Wednesday, June 08, 2011


So it looks as if it's all but over for Anthony Weiner:

Weiner Faces Calls to Resign and Tries to Make Amends

Representative Anthony D. Weiner of New York, reeling from revelations of salacious online behavior that threaten his political career, moved rapidly on Tuesday to make amends as Republicans called for his resignation and leading members of his own Democratic Party distanced themselves from him....

Never mind the fact that, in a Marist poll taken a few hours after his press conference, a majority of New Yorkers said he should stay on:

According to this NY1-Marist Poll conducted just hours after the story broke, 51% of New York City voters believe Anthony Weiner should not resign from Congress. 30% disagree and think he should step down, and a notable 18% are unsure.

This despite the fact that 60% of respondents think online hanky-panky constitutes infidelity, and 64% think he fessed up only because he got caught. The thing is, 61% think what he did was unethical but not illegal, and 13% think he did nothing wrong. (Admittedly, a majority -- 56% -- don't want him to run for mayor.)


You know who could really take on these hypocritical bastards -- the ones who said nothing negative about John Ensign and David Vitter? That guy from New York, whatshisname ... Weiner! Why doesn't that guy give 'em what for?

If Weiner is doomed, I keep wondering what would happen if he embraced the inevitable and just went down fighting. I've always been more skeptical about the effectiveness of this approach than most lefties, but it, um, obviously won him quite a few fans nationwide. (Hello, Lisa Weiss.) Forget this crying, whimpery, remorseful guy we're seeing now. What would that scrappy battler guy do?

I think maybe he should change the name on his Web site and his outgoing office phone message to David Vitter. I think he should replace his own bio and political positions on the site with Vitter's. I think he should call a press conference, show up in a Vitter mask, and word his response to every question based not on the facts of his own case, but on the facts of Vitter's. Or Ensign's. Or Newt Gingrich's love life. Or Rudy Giuliani's. Or Bernie Kerik's.

That would be considered outrageous and over the line by a lot of people. But would it make a point? Would it get a message across? Would it get at least some people thinking?

Beats me. But it would be pretty freakin' scrappy.

No comments: