A Defense Of Weiner’s Supposedly Homophobic Moment

This country just keeps getting crazier and crazier.

First was the remarkable decision to give President Clinton the duty of introducing President Obama at the Democratic National Convention in an election in which the Democrats made vaginas the focal point—and was successful at wooing the country with his speech. Heck, even I thought it was a fantastic speech, even if it was complete bull.

Then we heard the Obama administration’s decision to give as-yet-unspecified aid to Syrian rebels, who boast al-Qaeda as members, in order to help end a battle in which America’s enemies and Israel’s enemies are killing each other.

And now, I am about to defend disgraced former Congressman Anthony Weiner, who, as the world knows, tweeted pictures of his namesake and his misshapen pectorals to a woman who was not his wife and flirted with underage girls over Twitter, a.k.a. The Career Killer.

Except that that Twitter incident did not so much kill Weiner’s career as it did put it into a brief coma. After yanking us around and denying the charges, he finally gave in and ejected his congressional seat prematurely.

But what seedy politician can resist the seduction of the possibility of more power? Now is the time of the Second Coming of Weiner, who had the brass to run for New York City Mayor, for which he is currently campaigning.

Weiner’s opponent is a lesbian; this is important to know. When he was out gathering signatures to put him on the ballot, he approached an elderly woman and asked if she was a registered Democrat. The woman said, “I am,” and added, “and I’m not voting for, uh, what’s her name? The dyke.”

So Weiner said, “Okay, I just need you to sign the petition to get me on the ballot.” Then he noticed the offended look on a reporter’s face who was present, so Weiner decided to pretend to care that the woman used the word “dyke.” “And you really shouldn’t talk that way about people,” he told her.

Now Weiner is being attacked by two Democratic supporters of his opponent because he showed a “lack of moral courage” for not immediately chastising the old woman in public rather than only doing so a few seconds later when he realized it would look bad if he didn’t.

This is what gets me mad. Liberal politicians believe that it is their duty to correct civilization, and, on a smaller scale, to correct individuals’ behavior. It is not Weiner’s business to tell people what they should or shouldn’t say. It’s none of his business. That’s not his job. People can say whatever they want. But Democrats think it’s their moral obligation to change people to fit more with their own standard.

Pathetically, Weiner has apologized for doing nothing when Democrats felt he should have publicly reprimanded this poor woman. He has even tried to grovel to his opponent as a form of penance, but she wouldn’t pick up the phone.

Whether people “should” or “shouldn’t” say things is nobody’s business but the individual’s in question. Democrats—seriously—mind your ever-lovin’ business.