How can it be that David Vitter can actually boff prostitutes (possibly including with a diaper fetish, now that’s information I’m sure you didn’t want to be reminded of) and still get re-elected as a Republican from a deeply socially conservative state, while Anthony Weiner, a debatably less prominent politician from a theoretically more socially tolerant parts of the country and who didn’t actually seem have sex with anyone but his (smoking-hot) wife but instead gets squeezed out of office by his Democratic colleagues for taking some sexy* photographs?
The answer seems clear to me. Weiner made the mistake of leaving visual evidence of his indiscretions. Vitter took enough care to not be photographed with his, er, hired help, who in turn were (mostly) discreet about themselves too. His political opponents had to re-enact the events in question, which just isn’t the same thing. When we can see it, we can be ooked out by it. When we can see it, we can be outraged.
We aren’t exactly a nation of Puritans here. We’ve had a sexual revolution. But apparently, we do still like to keep up our appearances even if we really know better.
* That adjective is used very loosely here; while I haven’t seen any photos of “the package” and don’t think doing so is particularly necessary (I’ll just take Barbara Walters‘ word for it), what I have seen from my feel-dirty-about-it-later clicks through TMZ doesn’t look like the sort of thing that would get either a hetero woman or a gay man all that worked up. To be sure, I’ve been wrong before about that sort of thing so if you go looking around for more direct evidence yourself, YMMV.
what I have seen from my feel-dirty-about-it-later clicks through TMZ doesn’t look like the sort of thing that would get either a hetero woman or a gay man all that worked up
Meh. I’m not one for truncated torsos or tented boxer briefs, myself. Since a motivated third-grader could find much more explicit stuff with a few unsupervised Internet minutes, it’s hardly the kind of thing that would raise even an eyebrow. I’m hanging out with some of my fellow ‘mos this evening, and if there’s a consensus that Rep. Weiner really had something special going on, I’ll report back.
Or there are different standards for R’s and D’s. And the “liberal media” loves a good pile on, when the scandal is fed by many on one side of the aisle. Another question could be how did John Ensign stay in the senate for so long after doing quite a bit worse then both Vitter and Weiner.
If you want to see something disgusting then I recommend trying to find Swaggart’s “I have sinned” sermon. All the family values bunch has to do is beg forgiveness and go to a fundraiser.
When you look at the various fates of Vitter, Weiner, Larry Craig, Mark Sanford, John Ensign, Eliot Spitzer, Bob Packwood, Mark Foley, Barney Frank, and so on… it’s really pretty hard to come up with a rhyme and reason for why things play out the way they do. It seems to depend on the banality or originality of the deed (boring is better), location (politicians care more about New York politicians than Louisiana ones), and the vulnerability of your seat (better if they’re worried you’ll be replaced by the other party).
Up to a point yes. Scandals are mercurial; easy to explain, tawdry and things involving pix are best. However i think there are differences in how the parties themselves deal with these things and how the media reacts. John Edwards is now considered a terrible person ( with good reason) but the Newtster is considered a Very Serious Person who got a bit of fluffing for his certain to finish 10th out of 8 people presidential campaign.
Oh, you know this one. Newt just loves America so damn much he pretty much had to get “fluffed.” The poor man had functionally no choice; his patriotism is as much a curse as it is a gift.
Zap Branigan is Newt Gingrich.
The GOP benched Gingrich in 1998, dumping him as speaker. Newt, disinterested in backbenching, left Congress the next year.
That Gingrich is remotely emblematic of the GOP, which breathed a sigh of relief when he left the scene, is an untenable assertion.
His vision that governing isn’t just winning the presidency half the time, but that Congress actually helps run things, brought the GOP out of the electoral wilderness. The GOP has kept both Houses in play since the Gingrich revolution of 1994.
But since Gingrich the man was part of the package, the party rightly estimated it was better off without him. It was his ego and his incontinence, both personal and political [the gov’t shutdown, going after Clinton re Lewinsky, complaining about being shunted to the rear seats of Air Force One] that got him fired by his own party.
And I would add that Weiner is similarly incontinent, both personally and politically, not only the dick pictures but his abrasiveness with even his own party. Had it merely been an affair or even hookers, and had he been as respected and politically useful as Ted Kennedy was, he’d still be a congressman.
[Fascinating scenario, that he could or might run for his own seat again. I’d say go for it: victory in a fresh election would give him a claim to legitimacy. If Alcee Hastings could be impeached from the federal bench for corruption and still now sit in Congress, the case for Weiner is far more arguable.]
Elizabeth Edwards was a media darling in a way that Gingrich’s first wife wasn’t. Gingrich’s infidelity with regards to his second wife ended his career. Edwards, on the other hand, was fresh off the campaign trail when he was exposed. The convergence of the cancer, the infidelity, and the kid, made for a much juicier story then some old accusations made by a woman who didn’t want to talk to the media. (Keep in mind here that I am not making a moral distinction between their behavior, just pointing out why one was a bigger story than the other.)
Another juicy story was Larry Craig, who was disowned by his party for paltry sins. And Mark Sanford, who didn’t hire a prostitute or have a fling with a secretary half his age but apparently fell in love with someone else. I’m not actually arguing that either of these men were treated unfairly, but the GOP is quick to throw their guys under the bus when they lose control of a media cycle.
If that’s right, then the real questions are how did Vitter take his story by the horns and get it under control, and following up on greginak‘s point, if a Democrat demonstrated similar media mastery skills, would he get treated any better than Weiner did? Democrats are not collectively known for their strong vertebrae when it comes to things like this.
Vitter wasn’t nearly the high-profile guy Weiner was; but I think the most decisive factor was that Weiner simply was not a well-liked man, even among his own caucus. Everything I’ve read and heard indicated that many Democrats looked upon him unfavorably and that he had a reputation around D.C. in general for being a jerk. Take this all with a grain of salt, mind, because the Village is as gossipy and provincial as the name implies — but I’d imagine Weiner being totally uncool, man played a significant role.
I think it’s a combination of the following factors:
(1) As Elias points out, Weiner was not well liked. I get the impression that Craig wasn’t, either. Vitter didn’t seem to have that problem. I think Ensign benefited from this as well, not only well-regarded among Republicans until this happened, but also good friends with Harry Reid. It allowed him to fight off the resignation for a while, anyway.
(2) There’s also the issue of profile, as Elias brings up. I would add that being from New York hurts in terms of profile and media saturation.
(3) I’m sure there was an electoral calculation, as well. No Democrat was ever going to take Larry Craig’s seat and they had Jim Risch to step right in. Weiner’s seat is, as far as I know, pretty safe as long as a guy named Weiner who did what he did isn’t running for it. Vitter is from a presidential red state, but one with a history of electing Democrats as well. Also from a state that harbors low expectations of its public officials (though McGreevey didn’t benefit from this).
(4) Maybe Greg is right and politics does play a role, insofar as Republicans are more likely to harp on the issue while Democrats will go at it for a little while but then lose interest. I think the other factors are more important, but maybe there is some of this. While I can find Republicans that went down for lesser crimes that others survived, I do have difficulty coming up with Democrats that have survived the way that Vitter did. The closest that comes to mind is Gov. Paul Patton, who was allowed to serve out his term in Kentucky despite infidelity and election mischief.
Which also brings up another point. The Democrats got Weiner to resign, but they couldn’t force him to. Craig served out his term despite immense pressure.
I live in Louisiana and I have high expectations for the elected officials here. I expect them to do anything that the oil companies tell them to do. I expect Senator Landrieu to say things like, after the deep water blowout last year, that it would be harmful to raise liability to over 75 million because then the mom and pop operations could not continue to operate.