home

What If Weiner Does Not Go Quietly Into The Cold Dark Night?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:36:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Matt Yglesias notes that according to a Marist poll, Anthony Weiner's constituency does not want him to resign. But, as andgarden pointed out the first day we were discussing this issue, Weiner's district could be eliminated in redistricting, rendering Weiner's reelection a moot issue. But what if Weiner does not go quietly in 2012 and instead decided to contest a newly drawn district that covers the old 9th? Nate Silver's discussion speculates about Weiner being challenged by a redistricted out Dem but does not consider the reverse:

Even a neighboring district is broken up to preserve the Ninth, though, that still would leave an unemployed Democrat who could challenge Mr. Weiner in a primary. [. . .] Mr. Weiner is unlikely to get a free pass, however the new boundaries are drawn.

Fair enough, but will Weiner give another Dem a free pass in a primary for a district that includes the old 9th? More . . .

I think the question is twofold: (1) Does Weiner want to have a future in politics? Presumably the answer is yes or he would have resigned already. Not resigning tells me he wants to see if he can have a political future; (2) What would be Weiner's best move in 2012 if he wants a political future? If the 9th district remains intact, it seems to me he would have to run for (and win) reelection to have a political future. But what if the 9th is eliminated? Can Weiner plausibly pass on a 2012 election and come back and run for office at some future date? I think not. Weiner needs to "survive" now by staying in political office after 2012. Otherwise he goes the way of Eliot Spitzer.

Whatever happens to the 9th, if Anthony Weiner wants to have a political future, he has to run for office in 2012, and win. Otherwise, he can start planning for his post-pol life.

Speaking for me only

< HAMP'd | What's Next For Hillary >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What If Weiner Does Not Go Quietly Into The Cold Dark Night? | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    A "Godsend" for Republicans! (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:32:38 AM EST
    The Republicans are loving this, and by the way have you seen anything about John Ensign lately?

    But another question comes to mind.  Today we had a big document dump of Sarah Palin's emails and stuff.  

    Is it possible that we will have a document dump for Mr W*ner?

    It seems that there is "cause" to request such a dump if it appears that Mr W*ner has used the various "official" media for his salacious discourse.

    Silly (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:59:05 AM EST
    imo.

    Parent
    He was voted in by the people (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:35:01 AM EST
    in his district. If his constituency does not want him to resign, then who am I or anyone else outside his district to say he must go. What he did was stupid but so far as I can tell not illegal.

    The people will once again have a chance in 2012 to say yea or nay about him staying in D.C.  

    Yup, this is my take ... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:15:13 PM EST
    and, frankly, in the current media climate he just needs to wait a bit till the spotlight turns elsewhere.  It will.  It always does.

    In other words, he's an earthquake or a celebrity meltdown away from surviving this thing.

    He's one of the few Dems I kinda like.  And my respect would really increase if he grassed this out.

     

    Parent

    His constituency isn't his any more (in 2012) (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    He can't keep his old district intact.

    If he does keep boundaries approximating those of his old district, it's at the expense of another current sitting NYC Dem (and considerable inconvenience to multiple sitting D's).

    If his district is chopped up wholesale, he'd have to run in a district most of whose voters are already constituents of a sitting Dem running in that same district.

    Anyway, BTD's "I think not" is hardly a strong argument to the effect that he has to run and win in 2012.

    Parent

    If Congressman Weiner's (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:54:39 AM EST
    constituents want him to stay, and he does, he can continue to be effective, albeit, in a different manner.  He can become even more independent from his Democratic colleagues and give no truck to Republicans, calling them all out on their oligarchic,  destructive and corrupt proposals.  It seems Senator Lisa Murkowski was set free after being estranged from her party (on a totally different basis), but dumped all the same.  Maybe Weiner will be considered a pariah by the DC crowd, but he may find rehabilitation as a populist gadfly.

    That could be (none / 0) (#26)
    by sj on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:10:46 AM EST
    very effective.  He's already outspoken.  I'd love to see what he would say if he were completely untethered from the party.

    Parent
    Weiner should hope very much (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:06:51 AM EST
    that Cuomo follows through on his threat to veto the redistricting plans.

    Don't know if it matters that much ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    if Weiner gets past this he'll be able to win almost any district in NYC they throw at him.

    If he doesn't, he wouldn't even be able to win his old district.

    So this is a non-issue, to me.

    Parent

    He would have to displace (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    a sitting incumbent in a primary. That would likely be quite difficult.

    Parent
    Again, at this point ... (none / 0) (#111)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    it's pretty darn irrelevant.

    Parent
    There is absolutely no reason (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:24:30 AM EST
    for Weiner to resign.  What is wrong with this country?  What a bunch of puritans.  It's funny to me that there are so many Dems passing the smelling salts over this who profess to love JFK. I think Weiner can have a future in politics regardless of 2012.  

    You don't see the difference (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    between ordinary womanizing outside of marriage, which many pols minor and major have engaged in, and the type of bizarre, reckless conduct Weiner was involved in, which may have also involved non-consensual unexpected sending of x-rated self-pix or graphic sexts?

    As I've tried to argue, it's not just the (virtual) womanizing and cheating on his wife, and even the lying about same, it's the disgusting and graphic nature of the sin, especially for a 46 y.o. newly married congressman.  He's not only been caught, but it's more than that -- he's an easy object of ridicule given both the nature of the conduct and the unfortunate but fitting last name.

    Parent

    Sexting is not so bizarre... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:57:32 AM EST
    and I have seen no evidence to suggest he was involved in anything non-consensual.  Gee, a few tawdry pics is hardly "reckless" behavior.

    Parent
    Disagree. A Congressperson (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:01:50 PM EST
    texting a few "tawdry pics," such as Rep. Weiner did, is definitely reckless behaviour.  

    Parent
    Well, I agree with both of you (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by sj on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:29:47 PM EST
    It's reckless in that it's just asking to get caught.  But it's not reckless in terms of physical health and well being, etc.

    Parent
    too true (3.50 / 2) (#53)
    by sj on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    But it must be called reckless or else brodie won't be able to start discussing the Improper Sexual Behavior of Democratic Pols through the 20th century (which often -- but not always -- just stops and starts with Johnson)

    Parent
    Yup (none / 0) (#41)
    by sj on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:47:53 AM EST
    definitely a bunch of puritans.  We're so easily scandalized.  After all, who really needs that baby in the bathwater.

    Parent
    I gather virtual flashing is more (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:50:55 AM EST
    contemptible than actual fornication.  

    Parent
    Virtual STDs are much more dangerous (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:57:45 AM EST
    than those transmitted by actual fornication.  

    Talk about reckless conduct. ;o)

    Parent

    Classic... (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    I'm stealing "virtual std"...well played!

    Not to mention a virtual unwanted pregancy leading to a virtual abortion, or two-timing your real family with your virtual family living in Farmville.  Where is the party of virtual family values? :)


    Parent

    "Virtual family living in Farmville." (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:11:01 PM EST
    Good one, kdog.  Why, just yesterday I was reminded of Charles Kuralt's multiple families.

    Parent
    Two-timers of the past... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:33:26 PM EST
    don't know how good they had it.

    Somebody mentioned JFK, how long would he have lasted in office in this gotcha! mud-slinging climate...6 months? 6 weeks?  Nah, he woulda been sunk before the general.


    Parent

    I don't know re JFK. After all, (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    Bill and Hillary Clinton early on sat side-by-side on TV to hopefully divert the public and media's attention away from Gennifer with a G.  

    Parent
    In the 90's.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:19:29 PM EST
    Early 60's?  Different era, pre-sexual revolution....Leave it to Beaver stylee.  Before both our times, but I'd imagine the mere thought of infidelity would finish a candidate back then.


    Parent
    Thanks, but no, not before my time! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:22:45 PM EST
    My understanding is the press knew about JFK's infidelity but chose not to print what it knew.  

    Parent
    Yep yep... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:28:37 PM EST
    the press had some class back then.  

    Same for the sports press...could you imagine the coverage of Mickey Mantle today?  

    Parent

    "Class"? Really (none / 0) (#112)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 04:51:14 PM EST
    take care to not attribute causes when you know only the consequences.

    And consider all of the consequences.

    For example, that same so-called "class" on the part of the media meant not reporting the alcoholism of, among others, Joe McCarthy while he was ruining lives of many fine teachers and others.

    "Class"?  No.  Just boyz being boyz about other boyz, because they were in the same boyz club.

    (See how that classy media handled the Helen Gahagan Douglas coverage, for one example.  Not that we have many examples, since so few women could get past the club to get into office.)

    Parent

    Point well taken... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:48:06 PM EST
    on H.G. Douglas...made me google, gracias.  Much harder on the ladies back then, no doubt.

    Alcoholism, if ya can function, is your business.  Press had plenty of legit dirt on McCarthy (and Cohn) if they wanted to use it...shameful times.

    Parent

    Oculus, it often gets repeated that (none / 0) (#93)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:00:52 PM EST
    the press allegedly -- many/most of them -- knew about but agreed to say nothing about JFK's womanizing because they liked him, etc.

    I think this is something that gets oft repeated, but which, like JFK's womanizing itself, is greatly exaggerated.

    First, Kennedy was, from all I've read, greatly discrete about his affairs.  Second, any pressman who might have "known" likely had only suspect 2d or 3d-hand info to go on.  And in an era where those things didn't get reported -- as with the press agreeing en masse not to report or photograph FDR sitting in his wheelchair -- anyone who'd published a 2d or 3d hand largely hearsay story would have been isolated and shunned, by fellow press and then the public.  Could well have finished that media entity as a reputable outlet.

    As a sidebar, one of Kennedy's media "friends" -- one Ben Bradlee (who really wasn't that close to JFK, and whose wife may have been the key figure in that couples relationship) -- someone known to have not been shy about trading in his relationship with Kennedy to sell a book, even he said he knew nothing at the time about any womanizing, except, iirc, hearing the same hearsay gossip others were getting.

    Parent

    Old Enough To Remember (none / 0) (#149)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:21:12 PM EST
    You're right that revealed infidelity would have been a career ender in the 60s.

    But in that period the press looked the other way feeling that unless the behavior interfered with the job there was no point to giving it any exposure.  

    IMO, they were right.

    Parent

    Funny how that plays out -- (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:06:39 PM EST
    but there you are.  One is now much more accepted as more common among pols than previously perceived, and so long as it's private conduct, there is more willingness to let it slide (provided major issues of hypocrisy or taxpayer money or nat'l security aren't present).

    Weiner however chose to put on a public display of his exhibitionist tendencies.  That in addition to some semi-aggressive x-rated sexting messages which might not have been welcome.  That puts this one in another category, one which the public has not so easily accepted, as it also bespeaks some very real sense that the guy might be badly in need of professional counseling.

    Parent

    It isn't about Puritanism for me, (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:16:50 PM EST
    none of it, and I think it's unfair to assume that that is the one-and-only reason for the negative reactions; my own reactions have not been about whatever "ick" factor there might be, but have ranged from being ticked off that a consistently liberal, truth-to-power voice may have been effectively silenced because of the choices he made, in an atmosphere that is all about bringing people down, to being completely over these politicians whose egos blind them to the reality that they are constantly in the cross-hairs of those who revel in the takedown, to being tired of private-lives-made-public forcing me to question the judgment of these people.  

    What is wrong with this country?  Too much to list here, that's for sure.  

    But there are reasons why he should step down, just as there are reasons why he shouldn't.  He's the one who has to make that decision, he's the one who has to juggle the possibly competing professional and private interests, not me.  But whether he goes or he stays, I do not believe he will be as effective or as strong a voice as he was "before."

    Once this news broke, Weiner lost all ability to dictate what would happen, or how people would or should react.  And some of the reaction is due to the lies, to having sent out staff members to lie for him - people don't like being lied to and some people who want him to step down might not be feeling that way if he'd been honest about this from the start.

    No, this is much more complex than Puritanism.


    Parent

    It's 100% about puritanism, Anne. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by observed on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:36:47 PM EST
    Before ANY allegations that he was sending unsolicited photos, people were ready for him to resign, just because he shared a crotch shot with someone.
    Pass the smelling salts indeed!

    Parent
    I would suggest that you speak for (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    yourself and refrain from contradicting what others - like me - have clearly expressed; I don't believe you can even state with certainty why these other people were saying he should step down, or that you can quantify any of it at 100%.

    But perhaps your idea of what 100% is and mine are based on some other kind of math.

    Parent

    Ok, then I'll simply say that you're mistaken (1.00 / 2) (#101)
    by observed on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:25:05 PM EST
    and leave it at that.

    Parent
    So, I don't know the "real" reason (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:53:14 PM EST
    for how I have reacted to the incident, even though laid it all out there?

    Have any idea how ridiculous your comment is?

    Unlike you, I don't presume to know how anyone else feels until they tell me, and when they do, I do not have the gall to tell them they're wrong.

    Parent

    i think reasonable people (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    can agree that Puritanism plays a part in some people's reactions to this incident, & that the cynical GOP appeal to some people's Puritanism plays a part too

    but i very much doubt that Puritanism is an issue among the commenters at TL

    there is no shortage of non-Puritanical reasons for looking askance, not at sexting per se, but at Rep. Weiner's ill-considered behavior in the context of his being a public official & a public person

    if you send x-rated photos of your junk into cyberspace, those photos are effectively in the public domain, there being no real privacy on the Internet

    a public person whose behavior flies in the face of this reality is

    (a) an innocent
    (b) an idiot
    (c) probably in the grip of a powerful compulsion
    (d) in denial

    i vote for (c) & (d)

    & for leaving Rep. Weiner's political future up to himself & the voters

    Parent

    Someone doesn't have to be a puritan (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:57:42 PM EST
    to have a sense of inappropriateness in the context of any given situation.  For example, I don't have to be a puritan to feel it's inappropriate for someone to use sexually explicit or profane language in the presence of my 81 year old mother, or when meeting with a child's teacher, or in a business meeting - or any number of situations.  I can be comfortable in general with a lot of things that I refrain from in the presence of those who might find it gratuitously disrespectful; it's a consideration thing, a respect thing.

    I don't know anyone who uses social media who doesn't know that if you wouldn't be comfortable seeing something on a billboard on the busiest street in your town, it might not be something you'd want to put on your Facebook page, or tweet to someone.

    I get that Weiner thought these were "private" communications, but I don't understand why he thought that, once sent, he would have any control over what happened next.  The stupidity of sending anything to anyone you don't really know is that from there, it can go anywhere the recipient wants to send it.

    And, really, whether you want to call it "puritanism" or an intolerance for stupid, the fact remains that once Weiner made the decisions he did, the consequences were out of his control, and he has no right to quarrel with how others react to his actions.

    Parent

    Well, Donald, I made what I thought (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 07:53:18 PM EST
    was a reasonable attempt to explain my own reactions to the situation, and was informed by someone else that I was wrong.

    I have no judgment to pass on what this means to the Congressman's personal life; my only comments have centered on what it means for his public life and what it means to public perception of liberals.

    If he were my husband, I think I would be deeply hurt; if he were my Congressman, I would be troubled by what it means to his ability to effectively represent me.  Since he's neither my husband nor my Congressman, my only issue is with the neutralizing of a liberal voice who had been pushing Obama from the left; we can't afford to lose any of those voices, few as they are, so that's the part that frosts my cupcakes.

    Apparently, though, for some people, having a negative reaction to this can mean only one thing: one is a pearl-clutching, puritanical prude.

    Not sure why that has to be, but, whatever.

    Parent

    Agree that you have explained well (none / 0) (#153)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 02:52:56 PM EST
    why the whole matter has been troubling for you in the context involved...and, completely agree with your well-stated position.

    It has taken me some time to sort through my own reaction on the Weiner debacle, the self-inflicted debacle. For example: Myself kept saying "I want him to defy the danged press gotcha pattern" in spite of his strange behavior and--even as late as yesterday afternoon--that part of me wanted to keep inserting Vitter's name into every sentence associated with this mess. Finally, sitting still helped me to realize that the most offensive part for me was the combo of arrogance with stupidity...the absurd attitude that, after all the evidence to the contrary, he wouldn't get caught...the unfathomably bad judgment. In short: "For such a smart man, he sure is dumt."

    In the end, pragmatically, Weiner could only continue to be a systemic distraction. He would undermine any attempt to take the high ground in any related situation...or, as the opposition would play it, in more situations than one might contemplate now. He would damage his colleagues; he would be a potential not-worth-it liability in 2012. And, when one is a player in the American party system--as a Congressman is--resignation becomes the decent thing to do in order to end a situation before the ridicule he faces spreads to his colleagues.

    Parent

    I'm perfectly comfortable (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by Towanda on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:16:56 PM EST
    with being offended not because I'm puritanical but because he is stupid and irresponsible, as his actions have impact on me and millions of others.

    He has provided yet another distraction, on the part of both parties, from the business of governing -- and in the week when a laser focus needed to be aimed at the actions of Congress on jobs, the economy, etc.  

    He took an oath to serve this country -- not just his district, but this country.  Instead, he has disserved it.  And again, I'm perfectly comfortable with being darned angry about that in these times, when we have no time for stupidity.

    Parent

    Is Weiner providing the distraction? (none / 0) (#140)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:07:31 PM EST
    Or is it Breitbart? The media at large? Us?

    Same questions for who is really doing the country a disservice.  Interesting questions, eh teach? :) All of the above?

    Parent

    When law enforcement went to the home (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:11:10 PM EST
    of the 17-yr. old in NJ, Fox News was already there.  

    Parent
    Oh sh*t... (none / 0) (#143)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:17:42 PM EST
    Goodnight Irene Goodnight

    Parent
    or for me (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    & you don't even have to be a Puritan to recognize that Weiner is the first politician of his stature to have an X-rated image of his unadorned junk go viral, through his own unconsidered actions - that right there is a kind of Rubicon

    the reaction from many quarters, even some non-Puritan quarters, is an unqualified "ick" - as one "top Democrat official in Washington" told the NY Times, "I don't think he understands how bad this is"

    that said, i would add that (at least until redistricting) the question of Weiner's political future in his current district is up to Weiner and his constituents

    i've seen enough GOP coups in just the last 11 years - i don't want to encourage any more

    Parent

    So far he hasn't been accused of illegal (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Coral on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    behavior. Whereas Vitter and Ensign have been.

    I think Weiner should tough it out. If he doesn't it give too much power to slime like Breitbart and to blackmailers.

    The problem for Weenie man (2.33 / 3) (#8)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:32:16 AM EST

    is that unlike Frank who was open about his behavior, Weenie demonstrated by his lying attacks and disparagement of anyone and everyone telling or seeking the truth that he would do or say anything to avoid embarrassment.  In other words, it appears that he would submit to blackmail if that would save his bacon.  He does not belong in any job that requires a security clearance.  Ever.

    BTW, if a CEO of a Fortune 500 did this it would take less than 24 hours for the board to have security escort the slime ball to the door.

    "Weenie man"? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:56:14 AM EST
    So the fact that Weiner didn't fess up to his embarrassing behavior means you think he would cave to blackmail, and therefore shouldn't have a job with a security clearance?

    wow.

    On the plus side, using that "logic", there will be a whole lot of government/military jobs opening up.

    BTW -

    BTW, if a CEO of a Fortune 500 did this it would take less than 24 hours for the board to have security escort the slime ball to the door.

    You mean like Charles Phillips?

    ... or (more analogous) Sen. David Vitter?

    Parent

    by your link (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:44:00 AM EST
    .

    Phillips had an affair with one woman, not sending crude pics to a variety of young ladies and others.

    Vitter was not a CEO.

    In any case it was not Weenie man's mere "failure to fess up" but rather the forcefulness of his lies and accusations that more than implies but rather demonstrate a willingness to break trust to avoid embarrassment.  Submitting to blackmail by a public official will almost certainly involve breaking the public trust.

    Parent

    The "forcefulness of his lies"? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:19:30 AM EST
    Is that supposed to sound more reasonable than your prior, ridiculous hyperbole and exaggeration?

    Weenie demonstrated by his lying attacks and disparagement of anyone and everyone telling or seeking the truth that he would do or say anything to avoid embarrassment

    Phillips had an affair with one woman, not sending crude pics to a variety of young ladies and others.

    ...

    In any case it was not Weenie man's mere "failure to fess up" but rather the forcefulness of his lies and accusations that more than implies but rather demonstrate a willingness to break trust to avoid embarrassment.

    Ahhhhh .... so it's not analogous because actually having sex with one woman isn't as bad as sexting "various women" ("and others"? - heh).  Where's the line?  Two, three ...?

    Or, you can lie about it ... just not "forcefully".

    Heh.  Too funny.

    Submitting to blackmail by a public official will almost certainly involve breaking the public trust.

    Even funnier.  The only blackmail that's occurred is in your wild, hyperbole-filled, "Weenie"-hating imagination.

    Parent

    BTW - Vitter is more analogous (none / 0) (#34)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:22:17 AM EST
    ... since he, like Weiner, is an elected official.  The board of a Fortune 500 company has the authority to remove a CEO.  You've cited no authority for removing Weiner from Congress.

    The reason is obvious.

    Parent

    Bull$h*t (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:02:47 AM EST


    Parent
    That's a personally insulting (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sj on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:05:01 AM EST
    and derogatory and for no good reason than because apparently it makes you feel clever.

    Parent
    If the CEO of a Fortune 500 company (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:38:09 AM EST
    did this and lied about it, nothing would happen to him.

    Parent
    How long before Barney Frank... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:20:04 AM EST
    rehab'ed his standing amongst his colleagues after he was reprimanded? Seems like Franks' career path should be Weiner's model.

    I've made that point myself (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:24:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Musta missed that post (none / 0) (#29)
    by magster on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:30:27 AM EST


    Parent
    And Charlie Rangel's (none / 0) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:39:48 AM EST
    This is a railroad job -- let's see how many and how fast everyone jumps on the Weiner resign bandwagon so we can make it a reality, justified or not.  

    THe Dems who couldn't distance themselves from Weiner fast enough remind me of Al Gore who shunned Bill Clinton throughout the 2000 Presidential campaign, having misread public opinion -- we see how well that turned out (yes, I know, Gore's fate in 2000 was complex, but IMO, running from WJC did not help).

    Parent

    No question Gore was much too (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:55:52 AM EST
    sympathetic to the view that associating himself too closely with Bill would be harmful to his own election prospects (Al also had a mild streak of sanctimony, not quite in Jimmy Carter's class, but there nonetheless).  

    But we've evolved about these things since Bill and Monica.  

    Weiner's conduct however is not exactly in the same garden variety womanizing category as Bill's, involving as it does some very peculiar exhibitionist and semi-aggressive and possibly unconsensual conduct, all of which distinguish it from Clinton's case.

    Weiner's biggest backer in Congress -- Sen Schumer -- has yet to weigh in since AW's presser.  Let's see how Chuck responds.  He's the key to knowing if AW has any future in Congress, though as some have written, the stubborn spotlight-addicted Weiner may not agree to step aside even if Schumer advises him to.

    Parent

    LOL...hysterical. (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by masslib on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:02:48 PM EST
    Weiner's behavior is worse because he did it online?  Come on.  There has yet to be a substantiated claim that Weiner's interactions were not consensual.  It sounds to me that you are just uncomfortable with  sex outside the ole garden variety, which is why I said puritans, no offense.

    Parent
    Not that he was trying to (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    flirt online, but the way he went about communicating with women, some of them young, apparently all strangers whose actual age he couldn't be sure of.

    Incredibly stupid, especially for a newly wed 46 yo congressman.  And at least in one case of a recipient who's made comment recently, the sudden shift by Weiner to x-rated territory was unexpected and unwanted.

    And if that makes me a "puritan" in your view, so be it.

    Otherwise, I'm fairly liberal about these things -- FDR, JFK, Clinton being my favorite presidents.  But they all at least attempted to keep their personal proclivities private and consensual.  Weiner apparently wanted not only the women but a lot of other people to see his privates.  That strikes me as very bizarre conduct.  

    And I hope the new, modern definition of being liberal about these things doesn't now include being open-minded about a little public exhibitionism in our public leaders.

    Parent

    Hard to understand Pres. Clinton's (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:19:20 PM EST
    sexual contacts with Ms. Lewinsky as being "private" given they occurred in the White House near the Oval Office.  

    Parent
    Well he didn't exactly (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    get it on with her down in the public viewing area of the WH, nor did he later email or phone friends or strangers online to talk about it.

    I think conduct in or near one's office or workplace still constitutes private conduct, provided the door is shut and there's an obvious attempt to keep it hidden.  I mean, Bill (iirc) usually went to the nearby Oval closet to be with her, no?

    Parent

    Sorry. Can't agree. The leader of (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:35:17 PM EST
    free world, our Commander in Chief, the person with the access to the red phone, etc.  Not private.  

    Parent
    Disagree -- I mean, what goes on (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:44:04 PM EST
    in the Oval, we don't know about unless some official transcript or photo-op or similar is sent out.  Otherwise, it's his private work-space, usually carefully isolated from others w/o an appointment.

    It's certainly not public despite the WH being called the people's house.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton did not (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:52:00 PM EST
    phone friends and strangers online to talk about the affair, but he did telephone Monica and in her absence leave a flirtatious message on her answering machine (sic).  Of course, such a message from the president of the USA would be pretty difficult not to share--and she did so with her good friend, Linda Tripp.  

    Parent
    Yes it wasn't wise of Bill (none / 0) (#100)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:24:43 PM EST
    that entire fling with someone so immature and prone to telling all.  But last I checked, some light PG flirting (if it was in fact that) left on a phone machine is quite different from x-rated sexting someone you don't know and getting aggressive and explicit, out of nowhere suddenly, about what you want to do sexually with that person, or so at least one allegation in the Weiner case reads.

    Parent
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:23:37 PM EST
    Weiner apparently wanted not only the women but a lot of other people to see his privates.  That strikes me as very bizarre conduct.
     

    I wasn't aware he was sending the pics public except for in the one accidental that started this whole mess. I thought thought he was communicating privately one on one? Is this not the case?

    Parent

    From everything I've read, you have it right (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    Other people are just making stuff up so they can claim (erroneously) that he intended for these pictures to be public.

    Parent
    Couple of comments: (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    I was thinking that since he didn't know the recipient, he couldn't be sure she wouldn't copy and share the pix and sexts.  Second is my admittedly limited knowledge of these social online forums, which I've never joined and know little about.  Just my sense that their software security as to private communications is full of holes, easily broken into.  Perhaps I'm wrong, and will stand corrected on that point if necessary.

    But I think anytime you're using such forums and sending out explicit data about yourself in x-rated ways, to people you don't know, complete strangers, you are running the risk of sending it to a much wider public than just the intended recipient.

    Parent

    Brodie, if you care to, please (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    state your gender.  

    Parent
    Not sure why you ask or why (none / 0) (#59)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:18:18 PM EST
    it's relevant, but I'm male.

    Parent
    Sociological research. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:20:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, Bill Clinton's problems (none / 0) (#88)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:42:25 PM EST
    were not quite garden variety, then or now.  The Paula Jones case involved claims of non-consensual and unwelcome encounters.  The nation was subjected to Paula's characterizations of the president's anatomy claiming she would know it when she saw it--a certain uniqueness that his attorney  Bob Bennett had to disclaim on TV. that the president was a "normal man".  Indeed, the Republicans were hoping for a trial that would involve embarrassing discovery.  Neither Bill Clinton nor Anthony Weiner were exhibitionists.  Both thought their actions were private, both were foolish.  We have evolved in such matters, and, we may be glimpsing the modern version.  Linda Tripp then, Andrew Brietbart now.

    Parent
    That Paula Jones allegation -- (none / 0) (#96)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:20:08 PM EST
    never proven or admitted to by Bill, and her story never held up -- iirc -- in some of its key particulars.

    That one and the other unwelcome, sexually aggressive allegations by one or two other women -- none ever panned out or was credible, as I recollect.

    Monica and Jennifer Flowers (to some extent), those two Bill did admit to.

    And on Paula -- his atty Bill Bennett was stupid.  He should never have allowed his client to go under oath testifying about his extramarital love life, ferchrissakes.  Take it on the chin for a civil suit default, but never ever allow your client to be so legally "exposed" as Bill was in that period.  Awful lawyering.

    Parent

    Of course, Paula Jones did (none / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:48:23 PM EST
    receive an out-of-court settlement of $850,000 to drop the sexual harassment suit.  President Clinton acknowledged no wrong doing and did not give an apology.  Bob Bennett said it was to put this behind him.  Bill Clinton's law license in Arkansas was suspended for five years for giving misleading testimony about his affair with Monica Lewinsky in the suit.

    Parent
    Yes, he apparently settled (none / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:05:49 PM EST
    and I'll assume you're right on the details on a case I haven't checked into in probably a decade or so.

    And it proves, what exactly?  Nothing more than he had a legal problem he decided to try to get rid of.  Bennett in that respect had it right even as he screwed up badly initially by failing to inform his client about his default option.  Nothing that Jones ever alleged was ever proven, nor did her story hold up well in the court of public opinion.

    But are you trying to suggest that given maybe the amount of settlement that her story might have had some basis in truth?

    Parent

    It suggests that (none / 0) (#107)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    Clinton's affair was not a garden variety womanizing category.   And, like Weiner's case, non-consensuality has not been proved.

    Parent
    I don't think Bill (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:59:41 PM EST
    even admitted to ever having met or of being alone with PJ, let alone done what she alleged, so a case more of no womanizing of any kind including garden variety.  Certain details, including timelines, seriously call into question the credibility of her basic charges as to the two being able to meet at the times and places alleged in the complaint, and the nature of her pr/legal support network also called into question her credibility.  Really no reason not to seriously doubt her story.  

    Contrast with Weiner, who admits sending the pix and sexting material -- both non-garden variety types of conduct admitted to.  The non-consensuality part does remain a question.

    Parent

    I assume Pres. Clinton, a lawyer, (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:24:52 PM EST
    was aware he had the option to default.  

    Parent
    Apparently Bill wasn't (none / 0) (#135)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:10:05 PM EST
    aware, and he definitely hadn't had that option put before him by his own (highly) paid counsel, Bennett, the person responsible for actually going through all options with his client.  That's according to Alan Dershowitz who asked Bill about that approach when both were on vacation together in the same locale and got a puzzled, negative response about Bennett running that one by him.

    One thought as to why it hadn't occurred to Bill -- purely guesswork here -- is that he hadn't practiced much civil law, had mainly been involved in the criminal law side as AG in AR, plus he'd been many yrs removed from basic exposure to civil law way back when at Yale.  Perhaps too the schooling he got at that institution in civil law didn't cover much other than the fight approach to battling in that legal setting.  More modern schools I think touch on the settlement and related approaches, including flight, or just walking away if in some circumstances that's actually the wiser strategy.

    Parent

    The Camelot Hotel (none / 0) (#151)
    by Rojas on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:10:03 AM EST
    which is the location of Broderick's allegation was not demolished. You are misinformed.

    Parent
    Don't know about the hotel, ... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Yman on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 02:58:43 PM EST
    ... but Broderick denied her own claims in her only sworn statement.  The numerous inconsistencies in her statements were well-documented by Joe Conason in his book, "The Hunting of the President".

    Parent
    Sometimes it's hard to be a woman (none / 0) (#156)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:04:22 AM EST
    Giving all your love to just one man
    You'll have bad times
    And he'll have good times
    Doin things that you don't understand
    But if you love him
    You'll forgive him
    Even though he's hard to understand
    And if you love him
    Oh, be proud of him
    Cause after all he's just a man

    Stand by your man
    Give him two arms to cling to
    And something warm to come to
    when nights are cold and lonely

    Stand by your man
    And show the world you love him
    Keep giving all the love you can
    Stand by your man

    Stand by your man
    And show the world you love him
    Keep giving all the love you can
    Stand by your man


    Parent

    An attempt to be clever? (none / 0) (#158)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:29:19 PM EST
    Fail.

    Parent
    With the dittoheads in the clinton camp? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:34:28 PM EST
    I think the irony of their self parody is lost to all but them.
    Perhaps you can explain the hunting of the president when these allegations were first shared in 78?

    Parent
    "Dittoheads"??? - double fail (none / 0) (#160)
    by Yman on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:13:23 PM EST
    BTW - Be happy to, although the phrasing of your "question" is very unclear.

    Leaving aside the fact that, in her only sworn statement she denies her own allegations, I presume you're talking about the people who support her claim of contemporaneous reporting of her claims.  Do you mean her current husband, who was in an extra-marital affair with her at the time?  Or maybe the  you mean the two people who were angry with Clinton for commuting the sentence of the man (Guy Kuehn) who killed their father?

    Guess that's why people say things like "when these allegations were first 'shared' in 78", rather than getting specific.

    Heh.

    Parent

    Well that's rich.... (none / 0) (#162)
    by Rojas on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 07:44:54 AM EST
    You impeach his testimony because he was involved in an extra-marital affair? LOL, there's a reason nobody can take you people seriously.
     

    Parent
    It's not about impeaching his ... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 07:56:06 AM EST
    ... testimony ... it's about the hypocrisy of those who attack Clinton for his affairs, while carrying on their own.

    BTW - There's a reason no one takes you CDSers seriously, and it's silly conspiracy theories like Broaddrick - a tinfoil hat story sold by Repub operatives for years - looked into by every major news organization, yet they never even tried to sell her crazy story.  Read Conason's book if you want actual facts, rather than fairytales.  Ya think there might be a reason when she repudiated her own story when forced to answer questions about it under oath?  You think there was a reason she couldn't recall the date it supposedly happened?  The only people who buy this cr@p are the real dittoheads - mostly on the right, and a few (apparently0 on the left.

    Too funny.

    BBTW - Highest .... approval ... rating ... ever ...

    Heh.

    Parent

    Credible allegations of Sexual assault (none / 0) (#164)
    by Rojas on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 07:51:03 AM EST
    by the hillbilly messiah is chalked up as just another simple affair. That's one thing you folks share with the ditto heads, you both grade on a sliding scale.  Dick Morris summed it up nicely, "If you're going to be a sexual predator, be pro-choice."

    Broderick's story is plausible and I find it credible. But you tell us the long time Democrat is a republican operative. Lack of significant coverage by the mainstream media means she is crazy in your mind. It was all part of the VRWC hatched in 78 when bubba was AG. Broderick had not told her story publicly when she was subpoenaed by Paula Jones attorneys. She had rebuffed the press all those years. It's pretty clear she did not want her privacy invaded. The stakes were higher when she was subpoenaed by the OIC. The ability to recall exact dates varies widely by individuals, but ABC verified time and place and events that corroborated her story.  


    Parent

    "Credible Allegations"?!? Hahahaha ... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 09:21:26 AM EST
    the hillbilly messiah is chalked up as just another simple affair. That's one thing you folks share with the ditto heads, you both grade on a sliding scale.  Dick Morris summed it up nicely, "If you're going to be a sexual predator, be pro-choice."

    Broderick's story is plausible and I find it credible.

    A CDSer quoting Dick Morris finds the allegations credible?!?

    wow.

    Lack of significant coverage by the mainstream media means she is crazy in your mind. It was all part of the VRWC hatched in 78 when bubba was AG.

    What?!?  Is it a reading comprehension issue?  Try reading it again ... slowly. Nahh ... forget it.  I'll spell it out for you.  The "lack of coverage" after she made these sensational charges means that all of the news organizations that looked into it couldn't corroborate her story.  Well, ... unless you count Newsmax or a few winger blogs.  You CDSers sure do love those ...

    Who said Broaddrick was a Republican operative?!?  Seriously ... read a little slower.  The allegations were promoted for many years by two anti-Clinton partisans in Arkansas, Sheffield Nelson and Philip Yoakum.  David Brock (when working for Scaife) also pursued them, but even they couldn't come up with enough to put together a credible story.

    BTW - "Long time Democrat"?  Broaddrick?  She said she wasn't affiliated with any political party, so maybe you should check a source other than FreeRepublic or Newsmax.

    Broderick had not told her story publicly when she was subpoenaed by Paula Jones attorneys. She had rebuffed the press all those years. It's pretty clear she did not want her privacy invaded. The stakes were higher when she was subpoenaed by the OIC.

    Broaddrick waited for 21 years to make the accusations.  She's given numerous contradictory statements about her allegations, and in the only times she was asked about it under oath (an affidavit and a civil deposition), she denied it.  Funny how she only makes the allegations when she's not under oath.

    BTW - The stakes weren't higher.  She denied the allegations through several gubernatorial elections and two Presidential elections and suddenly the "stakes were higher"?  She only agreed to testify after she received a grant of immunity.

    The ability to recall exact dates varies widely by individuals, but ABC verified time and place and events that corroborated her story.

    So someone wouldn't be able to remember the date - not even the month - she says she was brutally raped because she may not have a good memory for little things like that?  Heh.

    BTW - NBC did not corroborate her story.  When Broaddrick couldn't remember the date of the alleged rape, NBC found that there was a nursing home convention in Little Rock on April 25, roughly the same time of year that Broaddrick alleged.  They also found newspaper articles suggested Clinton may have been in the same city (the capital) on that day.  That's it.

    Yeah ... "corroborated".

    Pffftttt...

    Parent

    How many press interviews (none / 0) (#166)
    by Rojas on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 09:43:22 AM EST
    did Broaderick grant relating to the matter prior to being subpoenaed by the OIC?

    Parent
    As far as I know - none (none / 0) (#167)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 10:34:36 AM EST
    So what?  The fact that she started making these allegations publicly after denying them for 21 years (including under oath - twice) is supposed to be corroboration?

    Heh.

    Costco has some heeee-YOOOOGE rolls of aluminum foil - ask for the CDS discount.

    Parent

    Denying interviews (none / 0) (#168)
    by Rojas on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 12:10:39 PM EST
    and refusing to speak publicly is not denying allegations. The behaviour is not consistient with one who is enjoined in the conspiracy of hunting the president.

    Parent
    Seriously? She didn't just ... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 14, 2011 at 12:23:52 PM EST
    ... "deny interviews" and "refuse to speak publicly".  She swore, under oath, that it didn't happen.

    Triple fail.

    BTW - The only one saying she's a conspirator is you.

    Parent

    Double Fail (none / 0) (#161)
    by Madeline on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:07:09 AM EST


    Parent
    Schumer spozd to have been (none / 0) (#116)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:23:48 PM EST
    Weiner's mentor; Weiner & wife close w/Clintons; Weiner & Kirsten Gillibrand co-sponsored legislation recently, and Gillibrand worked on Hillary's campaigns & has not -- to my knowledge --- joined the dump Weiner bandwagon.  Evidently calls are streaming into Weiner's home office with support for his staying in Congress.  If I weren't already overloaded, I would volunteer to help.

    Am I the only one who, given Breitbart's involvement, thinks Weiner might have been set up?  Not that he didn't engage in 'bad' behavior, but that he might have thought text was going to an individual who was engaging in whatever for it's own sake when in fact the person was going to pass on the text to be leaked?  I thought I read something to this effect somewhere, but perhaps in my fog of my sleeplessness I'm mixing apples and oranges?

    Parent

    The problem is, how could Rep. Weiner (none / 0) (#119)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:27:03 PM EST
    have ever been certain some recipient of one his non-political tweets might not go public.  See, for example, Tiger Woods.  

    Parent
    I will let another (none / 0) (#133)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 07:52:48 PM EST
    speak for me:

    From Andrew Sullivan, at Link

    Weiner has not resigned and, frankly, I see little reason why he should. No one, so far as I can tell, was harrassed, no one was abused, no actual sex even took place at all. I'm not sure one can even find any hypocrisy here. Moreover, if online flirting is unforgivable, why isn't off-line flirting unforgivable? And what really is the difference? Apart from pictures that can be used to humiliate - and even blackmail.

    He continues:


    To be exposed in this way is humiliating. Watching Weiner today was painful; this is the result of raw culture war with no scruples or principles, designed purely to destroy. ... I don't see any broader argument being invoked here, except partisan revenge.

    Should Weiner have done this? For an elected public official, it was unwise, inappropriate, stupid. For a human being, it remains well within the bounds of, well, human.




    Parent
    I don't think he (none / 0) (#130)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 07:32:44 PM EST
    engaged in "bad" behavior. One person's "bad" is another's "fun", and really loudly judging other's behavior has only limited effectiveness (judging, as in calling someone perverted and/or puritan). Shaming only goes so far.

    But his behavior was private and it was done in a public manner. Or maybe more accurately he was so reckless with his privacy that it invited publicity. Breitbart and O'Keefe are known quantities (scum, but powerfu for the momentl) and they set traps. They play gottcha and pass it off as legit media (lefties who do similar things pass their stuff off as "art".) It was like billboards and loudspeakers announcing a trap and Weiner just wandering in anyhow. I really dislike Breitbart.

    Parent

    Nope, you've got the key detail wrong here (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:21:52 PM EST
    Nobody "leaked" the underpants shot, he accidentally sent it out to his entire lot of Twitter followers, and thus the public realm, rather than via what's called a "direct message" that goes only to the one recipient.

    His bad luck that somebody who wishes him ill was monitoring his twitter feed and scooped up the pic before he could delete it and passed into on to Breitbart.

    At least, that's how I understand what happened.

    Honestly, I think it's requires wayyyyyy to much of a tinfoil stretch to imagine he was set up.  He was just careless and got caught.

    Parent

    Agree with (none / 0) (#157)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:18:11 PM EST
    your logic, with the exception that I think it was not bad luck that people who wish him ill might have been among his list of twitter followers; I think politicians, especially DEMS, should assume the opposition is following.  

    Parent
    What if it is revealed in the investigation (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:23:03 AM EST
    he used congressional resources when he was sexting?

    In what sense? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    His phone? Meh. Flying to meet somebody? Well, that would be different.

    Parent
    You don't think it would matter (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    to people that they were paying for his sexting?  In this current climate I unfortunately think it would.

    Parent
    They would prob be hypocrites if they did ;) (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:50:32 AM EST
    who hasn't used company time and equip to do personal biz? I actually caught a former boss cruising p*rn sites once. Me, I used to say I was on a conference call (along with several co workers) and we'd close our doors and draft our fantasy teams :) We won't mention all the shopping folks do . . . or email/facebook/tweeting w/friends/family

    Parent
    Unfortunately nothing has triggered (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:54:01 AM EST
    an investigation of anyone else.

    Parent
    Be interesting to see how they frame it (none / 0) (#18)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    I'm kinda doubting they have their 'no personal biz on co time' rule broken down too specifically  . . .

    Parent
    If Weiner investigated (none / 0) (#39)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:43:49 AM EST
    by Congress I hope Larry Flint comes back to call the kettles black.  This get Weiner thing is apauling to me.  

    Also - question for BTD and others who know far more about technical politics than I --

    Re: Redistricting, I'm in Weiner's district, and I understand it to be rather huge and populous. Is it practical to think that the entire district could disappear in a redistricting?


    Parent

    Pretty easily (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:15:44 PM EST
    here's just one example.

    Parent
    Segue: redistricting. Oh, joy. (none / 0) (#85)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:29:13 PM EST
    Brian Bilbray's district may be on the block.  LAT

    This is Randy "Duke" Cunningham's old seat.  

    Parent

    I believe the talk is that it would (none / 0) (#78)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:12:19 PM EST
    be split up and parcelled out among neighboring districts.

    Parent
    or maybe Raptured (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:12:58 PM EST


    Parent
    I would hope... (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:38:20 AM EST
    congress-critters are all on an unlimited texting plan...but knowing how they love to waste money, maybe not???

    Parent
    Politico says that they are tweeting (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:44:47 AM EST
    less since Weinergate broke.  What does that mean :)?  Why tweet less....unless.......

    Parent
    It's such a slippery slope (none / 0) (#76)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:10:13 PM EST
    Once you start tweeting, how can you resist tweeting your 'package'? The poor guys.

    this will be a great result of this episode. Congressional tweeting was so pointless.

    Parent

    How about non-Congressional tweeting? (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:18:34 PM EST
    The only benefit I've heard of is someone tweeting their extreme displeasure at the cable company because the cable went out during an NFL game.  Suddenly the cable guy appeared at the front door to fix it.  

    Parent
    I think it has its uses (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:57:50 PM EST
    but politicians have so many other means of official communication it just seems like a gimmick for them. On the other hand I see the attraction since they love to talk in sound bites anyway.  

    Parent
    Good - perhaps they could (none / 0) (#118)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    get back to the business of governing - what a concept!

    Parent
    With Dems closing ranks on Weiner (none / 0) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:27:25 AM EST
    and finally getting a chance to punish him for not being a go-along-to-get-along brand of Democrat, if he does decide to tough it out, he's going to find himself being able to do little more than warm a seat for the next year or so - is Weiner's political career more important than his constituents having active representation? Will he be able to be the Anthony Weiner the people voted for?

    I don't know - he's not my congressman - and given how little real work seems to take place in the Congress these days, maybe it doesn't matter.  But he's not going to be able to garner support among his colleagues for any legislation he wants to sponsor or cares deeply about; he won't be a back-bencher who gets things done behind the scenes, he'll just be a bench warmer.

    It doesn't seem to be in his nature to back down from a fight, but I hope he realizes what this fight will mean (he might want to chat with Hillary Clinton about what happens when ranks close and people are afraid to support you in order to save their own political futures) and decide if it really is worth it.

    And this is assuming that on the personal front, there aren't complications that will also force him to decide between hanging in there politically, and having the marriage and family he wants.  Separately, these represent enormous challenges; together, it may come down to choosing which matters more.

    I don't envy him.

    Oh I know (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:31:48 AM EST
    He's going to pay dearly for not being a proper suck up.

    Parent
    Hey, if he was a good CORPORATE (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:53:47 AM EST
    Dem he could break the law, call a oopsie, blame it on the accountants and the party would take the position of nothing to see here, let's move along.

    If OTOH, a Dem speaks out against the corporate centric policies in D.C., they will get censored or the party will indicate that they should resign.

    Parent

    BTW, if he was a Christian and a (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    Republican all he would need is a "come to Jesus" moment, have one of the big name preachers announce that he had been saved and all would be forgiven.

     

    Parent

    Never too late, (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by KeysDan on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:12:59 AM EST
    perhaps "C Street" has a spare bedroom and Senator Tom Coburn can counsel him and run interference for him.


    Parent
    Or, he could try the Newt approach (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Yman on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:18:53 AM EST
    Blame it on his patriotism.

    Parent
    (oops sorry) (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:34:31 AM EST
    It appears that two successive "" cut on BOLD.

    Please reduce the two "" to one "*"

    I don't agree that Spitzer (none / 0) (#12)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:35:44 AM EST
    is finished as a pol.  Looks like he's doing a fair job of rehabbing his rep, putting more and more distance between himself and past scandals, and with this latest tawdry, disgusting Weiner scandal, he even comes out looking better by comparison.

    I could see Spitzer climbing back into the arena at some point.

    Similarly, Weiner could step aside and go for, say, a radio talk show gig, Sirius perhaps.  Doubt if he would be welcome even on the cables right now for his embarrassing performance, but who knows in a couple of years.

    Radio, plus private personal and marital counseling, maybe some do-good charitable work, continued sincere expressions of regret for his conduct, trying to work on being a better person -- the public will tend to forgive if they since the pol is being honest.

    Visiting prostitutes (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:53:07 PM EST
    looks "better by comparison" than tweeting lewd pictures and missives?  Sure, prostitution is (presumably) consensual, but Elliot Spitzer potentially exposed his wife to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.  He may have used a condom, but condoms do sometimes break.  Possibly putting your spouse at risk for STD's is inexcusable, and will never "look better" to me.

    Parent
    Yes, that sounds like a reasonable (none / 0) (#95)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:15:23 PM EST
    take, but I strongly suspect most people don't evaluate the Spitzer situation to that what if? level.  They think what he did -- they think cheating, they think maybe with prostitutes, perhaps the huge monies involved in procuring same.  But down to the potential std level, I doubt many go there (additionally, people might logically think the very high-end prostitutes are constantly being checked for std's, so the situation is much safer).

    Parent
    You can visit (none / 0) (#102)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    all the "high-end" prostitutes, even with medical testing results posted on their walls, that you want.  The window period from exposure to seroconversion (measurable antibodies in the blood) can take anywhere from 3 weeks to 6 months.  During that window period, you can infect others.  I highly doubt that any prostitute, anywhere, is being tested every 2 to 3 weeks.  And are they being tested for Hepatitis C, herpes, and human papilloma virus, among others?  Doubt it.  The situation is not "much safer."  Marginally safer, perhaps.  And if I am thinking of the potential risk to his spouse, someone else will, and will talk about it, if he runs for office again.

    Parent
    I can go with marginally safer, (none / 0) (#104)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:48:52 PM EST
    since I'm far from an expert in this area, not ever having the, uh, personal expertise in this stuff.

    Just saying though that my sense of it is most people just don't usually dig down that far into the possibilities or potentials of that type of conduct.

    And I suspect that if Spitzer should at some point decide to run for office again, the number of people holding those types of concerns against him will be rather few in number.

    People usually in this country are willing to give others another chance after a screwup.  I like Spitzer's chances of a comeback in politics.  Weiner, I'm much less certain about.

    Parent

    Shall we (none / 0) (#114)
    by Zorba on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 05:39:11 PM EST
    speculate on the psychopathology of a powerful person who visits prostitutes, including making large enough cash withdrawals from the bank that it triggered the bank to alert the feds, and transports a prostitute across state lines (both of which, as a former state Attorney General, he knew d@amned well were trouble), and potentially exposes himself and his wife to STDs?  Did he want to get caught?  Did he think he was so golden that he would never get caught?  Do you really think that such a person is psychologically (never mind morally) sound enough to hold an important public office?

    Parent
    I believe Spitzer (none / 0) (#120)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:30:49 PM EST
    was being targeted -- and he for sure did the bad deed - but the claim for money laundering - give me a break -- didn't the Feds then have much better things to worry about -- and don't they still now?

    But I think the point that he may come back is a possibility.  He was yet another truly talented fella with a flaw -- fatal or not to be determined. He is also, like Weiner, one of the few who really governed with the average person in mind.  If I recall correctly, he won the governorship in NY with 80% of the vote because his track record as NY Attorney General made him so popular, and, he actually said things of substance when he campaigned.  

    I think New Yorkers might welcome him back.  

    Parent

    What Spitzer did (none / 0) (#122)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:36:10 PM EST
    -- whatever you think of it -- brought his governorship to a sudden halt.  At the time, there was no question about his resignation; especially in light of his prior campaign to clean up prostitution in NYC. Spitzer was being indicted, whereas no one has established that Weiner committed any crime.  And, Weiner, has a chance of staying in office, if we all push back against the don't dump him bandwagon.  The pols/media and self-righteous Repubs and shameless Dems have seized the moment -- I think it can be taken back.

    Parent
    Vienna sausuage (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:48:44 AM EST
    A cooled down little Weiner is probably what we are looking at ultimately, when, soon, the next genital scandal rises to the fore and steals his blunder.

    Unable to resist this headline: (none / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    link

    Felix Frankfurter (none / 0) (#63)
    by brodie on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 12:22:20 PM EST
    used to get "roasted" often by colleagues about his name, and some often would tell him he should change it to something less smirk-worthy, something more befitting someone of his lofty stature of Harvard Law perfesser and then Sup Ct Justice.

    But he always immediately and firmly declined.

    In A Weiner's case, I wonder why he never went to the alternative pronunciation at the very least -- Winer --  which isn't perfect, granted, but still gets the mind away from other things.

    Parent

    Why should he? (none / 0) (#139)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    As someone with a name that is one letter away from being a form of one of Carlin's 7 dirty words, I would never let the juvenile stupidity and ignorance of others make me give up what's mine.  My name, my identity, my history.  

    Parent
    Amen brother... (none / 0) (#144)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:36:45 PM EST
    Is that you Mike Hunt?

    Sorry, Carlin inspired me:) Always good to hear from ya Mile, stay chipper.

    Parent

    Luckily... (none / 0) (#148)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 11:05:23 PM EST
    mine was such that once I figured out what people were calling me really meant, I was able to turn it around on them.  Put a stop to that real quick!

    Where are the Carlin's, Bruce's and Pryor's of today when we need a good shaking up?

    Parent

    They're scared... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kdog on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:13:14 AM EST
    Colorful language is more accepted, just don't have a message.

    "Careful what ya say, they ain't gonna listen anyway."

    Ryan Bingham, Dylan's Hard Rain

    Parent

    Bill Maher and Jane Lynch are reading the texts (none / 0) (#73)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:07:12 PM EST
    on Maher's HBO show tonight. Don't know if I can resist.

    I haven't watched the local news in three days (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:09:34 PM EST
    and I'm ready to swear off it for good now.

    Maher is a bit different, but I'm personally doing my best not to enable the idiots who perpetuate this "story."

    Parent

    Perhaps one of those live blog sessions (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:09:55 PM EST
    on Talk Left?

    Parent
    Credit Ruffian with honesty! (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 01:20:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Not so fast (none / 0) (#92)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    To be honest, I KNOW I can't resist and am really looking forward to it!!!

    I'm sorry, I know people were wounded by this episode, but it is still pretty funny to me.

    Parent

    He's an elected official (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:52:02 PM EST
    A public figure.  He knew what would happen if he was "caught". I'm not crazy about how the press is all over this.  But I'm not about to promote an atmosphere of secrecy and silence either about such things until we have powerful people running around violating other people and the press labels it as their personal sex life so look the other way.  If you are going to lose your working sexual boundaries for a few risk taking highs, I'm not going out of my way to protect you from learning lessons and having to establish functioning sexual boundaries.  He knew what would happen if he was found out, and now it has happened.

    Parent
    I figure the dialogs will be in LAT (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:02:10 PM EST
    front page above the fold by midnight.

    Parent
    they may have to compete (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:20:10 PM EST
    with the released Palin emails from her governor days.

    I have no problem with comedians spending time with this stuff, but I sure wish the news media would give up on it.

    Parent

    I may now have to watch "Glee" at least (none / 0) (#145)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:44:00 PM EST
    once.  

    Parent
    Me either (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 03:41:19 PM EST


    Parent
    copyright question (none / 0) (#99)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 02:24:14 PM EST
    Who owns the rights to the genital image Weiner sent out? Can the recipient do whatever he/she wants with it? Can he/she pass it along, or sell it, publish it, 'share' it, make art out of it? Since we automatically own copyright to our image does one give up rights by sending it to someone else?

    Next question. Now that Facebook (none / 0) (#121)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 06:32:17 PM EST
    can apparently "tag" photos w/o the input of the person photographed and/or the photographer, what next?

    Parent
    isn't it possible (none / 0) (#128)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    to dig deep into your settings & prevent that from happening?

    Parent
    this is why (none / 0) (#132)
    by The Addams Family on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 07:40:12 PM EST
    i only use Facebook under cover of a false ID

    yeah i know - against the roolz

    so sue me ;)

    Parent

    politicians need to use (none / 0) (#137)
    by ZtoA on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:14:05 PM EST
    facebook and twitter these days. Apparently. But while using the internet used to be a comfortable voyeuristic activity, it is not any longer. Now the internet looks back. People now keep track of who is 'following' who on twitter.

    "Months before Weinergate erupted, a self-described conservative group started tracking what users Weiner had chosen to follow on Twitter and made a discovery: The congressman appeared to have a predilection for following young women. The group, which used the hashtag #bornfreecrew, cautioned some of the women to be wary of Weiner, among them Gennette Cordova, the Washington co-ed to whom he later tweeted the image of his underwear.."  link

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#136)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 08:11:42 PM EST
    and mine is set that way. Stoopid sis that I have, has been known to tag me in the past. Thankfully, you can remove the tags.

    In general, I'm pretty good at protecting my online privacy. But I also don't friend/get followed 43,000 people in relation to my job etc  ;) Googling my name brings up SO many others, and not me, lol!~

    Parent

    I gather this is a new feature and I (none / 0) (#142)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    haven't seen a privacy setting addressing it yet.  

    Parent
    The face recognition tagging is (none / 0) (#147)
    by nycstray on Fri Jun 10, 2011 at 10:50:56 PM EST
    huge prob is, they add these new 'features' as enabled on your account and just leave it at that, and you need to figure out how to change it. What they don't do is shoot you an email about a new 'feature', and tell you how to enable it so you have a choice. These youngin's just don't seem to get privacy . . . .

    Parent
    What If Weiner Does Not Go Quietly Into The Cold Dark Night? | 160 comments (160 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment