As you read this, the disposition of one more squirming, sobbing, lying public "servant" may have already occurred. If not, it will shortly. That is political calculus.
But what have
we learned from the latest betrayal of trust, from the sordid travails of Anthony Weiner? Sadly that the bar has not been lowered, the bar is gone. This story is not about him, it's about us and
what we have come to tolerate. It's also about how, in a very real way, our media culture of be noticed at any cost, it's OK if the ratings say it is, has altered the very nature of what some
consider acceptable behavior.
Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, our House, states the Code of Official Conduct. It
has 1894 words. There are twenty references to compensation, financial interest and funds. There are zero references to ethics. Zero.
Famously, paragraph 1 refers to conduct "that shall
reflect creditably on the House."
advertisement
advertisement
The definition of creditable is, "deserving of often limited praise." The example used to further explain the definition is as follows: "the student's
effort on the essay -- though not outstanding -- was creditable."
Last week NY Congressman Charles Rangel defended NY Congressman Anthony Weiner with this: "He wasn't going out with
prostitutes; he wasn't going out with little boys."
This is not about Democrats or Republicans. This is about a loss of our bearings, about moral fatigue. About allowing people who say such
things the pretense of position. This is about standards that no longer exist because we have chosen expediency.
Little boys? When the already censured Congressman defended the (soon to be)
former Congressman with that "standard," where was the outrage? Who heard the outcry?
To review: on May 27 The Photo appears on Twitter. Congressman Weiner immediately tweets a lie that he
has been hacked. The next day the Congressman's office says it was all a "distraction from the important work representing his constituents."
May 30, the Congressman's office says they are
"seeking legal action" to investigate who hacked the account. Another lie.
May 31, the office announces the Congressman has retained an attorney to advise him on what actions should be taken
over the "hacking."
June 1, interview day. When asked if The Photo was of him, the Congressman responds with the now infamous, "I cannot say with certitude." As they say in direct-response
commercials: but wait, there's more.
From June 2 to June 5, the new tactic is silence as the Congressman avoids public appearances.
June 6, after additional photos and transcripts
surface, the Congressman holds a press conference in which he admits he lied, sobs his apology and takes full responsibility. After which he says he will not resign. Apparently the responsibility is
not quite "full."
And on it goes, more and more pathetic each day. And, finally, as the embarrassment outweighs the political risk, and the calls for resignation are heard, what does the
honorable Congressman do as a last resort? He goes Hollywood and says he will enter an unidentified rehabilitation facility, at an undisclosed location, with a request for a (paid) leave of absence.
June 12 brings more photos. June 13 the President of the United States offers, "If it was me, I'd resign."
As Congress reconvenes today, why chronicle the details of this train wreck?
Because this has gone on for 19 days, which is 18 days too long. Enough is enough. Because "creditable" is not sufficient for elected officials, too many of whom have consistently shown us an
overdeveloped sense of political survival and a distinct lack of honor. This while our most honorable young men and women risk their lives defending us in two and a half wars.
Full
responsibility means accountability -- and we need to affirm our own responsibility to speak up and end this. We should know that with certitude.