Liberal Logic: Weiner’s Sex vs. Spitzer’s

We Christians really don’t understand liberals and how they draw their moral line. However, the candidacy of former governor Elliot Spitzer and former Senator Anthony Weiner, is proving to be revealing

Although we might regard them as bedfellows, sharing common interests and a common fate, Spitzer doesn’t see things this way. He has stated that Weiner should drop out of the race, even though it was he, Spitzer, who had broken the law with his escapades. (It remains uncertain whether or not Weiner – “Carlos Danger” - had physical contact with his sexting targets.)

Meanwhile, Barbara Walters also put Weiner into another category – the “yuck” category. On TheView this Tuesday, she tried to defend Spitzer because his acts were normal. (This might simply mean that his behavior was closer to the kinds of things that Walters had done):

WALTERS: Now, I said– I don't know how to put it. I said that's sort of in the realm of normalcy.

LAUREN SANCHEZ: What?

WALTERS: Okay. Because it's not kinky. It's wrong, but it's not kinky. Weiner's is kind of "what? Why?

According to Walters, Spitzer has every right to continue his campaign for office, even though what he had done was “wrong,” but Weiner should step down because his “sex” was “kinky.” If this sounds hypocritical coming from a liberal, perhaps it is. It seems that Walters has expressed little problem with other forms of “kinky” sex – homosexuality, anal intercourse… Why is she now bringing the hatchet down on Weiner’s head? She has even casually admitted to our own adulterous fling.

Besides, she admits that what Spitzer had done was “wrong.” Someone should have asked her. “How many wrong turns does a candidate need to disqualify him from public office? How many prostitutes would it take to pull down the curtain on him?” Shouldn’t there be limits – a point of no return? When does someone disqualify himself for office? I guess the liberal doesn’t see this question as relevant. However, if his sex is “kinky,” well, that’s another matter!

Meanwhile, it was Spitzer who had broken the law. On top of that, as one commentator wrote in, Spitzer was prosecuting prostitutes while he was using them for his own fulfillment! How’s that for hypocrisy! However, according to Walters, his sex wasn’t “kinky.” He’s normal! I guess that means, “He’s one of us!”

Well, what makes for “kinky,” unpardonable sex? Clearly, Spitzer sees an unpardonable difference between his sex and Weiner’s – a difference that should eliminate Weiner from running but not him! But what makes this a difference of consequence? Perhaps to answer this question, we would need to probe the mind of the liberal – a perilous undertaking!