Bill Clinton Anthony Weiner must resign?

Inter­est­ing stuff from Kristin Kirsten Pow­ers:

This is text­book sex­ual harass­ment. It may not be ille­gal, but it’s def­i­nitely uneth­i­cal. He is in a posi­tion of influ­ence, and many women — espe­cially a 21-​year-​old — would be afraid to report a con­gress­man doing that to them because he holds so much power.

Let’s go into the way­back machine and re-​write that sentence:

This is text­book sex­ual harass­ment. It may not be ille­gal, but it’s def­i­nitely uneth­i­cal. He is in a posi­tion of influ­ence, and many women — espe­cially a 21-​year-​old — would be afraid to report a Pres­i­dent of the United States doing that to them because he holds so much power.

So my ques­tion to Kristin Pow­ers and every other demo­c­rat call­ing on him to resign is this:

How come a con­gress­man who never even had phys­i­cal con­tact with these woman MUST resign but a Pres­i­dent of the United states with a longer his­tory, and actual oral sex with a woman in the White House not only didn’t have to resign but was defended by many of the same democ­rats express­ing out­rage now?

I think the ques­tion should be asked of every demo­c­rat who releases a state­ment on this case.

Update: We can start by ask­ing Tim Kaine

“Lying is unfor­giv­able. Lying pub­licly about some­thing like this is unfor­giv­able, and he should resign,” for­mer DNC chief Tim Kaine said.

How­ever appar­ently it’s ok if done by a sit­ting pres­i­dent under oath.

And then Harry Reid next:

“I know Con­gress­man Weiner. I wish I could defend him, but I cannot,”

But you could defend Bill Clinton.

I sus­pect we could play this game all day.

Update: Ace of Spades picks up my theme

Yes­ter­day, or the day before, I heard Kris­ten Pow­ers claim for those who allege “it’s not about the sex, it’s about the lying,” it really is about the sex.

This is a Clinton-​era go-​to defense, that, as she says (and was said 100x in 1998 – 99), if you’re going to have illicit sex, of course you will also lie about it; the two things are bun­dled, a pack­age deal. Few peo­ple have illicit sex and then tell the truth about it.

Hell, we’ve accepted this idea so much that Pres­i­dents are per­mit­ted to lie under oath about it.

So her point is that this is just about sex, then — the lying being a nec­es­sary con­se­quence of the sex — and that this is nobody’s busi­ness, except his wife and family’s.

I haven’t hit the moral card very hard because I don’t know how I feel about this. I know David Vit­ter had all the holes punched in his Sub­way Fre­quent Whore­mon­ger Card (get a free girl sand­wich!), and he stood for reelec­tion, and won, and I’m not ter­ri­bly upset by that.

So I guess maybe the lib­er­als are right — hon­estly, who knows, maybe the only thing that mat­ters is, as Amanda Mar­cotte avers, whether they vote the right way.

Ace gets more hits in a week then I’ve picked up all time so per­haps peo­ple will start ask­ing the Clin­ton Question.

Update: Kirsten Pow­ers, not Kris­ten. Corrected

Update 2: Insta­lanche, and a les­son to those who wish to have one. Spelling and gram­mar count!

Update 3: I don’t remem­ber a full court Demo­c­ra­tic Press to remove Clin­ton do you?

Update 4: No offense to Michelle but why is she in any way sur­prised by this? We’ve already estab­lished that if you sup­port Abor­tion it doesn’t mat­ter if you have sex with young women you have power over. Demo­c­ra­tic woman believe this. Their accep­tance of Wiener is the nat­ural progression.