Will Rep Weiner resign? Should he?

[SirDennis]

Before we leave nerdanal's point...

It is true that America has a bad rap among Canadians. But the focus of our ire is not at individual Americans but instead at certain leaders and policies towards other nations. Of course it is wrong to paint the entire population with the same brush when it is a handful of corporations and high profile people (politicians, entertainers) that are the problem.

(A similar situation exists with Iran. The Iranian government has brought a lot of negative attention to themselves and their nation. The people of Iran do not favour the regime in power, or its policies. Nevertheless, all Iranians were being portrayed as bad people by Bush and his supporters in media. They were portrayed as a people who deserved to have war visited upon them.)

In general, personal relationships among Canadians and Americans are quite warm, courteous, and natural; as people we have much in common. There is a growing trend in movies to make jokes about Canada or Canadians. But we don't mind since it just proves they finally realized we exist (and about time too since most "American" movies are made in Canada anyway.)

It may just be the way all countries being colonized have a level of disdain towards the colonizers. Of course these days it is an economic colonization on the part of US based companies rather than a physical one on the part of US people, but the effect on the locals is pretty much the same as it's always been.

[Holbytla]

There has been a sort of phenomenon going on the last however many years that involves celebrities (politicians, athletes etc.), scandals, cell phones and computers. The list is pretty long and growing all the time.

It seems to me that most people realize that if you are in the spotlight, and by default you are if you are a celebrity, then everything you say, write, email, text etc will be scrutinized. For some reason the people involved in these scandals don't seem to believe that their actions will ever see the light of day in the press.

I guess some of them could be really dumb, but I think that with most of them, they either don't care or believe that they are untouchable or too savvy to get caught.

I don't know enough of the details of this case to know if he broke any laws or violated ethic rules. If he has, then he should step down and spare us the investigation and litigation. If he didn't then let the voters decide what to do with him. Let them be the morality police. He showed poor judgment with this whole ordeal, but I am not convinced that makes him guilty for forever more in all aspects of decision making. I don't think I would vote for him, but maybe his accomplishments outweigh his sins. I am convinced that if we held everyone's feet to the fire for every wrong they have done, unemployment would be at 99%. Most of us probably have done things in our lives that should have gotten us fired or made us not electable.

Stories like these, tend to get lots of headlines. The press and the public eat this stuff up for whatever reason, but I am willing to bet that there are more scandals involving prosecuted politicians, that have committed far more egregious crimes, than there are sex scandal cases. We just don't hear about them as often because they aren't salacious enough for the press. The former Massachusetts Speaker of the House, Sal DiMasi, is currently awaiting a jury's decision too see if he is heading to jail for accepting kickbacks, but fewer people follow that story because there aren't any racy details or sex or pictures or text messages.

We get what we deserve from the press, but there is no comparison to what DiMasi allegedly did and what Weiner did. DiMasi is a crook, Weiner acted like a fool.

[vison]

I agree with Holbytla.

[SirDennis]

Bouncing off Holby's points, there is a Hobbit connection here as well. Rob Kazinsky's career hit a similar speed bump when he was working in NZ on Eastenders. Apparently he was sending nude pics of himself via cell camera to a friend on set. It lead to his being dropped from the production. Being cast as Fili must have seemed like the ultimate second chance. Too bad things didn't work out for him...

[Holbytla]

This post is not meant to be argumentative. I am just looking for some clarification and understanding.

To Voronwë:

In the Same-six marriage: D.C. ties the knot! thread, you lauded the newly handed down decision that affirmed Chief Judge Vaughn Walker's ability to rule on Prop 8 despite the fact that he admitted being gay and in a 10 year relationship with a male. Seemingly you agree that his personal life does not impede his ability to be partial in this case and that you agree with Chief U.S. District Judge James Ware's statement:

"The presumption that Judge Walker, by virtue of being in a same-sex relationship, had a desire to be married that rendered him incapable of making an impartial decision, is as warrantless as the presumption that a female judge is incapable of being impartial in a case in which women seek legal relief," Ware wrote in his 19-page decision.
"On the contrary," he continued, "it is reasonable to presume that a female judge or a judge in a same-sex relationship is capable of rising above any personal predisposition and deciding such a case on the merits."

My question to you is, why is Judge Walker seen as capable of performing his duties as a judge, despite his personal life posing a potential conflict, whereas Rep Weiner is not?

Does Rep Weiner's apparent proclivity for a sort of sexual deviance somehow make him unfit to vote on house bills?

I am just curious as to how the two are different.

[yovargas]

One involved dishonesty, the other did not. Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Lalaith]

That would've been my answer, too, but I'm not Voronwë.

[narya]

Weiner's case, with a history of inappropriate behavior bordering on sexual harassment, mild abuse of power, and attempts to obfuscate the truth, may indicate cluelessness about the needs of some groups, and untrustworthiness, which we seem to get a lot of in our politicians. We need politicians who can be trusted to represent us, and think like us, when blazing new ground in the legal system. Mr. Weiner does not strike me as that sort of person.

Whereas with judges, we need someone with an extraordinary grasp of the law, whose personal life should be largely irrelevant. Even if you do want to consider his personal life, the judge in the same sex relationship presumably has more personal insight into gay and straight relationships (his own and the ones he grew up around) than the average person. Seems like your choices for a judge in this case would be homosexual partner, heterosexual partner, or confirmed bachelor, or their female equivalents, all of which have a bias for/against marriage.

[Holbytla]

Ok so I worded my questions terribly and figured it would cause a misunderstanding, but hey I'll fly with what I wrote.

Ok then so we aren't judging Weiner on moral grounds, but the fact that a US Rep lied? If he had told the truth off the bat, would the reaction be any different?

I personally doubt that. He is being judged based on the morality of him being involved in some sort of sexual texting escapades, and thus being condemned to be fit as a US Rep. Yet in the same breath we are saying that it is a different story that a judge is able to perform his job regardless of his private life and inclinations.

I'm not buying that.

The dude ( Rep Weiner) has some "sexual" proclivity to get aroused by sexting stuff. So? Does that make him unfit for representation, while on the other hand we turn a blind eye to the possibility that a gay judge has no human reason to be biased to a cause?

I believe the Prop 8 ruling that came down today was fair and just. I belueve the judge in this case was capable of performing his job despite his inclinations and the possibility of bias.

My question is, why is Weiner not being afforded that same measure of jurisprudence? Why does engaging in a somewhat deviant sexual behavior, automatically make him not fit for the job of US Rep? How is it surmised that judge Walker can rise above the situation and perform his job, but Weiner cannot?

[Primula Baggins]

Weiner's conduct also indicates a lack of judgment and self-control. Judge Walker's does not.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Exactly. I don't see how there can be any comparison between the two situations, unless one believes (as the proponents of Prop 8 obviously do) that just being in a gay relationship is "deviant behavior". Walker arguably had less of a conflict in that case than a married heterosexual judge would have, since the whole basis of the proponents case is based on the (IMO bizarre) theory that allowing same-sex marriage would somehow lessen the value of marriage in general (and there is no evidence that Walker was ever interested in marrying his partner).

[narya]

If Weiner was having deviant sexual behavior with his own socks, I wouldn't mind. I'd be puzzled, but not concerned.

When he foists himself on women when they were not seeking that kind of relationship, then cries wolf about his twitter account being hacked, then equivocating about "well, I can't say if that photo is my crotch or not" (which says "yes, there is a pic of my crotch out there somewhere, just not sure if you have it" which is rather duplicitous), he is painting a picture of a loose cannon, damaging lots of people around him, along with himself. I'm not judging him on his morality, but on his tendency make bad, snap decisions without thinking about their repercussions on others. That would be OK if he was a shoe (or sock) salesman, but not a leader of the USA.

And it sounds like you are loosely grouping the phrases "sexual proclivities", "deviant sexual behavior", "inclinations", and "gay", which I, for one, would not. But perhaps I am reading your posts incorrectly.

[anthriel]

Tosh, what a graceful post! (Although the generalizations of "Americans don't have issues, etc." is a burr under my saddlepad, too. It reads as if you are saying ONLY Americans have an inverted idea of what is important, although perhaps you didn't write it that way.)

Yes, you are right, there are bigger problems than self-circulated pictures of Mr. Weiner's wein... er, genitalia. And this was rather my thought process when I started this thread.

However, I am naive enough to believe that character DOES count in people... and yes, even in politicians, who are at least nominally people. Sending out these pictures may not be illegal, but they sure don't reflect well on his character. Lying about it is stupid, AND a poor reflection on his character (didn't he know they can tell if an account is hacked? At least Clinton lied well. At least lie well, if you are going to lie.)

Taking these inappropriate pictures in the House gym is reckless at best, and flat out stupid at worst. Didn't he know that someone was going to be able to tell where those pictures were taken? Didn't any of this stuff occur to him?

I wouldn't want reckless and stupid to be what represents me in Congress.


Edit: sorry, I missed several posts! But to Holby... you are right, everyone has done something that would not hold up under intense scrutiny. But this was not a drunken college gambol from years ago... this was an ongoing issue, and there was NO WAY he was not going to be caught at it. And that's just... stupid.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A better comparison than the one to Judge Walker is the one with Clinton. Why is that those of us who think Weiner should resign did not necessarily say the same about Clinton. The answer is ... I don't know.

[Primula Baggins]

A U.S. representative resigning is a whole lot less disruptive to the country, the economy, and the U.S. political system than a president resigning. I think it's reasonable to give a lot more thought before calling for the latter. I was 15 when Nixon resigned, and it was like a national earthquake. How many reps have resigned in disgrace that no one could name?

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Now why isn't there a nationwide discussion about this rather than Weiner?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20110601/pl_usnw/DC11944

First, the organization alleges, Justice Thomas falsified 20 years of judicial financial disclosure forms by denying that his wife had income sources; second, he engaged in judicial corruption by receiving $100,000 in support from Citizens United during his nomination and then ruling in favor of Citizens United in 2010 without disclosing that fact or disqualifying himself; and third, he apparently conspired with his wife in a form of "judicial insider trading" by providing her with information about the result of the Court's decision in Citizens United prior to its issuance, which she then used to launch a new company to take financial advantage of that decision to benefit her and her husband.

On Friday, May 27, 2011, Clarence Thomas' 2010 Financial Disclosure Forms were released showing that he had invested thousands of dollars in Liberty Consulting Inc. a lobbying and consulting firm founded by his wife to cater to the "tea party." The disclosure also revealed that his wife received "salary and benefits" from Liberty Consulting and Liberty Central.

or this:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/supreme-conspiracy

or this:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/ ... omas-koch/

Weiner was the elected representative raising these questions. I guess it's traditional to shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message.
And so what if personally he is a fool? Is that a proper excuse to ignore the vastly greater problem of the corruption of the civic process of the nation?

[yovargas]

Now why isn't there a nationwide discussion about this rather than Weiner?

Cuz it's boring and complicated, unlike crotch shots.

[anthriel]

Now why isn't there a nationwide discussion about this rather than Weiner?

Cuz it's boring and complicated, unlike crotch shots.

Yes. I think that is exactly it.





For the record, I can't remember if I thought Clinton should resign. Probably, I was just as wishy-washy about it as I am about Rep. Weiner.

But Clinton lied to the grand jury, which, to my knowledge, was (and still is) illegal. I know you guys have told me that most people don't have serious repercussions from such an action, and that impeaching him for it was an unusually tough response... that he was held to a different standard than usual. That's not particularly cool, but he did break a law. I don't think Mr. Weiner has.

Weiner was the elected representative raising these questions. I guess it's traditional to shoot the messenger rather than listen to the message.
And so what if personally he is a fool? Is that a proper excuse to ignore the vastly greater problem of the corruption of the civic process of the nation?

I know you have postulated that outing this man at this point might be political, and you might be right. However, I hardly think this is shooting the messenger. If he is holding people to a high (or even reasonable) standard, and was elected while raising such questions, checking out his personal standards is fair game, I think.

And it does matter that he is a fool. Sorry, but it does.

[vison]

I wouldn't want reckless and stupid to be what represents me in Congress.

But, Anthriel, "reckless and stupid" is what many, many, many politicians, kings, tribal chiefs, governors, captains, generals, etc., have always been. That's obvious when we look at world history. Think of Europe in the Middle Ages, "ruled" by generations of loony men/boys who were very likely all born damaged by FAS and made into kings and dukes and landgraves . . .

Earlier in the thread someone said something like "you need a big ego to be in politics" and I think that's true but in many cases that big ego is entwined with an enormous sense of entitlement. A sense of entitlement in a man who very likely was taught all his life that he was "special" or, conversely, a man who spent his life trying to "beat" his dad's record or to fill an emptiness in himself because he didn't have a dad. Or all of those things.

Power corrupts. Even a little power corrupts, as we all know.

It seems more like a man thing than a woman thing to me, but maybe that's only because women have so seldom had real power in this world.

As for Mr. Clinton, he, somehow, gets a special pass. Why? Because he's big and handsome and when he smiles the world seems brighter. Why is that? A friend of mine met him a few years ago when he was speaking in Vancouver - she was with someone "important" and Mr. Clinton took a minute or two to speak with them as he was leaving. Kelly said when he shook her hand she felt an electric-type shock and when his blue eyes met hers she got weak in the knees - despite the fact that she wasn't particularly keen on him. (She's an American now living in Canada and lived in the US during the Clinton years.) There ARE people with that kind of charisma. They are dangerous and we should be on the watch for them, not so ready to fall for them.

The unfortunately named Mr. Weiner is one of those many, many, many guys corrupted by power. His little bit of power went to his head and he lost what little sense of decorum he might ever have had. He probably didn't ever have much.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Why aren't more people talking about the Thomas "controversy"? Because it isn't a big deal, except to idealogues who don't like his (or rather his wife's) politics. It reminds me strongly of the demands of conservatives that Judge Reinhardt recuse himself from the Prop 8 case because of his wife's employment with the ACLU. Ridiculous in both cases.