My colleague Josh Green says it's time for Weiner to go:
I appreciate his candor, have great sympathy for his wife, and think Andrew Breitbart is odious. But Weiner's refusal to resign seems like a spasm from the guy he was until a week ago: the chesty liberal loudmouth who tore up conservatives on Fox News and never backed down. Weiner may not realize it, but he's not that guy anymore. He's not the cartoon scourge of the right wing. He's a joke, his behavior was egregious, and he ought to do the decent thing and resign.Aside from the normal spate of reflexive partisans claiming that this isn't a big deal because Weiner's not a hypocrite who ran on family values (I wouldn't try that line on the Orthodox Jews in his district), there's a sort of interesting split in the commentary. A lot of over-35's, including me, view this behavior as pathologically reckless. A lot of under-35's are saying "meh, what's the big deal? Lot's of people do it!"
Already, a debate has arisen over whether this kind of behavior should be disqualifying in a politician, and whether Weiner can survive the scandal. On some level, I suppose that the moral, cultural, and sociological elements of this affair are worth thinking through and writing about. But there's a tendency among bloggers, maybe among everybody, to over-analyze and over-intellectualize scandals such as this one that has the pernicious effect of obscuring what I think is a very basic point: Weiner had so little regard for his office, his constituents, and his duty as a member of Congress that he apparently thought nothing of tweeting pictures of his genitals to random women. Does the analysis really need to go any further than that?