[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
I wish to God that the title was purely a joke, but yes, that was the defense Stewart offered:
Overall, it was a pretty limp performance, but even going in I wasn’t expecting much. Unlike a lot of commentators, my attitude was that it would be unfair to expect Stewart to go after the Weiner. They are old friends going back to college after all. And I don’t think ideology plays into this at all. Stewart is not exactly fair, but he is not shameless, either. He knows—as he well acknowledges—that this is exactly the kind of story his show would have endless fun with. If Weiner wasn’t his friend, he would be all over it, Democrat or Republican. As long as he doesn’t extend that protection to a long list of people I am cool with that.
And as for his defense… I suspect somewhere Weiner is thinking, thanks a lot buddy. With friends like these…
By the way, I find this detail oddly significant. Weiner apparently got married almost a year ago and who officiated the wedding? Um, this guy.
Now this morning I got off on a rant about how conservatives actually do care about adulterers in higher office and all of that. And I accept that liberals very often don’t care, believing that your personal life doesn’t affect your ability to govern. So we can agree to disagree on that.
But how is Clinton’s serial violations of his wedding vows irrelevant in the context of marriage? Doesn’t it make a mockery of the wedding itself to have a famous serial adulterer standing up there and say:
Anthony Weiner, do you take Huma Abedin to be your wedded wife to live together in marriage? Do you promise to love, comfort, honor and keep her for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others, be faithful only to her so long as you both shall live?
(Emphasis added.) Do you want to be at a wedding where you are concerned that the officiant might hit on the bride and can’t be trusted alone with the bridesmaids? Do you want the officiant to question what the meaning of the word “faithful” is, or if a certain sex act is cheating? Yes, I know he was the President and therefore he should receive a certain amount of respect automatically, but you can find a way to duck out of it without dissing the man. Like you say, “gee, Mr. Clinton, I am honored by the offer, but this rabbi has been a family friend for years and so it’s kind of a personal thing.” It is a bizarre act of disrespect for the institution of marriage to have a man with Bill Clinton’s character to officiate over one.
Hat tip: Insty.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]