If the New York Times wants to be taken seriously when it calls for Weiner to get out of the public eye, it has to admit that it was wrong to give Bill Clinton a pass.
New York papers all agree. Anthony Weiner is unqualified to be the Mayor of New York City.
The New York Daily News tells Weiner to "Beat It" "Enough of all the lies and salacious revelations, Weiner is not fit to lead America's premier city," the paper states.
Apparently lies about sex and salacious revelations qualify you to be President of the United States. But not for the much more important job of Mayor of New York.
"The serially evasive Mr. Weiner should take his marital troubles and personal compulsions out of the public eye, away from cameras, off the Web and out of the race for mayor of New York City," the New York Times said.
If only it had said the same thing about President William Jefferson Clinton and his martial troubles and compulsions. Instead it called for Bill to accept censure and stay in office.
Is POTUS a job with lower standards than MOTCONY? Apparently it is.
It would be nice if we still had some kind of moral standard in politics. Unfortunately we do not. And it was the media's endorsement of Clinton's behavior that made it that way.
Bill Clinton presided over Weiner's wedding. And Weiner is a chip off the old block. If the New York Times wants to be taken seriously when it calls for Weiner to get out of the public eye, it has to admit that it was wrong to give Bill Clinton a pass.
Instead the media is willing to condemn Democrats only when that condemnation helps fellow Democrats, not when Republicans stand to benefit. That's not a moral standard, it's the height of cynicism.