Democrats, who are willing to compromise on the House or Senate floor, "make up" for this perceived weakness (what many would call "pragmatism") with a desire to be absolute hard-liners about the personal ethics of their membership.

Republicans, on the other hand, hold a hard line of party-togetherness in legislative matters, but as a reward for often shucking the will of those who've elected them, their members get free passes on bad behavior.

Those on one side learn that it's more important to be faithful to one's partner than one's party, because only one might stand with them in a time of trouble; those on the other learn that it's more important to pledge blind allegiance to their party than their people, as the only shelter to be had is in the arms of the GOP. The problem with both systems is obvious: sometimes rotten men (and presumably women) get to keep their seats in these bodies, and sometimes they don't, and there seems to be little consistency in the method.

The natural source of blame for this is, then, the press, which does seem to cover different stories, uh, differently. The scandal surrounding Representative Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) was particularly media friendly -- there were pictures, there was Tweeting, there was a pregnant wife -- and so it attracted a frenzy of media attention.

Yet I don't think it's the media that's completely to blame in pushing Anthony Weiner from office -- well, honestly, I think it's Anthony Weiner who's to blame in creating the situation, but it's also the need to appear tough, pro-family-values, anti-weirdness, protect-the-children-omg that makes Democrats pounce at the merest mention of less-than-mainstream sexual behavior. This is still the issue that the Democrats should be strongest on and are, in fact, most insecure about: there's no such thing as an anti-family-values party, and yet when, in the 80s and 90s, Democrats allowed Republicans to define "family values" in a way that excludes an enormous number of functioning familial and sexual relationships in the United States, that was the moniker they inherited. So every time a Democrat stands up in favor of something as brazen (sarcasm) as the rights of gay people to marry, there's a tiny -- and often not-so-tiny -- voice that whispers across the newsmedia, saying, "Think of the children!"

Thus when the chance comes to show that, hey, pro-gay rights can also mean conservative-as-hell in the bedroom, Democrats pounce. Nancy Pelosi said as much in explaining her reasoning for calling Weiner out last week. It's still the best explanation I have for all of those who found Bill Clinton's behavior (not just his lie to the grand jury) to be an impeachable offense; it's the reason that Democrats don't, often, survive sex scandals -- even Mr. Weiner, who didn't have sex.

I care only vaguely about whether Anthony Weiner remained in Congress or not after his recent behavior. He's not my representative. I'd like the decisions about whether to stay in office to be left to those who could vote for him and, of course, to Mr. Weiner himself. I think it likely he could have "survived" in Congress after this behavior -- others have done so, despite terrifically bad judgment (see: Vitter, David; Frank, Barney; anyone with the Kennedy surname), but I'm not sure his party gave him the choice. How long would it have taken before he could be effective at his job again? Did he want to suffer another 18 months of this news as he prepared for a re-election campaign?

I doubt it. That's at the core, or should be at the core, of every consideration of resignation. It shouldn't be a question of shame or pressure from the party -- it should be an honest consideration of whether a person has passed a point after which they can no longer effectively complete the job to which they've been elected. Anthony Weiner seems to have passed that point earlier this week, in part because his party turned against him. If Democrats could ever see their way to spending half the energy on figuring out their members' ideologies as they do figuring out whether their members are behaving "appropriately" at home, these questions could likely be left to the home-district voters.

I won't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.