If he was a conservative, he would have resigned

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.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • BrianE

    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.

  • abc

    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.?

  • Danny Lemieux

    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?

  • BrianE

    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.

  • BrianE

    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.  

  • abc

    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…

  • BrianE

    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.

  • Danny Lemieux

    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?

  • BrianE

    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.

  • BrianE

    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? 

  • Gringo

    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.

  • Danny Lemieux

    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

  • http://ruminationsroom.wordpress.com Don Quixote

    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.

  • Mike Devx

    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.

  • Charles Martel

    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?

  • abc

    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.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    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.
     

  • suek

    >>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?

  • MacG

    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

  • Gringo

     
    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

  • Gringo

    That should be 74 safe districts: 54 Demo, 20 Pub. Sorry for the mistake.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Hugomandering, interesting. The Left may wish to implement that revolutionary policy.

  • Mike Devx

    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!

  • Gringo

    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.

  • Mike Devx

    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!

  • suek

    >>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.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    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.

  • Charles Martel

    “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.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    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.

  • Charles Martel

    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.

  • Gringo

    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.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    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.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Martel, the more he does that, the more foolish he looks.

    Such is the price of losing the initiative on the battlefield.

  • http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/07/liberal-v-conservative.html Zachriel

    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. 

  • Pingback: Boy, am I stuffed…Daily Dive 9 June 11 | adeliemanchot()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    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.