This may be my last post on the Weiner frenzy, barring any political relevance (for example, to what extent will Weiner be even more wedded to the Clintons if he and his marriage to Huma Abedin survive?).
But as to the spectacle, Glenn Greenwald says exactly what I'm thinking (thus my emphasis):
There are few things more sickening -- or revealing -- to behold than a D.C. sex scandal. Huge numbers of people prance around flamboyantly condemning behavior in which they themselves routinely engage. Media stars contrive all sorts of high-minded justifications for luxuriating in every last dirty detail, when nothing is more obvious than that their only real interest is vicarious titillation. Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright -- like proud ostriches with their feathers extended -- pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance. The ritual is as nauseating as it is predictable.Read the rest; he drills down.
What makes the Anthony Weiner story somewhat unique and thus worth discussing for a moment is that, as Hendrick Hertzberg points out, the pretense of substantive relevance ... has been more or less brazenly dispensed with here. ... This is just pure mucking around in the private, consensual, unquestionably legal private sexual affairs of someone for partisan gain, voyeuristic fun and the soothing fulfillment of judgmental condemnation. And in that regard, it sets a new standard: the private sexual activities of public figures -- down to the most intimate details -- are now inherently newsworthy, without the need for any pretense of other relevance.
I'd really like to know how many journalists, pundits and activist types clucking with righteous condemnation of Weiner would be comfortable having that standard applied to them. ... If Chris Matthews or Brian Williams or any politician ever patronized or even visited a porno site on the Internet or had a sexually charged IM chat with someone who isn't their spouse, shouldn't that now be splashed all over the Internet so we can all read it -- not just the fact of its existence but all the gory details?
I think two point are worth considering.
First, Glenn's right about the relevance. There's none in the Weiner case. It's all about the ick. (Even the self-shot explicit photo is badly done.) This is basically a tabloid story, made more so by Huma's pregnancy (which Breitbart is calling a "PR attempt" — another ick).
It's a brave new world indeed, and only the brave should apply. The gun used against Weiner can and will be fired again. You might think the IOKIYAR rule applies in Village-land, and for all the Dainty Minds who rule the (air)waves, that will be true. They and the Republicans they love will be safe.
But at some point, someone will get even, again and again. There are a lot of frustrated someones out there. So watch for it. Got porn, Mr. Matthews? There have never been more ways of finding out.
Which brings me to the second point. Remember the John Ashcroft–James Comey hospital scandal in 2004? Recall that this was about Ashcroft and Comey refusing to sign off on a never-defined Bush-Cheney NSA domestic spying program, and Bush sending Alberto Gonzales to apply the screws.
Think for a second. Ashcroft and Comey refused to re-confirm a spying program. Now, Ashcroft and Comey are Movement Conservatives down to the decoder ring. Ashcroft "lobbies for and invests" in the homeland securities industry. Comey went on to be Senior VP at Lockheed before moving to Money Street.
What NSA bridge was a bridge too far for even James Comey to cross? The program he and Goldsmith wouldn't sign off on was never revealed:
In early January 2006, the New York Times, as part of their investigation into alleged domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency, reported that Comey, who was Acting Attorney General during the March 2004 surgical hospitalization of John Ashcroft, refused to "certify" the legality of central aspects of the NSA program at that time. The certification was required under existing White House procedures to continue the program. After Comey's refusal, the newspaper reported, Andrew H. Card Jr., White House Chief of Staff, and Alberto R. Gonzales, then White House counsel and future Attorney General, made an emergency visit to the George Washington University Hospital, to attempt to win approval directly from Ashcroft for the program.Let's say you were a relentless power-freak and culture commando who ran Bush's foreign policy from his office at the Naval Observatory. Let's say a 2001 disaster handed you the keys to the NSA spy capability and an unlimited domestic mandate. What would you do with that power?
Comey confirmed these events took place (but declined to confirm the specific program) in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on 16 May 2007. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, like Comey, also supported Ashcroft's decision; both men were prepared to resign if the White House ignored the Department of Justice's legal conclusions on the wiretapping issue.
Would you spy on just "the enemy" or "your enemies" (broadly considered)? What about political opponents? What about the press? And what better way to keep folks in line than via the nation's obsession with porn? If you could find out, for example, that one of the Dainty Minds noted above has "interesting interests" — what would you do?
You could buy a lot of fawning coverage and suppressed investigations, for starters, with some press schmuck's porn list in your pocket. And nail your share of opponents as well. (How do you think the FBI caught on to Eliot Spitzer? Lindsay Bayerstein thinks the Roger Stone story is a "red herring." Maybe the Feds were preemptively watching his bank transfers. Would that be a bridge too far for someone like Mueller?)
I'm concerned that these stories, and story-types, intersect. If so, we're just starting down a long and dirty road.
GP
