Can Weiner say with certitude the transcript isn’t accurate?
He’s cocksure.
Maybe you should get it written into the constitution, then! The founders appear to have forgot; currently the only way to kick out a House member is the rest of the House voting to expel them.
I don’t think Weiner’s chat transcript showed “omg this guy is so evil for having cybersex we must flog him”. I think it betrays a wacky, wacky lack of judgement.
Context is everything. This is the chat log from someone who out of the blue IMs a public figure with flirty “I saw you on TV, you’re so hot with passion for the good fight” stuff. Most public figures follow this up with an autographed picture and a form letter that said fan can pin up to their wall or something. Instead Weiner starts talking to the woman, and in the most condescending “hey bebbe let’s get together sometime” manner. It’s REALLY obvious he wasn’t interested in talking politics or policy with her, he wanted to get in her pants.
Which by itself isn’t a big deal - politicians do this every day (as do many other non-famous people). What makes it unusual and really stupid is that Weiner is doing this, literally, with some random woman who hit him up. It very easily could have been James O’Keefe in drag, and Weiner never would have known. Or someone who decided that blackmailing a famous politician would be fun. Or any number of other career-ending scenarios.
It’s just stupid. And someone that stupid, either through psychological problems or just total lack of IQ points they can call their own, has no business being in a position of power.
At least Vitter had the sense to see an escort. Hypocritical, but not stupid.
Get you very own Anthony Weiner action figure!
In diapers. And illegal. But not stupid, agreed.
I disagree that this is the litmus test which determines whether or not an elected official should remain in their seat, however.
I do see the equivalency between the two, and I think the best political move Weiner can make is to link himself with Vitter.
And the 2nd best political move is to simply wait this out.
In 3 months if there is another picture with his cats, do you think anyone will care?
That’s a pretty good observation Lum.
I’d expand it into “Weiner is 100% raging id.” I can’t find the damn link now thanks to CockGate clogging up the damn results, but apparently he’s an absolute terror to work for and has a huge turnover rate.
I’ve seen similar reports, and he’s even commented on the story, saying essentially, “I appreciate anyone who can hang in there with me, regardless of how long they last,” though the context was more about his insistence on around the clock work, researching bills, etc., than on his management style.
EDIT: This seems to confirm your assertion.
The difference is, though, that Vitter’s trangressions were years in the past, so he can at least place the firewall of “having learned his lesson” between he and they. If his actions were, like Weiner’s, discovered contemporaneously he would have been l’histoire. And in much less time than Weiner because most Republican constituencies would not accept that.
Weiner will need some kind of break to allow this narrative to play itself out before a second act can begin. That, or much more serious overreach by the Republicans. Right now, they can sit back and watch Weiner and the official investigations do that for them.
Nah, if there was a Democratic governor in his state the Republicans would not want him to resign. They’d criticize him and then rally around him.
There are more important things to try and amend constitution about than silly sex scandals. They are entertaining, but an enormous distraction.
I just think the expectation of Congress critters who are dumb enough to get caught in these illegal/immoral activities should offer to resign for the good of the country and their party.
We are 52 days away from debt crisis, and P&R, the media and much of Washington is obsessed with Wiener’s wiener. It is a safe Democrat seat, the guy shows phenomenally bad judgment, and he is an asshole to his staff. Why the hell would anybody want him to continue in office?
You said this:
I’m not up on the founders in this area, but they didn’t specify any automatic grounds for explusion from either body, even for felony convictions. If you think that’s a reason to kick them out “because we need a higher standard”, ok, but note it’s a 100% political question. You’d think if it was so automatically true about higher standards they’d mention it somewhere. Amusingly I guess if you commit treason you can stay in Congress until they execute you.
To try to stop the goddamn out-of-control media sex scandal steamroller. They’re not even aligned with the public, which has far less stupid views on this than the media. I’m getting really tired of the DC prudes acting as decisionmakers and hounding everyone out of office. If the public doesn’t want him to serve anymore, than they should either primary him or elect a Republican.
AFAIK you are correct Congressman can still serve even if they are in jail . I suspect this wasn’t the founders intention call it a bug that hasn’t been patched yet.
Well I have news for you the media will always be interested in sex scandals cause the public finds it a lot more fun to read about and watch on TV, than cuts to baseline budget increases, or what the hell to do with Pakistan, or health care reform.
In 1998, after Gingrich resigned because of his awful behavior with his wife dying of cancer, Bob Livingstone was the presumptive new House Speaker. Larry Flynt offered up a $1 million prize to anybody who could catch Republican leaders in an affair. (Quite a bit more blatant than Breitbart and company). Bob Livingstone was one of the guys that got caught. Even though these were old affairs, and lacked the graphic detail of Clinton’s escapades or Weiner TwitPics and chat transcripts, Livingston admitted the affairs and resigned two days latter. The country moved on and we were saved from another two weeks of partisan screaming about sex scandals. Livingstone did a dumb thing, but I always respected the man for actually acting like a public servant, instead of putting his own career ahead of the needs of the country and his party.
It’s not the coverage that bothers me; it sells, and apparently god knows you can’t have a media outlet anymore with any focus but worshipping the almighty dollar, so whatever. It’s the hectoring, moralizing attitude they have towards the whole thing, which is completely out of step with popular culture, even the attitudes of the very old. They use that attitude to drive focus, coverage, and get results in a way that doesn’t match the public’s preferences at all.
I think it was discussed in another thread, but that rule may exist partially to protect against local authorities just arresting political opponents on made-up charges to force them to vacate their seats.
Arguably you have bigger systemic problems if that’s happening, but it seems to have been a deliberate omission.
That’s is my understanding as well. The system is designed to work (or at least limp along) even in the presence of bad actors within it. This is an example of that.
Based on this thread, Weiner’s weiner lasts and lasts. You could say this influx of Weiner is hard to take, but I’m fairly certain people are begging for more what with the ongoing coverage.
Still, I think we’ve gotten the money shot and it’s time to head home.
Please explain: Why do leading Dems think Weiner should resign when none thought Clinton should?
Because Wiener’s seat is likely to go away anyway, and this way they can posture safely, i.e. without really risking losing anything. Weiner also does not have the PR machine that Clinton had working for him.
What? I’ve been posing this question, and others say, and I agree, that another Dem will take it easily. As it is right now, most of his constituents don’t even think he should have to resign.