Weiner's district should have decided

Rep. Anthony Weiner is gone ["Scandal unfolded fast," News, June 20]. Turncoat Democrats bray their approval, discreetly rejoicing Republicans -- mustn't be caught engaging in schadenfreude after all, taking pleasure in another's suffering -- quietly trumpet their luck in possibly gaining another conservative vote due to an expected redistricting.

But just why did he resign? Members of Congress, being humans first and elected officials second, will continue to make mind-numbingly poor decisions in their personal lives, which may or may not affect their political futures. But shouldn't their political futures rest with the voters? Short of malfeasance, which demands official pursuit and investigation, the voting public makes its wishes known soon enough. It seems the height of hubris, hypocrisy and condescension for any member of Congress to call for the resignation of another based solely upon personal missteps.

The arguments that ultimately felled Weiner were promulgated primarily by his congressional compatriots. We must stop this distraction from the business of Congress, they blustered to the press. But Congress was not obsessed with the story. The press and the public were, as every day brought new, jaw-droppingly awful disclosures and photos. Congress moved on.

Sending those photos from a congressional gym was sophomoric, moronic and immature, but nothing more. Weiner wasn't convicted of money laundering, like former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas). He did not, like Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), consort with prostitutes. Vitter didn't resign, and was subsequently re-elected. Weiner might have been, too. Now, we may never know.

Aliceann Donnelly, Seaford