Why can't politicians keep it in their pants? Today's topic, Congressman Anthony Wiener

Re: Foley, I think there was more to it than that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_congressional_page_incident

Still, it makes the practically universal defense amongst the GOP of Vitter even more bizarre. That's my whole point, the inconsistency,particularly with Vitter. People like Clinton, Spitzer, Gingrich, Guiliani...they seemed to face a lot of criticism and go through the ringer. With Vitter, it's like "Well, he said G-d, and he's a dedicated conservative, so let's give him a pass".

 

Err...J-Rod, he was flirting with an under-age male page.

 

So no, it?s not like it happened way back when. Just because it took a few extra years for him to finally get caught and admit it doesn?t make it ok.

No, it doesn't make it ok, but it's not realistic and it's not typically how such matters are handled. Even in the legal realm, "a few extra years" do matter, as there's a concept called statute of limitations. (murder being the exception) For example, in IL, there's a 12 month limit on basic crimes like disorderly conduct, or suing for slander, etc.. Others have longer periods, but for the sake of argument, we'll say that the average is 4-5 years. It means that even if a youtube video surfaces of someone acting like an idiot, that person wouldn't be able to be prosecuted for the crime if the limit is passed. It might not be right, but it is a legal concept that is precisely tied to time and in a sense, forgiveness.

The point of all this is that such realities are commonplace and accepted in the country. So with the Vitter example, he frequented hookers 10-12 years ago. His phone number wasn't found until a list was scrubbed in 2007. What remedy should occur? What sanctions would be appropriate? There's no current activity or violation that could be corrected. It doesn't make such past behavior right, but the reality is that time diminishes the severity of all ills, and it doesn't matter if the subject is a democrat or a republican.

I completely agree with you about the arbitrary nature of such accountability, but then you seem to pluck out an obscure reference and give it the same weight as something that is currently happening. That seems arbitrary in its own right. It goes back to my question on where would you draw the line? If any politician makes a mistake or engages in a imperfect action, should they forever be barred from holding office, no matter the situation?

What everyone is still ignoring with Weiner (and I'm not sure why) is that very few people care about the actual pictures. The focus on his behavior is related to possible misuse of government resources and/or bringing discredit to his Congressional office. Those are completely different ideas than "OMG!He showed his crotch! Let's go after him because he's a democrat!" It's certainly not republican officials who are bringing about official investigations, it's the leadership of the democratic party themselves. Maybe Pelosi and the rest of the party are only doing so to save face, but they still recognize the need. It goes back to the difference in weight given to personal scandals and official scandals.

In fact, one of Weiner's fellow representives from NY, Steve Israel, summed it up best to CNN:

"(Weiner undertook)...a deep personal failure and inappropriate behavior that embarrassed himself, his family and the House." I support the ethics probe to remove all remaining doubt about this situation."

That's a strong condemnation. Along with Pelosi, who is minority leader of the house, Israel is the overall chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the organization that distributes funds and organizes campaigns to elect party members to Congressional positions. None of these officials are republicans who only have partisan concerns, they represent the internal leadership of the democratic party. Because without backing of the leadership, any politician is going to have a difficult time no matter how proudly stubborn they are.

 

And you know he used government resources how? Which 'resources' did he use and can it be proven? Otherwise this is a lame attempt to come up with a reason for wanting him to resign because he lied.

Fortunately Republicans will drag this out for much further than it needs to be and the Democratic members are going along with it so as not to seem approving of his behavior. Otherwise this issue is dead, but it does show the unhealthy levels of gossip that our media will tolerate.

 

And you know he used government resources how? Which 'resources' did he use and can it be proven? Otherwise this is a lame attempt to come up with a reason for wanting him to resign because he lied.

FID, I don't know anything per se. I wasn't there. The government resources claim comes from the fact that the interior of his Congressional office was identified in some of the pictures, and the fact that his official Congressional accounts were used. I'm sure whatever the outcome and/or no matter how serious or slight, Congress didn't set up electronic media accounts for representatives to take pictures of their crotch.

And really, isn't "resigning because he lied" a pretty good reason in its own right, no matter the other issues? Is that the defense you think would be most effective?

Fortunately Republicans will drag this out for much further than it needs to be and the Democratic members are going along with it so as not to seem approving of his behavior. Otherwise this issue is dead, but it does show the unhealthy levels of gossip that our media will tolerate.

And again, I'm not sure what your point is here. So literally, you're saying that officials like Pelosi, Israel, and Reid have no will of their own, and despite holding party leadership positions, are only "going along with the republicans?" Way to completely marginalize people who are suppose to be competent in their own right. If that were true, then the republican party must be the strongest behind the scenes organization in the world, WAAAAYYYY stronger that the Stonecutters from the Simpsons, and after all, they made Steve Guttenberg a star....

I think your own perception is what is tripping you up, because you continue to post all these dodges that don't really fit. First off, the primary rule of any field is that one doesn't use company/business/official resources to carry out behavior like this. If Weiner was an employee of Boeing, he would have been fired, and that would have been that. The lying to cover up his behavior is just icing on the cake.

Secondly, you keep posting about how its only republicans who are concerned, but it's just about the opposite. Sure, I've seen rumblings from republican figures, but all of the official action has come from democratic leaders. When confronted with that, you default to "yeah, but the democrats are only going along with the republicans...." and I'm only left with a sense of eh, ok...

 

This is T-shirtable.

 

Nope, lying isn't a good reason to resign. If that were the case we would have no government. I am theoretically fine with lying. It depends on what the lie is about. I see lying as social adaptation. Some are stupid and some are not. With regards to Jon Kyl, yeah, I can see him resigning for lying. Mainly because he lied about something important. With this it's all around stupid and thus nothing to resign over.

 

While I don't make it a habbit to defend scum, I remember hearing that none of the male pages were under-age at the time of contact. Of course this came out long after he resigned.

 

Not bloody likely.

 

Mr44

Time does matter, and I think I did mention the statute of limitations.

But again, this adds to my whole issue with the randomness. What should be the statute of limitaitons in terms of public opinion and politics?

Vitter frequented hookers, denied/lied about it when first asked, and it was discovered six years (at the most) later.

Maybe Pelosi and the rest of the party are only doing so to save face, but they still recognize the need.

Possibly, but either way it?s nice to see them take some leadership responsibility whereas the Republicans did the exact opposite with Vitter.

What everyone is still ignoring with Weiner (and I'm not sure why) is that very few people care about the actual pictures.

I disagree. I think a lot of people do indeed care about the actual pictures and that they were highly inappropriate and very inproper behavior for a married, elected official.

The focus on his behavior is related to possible misuse of government resources

The Republicans will drive at that to obfuscate the fact that they defended Vitter. Again, some of Vitter?s calls were during house roll call votes. AND prositution is illegal. Why not the call for a similar investigation a few years ago? Again, among other reasons, by not doing that they have no ground to stand on.

and/or bringing discredit to his Congressional office.

You mean like ordering hookers while a member of Congress?

I completely agree with you about the arbitrary nature of such accountability, but then you seem to pluck out an obscure reference and give it the same weight as something that is currently happening. That seems arbitrary in its own right. It goes back to my question on where would you draw the line? If any politician makes a mistake or engages in a imperfect action, should they forever be barred from holding office, no matter the situation?

I?m not sure what reference you are refering to, and to be honest, I?m not sure where I?d draw the line. I'd have to think about that. My initial thinking is that Weiner should probably resign, but again to be honest, I hope he doesn?t because of Vitter.

But my point is that while the sexual scandal albatross known as David Vitter is in office, the Republicans have absolutely, positively no standing on such matters.

 

My only problem with your above post is that it attempts to have the best of both worlds. You make an argument against arbitrary enforcement and also agree with the idea of a "statute of limitations." We both agree with these ideas. But then you pretend that a 10 year old example should hold the same consequence as a 2 week old example, and the disparity contradicts one and another. The only reason why any of us are talking about Weiner is because it's a current story, and however sensationalized/gossipy/contemporary, it makes for some interesting discussion. A scandal involving a sitting politician makes for good news, and I think by the very nature of the position, the additional scrutiny is warranted to a point. The accountability exists in the now, because the incident itself is unfolding in the now.

However, imagine if none of this was revealed now. Fast forward to the year 2021, and pretend that Weiner's pictures were discovered for the 1st time on a hard drive. It would hardly be news-worthy except for maybe a back page mention. There certainly wouldn't be the same level of concern applied to an issue which occurred in 2011 and only first revealed in 2021. I'd say it would be a safe bet that neither party leadership would be rushing to get to the bottom of something that was 10 years removed.

That's what you're asking us to accept with the Vitter example. We don't know what the reaction was back in 1999-2001 when it first occurred, and as of yet, no one here has provided any examples either way. So you certainly can't conclude what the reaction was or wasn't. Even when his phone number was 1st discovered on the "madame list" back in 2007, the discovery itself was 6-8 years removed from the actual behavior, so of course the reaction was more muted. This would apply no matter what political party the person was from. Because it's rather disingenuous to claim that there's no accountability over something that occurred 11 years ago, because accountability is rarely retroactively applied, unless it's a serious offense. Now, if Vitter is caught sleeping with prostitutes next week, you can draw all the comparisons you want. Because other examples have been mentioned in the thread. The Sanford case. The Larry Craig case. Both of those incidents involved accountability as they unfolded, no different than this example. There are others from either party that are more relevant than decade old news.

 

I?m not saying a 10 year old example should hold the same water as something happening currently. However, even this isn?t exactly right. We don?t know the reaction back in 2001 because he denied it in 2002, only in 2007 did we find out he lied about it. And it?s not like he used the office mail for personal letters.

That said, when it was discovered in 2007 the response was a collective shrug from the Republican party. No real calls for investigations. In fact, the GOP practically rallied around him. Democrats were outraged back then, but IIRC even here Republicans defended him, probably because they saw him as a reliable true believer and didn't want to lose that vote.

What if we found out now that Vitter had been with hookers in 2005, and had denied it in 2006? I think the reaction would be outrage. What if we discovered that Obama visited hookers in 2005, would you say 'meh, it's not current'?

So feel free to discuss it, just don't demand Weiner's resignation without doing the same for Vitter. The GOP gave up that right in 2007 by protecting Vitter and won't regain it until they get rid of him (although I still say patronizing hookers is worse than sexting).

I think where we disagree is the staute of limitations for political transgressions. You think six years is too long ago, then again based on your post it seems like the statute of limitations was last week.

 

What if we found out now that Vitter had been with hookers in 2005, and had denied it in 2006? I think the reaction would be outrage. What if we discovered that Obama visited hookers in 2005, would you say 'meh, it's not current'?

I think to most people, that would to the exact reaction. Are you saying that the voters here would come together and universally call for his resignation because he slept with hookers 6 years ago, before he was even President? That's not realistic at all. Not too many people would care about something Obama did back in Chicago in the year 2005. And in fact, it would be even less of a scandal if Obama came out and said he hasn't done that since then and issued an apology, instead of trying to engage in the typical "I was hacked" cycle of denial. And based on the parameters of your example, I certainly wouldn't support removing Obama from office over something did before he was even President, and I'm not even an Obama supporter. Don't get me wrong. Obviously, it would be a high profile news story. It's not like the media would ignore such a thing. But there wouldn't be any current consequences applied based on past events. Hey, maybe Tony Rezko was the one who supplied the hookers? We know how that revelation would turn out, right?

Your above "6 years ago" example is a completely different idea than if a sitting President was out bagging hookers while an important decision on Afghanistan, or Libya, or similar, was being debated. Which is my point. Actions undertaken in the past just don't carry the same weight as current actions. And even then, the closest example we can look to for the actions of a sitting President would be the Clinton scandal, and that was a big waste of time based on political posturing from both sides. Clinton's example was more serious because he had the entire perjury/lying under oath thing going on, which he should have gotten impeached for. But the actual sexual acts undertaken with Lewinsky, eh, not so much.

So feel free to discuss it, just don't demand Weiner's resignation without doing the same for Vitter. The GOP gave up that right in 2007 by protecting Vitter and won't regain it until they get rid of him (although I still say patronizing hookers is worse than sexting).

But again, this paragraph contradicts everything you've previously posted. Are you saying that you would demand Vitter's resignation now, over something that happened back in 1999? I just can't see that ever happening, which was my reaction to when the original Vitter example was brought up. Remember, Quix originally posted something along the lines of "Vitter slept with prostitutes, and was re-elected last year." Except the time frame which was omitted does matter, as the original post should have said: "Vitter slept with prostitutes in 1999, and was elected in 2010 for a different position.[/i]"

As far as the concept of absolute fairness goes, the fact that other examples like Sanford and Craig (who either resigned or were barred from re-election by the party) exist doesn't matter to you? In your mind, does Vitter's example trump everything else? I just don't understand why you're putting all your scandalous eggs in that one basket and/or acting like its the most serious scandal that exists. Vitter went to call girls 10-12 years ago. Unless one of the girls happened to be someone's sister here, what makes it so serious in your mind? As far as scandals goes, sleeping with prostitutes in private has always had a lower level public impact. That's not based on his party, as it would apply to someone from either one.

 

But again, this paragraph contradicts everything you've previously posted. Are you saying that you would demand Vitter's resignation now, over something that happened back in 1999?

It ended at the latest in 2001. And I don?t care one way or the other if Vitter stays or goes. What I am saying is that the Republican party in 2007 gave up the right to demand such resignations by backing Vitter.

Of course time frame matters, but not as much as you think or the act committed. If it happened when he was a kid or much younger, that would be one thing. But it happened when he was an adult and a member of congress. And I think you, and most Republicans, believe it matters in this instance solely because it protects one of your own.

I don't think that there is a double-standard for Democrats and Republicans. I say there is a randomness that doesn?t make sense. Barney Frank, Bill Clinton get to stay, yet Weiner and Spitzer have to go. Sanford and Craig have to go, Vitter and Gingrich get to hang around. I'll also add the obvious...shouldn't the Republican party, who offers as part of it's platform 'family values' live up to such ideals in at least the bare minimum way?

If you have another example of a conservative ?family values? politician sleeping with prostitutes while a member of Congress not only getting a pass, but getting huge support from his party, please feel free to share.

So to reiterate, your basic argument is that a politician has to be caught in the act for it to be an impeachable offense. So long as a sitting Congressman did something unseemly and illegal and they weren?t immediately caught, then it is ok.

 

So to reiterate, your basic argument is that a politician has to be caught in the act for it to be an impeachable offense. So long as a sitting Congressman did something unseemly and illegal and they weren?t immediately caught, then it is ok.

Except that's not accurate at all. My basic argument has to do with how such scandal impacts their official duties/capacity, vs how much it's a private matter and/or contained in their personal life. I've never been a one size fits all kind of guy, and as I've always said- "context matters." Your next paragraph perfectly illustrates my point:

I don't think that there is a double-standard for Democrats and Republicans. I say there is a randomness that doesn?t make sense. Barney Frank, Bill Clinton get to stay, yet Weiner and Spitzer have to go. Sanford and Craig have to go, Vitter and Gingrich get to hang around. I'll also add the obvious...shouldn't the Republican party, who offers as part of it's platform 'family values' live up to such ideals in at least the bare minimum way?

Except using your own examples, it's not at all random as you think.

-Eliot Spitzer had to go because his scandal was related directly to his official capacity as anti-prostitution crusader. Obviously, Spitzer allowed some brothels to stay open even as he was bringing the legal hammer down on others. He had to, because he was using them. Spitzer wasn't done in by the actual sex act, he was done in by his conflict of interest/hypocrisy.

-Larry Craig had to go because even as he was legislating against homosexual issues, he was seeking out gay sex. Maybe Craig was internally conflicted? Who knows? It not an excuse though. Because again, it was an issue of hypocritical behavior. Do you think it would have been a big deal if an openly gay politician was caught in the same situation and nothing else was different?

-Sanford had to go because he reached the point where he was just about faking his own death just to cover his lie, which could have tied up all sorts of official resources or even taken them away from a legitimate emergency.

-Barney Frank's scandal was probably the least hypocritical, after all, Frank was openly gay. But Frank's personal issues unrolled like a script to a soap opera, and involved trying to influence probation officers, becoming emotionally involved with a gigolo, and jealousy fights involving gay clients and johns. Frank lost control of his credibility. I guess you could say that Frank was caught up in an old fashion tabloid scandal, and in many ways, those are the most difficult to overcome.

In comparison to all of the above, Vitter's "scandal" was no different than what your typical frat boy does on the weekend, which is why it's so non-scandalous. Just make a reservation at the Cattleman's Club, smoke some cigars, and laugh it out while patting other members on the fanny over lunch, Don Draper style. Does that make it right? No, but it's certainly human nature, and its all a private matter, not an official one.

Because I think the above isn't at all as random as you think. Politicians and/or party leaders are pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. The dividing line has always been how much impact does the scandal have on the person's official capacity vs how much of a purely private matter it is. I think the problem with the overall point you're trying to make is that your demonstrating an "eye for an eye" or quid pro quo mindset. From what you've said, that if someone is forgiven for a action, and that person happens to be republican, for example, then the party itself can't hold anyone else accountable until it's all balanced out. Like it's a big scorecard, with one check in the (R) column and one in the (D) column. I don't think that's how life works though. At the very least, you're trying to paint all scandals with a universal paint brush or give them all equal weight, when I don't think they all match up equally.

 

I may not have been clear. I don?t believe I?m painting a universal brush, rather that Vitter seems to be an outlier. You accurately described the various scandals, which I will address below...

In comparison to all of the above, Vitter's "scandal" was no different than what your typical frat boy does on the weekend, which is why it's so non-scandalous.

Again, it?s non-scandalous to Republicans because they like him.

Furthermore, you said the following:

Eliot Spitzer had to go because his scandal was related directly to his official capacity as anti-prostitution crusader...Spitzer wasn't done in by the actual sex act, he was done in by his conflict of interest/hypocrisy.

And

Larry Craig had to go because even as he was legislating against homosexual issues, he was seeking out gay sex. Maybe Craig was internally conflicted? Who knows? It not an excuse though. Because again, it was an issue of hypocritical behavior.

Your Larry Craig example is directly comparable to David Vitter. Vitter was a pro-family guy (he called for Clinton?s ouster among other things) who patronized hookers as a member of Congress. So again, he committed an illegal act while a member of Congress. And he was a hypocrite. That he was caught a few years (not twenty years ago before he was married or a member of Congress) after the act shouldn?t mean anything.

Politicians and/or party leaders are pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. The dividing line has always been how much impact does the scandal have on the person's official capacity vs how much of a purely private matter it is.

Sometimes, but that doesn?t mean they are always right (i.e. Vitter). I think there are other factors involved, including the person?s relative importance to the ?cause?.

But again, I think we just flat out disagree with the so-called statute of limitations of political transgressions as well as the hypocrisy and acts of Vitter. I will say that I can?t understand why you are so dismissive of Vitter?s actions. It wasn?t a ?frat boy? weekend. He is a hypocrite who committed an illegal act while a member of Congress. You aptly described the various scenarios involving Spitzer, Sanford, et al. Vitter belongs among them.

 

DS, My point has nothing to do with Vitter, and everything to do with the scale of the scandal. The simple truth is that there is a heiarchy of (mis)behavior. It wasn't just republians who weren't really bothered by Vitter's actions, it was everyone. Republicans, democrats, independents, Blue Dogs... The general reaction was "Vitter slept with call girls, eh? Well, at least they were hot ones beacuse he was a butt man..." Is that a juvenile attitude? You bet. Does it justify the act? Nope. But who cares? Even those who might have been bothered on a moral level realized that it didn't cross over and warrant official action. Because everything else aside, the worst that happened was that Vitter paid for sex (gasp!) Ultimately, if Vitter's wife divorced him over the issue-and she would be completely justified- it's between the two of them, and it would be his cross to bear. That's what is meant by a private scandal. Why would, or should you or I care? If one was sterotyping based on the replies in this thread, democrats must have the most uptight attitudes of sex in the entire world, and maybe the labels need to be reversed.

Again, I forget who mentioned it here, but if every politician was held accountable for having too much to drink, or having sex, or saying something stupid when caught off guard by a cameraman, or any other action where they wake up and pop the alka-seltzer, there would be no one left in government. Because it's human to make mistakes. The important things are- how does it effect their office, how do they act after the fact, and if its a pattern of such behavior. Faking your own disappearance is a no-no. Committing perjury is a no-no. Misusing government resources is a no-no. These sorts of things. If you were looking for some sort of defining line for the absolute limit of the mixing of private vs public here, it might be represented by John Edward's situation. If all he did was cheat on his wife, he probably would have been able to recover. But fathering a illegitimate child, denying it, and not supporting it kind of crosses a line of responsibility in the public conscience. But this is only if one was looking for some sort of defining line for these matters.

You seem to want to give the same weight to everything. I guess we just have to agree to disagree with this idea.

And I guess none of this matters anyway as it relates to this topic, because after the Chair of the DNC joined with the head of Democratic Congressional Committee and the party minority leader in issuing rather strong statements against Weiner today, he announced that he's taking the standard scandal "leave of absence/walk of shame." Typically, this is the first step in resigning, as it gives the hubris-based ego time to cope with the ultimate outcome. Weiner just needs to put some time and distance bewteen his actions. If he does some pittnace and stops acting like an arrogant jerk, there's nothing that says he can't come back in 10 years or so.

 

Honestly, I don't understand why you keep acting as if what Vitter did was so benign, or the scale of the scandal, as you put it. It wasn't 'having too much to drink', your recollection of reactions (Vitter actually underperformed*) is flat-out wrong as many people were angry about the hypocrisy hence why they still keep bring it up and will do so when such scandals occur so long as he is in office, and rightfully so. You keep saying I give the same weight to everything, whatever that means, but then act like all Vitter did was not come to a complete stop at a stop sign. And It has nothing to do with anyone being uptight over sex, it has everything to do with the rank hypocrisy**.

You can act as if it were meaningless all you want, as if he said something stupid or engaged in typical frat boy behavior. But that's just completely ignoring the facts of what happened.

Even the head of the RNC, Reince Prebus, was asked by Fox News if there was a difference between Weiner and Vitter (further showing that your suggestion that people were indifferent about it is flat out wrong considering even Fox News is asking) and his response was "Well, I don?t know if it?s different". Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele said "It doesn?t matter if your name is Vitter or Weiner?[t]he consequences of breaking that trust should be equally applied." So it turns out even some of the leaders of the Republican party aren't as dismissive of this as you are.

So I guess Weiner should resign for acting like an ?arrogant jerk?, whereas a Senator who committed an illegal act, possibly during roll call votes, while a member of Congress and is a hypocrite (very similar to the manner with which you yourself described Larry Craig) should stay.

All that said, I think it's obvious why we've reached such an impasse regarding this issue.

*http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/the-electoral-effect-of-sex-scandals/

**http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110612/OPINION02/106120308

 

Let's see...Sexual harassment, and statutory rape. While on the Missing and Exploited Children committee. That's like putting someone who puts pubic hair on his employee's Coke and compares himself favorably to Long Dong Silver while on the job as head of the EEOC!

Craig's was also illegal. It's not going into a bathroom, hitting on a guy, and then finding a hotel room. Going into the bathroom to have sex with the guy in the bathroom (i.e., in public) is illegal, however. And disgusting; if you're going to have sex in public, at least choose a sexy place.

 

further showing that your suggestion that people were indifferent about it is flat out wrong considering even Fox News is asking

DS, when Fox News starts paying me a salary, I'll start caring what it has to say any more or any less than any other news organization. Maybe I'll take a chance and use that salary offer as leverage against CNN and MSNBC as well, because I use them all for news.

However, there are some important differences that you're leaving out. Those questions were asked to get a baseline comparison to the current time. Or in other words, Steele was asked a question in 2011, over a past event. You still haven't provided evidence for the reaction back then either way. That's important. But what does it matter? Both actions are stupid for politicians to do, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. But my point has always been that Vitter's actions occurred over 10 years ago. Who cares about them now? That would apply to any figure. If Obama slept with a prostitute back in 1999, I certainly don't think he should be impeached for it here, in 2011. Because there's no direct connection between his office now, and his behavior then, so there's no sanction that could be applied. Sure, Michelle could certainly divorce him over it, or it can be brought up as a character ding during the upcoming campaign, but those are the personal consequences of a private scandal. Sure, if Vitter starts having sex in his Congressional office, or if Obama hires the prostitute from our hypothetical example again- they should be sanctioned here and now. Otherwise, it most certainly can be talked about over cigars in the Cattleman's Club and moved on from.

The entire Vitter vs Weiner comparison only came up because you specifically said that "republicans can't hold Weiner responsible until something happens to Vitter." Right away, I'd say that's overly partisan, because there's not some giant tit for tat scorecard that is being used. It's not even the case that every scandal holds the same weight. (Not to mention that it's Weiner's own party who is largely wringing him out to dry, so the GOP only has a marginal stake)

But more importantly, the statement you made suggests that you want officials to go back in time and enact retroactive punishment. Under the law, somone can rob a bank, and after 5 years, be legally immune to prosecution due to the statute of limitations. And that's bank robbery! But you want someone to go back and punish Vitter for hiring a hooker 10 years ago, because only then can Weiner be punished? That concept doesn't exist anywhere else, and it's why I can't agree to it.

 

DS, when Fox News starts paying me a salary, I'll start caring what it has to say any more or any less than any other news organization. Maybe I'll take a chance and use that salary offer as leverage against CNN and MSNBC as well, because I use them all for news.

Good, I?ll do the same vis-a-vis the Democratic leadership, since you keep bringing it up as if that is a be-all-end-all. After all, since his own party is asking Weiner to leave, and the GOP didn?t vis-a-vis VItter, then everything is ok. I?m not part of the Democratic leadership. I?d like to think if I were they?d be somewhat more effective.

You still haven't provided evidence for the reaction back then either way

I think I showed that he underperformed compared to other Republicans in Louisiana. Furthermore, that when even a conservative outlet like Fox News is asking GOP leaders about it shows that the attitudes over it haven?t subsided. It?s not like people are just bringing it up now, you?re the only one acting like this is the first time it has been mentioned. I?m not sure I can travel back in time to 2007. But I do remember it being an issue here at the very least. And that's neither here nor there, what matters is what happened.

Either way, you?re not reading what I?m saying. I'm not saying Weiner can't be punished, rather the GOP lacks moral authority to demand it while Vitter is in office. You can keep repeating that it was ?a decade ago? and glossing over what he did, and accuse me of being overly partisan when you are protecting someone who illegally hired a hooker as a Congressman over someone who sexted. But that entirely misses the point of what I am saying, which is quite simple. He committed adultery with a prostitute (which is illegal) as a sitting Congressman, up until 2001 at the earliest, he initially lied about it, and when it was revealed in 2007, the GOP decided to protect him, hence they gave up any moral authority to demand a resignation in such instances.

 

Has the act actually affected his ability to legislate for his constituents?

As was previously pointed out, the answer is, ?Yes.? Weiner has requested and is seeking a Leave of Absence. It?s kind of hard to be representative if you aren?t even available to contribute in the legislative process.

And I guess none of this matters anyway as it relates to this topic, because after the Chair of the DNC joined with the head of Democratic Congressional Committee and the party minority leader in issuing rather strong statements against Weiner today, he announced that he's taking the standard scandal "leave of absence/walk of shame."

Agreed. Forget about anything being said in this Forum. Weiner?s own Party is raising the biggest stink and they will be the ones to eat him alive. It unfolds in increasingly elevated stages of address, equal to Weiner?s level of stubbornness. The DNC has already made up its mind, and rather quickly I might add.

The direct approach ? sit your ass down
The indirect, intermediate approach ? no funding for your 2012 re-election campaign; you?re on your own
The drastic (nuclear option), long-range approach; the one sure to get him ? State Redistricting

There has been some discussion on the subject of Redistricting, but I don?t believe enough has been made of the impact. The ramifications could be significant.

Wake up, folks. Weiner has become a sacrificial lamb (or goat, as the case may be). Write him off, abandon the comparisons to other ?transgressors? and spare yourself a major bellyache. He ain?t worth it. Sooner or later, Weiner is toast.

 

Sooner. Honestly, who really thought this guy should have kept his job? Really?

 

I did, as did a lot of his constituents.

Seriously, we need to stop caring who politicians **** so long as they don't break any laws. Honestly, it's between him and his wife. Should he have lied about it? No. But he should never have been asked in the first place.

It's crass bull**** that really needs to stop.

 

Weiner, you ****.

Really, the man does something that's not illegal and he's resigning. Vitter solicited prostitutes said, "Yeah, I did it and what?" And nothing happens. Something is seriously wrong with this country.