Opening Note: In the midst of paragraph 3, Weiner is shifted from the third person to the second person.  Whether the change works for you or not, you should know that it is intended rather than careless. Sometimes art (or artifice) tops grammar.

By Henry J. Stern
September 16, 2005

The most important political news this week, perhaps overshadowing the Democratic primary whose outcome was widely predicted, was the unexpected withdrawal of Congressman Anthony Weiner from the race for Mayor, twelve hours after he celebrated his remarkably strong showing in the primary by vowing a strong effort in the runoff.

Opinions vary widely about the political effect and moral justification of the astonishing abdication by candidate Weiner, for whom the primary had been an enormous success.  Normally, losers withdraw after a primary defeat; the people having spoken in the negative, the struggle is abandoned.  Another reason for withdrawal is inability to raise funds to mount a campaign; both Ed Koch in 1973 and Fernando Ferrer in 1997 aborted their first attempts to become mayor.
 
Out of warm feelings for Anthony Weiner, and out of respect for his intelligence and wit, we have restrained ourselves for several days from commenting on his public self-immolation.  But the more we look at the situation, the more ridiculous it becomes.  If you run in an election,  enlist thousands of volunteers to work to help you, raise millions of dollars from contributors, and above all take $1.7 million out of the city treasury through the Campaign Finance Board, you can reasonably be expected to let the people decide whether they want you to be elected or not.  Your candidacy, once launched and funded and successful, does not belong entirely to yourself, to be disposed of at will to suit your future ambitions.
 
Our educated guess is that you might well have defeated Fernando Ferrer in the runoff, and then lost to Mayor Bloomberg in the general election.  You had the momentum, you would have received the Miller vote and a substantial percentage of the Fields vote.  But, even if you had lost, the result would be satisfactory for the democratic process because the people would have made the decision as to who they wanted to be the Democratic mayoral nominee.
 
The general belief is that you impaled yourself on the advice of your mentor, Senator Schumer.  First, the generally excellent Senator's principal interest is himself, not you. Do you believe that he will support you for mayor in 2009 over City Comptroller Thompson, an African-American being term limited out of his current job?  Do you believe he is acting in your interest when he advises you to pull out prematurely?  Do you believe one man, even if he is a parent surrogate, is more important than the 132,644 people who voted for you, in the belief that you were a serious candidate?  How many of them would have voted for you if they knew you were going to withdraw the next day?  How many of them do you think will vote for you next time, after you have sought and received their support, and then walked out on them?
 
In this case, "party unity" sounds like a code message for Democrats, whose meaning is that any campaign by candidates of different ethnicity is an affront to party solidarity, and will result in post-election bitterness.  That was true in 2001, when Mark Green's ill-fated campaign foundered on a vulgar New York Post cartoon about Ferrer and Sharpton that Green's minions circulated in Brooklyn, after which he refused to take action against them.  But you would have run a clean campaign, leaving Al Sharpton to get his own publicity.  You could have accepted the voters' decision, either victory or defeat, with courage and pride.  Win or lose, New Yorkers would have praised you after the runoff if you conducted yourself with dignity and ever-so-slightly toned down the Borscht belt shtick you do so well.
 
You also did an enormous injustice to Gifford Miller.  Most of your votes were likely to have been taken from him.  If you were not serious about running, he should have had the chance to compete with Ferrer and Fields in a three-person race.  Where is the morality in destroying one qualified candidate and then handing the election to someone else. While our readers will know that we are not among Miller's devoted admirers, (Go to our home page and google him), he deserved the chance to compete without a kamikaze candidate knocking him out and then self-destructing on cue.

There are both good and bad aspects to this situation.  It is sad that you withdrew and thus denied the public a choice, but if you are the sort of person who would pull out on demand, then you really are not ready to be Mayor in 2005.  How do we know you could resist other pressures that are placed on an incumbent Mayor, from good people like Randi Weingarten.  You have to be strong, for our sake as well as your own.
 
The good part is that you are, in our judgment, a promising young politician, still a work in progress.  By the will of the people, you hold a wonderful job in the United States Congress.  Better still, your seat is only at risk in even-numbered years, so you can run for Mayor again without fear of unemployment.  Of course, if you ever become Mayor you will be subject to term limits, which are not a problem for Members of Congress.

Whether you win or not next time you run will depend, in large part, on what you do with yourself over the next four years.  You need wise counselors, but they are hard to find, you have to be smart enough to understand them, and they have to know that you are the client.  Try not to appear foolish by making ephemeral remarks.  If you can, do the serious studying that will enable you to master public issues in all their complexity.  You were the policy wonk in this campaign, but that was by comparison with your opponents.

Anthony, take it easy for a while, and, above all, eat.

Closing Notes: (1) This column is written with affection for the Congressman.  Can you imagine what we would say if we didn't like him?   (2)  In the article, we anticipate future events which may or may not take place.  His withdrawal may turn out to be an act of political genius.  It was also perfectly legal.  We just stumble over the ethics of it.

#253  9.16.05  1105wds