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

To paraphrase Richard Nixon, when a Congressman does it, it's illegal.

Or at least politically radioactive.

 

It's the kind of thing that gets kids expelled from school. If my son had been caught in this pattern of behavior, he would have been kicked out of school. It's hypocritical to be so focused on the obvious hypocrisy of Republicans. The guy needed to be kicked out of Congress. Period.

 

Goodness, people.

Anybody remember the Clinton impeachment hearings?

"Mr. Hyde, didn't you have an affair when you were younger?"

Answer: "It was a youthful indiscretion".

America has a puritanical streak when it comes to sexuality; we all know it, it isn't going anywhere, and it tends to lead to a lot of hypocrisy.

Yes, Weiner shouldn't have been asked, but when it comes down to it, we expect our politicians to be super-human, despite the continuously mounting evidence to the contrary that such expectations are futile and even dangerous.

But hey, Charlie Rangel is still serving after an ethics censure, so why not let the people decide?

Answer: the above expectations. Weiner's behavior would have become a rallying cry from Republicans as to why Democrats are unfit to serve in government. Same thing happened with all the mid-decade GOP sex scandals from the democratic side, although the Republicans took a bigger hit there; that was a natural side-effect of holding themselves up as the self-proclaimed heirs of true American morality.

Peace,

V-03

 

There's no question the Republican hypocrisy is grating - and that's why I didn't participate in this discussion until he resigned.

To me it's not about puritanical standards about sex. The guy was a time bomb waiting to explode, either too stupid or too compulsive to keep his behavior private (probably too compulsive). He was a sexual harassment lawsuit on the brink, and eventually, he was going to overstep some fundamental legal boundary. Better for him to resign now when the scandal is really limited to him lying to try to cover it all up, so to speak.

 

Super-human? This is what angers about this topic. Look, it ain't super-human to honor your marriage vows. It isn't super-human to keep yourself from sending nudie pics to girls behind you wife's back.

It shows a lack of impulse control. And people who think "everybody does it" are tools. Because we don't all do this. Wake up for crying out loud.

 

Now, from Jabba's perspective I agree.

J-Rod, that's a stupid argunent, but not surprising. To you marriage might mean a lot, but to others it's a tax write-off, a piece of paper, or a way to hide one's sexuality. If an employee cheats on their spouse the employee isn't fired. Well, maybe in your puritanical case but not overall. It's a meaningless indescretion that has no bearing on the people involved outside of 'they're not happy so they cheated.' That's it.

 

FID..,It's a meaningless indescretion that has no bearing on the people involved outside of 'they're not happy so they cheated.' That's it.

We'll disagree on this forever. It shows that a trusted public official can't be trusted and you have to wonder how far this no longer trustworthy person would go to hide his failings. We know he would at least lie. Would he allow his vote to be swayed to protect himself? I have to imagine he would.

The ramifications of his "meaningless indescretion" are not so meaningless.

 

To me it's not about puritanical standards about sex. The guy was a time bomb waiting to explode, either too stupid or too compulsive to keep his behavior private (probably too compulsive). He was a sexual harassment lawsuit on the brink, and eventually, he was going to overstep some fundamental legal boundary. Better for him to resign now when the scandal is really limited to him lying to try to cover it all up, so to speak.

Well, speaking for myself, Jabba's exact argument has been my argument from my first post onward, and it certainly hasn't changed. The current and unfolding consequences made the situation relevant. Once the party leadership figures publicly came out, Weiner was toast, as it should be. It doesn't have anything to do with being specifically illegal. Who here would want a local mayor who opened each council meeting with a degrading/sexist joke only he thought was funny representing their village? Telling jokes isn't illegal (good luck with the civil suit though) but it brings discredit to the office.

Of course, these are some of the opening comments related which were posted here:

6/6 "As my status on facebook clearly illustrates the poutrage of this whole thing: So Anthony Weiner showed his weiner. Big deal. I've seen goatse. And you've seen nothing until you see an inverted *** hole. Thank you, Satan, good night!"

6/6 "He kept it in his jockeys. I have no clue why this is an issue. It's the new norm. The only idiots crowing about this are the gossip queens and the slack-jawed yokels. Anyone with a realistic view of the world would see this story and shrug. Or shake their head. Or facepalm. One of those."

6/6 "Yeah, I think this would be funnier if he were a social conservative, but that's because those types are almost always hypocrites. Weiner's only problem here is that he had the fortitude to stand up to Republicans. That's all. And that's why this is a big deal among our largely conservative media."

I'm not sure how well those initial posts even illustrate the situation. But I guess time and a little perspective always wins out in the end.

 

For me, Dan Savage's comments about this essentially completely sum up how I feel about it.

 

Of course you're going to disagree forever--you have a close-minded view of sex and marriage. But that's okay. As long as you're not asking for a law to be made then that's quite all right. Unfortunately Weiner lost his testicles and resigned so now his district has no representative despite his district thinking he should stay. So to you and people who share your warped view of reality they have denied people representation.

 

Cannot be trusted to keep his marriage vows (barely) =/= Cannot be trusted to be an effective representative in government.

I mean, my boss (when I had a boss) had an affair. I still trusted him to have my paycheck to me every two weeks. One of my ex-coworkers had an affair. I still trusted him to get things done on time.

I wouldn't trust either with my (hypothetical) sister, but private trust is fundamentally different from public trust.

 

That's true to a point. But again, that's not exactly what happened with Weiner.

Weiner lost control. The spill over is what is so damning to him and to his political office. People are still pretending that this is all about a private act. It's not. Had Weiner simply sent a baudy text to someone that was leaked, this wouldn't have been an issue. Although it doesn't take a genius to figure out that such isn't good for one's career. But Weiner sent dozens of images, sexted up to 6 different women (one of who was 17), and did so from his Congressional office. I mean, at least one image was even taken from the interior of the House's common fitness center. Anyone should recognize that something's wrong, when in the middle of running on a treadmill in a public gym, they have to stop and take a picture of their crotch. Hubris? Over-inflated ego? Deeper exposure issues? If Weiner engaged in similar behavior while at a truly public gym, he would probably be registering as a sex offender right now. Or as was already mentioned, the NFBSK aspect would have gotten him expelled from school. From a basic sex standpoint, if he wasn't attracted to his wife or whatever the situation, internet porn is but a click away, so Weiner's public actions are even more puzzling, or at least rooted in something else. I don't think it's outside of the norm to question the pattern of misbehavior, or recognize why he became such a political liability.

Weiner himself could have handled this better. After all of his denials, and excuses, and statements of him sticking it out, he ended up resigning anyway (which everyone knew would happen), which just ended up making him look like a bigger jerk.

 

Three quick questions:

1) Do we know the contact with the 17 yo was of a sexual nature? I thought the family said it was not.

2) Do we know that the photos taken in the gym were "when in the middle of running on a treadmill in a public gym, they have to stop and take a picture of their crotch". In other words, do we know for a fact that he was running on a treadmill, stopped and took a picture of his crotch, and then presumably continued on the treadmill?

3) If someone takes such pictures of themselves in a public gym does that qualify for registering as a sex offender?

 

Are you implying that you are open-mined on this subject? It's been like talking to a wall, you know.

 

Does any of that matter? He resigned about 4 hours ago. So I think the point of worrying about defending him or justifying his actions is moot. But hey, let's bite.

1)I understand that they were sexual yes, illegal no.

2) So it was the mountain climber machine instead of the treadmill...or the elliptical... or the lat pull down. Does the type of machine even matter?

3)Roll the dice and try it. Go to the local YMCA, stand in the middle of the workout section, and start taking I-phone snapshots of your crotch. Even if you don't ultimately have to register as a sex offender in the sense of hyperbole, I'm not sure it's a good defense to the decision to do so, to point out you "only" got disorderly conduct or public exposure instead... It's creepy. Really though, I'm sure since you're a rational guy, none of us actually have to worry about you taking crotch shots at a gym, nor would you think about doing so.

 

Mr44

1)I understand that they were sexual yes, illegal no.

I don?t think this is right:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/12/weiner?s-17-year-old-twitter-contact-responds/?utm_source=feedburner

2) So it was the mountain climber machine instead of the treadmill...or the elliptical... or the lat pull down. Does the type of machine even matter?

My question has nothing to do with the machine rather than the action itself. Do we know that he was on a machine, stopped and took the picture, and then got back on? See below.

3)Roll the dice and try it. Go to the local YMCA, stand in the middle of the workout section, and start taking I-phone snapshots of your crotch. Even if you don't ultimately have to register as a sex offender in the sense of hyperbole

OK, so he?s not a sex offender then. I?d say a sex offender, i.e. a rapist, is far worse than Weiner.

But that goes with the whole context of your posts. You group Weiner in with sex offenders, and state that he was on a treadmill, and got off the treadmill to take the picture, implying that he?s some obsessive weirdo/exhibitionist that has some uncontrollable urge to send sexual pictures of himself.

So the contact with the 17 yo was not of a sexual nature, as confirmed by her family. Second of all, I like how you insinuate that he was ?in the middle of running on a treadmill, then have to stop and take a picture of his crotch?. Do you know this is how it happened? Or did he just take a picture of himself at the gym? Or are you just trying to imply that he?s crazy?

I?m going with the latter, because it falls in the pattern of your arguments. Vitter?s trangressions were ?frat boy? type behavior, but you insinuate the worst with Weiner. I could also insinuate that Vitter wore diapers with hookers, which is certainly weird/crazy, and at least my insinuation would have a basis in reality.

See, it?s not enough to stop at Weiner sent highly inappropriate texts/pictures and his conduct is very unbecoming and should resign, which I could certainly understand. You have to make insinuations to indicate that he?s nuts. Similarly you do the reverse with Vitter, you go in the complete opposite direction to gloss over his behavior (and the behaviour of GOP leadership a few years ago) as if it were nothing special. You completely and utterly ignore actual facts to defend your guy and attack the other guy. You dismiss Vitter?s actions as ?frat boy? behavior, but you insinuate the worst about Weiner. He sexted. Apparently people do this (I do not, but some people do). Not married people, so that makes him worse of course, but you make an obvious attempt to paint him in the worst possible light. I would think visiting hookers while married and a member of Congress is a bad thing, but I guess not when said individual is a member of one's party. This why I'm confident that if a Republican molested a dead horse, but we found out it happened in 2009 and the guy apologized and included G-d in his apology, there is a good chance that you and many Republicans would contort yourselves in every possible direction to defend the guy.

This is why I have to call shenanigans on you.

 

First off, Vitter's not "my guy." Vitter was only brought up as an example because Quix tried to score a throw away political point. I didn't know anything specific about him besides being vaguely aware of a scandal. However, I looked him up, and saw that his behavior took place over 10 years ago. If Vitter was currently doing the same behavior that Weiner was doing, then Vitter should resign as well. Consequently, if the only evidence linking Weiner to to something was already 10 years old, then nothing should happen to him in the present time either. I've made both of those points quite clear in multiple posts, and I don't think it's anything close to a double standard. It doesn't matter what party either one was from. The only one who seems to be focused solely on tit-for-tat is you and a couple of others here.

But even the tit-for-tat obsession doesn't really hold water, because you can look to Sanford, and Craig, and others from either party.. There are plenty of examples of party accountability just like Weiner. There are also examples of forgiveness, again from either party. So it doesn't make sense to conclude that because Vitter is still in office, it trumps everything else, or that it represents some sort of "gotcha example." It's not. Every situation is unique, and with this topic, no one is responsible for Weiner's behavior besides Weiner.

As a point of law, I would look up the various levels of the sex offender registry requirements. Not just "rapists" have to register. But that's all just hypothetical. Again, it was just an example. The point was that if a regular guy was caught doing some of these things in the local YMCA, then he would have a lot of explaining to do, just like the "expelled from school" example. If your defense is that Weiner isn't a rapist, he's just creepy, then I'll give that one to you, for whatever it's worth. Your other points I just don't get, and I don't think they matter. Fine, if all those loopholes matter to you, then go with them. Weiner is out of office, I think the ethics probe is still continuing, although it may not matter anymore. So the point of defending him is long passed by. It's like defending the plan to cut back on life preservers on the Titanic after it's already hit the iceberg and sunk.

 

Series of comments here, now that I'm back properly

First of all, I don't get why on earth the personal life of a politician is the focus. Not the first time, but I still don't get it. It's not about how it's effecting his job, it seems to be entirely about what he did, which is his own darn business. And as the Democrats called for his resignation too, this can't be blamed as just a thing about the Republicans as the Democrats felt this deserved legitimacy.

Secondly, I don't buy this ridiculous idea that marriage vows are sacred in some unique way. On a personal level, I don't see anything somehow less moral about cheating on a wife than cheating on a long term girlfriend or anything else of that nature. Marriage vows aren't these magic things on pillars, and trust isn't an optional thing prior to that if you have any shred of decency, imo.

As to Schwarzenegger, his indiscretions were known when he was running for governor the FIRST time. It's nothing new. Beyond that, I think Arnold is a great example of how this idea that adultery magically compromises someone is ridiculous. His adultery didn't compromise him, his MARRIAGE compromised him, as he publicly discussed how he was changing on campaign promises because it upset his wife. Who a politician is sleeping with should never enter into their official duties as an elected official, and that goes for who they're publicly sleeping with or not publicly sleeping with, and I think it's a far greater compromise how politician's spouses influence them than their affairs and whatnot do. And that includes the ridiculous concept that just because someone sleeps with a politician in a government recognized partnership, they have any claim to the job that said politician was elected to and should have any role in any form of policy, like the roles some First Ladies have tried to play. (This isn't a gender stance, I hold zero doubt that with a sufficient number of female presidents, the same pattern would play out with husbands as well)

 

Mr44

Vitter was only brought up as an example because Quix tried to score a throw away political point. I didn't know anything specific about him besides being vaguely aware of a scandal. However, I looked him up, and saw that his behavior took place over 10 years ago.

He wasn't trying to score a 'political point', rather make the same exact point that I and countless others, both here and IRL, have made regarding Vitter.

If Vitter was currently doing the same behavior that Weiner was doing, then Vitter should resign as well.

OK, but again it went past the 'it happened a while ago' (which we of course don't need to go through again, because my point was regarding what happened in 2007 when it was discovered) when you were so dismissive of Vitter's behavior. Perhaps where we disagree is that IMO hiring hookers while member of Congress is worse than sexting.

As a point of law, I would look up the various levels of the sex offender registry requirements. Not just "rapists" have to register. But that's all just hypothetical. Again, it was just an example. The point was that if a regular guy was caught doing some of these things in the local YMCA, then he would have a lot of explaining to do, just like the "expelled from school" example. If your defense is that Weiner isn't a rapist, he's just creepy, then I'll give that one to you, for whatever it's worth.

Sure, and of course a rapist is going to the other far end of what a sex offender is.

I just think it's important to state what we know, what we don't know, without surmising or suggesting stuff that makes someone look crazier, or better, than they really are. I'd also say I'm not convinced Weiner is creepy just for sexting, after all he wasn't wearing a diaper with prositutes*. He sent sexually provocative pictures to a bunch of women that became public. As a married man, THAT makes it creepy for sure.

I guess I just find the whole defense of Vitter, by the GOP and people here as well, considering the various sex scandals of the past decade or so, to be completely perplexing.

That said, I ask in all seriousness...do you think it would've mattered had Weiner just said initially "I sent some inappropriate pictures over the internet that were intended to be private. I am sorry for doing this, especially to my wife. I will handle this privately with my family and will do what I can to restore the public trust"? Would he have survived?

*I couldn't resist

 

Ah, I think that's were we begin to diverge then. First off, this question:

That said, I ask in all seriousness...do you think it would've mattered had Weiner just said initially "I sent some inappropriate pictures over the internet that were intended to be private. I am sorry for doing this, especially to my wife. I will handle this privately with my family and will do what I can to restore the public trust"? Would he have survived?

I most certainly think it would have mattered, and while I don't think it would have been certain, I would bet even money that he would have survived. It might have been the deciding factor of staying vs going. (and it would have been refreshing to boot.)

But I think were we diverge is in the settings of the act themselves. I've said this before, but if Weiner had sexted in private, it probably would have been nothing more than a blip. What I mean is, if Weiner simply went home after a difficult day of debating bills and sexted with a colleague to blow off steam, what does it matter? Yeah, sure, should a married man even think about engaging in that behavior? Well, that's between the husband and wife. This would have been no different if Weiner called up 1-900 numbers on his own time, or rented an X-rated movie to watch in his basement.

But Weiner's downfall wasn't related to any of that. Weiner sexted from his Congressional office. He took pictures of himself in the House fitness Center and the same office- Not just a couple of shots...Literally dozens and dozens of images. He had half a dozen different women all lined up and played the smart phone version of "rope a dope" with them. He used his official social networking accounts to purposefully contact these women. Weiner wasn't simply Anthony the regular guy blowing off steam who happened to be a Congressman. No. He was Representative Weiner, who used his official position to specifically contact women and inflate his ego. His over-abundance of hubris is what lead to his out of control behavior. The sexting and such were just the symptoms of the untouchable attitude.

These differences would apply if the example was sleeping with a prostitute. Sure, someone is missing something in their relationship if they get off of work and hire a call girl to fulfill their desires. But who cares? How different would it be if the same person simply drove to Nevada over the weekend and had sex with legal prostitutes? It all would have been a private act, with private consequences. Because it's not about sex per se. Not only that, but I think it most certainly would matter if, in that example, the person stood up and said "Yeah, I was going through a rough patch, but I haven't visited a call girl since then."

But imagine if the same person from that example was bringing prostitutes back to their Congressional office? Or using an official Congressional staff car to go cruising for chicks? Or was having sex with 5 different call girls in as many days in the Library of Congress bathroom? It's all the same basic act, but the lack of judgement, and the resulting consequences are much, much worse.

To me, you're trying to say that an act, is an act, is an act, and there's no difference in context or consequence. I'd say that's not true at all.

 

Mr44

His over-abundance of hubris is what lead to his out of control behavior. The sexting and such were just the symptoms of the untouchable attitude.

Again, I think you are playing armchair psychologist here without really knowing what?s going on in his head.

And IMO you take far too much into consideration how they handle the act after it is discovered, and even then Vitter initially denied it.

Personally, while how they handle it matters, IMO it matters very little. What happened is far more important.

These differences would apply if the example was sleeping with a prostitute. Sure, someone is missing something in their relationship if they get off of work and hire a call girl to fulfill their desires. But who cares? How different would it be if the same person simply drove to Nevada over the weekend and had sex with legal prostitutes? It all would have been a private act, with private consequences.

I think if a single/unmarried politician, who was known to have done this before being elected, drove to Vegas to sleep with hookers, it wouldn?t be as big an issue. But of course it?s not that simple, or that convenient. More importantly, it?s not what happened so it?s a moot point.

Again, what Vitter did was illegal. So far as I know, even if it is committed behind closed doors, an illegal act is an illegal act. He also committed adultery, physically not in cyberspace, behavior very inappropriate for a married/family values guy. He initially lied about it. And calls were made during roll call votes, or as you might say ?used his official position to specifically contact women and inflate his ego?.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/13/politics/main3055228.shtml

To me, you're trying to say that an act, is an act, is an act, and there's no difference in context or consequence. I'd say that's not true at all.

This couldn?t be more inaccurate, you are the one equating hiring hookers with sexting, I'm saying one act is worse than the other. The context is that a sitting Congressman committed an illegal act, cheated on his wife and lied about it. Also, for the record, Ambassador Randall Tobias resigned after it was discovered that he had used the same prositution service.

But imagine if the same person from that example was bringing prostitutes back to their Congressional office? Or using an official Congressional staff car to go cruising for chicks? Or was having sex with 5 different call girls in as many days in the Library of Congress bathroom? It's all the same basic act, but the lack of judgement, and the resulting consequences are much, much worse.

Or having a prostitution service call your Congressional phone service? You can keep throwing out hypotheticals, but none of it changes what actually happened, which is quite simple and straightforward.

Anyway, I think that?s where the divergence is. You think, and keep comparing, being with hookers and sexting as if they are the same, or as you phrase it ?an act is an act is an act?. IMO they most certainly are not. Being with prosititutes is light years worse than sexting. One is for sure illegal, the other is not. Comparing the two is utterly absurd.

 

I think the point is that Vitter is all you have, for whatever point you're trying to make. I certainly don't understand why you're acting like his situation is the end all, be all for this topic. Both of us can come up with all sorts of examples where politicians screwed up and were held accountable by their parties and voters. There are also all sorts of examples where politicians screwed up and were forgiven for their actions by their parties and voters. It all depends. But somehow, there's a 10-12 year old specific example where the guy didn't resign, and suddenly nothing else matters, he can't ever be forgiven, and no other accountability can be levied until he's punished? That's hardcore or something.

So, the next politician that messes up, no matter what the situation, or which party they're from, are you going to exclaim "But Vitter still hasn't resigned...! No one can say anything!" It seems rather silly. The specific circumstances surrounding whatever incident is going to come up would be in no way beholden to such a past event. And there's certainly no rule that says since this latest incident involved Weiner, who happened to be a democrat, the next one has to involve someone from the GOP just to be fair. There's no giant scorecard in the basement of the Capitol building. Well, at least that we know of....

 

Seriously, 44, go suck an egg and get over yourself. I *told* you my motivations for making the post, and you're still spewing that bull****. I would think that my posting habits in the decade that I've been here would have earned me at least the semblance of civility and respect. I don't use cheap shots as arguments; I develop my positions, and when asked, I explain. If you can't handle it, don't post.

Child, grow the **** up.



EDIT:

Seriously, dude. I've been upfront with everything I've said here and elsewhere on these boards. Do you have *any* idea how much it pisses me off when some chucklehead - who should know better, since said person has been here *almost* as long as I have and who has seen me post before - suddenly thinks he's divined some secret ulterior motive of petty partisanship in my posts?

 

Mr44

You can obfuscate all you want, but I think my point is obvious, and has been stated numerous times. You can say Vitter is all I got, but when I have someone who is pro-?family values? committed a crime, cheated on his wife, did so on Congressional time, lied about it, wore diapers while doing so, there is no punishment from his party or anyone really...I don?t think one needs much else. I guess we?ll have to disagree, I mean, I guess it?s not as bad or as ?creepy? as sexting, but wearing diapers with hookers as a married man and member of Congress is kinda bizarre IMO

So yes, if it?s a sex scandal, so long as Vitter is in office and faces no repercussions for his actions, the GOP can?t demand ****.