Weiner is, or Weiner isn't

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The case of Congressman Weiner's scandal is fascinating, because the Democrats have always told us that this is a pluralistic society, that morals are up to the person. Suddenly, Weiner shows his wiener, and suddenly he's immoral and needs to step down.

If we must stay away from the social issues, and if faith has no business in government, as the liberal Democrats proclaim, then why is suddenly one of their own "immoral?"

The leftists tell you morality does not matter, and now suddenly it does.

Is this not the highest in hypocrisy by the Democrats?

Of course when we bring up the Weiner issue, the leftists then go through their list of Republicans that have gotten in trouble in sex scandals (some of which were either wrongly accused, or in the case of Senator David Vitter, he was identified as a client of a prostitute seven years after the fact, after he had already admitted it, and after he and his wife reconciled over the issue...then suddenly, the Democrats dragged it through the mud after the fact). My question in response to that is, what does that have to do with what Weiner did? The fact that there are others out there making similar errors, or are being accused of similar errors of judgment, does not make what Weiner did any less wrong.

Weiner is guilty, Weiner should resign because it shows us that his character is flawed, largely because he lied about it in the beginning. Like with Clinton when he lied under oath about his Oval Office visit by Monica, this is more about the dishonesty of Weiner than it is about his sexual indiscretions.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Obama: 'I would resign' in Weiner's situation - MSNBC Today News