If he was a conservative, he would have resigned
Bookworm on Jun 06 2011 at 2:11 pm | Filed under: Congress
Weiner was tap-dancing so fast for the last few days he made Fred Astaire look like a piker. We all knew he was lying. Today finally saw the denouement: more photos (some x-rated), more texts, more women, and a full confession. The only thing missing was the one thing the American people deserved: a resignation.
The House of Representatives is a symbol for America. It should have a certain dignity. We know that it is staffed by imperfect human beings, but they have an obligation to their office and to the American people to hold themselves up to a certain standard. When they so obviously fail to do so, they shouldn’t continue sully America’s representative body. But of course, being a Democrat means never having to say “I resign.” (I would assume, of course, that Weiner had a quick confab with Frank to find out the protocol for riding out an embarrassing sexual scandal.)
Aside from the appearance of propriety that should characterize service in this august public office. Andrew Breitbart has made the valid point that these kind of shenanigans expose government officials to the risk of blackmail. With that kind of salacious garbage floating around, it would be only too easy for venal people, or even treasonous ones, to take advantage of Weiner’s desire to keep his peccadilloes out of the public eye.
The whole thing is tawdry, disgusting, demeaning, and it reflects badly on the Democrats that they are not doing what Republicans would have done, and demanding that Weiner leave office immediately.
Related posts:
- The First Crypto-Conservative/Neo-Conservative Carnival
- Obama imitates famous hawk and fiscal conservative, JFK
- Liberal fear; conservative resurgence
Email This Post To A Friend
87 Responses to “If he was a conservative, he would have resigned”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
…. Weiner’s desire to keep his peccadilloes out of the public eye. (correction added)
As well as his other body parts.
Like David Vitter. When he reentered the Senate chamber, his fellow Republicans cheered loudly. Yep, those conservatives are so very different from Democrats… Not!!
In addition to Vitter, here’s a long list of other conservatives who had sex scandals and didn’t voluntarily resign:
John Ensign, Senator from NV
Randy Hopper, State Rep in WI
Roy Ashburn, State Rep in CA
Vito Fossella, Rep from NY
Bob Allen, State Rep in FL
Ozwald Balfour, State Rep in UT
Larry Craig, Senator from ID (resigns and then changes his mind)
Ted Klaudt, State REp in SD
Ronald Kline, conservative judge in CA
Mark Foley, Rep from FL (John Boehner and Denny Hastert helped in the cover-up, and Foley resigned only when it failed)
Don Sherwood, Rep from PA
Dan Burton, Rep from IN
Dan Crane, Rep from IL
Helen Chenowitch, Rep from ID
Henry Hyde, Rep from IL
Newt Gingrich, House Speaker (while he resigned over ethics violations, he didn’t step down when news of extramarital affairs occurred)
Ken Calvert, Rep from CA
Sue Myrick, Mayor of Charlotte
ABC, if every congress person who had an affair resigned, we would have no more congresspeople. I’m not saying that’s right. I’m saying that that’s the way it is. The people are certainly at risk of blackmail, but most people understand that having an affair exposed may destroy a marriage, but it is not the type of humiliating or illegal conduct that can lead to terrible cover-ups. Barney Frank had a boyfriend using his house for an illegal activity (and I really don’t know how Barney missed that), while Weiner now has pictures of himself and his explicit text sex conversations splayed across the internet. Once it goes public (and your political party gives up trying to hide your sins), you resign, as Foley did, and as Republicans forced Craig to.
[...] Mediaite, The Jawa Report, NY Daily News, Washington Post, Taylor Marsh, National Review, Bookworm Room, Guardian, TexasSparkle, Open Congress, Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, Capital Tonight, msnbc.com, [...]
Book, I think the list speaks for itself. There are lots of conservatives who do not resign even after the scandal is exposed and even if the party would prefer that they resign. Vitter and Ensign are two clear cases of this, but there are loads more. This is in contrast to your title, that implies that conservatives somehow handle the exposure of their scandal more admirably than non-conservatives. This is clearly not the case. People in positions of power generally are the same across the political spectrum.
Perhaps abc, who knows a little about everything, could provide us a list of the body parts the people on the above list tweeted?
The Australian experience has been that politicians from all parties are capable of getting themselves into trouble for their sexual (mis)adventures. Generally, however, the media and politicians take the view that unless the matter is criminal that it is the politician’s own burden to bear. I think this pact holds up because politicians here generally do not carp on about morality.
The one I feel sorry for is a former federal tourism minister who ended up resigning for having sex on the desk in his office in Parliament House late one night – with his wife. He lost his place in Cabinet over that.
E.
With that kind of salacious garbage floating around, it would be only too easy for venal people, or even treasonous ones, to take advantage of Weiner’s desire to keep his peccadilloes out of the public eye.
What makes you think that hasn’t already happened?
David Weber already analyzed this type of situation.
abc is exactly correct. It is all politics in these kinds of scandals. The situation here is that Weiner is an arrogant, nasty prick. No doubt most of his Democratic colleagues feel the same way about him. When the hounds are out it is better to have more friends and fewer hounds.
[...] Breitbart.“. Double ‘HEH!’ More from The Jawa Report, National Review, Bookworm Room, The Shark Tank, Fausta’s Blog, Verum Serum, Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin, Atlas [...]
What Congressman Weiner did with his tweeting was not illegal. I doubt such behavior could be termed adulterous. However, it was juvenile. If his wife chooses to remain with her juvenile tweeter of a husband, and if the good people of New York want to re-elect a juvenile tweeter to Congress, that is their choice.
Congressman Weiner lied about the tweeting. Moreover, he was complicit in the smearing of Breitbart, as he said nothing for a week while his followers smeared Breitbart. That to me is much more damning of Congressman Weiner than his juvenile tweeting.
Certainly both Republican and Democratic Party politicians are capable of less than pristine behavior, and when caught of trying to weasel out and stay in office. We don’t need to find cases of State Representatives to affirm that. One must be really desperate to look for cases of State Representatives.
Nonetheless, it would appear that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to resign when caught, and Democrats are more likely to try to tough it out. These are trends, so there will be exceptions either way. I assume statistics are taught at Harvard. Chris Lee resigned over his CraigsList chest photo. Weiner initially lied, finally ‘fessed up, and will most likely not resign.
I think of the Bay State bozos: Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds [compare behavior and consequences with Mark Foley], and Barney Frank. Tough it out. Barney Frank toughed it out well enough to help his next paramour Herb Moses get a cushy job with Fannie Mae. That concerns me much more than the prostitution ring run out of his living quarters for which Barney claimed lack of awareness.
“Huge trouble can come in small packages. All packages, no matter how big or small, should be given the utmost scrutiny before being loaded onto an aircraft.”
…or a twitter account
Gringo 11: Congressman Weiner lied about the tweeting. Moreover, he was complicit in the smearing of Breitbart, as he said nothing for a week while his followers smeared Breitbart. That to me is much more damning of Congressman Weiner than his juvenile tweeting.
I agree, Gringo. It’s not the initial bad behavior that gets them, it’s the cover-up that follows that is damning. Why do they keep thinking they’re going to get away with the cover-up?
Breitbart wins again. That guy is just amazing.
My dad used to take me aside repeatedly and advise me: “There’s only two types of people I can’t stand: A liar and a thief.” Along with the odiousness of his behavior, that’s the level at which this harms Weiner and his aspirations to be a serious national figure.
We have really have to learn to scrutinize EVERY LINK or premise that ABC provides very carefully!
Example: Helen Chenowitch, Rep from ID did not have an illicit affair while in office. She later admitted to have had an affair when she had been a private individual, before she had ever served in office.
Example: Larry Craig may not have resigned because he could not be force to resign – but he lost all support of his party and constituents and couldn’t get reelected.
Example: The large number of state representatives. ABC really had to dig deep to find them. Fortunately, he/she did not dig into city councils or the list may have been just a tiny bit longer.
Example: Newt Gingrich lost all support from his conservative constituency when the affair was revealed. Had he been Democrat, his constituents would have said…yep, he really is one of us!
Example: Representatives from Illinois – there are no conservatives in Illinois. Just corrupt hogs at the trough sporting different colors.
Ah….before I forget…keep digging ABC. It’s a pretty paltry list but don’t forget to include student council members in your next count. I’m sure there’s some dirt there, such as tweeting dirty pictures, upon which you can glom.
You’re right Danny. Buyer beware in the propaganda market.
I think there is a direct, strong correlation with how safe the seat is. The Democrats have many more “safe” seats than the Republicans, thus accounting for the peculiar skews in how these things are handled.
Gringo writes:
“Nonetheless, it would appear that Republicans are more likely than Democrats to resign when caught, and Democrats are more likely to try to tough it out. These are trends, so there will be exceptions either way. I assume statistics are taught at Harvard. Chris Lee resigned over his CraigsList chest photo. Weiner initially lied, finally ‘fessed up, and will most likely not resign.”
Why are REpublicans more likely to resign when caught? Where is your proof? They do teach stats at Harvard, and in that class that teach us that comparing a single data point to another single data point is not statistics.
Danny,
You are right about Chenoweth, although news of her affair wasn’t well known until after she became the first to call for the impeachment of Clinton. I guess she just falls under the category of massive hypocrite. As for the others, I think the cases speak for themselves, including the conservatives from IL–there are many in the southern part of the state. Also, I could have listed a bunch of other national figures, but didn’t want to waste more time on it. National conservative figures could also include:
Dick Armey (sexual harassment claims and exposure)
Bob Livingston (although he chose to resign in a political way that would take down the President, he wrongly thought)
Bill Thomas (extra-marital affairs with lobbyist)
Bob Barr (consorting with prostitutes, extra-marital affairs, failure to pay alimony)
Dan Burton (fathered out-of-wedlock child)
Charles Canady (extra-marital affairs)
JC Watts (fathered out-of-wedlock children)
Jon Peterson (multiple sexual harassment claims against him)
Donald Lukens (paid for sex with a 13-year-old)
Arlan Strangeland (extra-marital affairs)
Bob Packwood (multiple charges of sexual harassment)
Finally, Danny’s memory is hazy. Gingrich did not lose support over the extra-marital affairs. He lost support when he was found to have violated House Ethics rules and was forced to pay an unprecedented fine. That is when he lost support. The GOP didn’t care about the affairs at all, and he never resigned immediately after it became public inflormation.
Mike, Breitbart has proven himself on multiple occasions to be a liar. He frequently edits clips to make them appear to say something other than what they actually do in reality. You DO recall what he did with the Shirley Sherrod video, correct?? That the lying helps the GOP doesn’t make it more acceptable. Or at least it shouldn’t.
abc, you say that Breitbart has “proven himself on multiple occasions to be a liar,” but you only provide one example–not of lying, but of quoting someone out of context. What else have you got to back up your claim about multiple occasions?
At least you acknowledge that the worst thing that Weiner did (and I always maintained that Clinton’s high-jinks were none of our business, until he wagged his finger in the face of the American people and said “I did not have sex with that woman”) was the lying. Had he confessed when the story broke, this would all be over by now. Instead he got all sanctimonious and, like President Clinton, blatantly lied:
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/06/creepy-must-see-flashback-weiner-lies-shamelessly-to-abc-about-what-happened/
If Rep. Weiner wants to get his jollies by sending pictures of his ripped pecs and shoulders to random online followers, I say more power to him. I don’t care what he does in his private life (a concept I believe in, as opposed to the Democratic party, who feel that it’s their right to tell me what kind of light bulbs I can use, where and how I can travel, etc.). Public officials have a public trust to live up to, however, and that is not to lie. Lies of this magnitude, and stated with the cold conviction he musters in the video linked above, make him untrustworthy. An untrustworthy “public servant” is not something any of us can afford, whether he happens to be in our party or not.
I thought Clinton’s impeachment had to do with his definition of ‘is’ (obstruction of justice lying to coverup, sound familiar) and not his mistaking the oval office for a bordello.
An untrustworthy “public servant” is not something any of us can afford, whether he happens to be in our party or not.
They would run out of candidates for tyrants if they got rid of the power mad fools and sick sadistical bastos in the Democrat party. They have to keep people like them around. They won’t find anyone else to fill the spot if they got rid of liars, sexual criminals, and corrupt idiots.
The Left believes that the greater the man, the greater their flaws. They project their problems onto Bush, onto Sarah Palin, onto Andrew Breitbart, because they expect high ranking people to have issues. After all, they know for a fact that all of their leaders do. So why wouldn’t ours have it as well?
FunkyPhD, does the magnitude of the lie matter? Do you think that all the lying that occurred in the Bush administration over Plamegate, intelligence for WMDs, illegal wiretapping, and the like are more or less grave than lying over whether you had an extramarital affair? Clinton should have simply said, whether or not I had sex with that woman is no one’s business but mine and my wife’s. That he lied to the American people was a bad decision, but putting the President under oath for such a trivial offense, while Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify about 9/11 and the Iraq War without the benefit of taking an oath seems more than odd to me. Clinton’s problem was that he didn’t have a compliant Congress for most of his administration. Bush had it easier in this regard, although the stakes were much higher with regard to his testimony than Clinton’s.
abc
Why are REpublicans more likely to resign when caught? Where is your proof?…..
Touchy, touchy. It must have teed you off that I pointed out the sleazebags that get re-elected in Massachusetts. Interesting you didn’t try to refute this or ask for proof: “Democrats are more likely to try to tough it out.” The Bay State bozos are pretty good examples, are they not?
Read what I wrote: IT WOULD APPEAR.
Read it again: IT WOULD APPEAR.
Read it yet again; IT WOULD APPEAR.
¿Me entendés?
They do teach stats at Harvard, and in that class that teach us that comparing a single data point to another single data point is not statistics.
Apparently they didn’t teach arithmetic in the elementary school you attended, and Harvard didn’t provide remedial math help. I didn’t give one contrasting example, but two: Chris Lee/Weiner, and Gerry Stiubbs/Mark Foley.
When Ted Kennedy, Gerry Stubbs, and Barney Frank resign, or when the good people of Massachusetts vote in their opponents [recalling Danny's comment about Newt: 'Had he been Democrat, his constituents would have said…yep, he really is one of us!'] I will retract my point. [Yesa I realize that two of the three are dead. That's called a joke.]
When you can find a Republican in the last half century who did what Ted Kennedy did and continually got reelected as he did, I will retract my point. Or better said, deep-six my point.
PhD, also, you asked about Breitbart. The video’s used to take down ACORN (which was later exonerrated by a Congressional investigation) were heavily edited and misleading, according to the Atty General in California. Breitbart was involved in the editing of these videos. You could also ask Judy Ancel about the heavy editing of tape done by Breitbart, as his interview of her representing the Labor Studies department at a MO university was also filled with out-of-context quotes. Apparently, he has also played similar games while filming students at university. He has a long history of this dishonesty.
quist, I think you are on to something. And this makes sense. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So it isn’t whether you are a conservative or liberal, but how safe your seat is. In MA, the Kennedy’s are beyond same, so their behavior is beyond the pale, even for Washington, D.C. Those that say it SEEMS as though liberals are inherently less honorable than conservatives in how they handle their scandals going public are just demonstrating (yet again) confirmation bias.
A, are you trying to sound intelligent here. Because every video on the internet and on cable… has been edited. You understand this, yes. The police won’t accept any video that they never got the original copy of. It doesn’t matter who edited it or not. It’s not part of their chain of evidence, you see.
Or, maybe, you didn’t know that and thought there was something special about the Breitbart edit that made the police reject them as evidence. Exonerated? Ridiculous. You have to have a clue before you know what exonerated means.
Those that say it SEEMS as though liberals are inherently less honorable than conservatives in how they handle their scandals going public are just demonstrating (yet again) confirmation bias.
Or the Democrats have more fiefdoms than Republicans do. Republicans have to earn votes. Democrats simply command 95% of blacks to vote who they tell them to vote. Get the difference yet.
If abc is actually going to defend ACORN’s behavior concerning the fake-prostitutes scandal, what more do you need to know?
ACORN exonerated… by Democrats! ”Nothing to see here. Move along.”
“These are not the droids you’re looking for.”
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.
One wonders if abc perceives that he has just made a real life actual joke.
No wonder abc kept pointing to those eight “independent investigations” into the AGW scandal that “exonerated” them too. (It was funny how he kept bringing up the number 8, as if it were a magical incantation.) Wonders never cease.
I’m going to have to start insisting that I am unbiased at all times. It seems to do wonders for allowing one to, like an infant, sleep very well at night.
Does the room clown ever read what he writes?:
“They do teach stats at Harvard, and in that class that [sic] teach us that comparing a single data point to another single data point is not statistics.
OHMIGAW, ABC ATTENDED HARVARD! I did not know that! Oh, geeze, now I’ve gotta take him more seriously.
“Also, I could have listed a bunch of other national figures, but didn’t want to waste more time on it.”
Followed by a long list that he obviously had the time to waste on.
An argument requires more than a list. It requires a reason why that list supports or justifies an argument line.
The “everyone lies about sex” meme is beside the point. The problem isn’t what Clinton lied about, it was the arrogance and utter contempt for his hearers with which he lied, and the same goes for Weiner. What they lied about doesn’t matter (and I utterly reject that President Bush lied about the intelligence for WMD; for Plamegate see http://www.slate.com/id/2103795/); it’s that they take me for a fool, thinking that they can bluster their way through it with manufactured outrage and the charisma that knocks the ladies over like bowling pins. I *know* almost all politicians are scoundrels. I just get fed up when they think they can BS me about that fact, when they indulge in the effrontery that they are shocked, shocked that someone would dare to suggest that a living saint like Bill Clinton or Anthony Weiner could do anything wrong. It’s the self-righteousness that makes my blood boil. Just whom do they think they are?
Still waiting for proof of Breitbart “lying”: that is, intentionally and knowingly saying the opposite of what is true (like, “My Twitter was hacked; I was the victim of a prank”).
The video’s used to take down ACORN (which was later exonerrated by a Congressional investigation)- abc
There’s this report, paid for by ACORN, which was very critical of ACORN”s operations:
“The subsequent controversy led to ACORN initiating an independent review to ascertain the facts and to propose solutions. To that end they retained former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger to conduct a thorough investigation. The results of the investigation were released last week (pdf) and revealed that…
Harshbarger pulled no punches in his condemnation of ACORN’s failings. While he found that there was no unlawful conduct, this was no vindication. There was much about which to be embarrassed. Reporting on the study’s release could have justifiably focused on that aspect.”
Then there was a call for investigations by Republican congressmen, which was blocked by John Conyers, though he did release a letter from the CRS, hardly an exonerations. The GAO released a report that “no evidence ACORN mishandled the $40 million received in recent years:
I’m not sure what the exoneration you were referring to, but ACORN certainly wasn’t exonerated in Washington State:
Workers accused of concocting the biggest voter-registration-fraud scheme in state history said they were under pressure from the community-organizing group that hired them to sign up more voters, according to charging papers filed Thursday.
To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.
One defendant “said it was hard work making up all those cards,” and another “said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards,” according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff’s Detective Christopher Johnson.
If it was no big deal, why did Clinton lose his license to practice law?
A real prank would be if they hacked into Weiner’s account and liquidated all his assets, then donated them to Sarah Palin.
That would be a real “prank”.
roylofquist @17
I think there is a direct, strong correlation with how safe the seat is. The Democrats have many more “safe” seats than the Republicans, thus accounting for the peculiar skews in how these things are handled.
I would agree that safe seats have something to do with the issue of bad behavior on the part of our Congressmen, and how they respond to public exposure of their bad behavior. There were some articles in the blogosphere last year about the high number of black Congressmen who had corruption and ethics issues. Some commenters stated that because these black Congressmen were in safe seats, and didn’t feel the pressure of an opponent taking them apart for the slightest mishap, they got lax in their ethical behavior. What does it matter? It’s just a little thing. It’s a slippery slope.
[This is NOT a black/white issue, but a safe seat issue. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are prime examples of corrupt politicians in safe seats- or formerly safe seats.]
The above is also a big argument against gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is done for the creation of safe seats. Gerrymandering- interesting that such a term is named for a former Governor of Massachusetts- will result in more corruption, as shown above. Politicians in safe seats who don’t feel that someone is looking over their shoulders all the time will get lax. There is another argument against gerrymandering. Because politicians are in safe seats, they will not feel the need to compromise. They will become ideologues, because they do not need to answer to a politically mixed constituency. Gerrymandering will result in increased polarization because politicians will not feel the need to answer to those who disagree with them.
The issue of corruption is also an argument for smaller government. It there is less slop in the trough, the pigs won’t get as fat.
abc @ 25
Those that say it SEEMS as though liberals are inherently less honorable than conservatives in how they handle their scandals going public are just demonstrating (yet again) confirmation bias.
My first exposure to political corruption involved a US Senator from my home state, when I was in high school. During a reelection campaign the Senator had attended an event in my hometown. I shook the Senator’s hand. The Senator signed a soccer ball for a classmate of mine. The Senator got nailed several years later for misappropriation of funds, and lost the next election. The Senator was a Democrat, as I was at the time. It ain’t confirmation bias, it’s knowledge.
I was also a Democrat when a childhood friend worked at Hyannisport for the Kennedys one summer, What I heard from him turned me against the Kennedys. Like I said, it ain’t confirmation bias, it’s knowledge.
http://colorlines.com/archives/2010/08/rangel_waters.html
A has certain problems with the whole knowledge bit. Epistemology is a tough subject to learn in Harvard, it seems.
Damn that Dirtbag Weiner. While HE spent the weekend sending twitter updates of his little tweeter one son in law was fighting in Baghdad, in the very spot where 5 American troops died today, where they take mortar attacks nearly EVERY day. 5 AMERICAN troops dead to insurgents and we are talking about a Congressmans tweeter, God save us from Congress. While Dirtbag spent the weekend sending twitter updates of his little tweeter my son in law worked in 110 degree heat and DID NOT lie to his co-workers or commanding officers and observed the RULES of ENGAGEMENT which keep him in harms way. There is NO defence of Weiner and NO reason that Dirtbag should have one more day on our govt payroll. He lied, among other crude things. My apologies to other Dirtbags for the comparision to Weiner.
@Gringo,
All true but needs to be extended. Because of the seniority system the ideologues rise to power through the committee system. The committees run Congress, particularly in the House. If you look at a list of the committee and sub-committee chairs in the last House, you will find a large preponderance are from very safe, very “blue” districts.
As for President Clinton,
He was disbarred from The Bar of the United States Supreme Court.
He was disbarred from The Bar of The State of Arkansas.
Most people are only vaguely aware of what disbarment means. It means that the disbarred either egregiously violated The Canon of Ethics or committed a felony directly in violation of his oath as an officer of the court. You are banished! Begone!
Note also that the entire Supreme Court was absent from his next State ot Union Address.
Another term that is widely misunderstood is the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Most think that this refers to the severity of the offense. It most assuredly does not. High refers to the position of the person, not the nature of the crime. It was the practice throughout the world in those times that those with power could violate the written law with impunity. This provision was placed there to enforce “the rule of law, not men” so dearly cherished by the framers.
If you haven’t seen Dirtbag Weiner (good lines, 11sunflower, well done!),
check out the abc interview in which Weiner claims “I’m a victim here.”
All the while superiorly castigating the reporter.
By the time you’re done watching the interview, you’ll agree with 11sunflower: What a complete dirtbag!
The video is embedded here:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029183.php
I couldn’t watch any more than 2 minutes of the video. While I had read of his lame attempts at denying his tweeting, which pointed to his having tweeted, I had never seen him in performance. He is an attack dog, and good at it: “I need to show indignation at these unfair questions, so I will do so. ” Point him in the right direction, and he will go to work. The downside of being an attack dog is that an attack dog has no self-direction. It has to be trained or told where to attack.
Two days later, a different speech.
Jerzy Kosinski wrote The Future is Ours, Comrade, which is a recounting of conversations he had with ordinary Russians. One chapter was devoted to a Komsomol agit-prop speaker, who had been giving speeches for years, and had adjusted his speeches in accordance with shifts in the party line. He was a man with no center to him: a plug-in speech maker. Tell him what to say, he will say it. Weiner’s performance reminded me of the Komsomol agit-prop speaker.
@Gringo,
You read Kosinsky? I thought I was the only one left. I will admit to having read only “The Painted Bird”. It has influenced my thoughts for many years.
Howdy, geezer.
Roy
Really, really? We’re left with listing the skeezy people who are supposed to represent us in the republic. And, who has a longer list of sleaze? Great, my party is better than yours because you have more dirtbags than mine.
I don’t know about you but I hope that our representatives in Washington might rise just a bit above from basic monetary corruption. Maybe no “toe tapping” trying to get sexual favors in an airport. Maybe, leave the pages and interns alone. Maybe, not engaging in cybersex.
Good grief, we’re not even talking about the least incompetent government anymore, we’re talking about, you’re sexual predators in your party are worse than the sexual predators in mine.
Which I suppose is exactly why the Secretary of the Treasury who was stumped by Turbo Tax is where he is.
@Allen,
My sentiments almost exactly. The question is what do we do about it? I find the most practical answer in the Tea Party movement. They have demonstrated the will and the power to take down what has become and restore old order. They have chosen the Republican Party as the point of attack on the premise that it is the lesser of two evils. An historically extraordinary number of incumbent Republicans were dethroned in either primaries or Conventions. They ain’t dummies, ya know?
I attended one of the original gatherings on April 15, 2009. I have attended a couple or three subsequent events. I have no sustained contact with them or contribute. However, if salvation is to be found that’s the most promising road I have found.
Roy
roylofquist, my first Tea Party event was on April 15, 2009, too. Mine was in San Fancisco, in the belly of the beast. What a great group of people! Looking back, I couldn’t recall encountering the plutocrat racists that the mainstream media purported to have found were the backbone of the movement. But, then, I’m not as observant as the New York Times or abc.
Instead I found some very humorous, thoughtful, civil people, so totally unlike the unbalanced haters I was used to encountering in anti-war parades. (I used to be a hardcore leftist.) The vibe was just so right, to be surrounded by lawyers, teachers, businesspeople, workers, and homemakers who could carry on a conversation that didn’t involve slogans or obscenities—or a deep-seated hatred for America.
Hope isn’t going to get you anywhere given the preponderance of power aggregated to DC already.
The idea, generally Republican, now, is that less government means less corruption. To elaborate just a little, by one crude example, the more ridiculous the rules are for building inspection, the more opportunities there will be for inspectors who want to be bribed, because it becomes cheaper just to pay of the inspector than to jump through the flaming hoops. People who have never had to deal with confusing and contradictory building codes usually assume that complying with the the Codes means “doing it right,” and that anyone who has trouble with the codes just wants to cut corners. They nave never had to rip out a wall of plasterboard because the electrical inspector did not file his inspection report, so it needs to be done, again. In Austin, with Californiesque environmental rules, I have known people who had to fill in a hole and dig it out again, until the inspectors were satisfied.
These petty tyrranies are humiliating. They give power to people who get off on doing these nasty things. But, they also, as I have tried to explain, open the door to monetary corruption.
Other examples abound, of course, like the broad category of lying to qualify for some lump of Federal largesse, or “unions” which have mandatory membership, and use the members’ dues to fund the political campaigns of their benefactors in office.
Those of us who have seen enough of this life, tend to be fairly sophisticated about allegations of corruption, and to have both a sensitive BS detector about hyped or manufactured claims, and to know the real thing when we see it. An excellent example of the real thing would be a State Senator’s wife who received a sinecure job with a hospital system when her husband was elected, and a hundred thousand dollar a year raise when the State Senator somehow became a United States Senator. We see it, but no one, not even the notorious Right Wing Fox News, talks about it.
Apparently, Weiner lied about cyber sex. So? Is that significant somehow?
Z-team:
Apparently, Weiner lied about cyber sex. So? Is that significant somehow?
It is significant enough for you to comment on the issue. If you consider it a trivial issue, then you admit that you deal with trivialities. Heist, meet petard.
Congressman Weiner considered cyber-sex significant enough to lie about it. If he considered cyber-sex to be trivial, he would have told the truth from the outset.
Y: “A, are you trying to sound intelligent here. Because every video on the internet and on cable… has been edited. You understand this, yes. The police won’t accept any video that they never got the original copy of. It doesn’t matter who edited it or not. It’s not part of their chain of evidence, you see….Or, maybe, you didn’t know that and thought there was something special about the Breitbart edit that made the police reject them as evidence. Exonerated? Ridiculous. You have to have a clue before you know what exonerated means.”
Yes, there was something “special” about the Breitbart edits. They made white look black and up look down. Edits are fine it they do not deceive. Breitbart’s edits only deceived. This was the case in each of the videos that I cited. Cutting a steak and cutting another person’s neck are both cutting, but they are very different. Same with video editing in the hands of journalists versus propagandists.
Gringo: It is significant enough for you to comment on the issue.
We’ve commented on the annual budget of the Ministry of Silly Walks, too (£348,000,000). http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html
We simply asked if it was significant somehow. So, the answer is apparently not.
Gringo: Congressman Weiner considered cyber-sex significant enough to lie about it. If he considered cyber-sex to be trivial, he would have told the truth from the outset.
You must be thinking about some other species. Humans lie about sex all the time. It’s almost a defining characteristic. Most organisms do it in the open. Humans are funny that way.
PhD, I just gave you a list of videos that were selectively edited to appear to say the opposite of what was really said. You cannot say that you are still waiting for evidence…
Mike, ACORN contacted authorities about the incident, although conservative continue to believe that they did not. California’s Attorney General has noted as much, as has the media. No unlawful activity was found, and calls to the FBI were made. This doesn’t mean that ACORN acted perfectly, but it does mean that conservatives are lying when they say that ACORN aided and abetted criminality (e.g., prostitution, tax evasion). If you want to use my contention as a litmus test for being out to lunch, then there is a long line of people who disagree with you. Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with the actual facts involved in this incident. And if you are trying to link 8 independent investigations of the East Anglia climate researchers’ incident to this, then you really are stretching logic beyond the point of tearing… They have nothing to do with each other.
BrianE, for the third time, it was the fishing expedition that was unnecessary and politically motivated. The lying under oath indeed was a serious matter, and Clinton should be disbarred for that. However, a seven year investigation over his extra-marital affairs was a total waste of money, and conservatives are hypocritical for remaining silent over the many sex scandals within the GOP while characterizing Clinton’s as being worthy of multimillion dollar investigations. If the GOP had been interested in governering rather than paralyzing Clinton, then it never would have come to the testimony under oath that got Clinton in trouble.
Gringo: you question my understanding of statistics and math, but then you call a single anecdotal datapoint “knowledge.” I think you have me confused with someone born yesterday. Either show compelling data that Dems lie, cheat and steal more than Republicans, or stop making unsupported conclusions based on little data.
Then there was a call for investigations by Republican congressmen, which was blocked by John Conyers, though he did release a letter from the CRS, hardly an exonerations. The GAO released a report that “no evidence ACORN mishandled the $40 million received in recent years:- BrianE
In the context abc intended it, there was no Congressional investigation, and the GAO looked at ACORN and said ‘no evidence of payola’- but that is not a Congressional investigation. To what extent the GAO looked at it- did they use the FBI to other government resources that would have been involved had it been a Congressional investigation? Don’t know.
But then, that wasn’t the implications of the videos released by Beitbart. In response to those “charges”, the ‘independent investigation’, paid for by ACORN was quite critical, and “there was no vindication”.
By the way, over at Daily Kos, there’s an interesting thread– accusing Breitbart of hacking Weiner’s Twitter account and causing all the grief. Funny that the comments end abruptly. The final comment is especially amusing:
Oh, you kids… (0+ / 0-)
They played you like a hillbilly banjo, didn’t they?
Well, it wasn’t all that hard.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/29/980400/-Breitbarts-#TwitterHoaxHow-It-Went-Down-(updated-wsmoking-gun)?via=sidebyuserrec
So he’s the new liberal fall guy. Blame it all on Breitbart.
Michael Adams, you raise a good point, but why is government corruption the only corruption worth avoiding? Who, if not the government, can deal with other types of corruption, like the kind we saw on Wall Street, with Enron, with Worldcom, etc.?
ABC asks Mike Adams, “Michael Adams, you raise a good point, but why is government corruption the only corruption worth avoiding?”
Mike Adams said that?
conservatives are hypocritical for remaining silent over the many sex scandals within the GOP while characterizing Clinton’s as being worthy of multimillion dollar investigations.- abc
That’s the point of this. Conservatives do take adultery seriously. And we don’t remain silent, although your outrage that I’m not outraged at a state representataive in a state I don’t reside is a stretch.
And thank you for telling me what my reaction to Gingrich was, even though it bears no resemblance to the facts. No, he didn’t lose my support over the overblown ethics charges relating to his book deal– it was his affair.
abc, you’re usually full of facts– facts over which we can disagree regarding the interpretation. Once you move to the realm of human motivation you show a predictable leftist bent. I think you should stick to economics.
Who, if not the government, can deal with other types of corruption, like the kind we saw on Wall Street, with Enron, with Worldcom, etc.?- abc
Enron and Worldcom were dealt with– it’s interesting that a Democrat administration (you know, the one looking out for the little guy) hasn’t been more focused on the abuses of Wall Street. There were crimes committed. And Fannie for that matter.
In this instance I’m with you.
If your implication is that government regulations should somehow catch lawbreakers before lawbreaking, you’re asking too much. Cops stand at street corners, and some crimes are prevented, but for the most part, cops investigate crimes and hopefully catch the criminals.
BrianE, I am trying to stay with the facts. No politician will resign unless forced to. That conservatives were caught in scandals and didn’t resign means that you and others like you were in a minority in the case of non-resigning conservative politicians–likely even amongst conservatives in a position to throw the person out. Never did I make the argument a personal one about any given individual here. I do not doubt that you find the behavior moraly reprehensible, but you cannot claim that most conservatives felt strongly enough to recall or vote the bum out. Hopefully, that clarifies things. And I don’t think that my thinking reflects a leftist bent in that regard. I am merely rebutting the presumption, apparently shared by multiple people here, that conservatives are somehow special in their behavior. Evidence suggests that they are not, and unsupported claims to the contrary are hardly compelling.
As for the Wall Street mess, clearly our economy would be in much better shape had the financial crisis not happened. Given that multiple people and organizations warned about the risks that were being taken, it is actually not too much to ask that government regulators prevent Bear and Lehman to lever up 35 to 1, or to let the FBI go after Countrywide for mortgage fraud, which they had alleged on multiple occasions. As for the after-the-fact prosecutions, I agree that it is a travesty that no one is going to jail, but the Republicans are protecting Wall Street more than the Dems, as it happens, although both parties are owned by the banks. Campaign finance reform and lobbying prohibitions are needed, but the GOP fights the issue constantly, but that’s a different story best saved for another post…
Here’s what you said:
Gingrich did not lose support over the extra-marital affairs. - abc
I was just pointing out that that statement was false. I think I represented a fairly common attitude.
Regardless of his personal failings, he is an “idea” guy, which I think has value– he is looking for solutions to the nation’s problems (even if you disagree with them).
As to conservative’s response to his personal life– it’s unlikely he’ll get the support from social conservatives in his run for president.
When it comes to opinion characterizing other’s motivations or attitudes, it’s probably best not to speak in absolutes.
ABC …”As for the after-the-fact prosecutions, I agree that it is a travesty that no one is going to jail, but the Republicans are protecting Wall Street more than the Dems”
Cites/sites please?
actually not too much to ask that government regulators prevent Bear and Lehman to lever up 35 to 1- abc
Hindsight is always so doggone perfect, but we’ve already addressed that issue. European banks already had those increased leverages and still do.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-11-17/banks-in-eu-may-be-exempted-from-basel-leverage-ratio.html
I did notice that the new financial regulations didn’t restore the relevant provisions of Glass-Steagall.
Who, if not the government, can deal with other types of corruption, like the kind we saw on Wall Street, with Enron, with Worldcom,- abc
By the way, Enron and Worldcom were prosecuted by Republican administrations. Where are those Democrat administration (the one that’s going to be the most ethical in history) investigations, let alone prosecutions?
abc
Either show compelling data that Dems lie, cheat and steal more than Republicans, or stop making unsupported conclusions based on little data.
I refer you to the link at my comment #35 for ethically challenged Democrats. I do not see a similar number of Republican Congressmen under investigation in the past year. ¿Me entendés? That you are presenting such a demand shows me that you didn’t bother to previously read my comment #35, or that you are a careless reader.
You yourself admitted that those in safe seats were more likely to be corrupt and “less honorable ….. in how they handle their scandals going public.” (#25). Democrats are more likely to have safe seats. Do the math.
An in-law was caught in a corruption deal on a government-funded construction project. Yellow Dog Democrat. Purely coincidental, no?
Gringo: you question my understanding of statistics and math, but then you call a single anecdotal datapoint “knowledge.”
You once again show yourself to be a careless reader. Regarding my speculating that Republicans are more likely to resign, and the Democrats more likely to tough it out and keep running for reelection, I gave TWO examples. For cyber photos (Lee/Weiner) and for male pages (Foley/Stubbs). Also note that in both cases, the Republican Party politician’s misbehavior was of lesser magnitude that that of the Democratic Party politician. Yet the Democrats stayed, and the Republicans resigned.
If you were referring to my comment #35, and fault me for providing only one example regarding corruption and toughing it out, my reply is that I made your comment with regard to your claim of conformation bias. I pointed out that my first exposure to corruption and toughing it out came from a US Senator of the Democratic Party persuasion, and that as I was a Democrat at the time, confirmation bias [#25] couldn’t be the issue you claim it is. With logic, one counterexample suffices to smash a syllogism. (I also provided another example: the Kennedys.) Moreover, in comment #35 I gave a link which documented multiple examples of recent corruption.
Both Republican and Democratic politicians misbehave. Refer to my comment #12.
I would have two additional points to add to my comment #12 regarding different tendencies in how Republican and Democratic politicians respond to getting caught. First, I would suspect that the different tendencies I postulated in comment #12 are more recent trends, and that in decades past there was not as much of a difference. The two examples I gave of Republican politicians quickly ‘fessing up and resigning are within the last five years. It would not surprise me to find out this was not so much the case 30 years ago.
Second, there appears to be a difference in the way the constituencies of Republican versus Democratic Party politicians respond when politicians are caught. You have given many examples of Republican politicians toughing it out after being caught. Of the misbehaving Republicans that I checked out, I noticed that they did not get reelected. By contrast, consider the Bay State bozos: Ted, Gerry, and Barney. Ted and Gerry could probably move from Massachusetts to a Chicago graveyard and still get elected.
Can you provide examples of Democratic Party politicians who, like Foley and Lee, quickly resigned after being caught? Inquiring minds want to know.
I also repeat from my comment #23:
When you can find a Republican in the last half century who did [something comparable to] what Ted Kennedy did and continually got reelected as he did, I will retract my point. Or better said, deep-six my point.
I am out of here. No más.
BrianE asks: “Where are those Democrat administration (the one that’s going to be the most ethical in history) investigations, let alone prosecutions?”
You mean, the investigations and prosecutions of Countrywide Financial, Fannie Mae/FreddieMac, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, the Clinton Haiti telephone monopoly? Umm…well…er…
For Haiti story: http://www.haiti-info.com/?Haitian-Connections
Back to the original topic, I’m with abc. Weiner should not resign unless he wants to. He’s done nothing criminal, and the voters of his district should be allowed to sort out whether they want to keep him. I also think the impeachment of Clinton was a complete waste of time and money.
However, I do think it is true that Democrats caught in such a scandal are more likely to survive than Republicans, because Democrat voters are more likely than Republican voters to forgive such behavior — even the lying (look at Z’s comment about lying about sex as an example). It’s a vastly overbroad overgeneralization, but Republicans lose their voter base. Democrats do not.
The one thing we know for sure in viewing the two videos is that Weiner is a perfect, consummate liar. His lies are undetectable. Can you believe the “genuine” contrition in the confessional video? The choking up, the tears? It’s troubling question for his constituency, I bet. We have a natural impulse to want to give someone a second chance; mercy and forgiveness. But… such a perfect liar…
No one thinks the House should expel him. He’d resign the way they all resign: When the writing is on the wall that he won’t be reelected. I’m sure his polling organization is already quite busy up there.
roylofquist had exchanges with other commenters on different Book posts, the exchanges were great, that maybe the people are becoming tired of the extravagances of our national elite. And in general we’re just not going to take it anymore. It will be interesting to follow New Yorkers’ reactions on WeinerGate (esp. the hyperbolic lying). The man was already practically out the door of the House anyway in his desire to run for mayor of NYC. It’ll be interesting to watch if they’re still interested in having him.
I agree with Don Q that the bases are different. For all of their preening about their sophistication and boldness when it comes to sex, the Democrats simply don’t come off as very adult. What kind of an adult would support a man in high office who tweets photos of his genitals to women?
Danny @ 59: the press reported that the GOP has been blocking movement on reform, although hopefully that will change going forward…
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/business/27regulate.html
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-04-28/news/27062920_1_bipartisan-negotiations-financial-firms-democratic-bill
Gringo,
Please show that Dems are more likely to have safe seats. I still think you play fast and loose with your data to make your points. Sorry, but even a few data points doesn’t show much, nor do comparisons of partial lists…
BrianE,
It wasn’t hindsight to Greenlight Capital, which made billions shorting the banks levered 35 to 1. It wasn’t hindsight when Buffet warned about the CDO and other derivative markets in ’04. It wasn’t hindsight when the FBI warned of widespread mortgage fraud as early as ’05. Your history is a little hazy apparently. The reason no one moved on this is because Wall Street banks were making too much money, and they control D.C. with their lobbying money. It’s called regulatory capture. And addressing this problem is critical, since we need effective government. And I am no apologist for the Dems. They should have addressed corruption at Fannie and Freddie, but those GSE’s are actually a much smaller part of the problem than Wall Street and big mortgage lenders like Countrywide. As I have repeatedly pointed out, the default rate on prime origination (the only stuff Freddie and Fannie do) is about three times less likely than the toxic stuff that the private companies originated. That is a fact that Republicans ignore.
Edits are fine it they do not deceive. Breitbart’s edits only deceived.
Same with video editing in the hands of journalists versus propagandists.
So that somehow means that you believe Sarah Palin’s interviews by Couric and that other guy in 2008 was edited with accuracy in mind, but Breitbart’s edits were somehow deceptive? This is a popular narrative view you have here, utilizing a couple of examples and no need for more. Even though the Main Sewer Media has more examples than someone could shake a stick at.
In fact the reality that we here recognize is entirely the opposite of your view. Journalistic editing is more times than not, deceptive in nature, while Breitbart’s edits are far more accurate than may be expected.
This doesn’t mean that ACORN acted perfectly, but it does mean that conservatives are lying when they say that ACORN aided and abetted criminality (e.g., prostitution, tax evasion).
So you claim propaganda isn’t aiding and abetting criminal activity. If you don’t think propaganda is an issue, why do you go on about Breitbart’s edits. None of them actually, you know, committed a crime. If you are willing to overlook ACORN’s propaganda and lying, why do you care about Breitbart’s accurate edits?
So he’s the new liberal fall guy. Blame it all on Breitbart.
Used to be Dick Cheney and Rove they were scared shatless of.
Mike Adams said that?
The illusionary Adams manufactured for narcissistic consumption said that, perhaps.
There were crimes committed.
During Democrat administrations, they took the money and basically ignored it. During a Republican administration, their problems were too big for the SEC to overlook and ended up on the Justice enforcement part of the Bush admin.
That you are presenting such a demand shows me that you didn’t bother to previously read my comment #35, or that you are a careless reader.
A has already said here before that he doesn’t bother to read the name that goes on top of the various quotes he uses. It’s not at all guaranteed that he knows you wrote what you wrote… you know.
What kind of an adult would support a man in high office who tweets photos of his genitals to women?
Power is worth that kind of minor sacrifice to the cruel and power mad tyrants of this world.
>>The man was already practically out the door of the House anyway in his desire to run for mayor of NYC.>>
Do you know if he will have to resign his seat in order to run for mayor?
Don Q,
“Republicans lose their voter base. Democrats do not” Can you say Kopechne? I knew you could. Since this event the Democrats will get away with murder, so to speak, because they allowed Kennedy to get away with how he handled that accident where a woman died in the car he was driving and his first call was a CYA to his lawyer a half a day after the event.
Lying about sex. This is the great divide is it not? This is the only area that the Dems want Government out of our lives…I guess that’s not true either come to think of the “sex-ed” classes these days (I was texting my home work – I swear!)…wait they do want the Government out of the practice of sex they just want us all to know what everybody else does and it’s ok. Whatever. My point was the Dems think it’s OK to lie about sex because it’s just a physical thing never mind the VOWS that were BROKEN. Perot had it right “If you’ll cheat on your wife, how do I know that you won’t cheat me?” It goes to pattern and character. What the lie is about does not matter it’s that one is self serving enough that they are vulnerable to do “that which is right in their own eyes”. There are plenty men of power that are on both sides of the aisle that behave in such manner, however it seems that the Dems are willing to look the other way or wink at evil. The Republican constituents behave more like this: ”
and his shame will never be wiped away;
for jealousy arouses a husband’s fury,
and he will show no mercy when he takes revenge.
He will not accept any compensation;
he will refuse the bribe, however great it is. Prov 6, latter verses
abc
Gringo, Please show that Dems are more likely to have safe seats. I still think you play fast and loose with your data to make your points. Sorry, but even a few data points doesn’t show much, nor do comparisons of partial lists…
Try playing fast and loose with four hundred and thirty five data points which constitute all the Congressional Districts of the USA.
From the Cook Partisan Voting index in Wiki, I made up a spreadsheet of the 435 Congressional Districts. I arbitrarily chose a +20 spread between either Republican or Democrat to constitute a safe seat. Of the 75 Districts with a +20 or greater spread, 54 were Democratic; 20 were Republican.
Another way of looking at safe seats is to consider gerrymandering. Before the 2010 election, Slate had a slideshow on The Most Gerrymandered Districts. Of the top 20 which constituted the list, I counted four Republican seats. One of those was a Republican gerrymander that backfired: Murtha’s old seat, so I would accept five out of 20. (Il-17 went Pub in 2010, but the Demos drew the lines.)
No contest. It’s as simple as abc.
The real master of gerrymandering is Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. At least in the US, voting districts have more or less equal population. In Venezuela, while the Chavez-written Constitution mandates proportional representation, Hugo simply ignores it. Example: Miranda-3, which voted for the opposition last year, had 321,909 registered voters. Miranda-7, which went for the Chave PSUV party, had 137,843 registered voters.I am not talking voter turnout. I am talking registered voters. Now that is what I call Hugomandering.
http://www.slate.com/id/2208216/slideshow/2208554/fs/0//entry/2208555/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cook_Partisan_Voting_Index Cook Partisan Voting Index
That should be 74 safe districts: 54 Demo, 20 Pub. Sorry for the mistake.
Hugomandering, interesting. The Left may wish to implement that revolutionary policy.
suek,
I don’t know election law. If the mayor election is for Nov 2012, then I don’t think he can run for US House and Mayor of NYC at the same time. (The Constitution says he can’t *hold* both simultaneously; I think that would mean he can’t run for both at the same time either. Wouldn’t seem to make sense that he could win both, and then immediately resign his House victory?)
Who can predict what the perfect liar is going to do?
I see his wife is off and away from all the attention, seen huddling this morning with Hillary Clinton. I wonder what they have in common to talk about… aside from both having husbands that are sociopathically gifted liars and cheaters? Fly on the wall to overhear *that* conversation!
If anyone is interested in further research regarding Hugomandering, here are some links.
http://esdata.info/circuitos Data on registered voters.
http://www.cne.gob.ve/divulgacion_parlamentarias_2010/index.php 2010 legislative election results. PSUV is the Chavista party.
Some of the most egregious Hugomandering was done in Miranda and Carabobo states.
Oh, my goodness.
http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/06/ed-schultz-to-moonbat-guests-you-people.html
This is a rather long video of the Ed Schultz show on MSNBC. *Very* entertaining to me.
There is some really intense debate on the Democrat side! They’re tying themselves into knots.
Some interesting points…
1. Joan Walsh, supposedly a reporter for the MSM, blatantly is a “we” vs “they” partisan. She has clearly discarded any and all pretense to objectivity. Her comments most amazed me.
2. Ed Schultz raised some interesting points about the XXX-rated photo Breitbart has in his possession. My God. Weiner sent pornography over the internet. Let that sink in. Most of the panelists agreed that if that picture comes out, Weiner is toast. And they think Breitbart should release it *if* it is real – and end Weiner’s career. Furthermore, Weiner is not denying that that XXX-rated picture is out there. He’s over a barrel. There’s nothing he can do.
The thing I have to wonder is if the incredible Breitbart even saw *this* coming, how the left would tie itself into knots over the mysterious XXX-rated photo, as well? Keeping the controversy alive even further. (And boy you can tell they despise him!)
Fun stuff. And Joan Walsh, *what* a 100% partisan mouthpiece hack!!! At least she is completely out of the closet. I wish more of them were. Proudly declare yourselves part of the Democrat propaganda machine, MSM hacks!
>>Most of the panelists agreed that if that picture comes out, Weiner is toast.>>
Apparently it _has_ come out.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/06/opie-and-anthony-have-weiners-wiener.html
And to top it all off, apparently Weiner’s wife is pregnant.
Brother.
The LEft has rules. Tying them in knots by holding them to the rules that even they can’t follow, is justice. Other things it can be is payback and just deserts.
“Most of the panelists agreed that if that picture comes out, Weiner is toast.”
My sainted mother taught me several bedrock things:
—You do not wear white after Labor Day.
—Jim Crow was a Democrat invention.
—You never, never, never eat a weiner on toast.
I don’t know who taught me this, but enemies were to be destroyed and annihilated without pity. Otherwise they’re not enemies, but allies. Btw, the talking heads said that if resignation was required of anyone lying, then DC would be a ghost town. I’ll tell you what else would make it a ghost town. My execution scaffold proposals.
Enemies are enemies because their goal requires your destruction or maybe their goal is your destruction. Allies are allies because their goal requires your cooperation or success, or perhaps their goal is your success and continued prosperity and security.
In that sense, who Israel’s enemies are and who America’s enemies are and who our enemies are, should be clear from such. But it isn’t, for the LEft has muddied the waters.
Ymarsakar! Now you’ve opened to door for Zach, with his pretend concern for humans, to start lecturing you again on how shocked he is over your proposal to execute leftists in Britain. Please don’t give him room for his phony shows of concern for truth, justice and the [he despises it] American way.
As one of my comments got sent to the spam folder- two links- I will cut out one of the links, but the italicized quote will enable it to be traced.
Joan Walsh money quote #1 from the link at comment #76. [Thanks, Mike.]
“I looked kinda stupid.”
From Instapundit:
Speaking of Joan Walsh, let’s flash back to her dismay over learning that George W. Bush had the same SAT score she did.
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/122108/
Joan Walsh money quote #2 from the link at comment #76. [Thanks, Mike.]
“You can’t accuse him of hypocrisy.”
Actually, Joanie baby, you CAN accuse Weiner of hypocrisy. In initially claiming to be the victim of a hack, Weiner pretended to be better than he actually was- which defines a hypocrite.
There is more. Congressman Weiner trolled for cybersex relations and sent crotch shots via the Internet. Congressman Weiner also sponsored Internet Sex Predators legislation. Sounds hypocritical to me.
Joanie baby, you DO sound rather stupid. Much more stupid than Dubya, it would appear. Or at least Dubya makes much better use of his mind than you do,
The following italicized material is a quote.
Anthony Weiner Sponsored Internet Sexual Predators Legislation
In the interest of protecting the children, U.S. Congressman Anthony Weiner (Pervert – N.Y.), sponsored the Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2007 a.k.a. KIDS Act of 2007. The text of the legislation is below.
But here’s a great quote from the Weiner about his interest in stopping Internet predators.
“Sadly, the Internet is the predator’s venue of choice today. We need to update our strategies and our laws to stop these offenders who are a mere click away from our children.” – Anthony Weiner
At first, Congressman Weiner accused others of the crime of hacking his Twitter account to tweet a special “weiner” pic of him in his undies. Instead of calling in the FBI to pursue the alleged crime, Anthony Weiner then relabeled the event as a “prank.”
After denials and evasions for a week, Congressman Anthony Weiner was forced by additional lewd photos to admit he’s been trolling for cybersex relationships for years and has engaged in them with at least six women.
And Anthony Weiner doesn’t know if any of his communications have been with minors either. If so, would he qualify as the same type of Internet sexual predator he’s pontificating against in legislation and related press releases?
Of course, now that he’s said he’s sorry (that he got caught), Weiner considers this to be a resume enhancer and refuses to resign from office. Perhaps he will continue with his plans to run for New York City Mayor.
I won’t pretend to be the moral police. But then again, neither should Anthony Weiner.
Lessons From The Anthony Weiner Cybersex Escapades
Here’s a few lessons to learn from the Anthony Weiner fiasco.
* Not all creepy married guys trolling for sex online are registered sex offenders. There’s even congressmen like Anthony Weiner.
* Legislation like the KIDS Act of 2007 won’t do much to protect anyone from registered sex offenders or guys like Anthony Weiner.
* Protect yourself when dealing with strangers online and don’t rely upon leglislation to protect your kids in cyberspace either. Parental supervision is key.
If you cut out the http and/or www part of the link, wordpress won’t parse the link. It helps if you highlight it and click “unlink” as well, even though it’ll parse as a link when posted.
Martel, the more he does that, the more foolish he looks.
Such is the price of losing the initiative on the battlefield.
After denials and evasions for a week, Congressman Anthony Weiner was forced by additional lewd photos to admit he’s been trolling for cybersex relationships for years and has engaged in them with at least six women.
Trolling for cybersex is not predation or a crime.
And Anthony Weiner doesn’t know if any of his communications have been with minors either. If so, would he qualify as the same type of Internet sexual predator he’s pontificating against in legislation and related press releases?
If he had inappropriate communications with a minor, then it could constitute a crime.
[...] If he was a conservative, he would have resigned [...]
Bearing false witnesses and saying Breitbart did a crime, yeah that’s not a crime. That’s just regular LibProgTard expected behavior. It’s what Z finds no Problemo. Perfectly A Okay.