On Carlos Danger

I’m guessing that Anthony Weiner has the lost any chance of being mayor of New York.  I myself would vote for him if I thought he was the most accomplished and progressive candidate, for the reason that I think that there’s no meaningful relationship between being a good spouse and a good political leader and I don’t really think anybody else does either,* but he’s not so for me it wouldn’t change anything.  And since it’s a primary I don’t find taking his behavior into account particularly objectionable either; I can see the argument that if you want what Weiner is selling for some reason you can get it from Christine Quinn without the skeeviness.  But I’m also glad he’s staying in and letting the voters decide.

I do wish, however, that the media would make distinctions between consensual and nonconsensual behavior.  One thing that made the first wave of scandal more relevant than usual is that Weiner apparently sent unsolicited crotch shots to young women who tweeted him for independent reasons.  That’s bad behavior that’s unquestionably of public relevance.   As far as I can tell, the latest revelations were sex chats with a knowing and willing partner, which is bad behavior that is properly between him and his wife.

*And since I’m sure some commenters will be back to argue that Republicans and only Republicans are obligated not to vote for a candidate if they engage in bad personal behavior, I will repeat that while I don’t believe in narrow tailoring requirements for enforcing the 15th Amendment or necessary and proper clause, I do believe in narrow tailoring for “hypocrisy” changes.   If someone is engaged in bad behavior they think others should be legally sanctioned for, then there’s a real hypocrisy issue there (and for this reason the Clinton impeachment leaders and Spitzer were both fair game.)  But if the charge is just that someone acts contrary to values they purport to believe in, everybody’s a hypocrite and nothing is private.

…Speaking of Spitzer, see also.