve never used
prostitution services, or even been to a strip club, so it is harder to judge. His actions though, to me at least, were the least egregious except in the sense of his marriage which is none of our business. He should not have resigned, when such a horror as David Vitter remains polluting the Senate. My point is that I’ve learned and grown from my past behavior and that Weiner should be given the opportunity to see if he has learned. He certainly will be under close scrutiny.
Back, however, to the difference between intelligence and stupidity. To me they are unrelated. Intelligence is the ability to perceive much about the world, whereas stupidity takes in an inability to do introspection. Intelligent people can often do stupid things because they use their intelligence as rationalization for acts they refuse to self-examine. Genuinely stupid people lack any sense of introspection and among them those that think themselves intelligent are usually the most dangerous.
My second chance rule in management is not specific to impulse control issues; but any issues: accuracy, promptness, accepting responsibility, etc.
It is true that minor problems like failing to meet a deadline or inattention to detail can be worked around, and second, third and fourth chances are warranted, but the rule is still statistical: What are my best odds going forward? Is this guy, even with his screw ups, still better than the best interviewee I am likely to get?
In the case of people like Wiener and Spitzer with some kind of compulsive sexuality disorders, I would trust the best alternative, sight unseen, more than either one of them.
On a scale of stoopid, his emailing snaps of his undies stuffed with facial tissues was about a 2. Lying about it is an 8. Average:5.5, or not much. He’ll be back.
All politicians are pious liars so aren’t these sorts of things QUALIFICATIONS for office in the USofA?
@Mike: At what point though does someone get an opportunity to change, learn and grow from their stupidity?
That statement pre-supposes that the cause of the problem is “stupidity,” when clearly neither Weiner or Spitzer are stupid. Or do you mean, “stupid to get caught?”
As a former manager of dozens, I think the answer to your question is just a weighing of the odds: I give somebody another chance if my odds of doing better with my typical choice of replacements are worse than the risk of giving a second chance to a person I KNOW has impulse control issues.
Typically I am better off with the typical replacement I would get, it takes a great deal of skill or talent to warrant giving somebody a second chance. Weiner and Spitzer do not have that skill, in my opinion, and I would be better off with almost any true liberal than these guys.
This is the intersection of personal life and political life; people that lack strong impulse control are not fit for office, because the opportunities for abuse of power and their office and official actions abound.
I sort of agree with Mike. The Weiner did seem to be on the right side of most issues. But that is irrelevant ultimately. What I demand is some consistency – had he constantly put himself out as a “moral family man” and a “keeper of morality in America” and behaved this way that would be the end. Had he been virulently anti-gay and then been arrested pick up men that would disqualify him. While this may appear to make it easier to forgive Dems then Repubs that is not my fault but the fault of the sanctimonious pricks that populate the GOP.
I believe anyone can make a mistake and should have at least one shot at redemption, but they have to indicate that they would 1) provide the same for people they may not agree with and 2) not be holier than thou before or after.
Mike,
“I would want both Weiner and Spitzer to return to political office.”
I agree.
It is always about the money. Everything else is just whatever BS must be said in order to get the money.
As a former New Yorker I have followed Anthony Weiner’s career from its beginnings. As far as politics goes he has always been on what I consider the good side of the issues and has been a strong advocate for the people. I am repelled by his actions, but I know for a fact that such behavior by politicians is more the norm, than the exception.
Perceived political fame attracts groupies just as much as Rock Stars and unfortunately the ego’s of male politicians get stroked to such an extent that they get heady with their perceived sexual magnetism. That any such behavior towards women is disgusting in my opinion goes without saying. At what point though does someone get an opportunity to change, learn and grow from their stupidity? Also there are degrees of offensiveness when it comes to sexual misbehavior and to those who condone it.
Sandusky’s actions were irredeemable, as was Paterno’s ignoring them. In my book Weiner, Spitzer and Clinton behaved badly and yes I wouln’t want my daughter to marry the first two even if they are Jewish. However, condemn me if you will but I would want both Weiner and Spitzer to return to political office.
Chutzpah .. not that there’s anything wrong with that ….