Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[Roadtoad]

Had a little time to think about this while we were without web access. Just now found out Weiner's leaving.

When Larry Craig was caught with his pants down, so to speak, I made it clear I wanted him out. (Note to Craig: Wide stance my ass. I'm not just insulted that you lied about it, but that you thought so little of us that you actually believed we'd buy it.) I still think he ought to have done time for what he did, but that's obviously not going to happen.

I don't know if Weiner knew that one of his recipients was underage. To me, that makes a difference. If he didn't know, then he's simply guilty of being a creep. That's not all that major a deal in my book. If he did, sorry, he's done. There's now a lot that we won' know about this, but I suppose that's to everyone's benefit in the long run.

I don't know anything about other scandals cited. I still don't think I know much about this one, and frankly, given the parlous state of our nation's finances, I don't give a damn. Frankly, the fact that this nation has overspent itself over the past 30 years to a state that we're facing bankruptcy is far more important to me than anything Anthony Weiner has done in his spare time in his BVDs. That we're more concerned about this guy's sex life than the policies and expenditures he's supported is horrifying, to say the least.

It all sounds hypocritical to me, and perhaps the worst part of it is that it points out my own hypocrisies, and my own need to change. That others that I held in respect not only refuse to acknowledge theirs, but in fact revel in them, is equally disturbing.

Sorry to see you go, Congressman. I wouldn't have voted for you one way or another, but there were those who thought enough of you to choose to have you represent their views to the nation. That you betrayed them in this manner is sad, but not surprising. That you were forced out in the manner you were is insulting.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've handled a number of family law issues, divorces and the related fall out. I can tell you for a fact that if everyone's personal lives were made public, the "Wiener Standard" would basically rule out 90% of the population from holding office. People make bad personal decisions CONSTANTLY. These people still manage to be highly competent and highly successful in their professional lives. There really is no connection between the two.

You're still spinning. First off, I simply don't believe you that 90% of the population does stuff as creepy as Weiner was doing. I think you pulled that number out of nowhere. It probably doesn't even match your own personal experience, but if it does, I suggest you get new friends.

But more importantly, you're trying very hard to ignore the fact that what really ruined him is his response. It was pathetic, it was disastrous to his career, it was entirely predictable that it wouldn't work, and he wasn't forced into it. He'd still be holding his seat if he came clean at the start, or even if he just shut up about it. The constant and angry denials made it essentially impossible for any of his colleagues to defend him once the truth came out. But it didn't have to be that way, even given his creepy tweeting.

 

[TraneWreck]

You're still spinning. First off, I simply don't believe you that 90% of the population does stuff as creepy as Weiner was doing. I think you pulled that number out of nowhere. It probably doesn't even match your own personal experience, but if it does, I suggest you get new friends.

Again, I bet if your most embarrassing sexual moment were made public, under this standard, you'd likely be unable to hold office. In fact, I sort of hope for your sake that's the case...

I'll stick by the 90% number because, quite honestly, something like Weiner's behavior isn't even a blip on the radar in most divorces. It's such a tame, mild peccadillo that this concern over it is quite honestly baffling.

I would be a very happy person if this was the worst behavior I had encountered.

But more importantly, you're trying very hard to ignore the fact that what really ruined him is his response. It was pathetic, it was disastrous to his career, it was entirely predictable that it wouldn't work, and he wasn't forced into it. He'd still be holding his seat if he came clean at the start, or even if he just shut up about it. The constant and angry denials made it essentially impossible for any of his colleagues to defend him once the truth came out. But it didn't have to be that way, even given his creepy tweeting.

No, I've quite clearly dealt with the response. I think it was pretty natural given what was going on. And no, I don't buy the argument that he'd still have his seat. I don't see how this plays out any different. I believe that you, personally, may have drawn the line there, but I don't think Breitbart and the rest of the media would. Eventually all of these pictures would have come out, anyway, and the Democrats still would have forced him out because they're frightened children.

Again, think about someone shoving a camera in your face and asking about something embarrassing. I don't know how "most" people would behave, but the response was very natural and hardly indicative of any deep character flaws.

Angst over the response is just a rationalization for digging into this non-story in the first place.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'll stick by the 90% number because, quite honestly, something like Weiner's behavior isn't even a blip on the radar in most divorces.

I'm sure most people have embarrassing things they don't want made public. But that's not the same thing as saying that they've done stuff as sleazy as Weiner was doing. I don't believe that's the case, and if you're sampling from divorce cases, well, your sample is skewed.

No, I've quite clearly dealt with the response.

Not in your description of the "Weiner standard", you didn't.

I think it was pretty natural given what was going on.

I don't give a crap what's "natural". I care about what's acceptable. And his response was not acceptable, and there's no reason I should accept it.

And no, I don't buy the argument that he'd still have his seat. I don't see how this plays out any different.

I do. He betrayed everybody who supported him. By lying, and by getting them to defend his lies, he undermined their credibility. If he had come clean from the start, or had simply refrained from lying, then his supporters could have jumped straight to the whole "forgive and forget" position. That's pretty easy to do when there aren't really any victims. But he turned all those supporters into victims by undermining their credibility. People like lefty don't care. People like Pelosi do.

I believe that you, personally, may have drawn the line there, but I don't think Breitbart and the rest of the media would.

It doesn't matter what Breitbart thinks. Weiner's career never depended upon his opinion. And you're wrong about the media, too. He lied to them, then attacked them pretty viciously for asking questions. Why SHOULD they forgive him for that? Without that, I'm sure they would still have played the scandal for ratings, but they would also be a lot more willing to show him in a sympathetic light.

Again, think about someone shoving a camera in your face and asking about something embarrassing. I don't know how "most" people would behave, but the response was very natural and hardly indicative of any deep character flaws.

A congressman is not most people. Most people have no experience in dealing with the press. That certainly isn't the case with Weiner. Furthermore, he didn't simply lie when confronted on the spur of the moment. He lied repeatedly and continually, including in sit-down interviews where he KNEW the subject was going to come up. He had time to contemplate what to do. And he deliberately chose to do the wrong thing. Repeatedly. And he wouldn't have stopped if those additional pictures hadn't come out.

And again, it doesn't matter whether or not the behavior was understandable. The question is whether it was an acceptable response. And it wasn't. Nor are you actually trying to form an argument for why we should accept that sort of response.

 

[TraneWreck]

Here's another way to consider the issue:

When Weiner said he was hacked, why did we require more information? Whether lying or not, why did we need to move forward?

I don't buy for a second that the press was just making sure he was telling the truth, they're happy to be lied to about boring ****. They wanted to dig into the juicy sex stuff because we live in a voyeur culture. We publish sex tapes, we look at pictures of celebrities taken through telephoto lenses, we can't get enough of the dirty sex stuff.

This is why nothing Weiner said could have changed this outcome. If people really didn't care about the sexting, we never would have discovered he was lying in the first place.

Why did we even care whether that was his cock?

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's another way to consider the issue:

When Weiner said he was hacked, why did we require more information? Whether lying or not, why did we need to move forward?

Because if he had been hacked, the public would have the right to know more about it. Weiner's Twitter account wasn't just some personal thing. He used it to correspond with the public. He established it as a verified Twitter account specifically so that people could trust that the content came from him. And he's not the only public figure to use Twitter in this way. If his Twitter account was hacked, then the public deserves to know how much faith it can place in messages coming from verified Twitter accounts from both him and from other politicians. And the very fact that Twitter even has verified accounts should tell you that, yes, the public DOES care about that.

I don't buy for a second that the press was just making sure he was telling the truth

I don't give a damn WHY the press follows a story. If the story deserves to be followed, then I want the press to follow it, even if their motives don't match mine. Furthermore, the mere fact of following the story wouldn't have compelled a resignation. But the calls from other democrats for him to resign surely has made a big difference in that respect. I've explained why I think that his handling of the situation made a difference for them (and IIRC some of them have explicitly stated that it did). But you haven't even mentioned his fellow democrats in your response to me.

 

[TraneWreck]

I'm sure most people have embarrassing things they don't want made public. But that's not the same thing as saying that they've done stuff as sleazy as Weiner was doing. I don't believe that's the case, and if you're sampling from divorce cases, well, your sample is skewed.

The standard is now, anything anyone in the media views as somewhat titillating or somehow inappropriate. I'm not sure I know anyone, client or otherwise, who would pass this standard if you could conjure up evidence of the most intimate of moments.

I know I can't.

I don't give a crap what's "natural". I care about what's acceptable. And his response was not acceptable, and there's no reason I should accept it.

The natural, expected response in a meaningless situation should be acceptable. You have no right to ask whether that's his cock, so you don't deserve anything in particular as a response.

When the issue has merit, the response should, as well. It's none of your business. Additionally, I find it interesting that people are so cavalier about what an acceptable response is in this situation. This is one of those situations where withholding judgment unless you know what it's like to have 25 news cameras aimed at you while some ******* asks you about your sex life would be prudent.

I do. He betrayed everybody who supported him. By lying, and by getting them to defend his lies, he undermined their credibility. If he had come clean from the start, or had simply refrained from lying, then his supporters could have jumped straight to the whole "forgive and forget" position. That's pretty easy to do when there aren't really any victims. But he turned all those supporters into victims by undermining their credibility. People like lefty don't care. People like Pelosi do.

That's not directly dealing with the counterfactual. Interestingly, on the very day Weiner resigned, the Government Accountability Office released its investigation into ACORN:

The GAO found that monitoring of awards to ACORN by government agencies generally consisted of reviewing progress reports and making site visits. Of 22 investigations of alleged election and voter registration fraud, most were closed without prosecution, the report found.

One of eight investigations of alleged voter registration fraud resulted in guilty pleas and seven were closed without action due to lack of evidence.

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news...e-to-support-congress-abolition-of-acorn.html

So after all of that, there was one single case of voter REGISTRATION fraud, which is a more or less irrelevant crime.

Here's why that case is important. ACORN did absolutely nothing wrong, but the appearance of wrongness coupled with the incessant right wing attacks caused the Democrats to crumble and allow the important organization to be destroyed.

This is what would have happened to Weiner. Breitbart would have run around with a picture of the penis, the vapid media wouldn't be able to let the titillating story go, and ultimately the Democrats would have forced him out for PR purposes, which is why they did it, anyway.

It doesn't matter what Breitbart thinks. Weiner's career never depended upon his opinion. And you're wrong about the media, too. He lied to them, then attacked them pretty viciously for asking questions. Why SHOULD they forgive him for that? Without that, I'm sure they would still have played the scandal for ratings, but they would also be a lot more willing to show him in a sympathetic light.

They had no business asking those questions. It's total nonsense.

But pissing off the media is not a crime, either. Just because a few reporters get pissy, that doesn't mean they should try and destroy someone's career over a total non-story. It's vapid nonsense.

And it does matter what Breitbart thinks. He's the guy that Sherrod fired, ACORN disbanded, and now state after state is defunding Planned Parenthood. He has immense power in these situations.

A congressman is not most people. Most people have no experience in dealing with the press. That certainly isn't the case with Weiner. Furthermore, he didn't simply lie when confronted on the spur of the moment. He lied repeatedly and continually, including in sit-down interviews where he KNEW the subject was going to come up. He had time to contemplate what to do. And he deliberately chose to do the wrong thing. Repeatedly. And he wouldn't have stopped if those additional pictures hadn't come out.

So? Was the lie about anything important? Are we safer or richer or better off as a nation because you know that was his penis?

If he had maintained that he had been hacked and no one ever questioned it, what's the problem? Where's the harm?

And again, it doesn't matter whether or not the behavior was understandable. The question is whether it was an acceptable response. And it wasn't. Nor are you actually trying to form an argument for why we should accept that sort of response.

Yes, we should accept that response because we have no business asking the question in the first place. If I ask you whether you engage in homosexual sex on the weekends, you can answer however the hell you want. It's your private life, you can deny, tell me it's none of my business, punch me in the face, anything goes because I'm the one behaving inappropriately in that situation.

 

[TraneWreck]

Because if he had been hacked, the public would have the right to know more about it. Weiner's Twitter account wasn't just some personal thing. He used it to correspond with the public. He established it as a verified Twitter account specifically so that people could trust that the content came from him. And he's not the only public figure to use Twitter in this way. If his Twitter account was hacked, then the public deserves to know how much faith it can place in messages coming from verified Twitter accounts from both him and from other politicians. And the very fact that Twitter even has verified accounts should tell you that, yes, the public DOES care about that.

Haha, oh wow. The public has a right to know if a Twitter feed has been hacked? Quick, how many times has John Boehner's email sent out one of those spam e-mails for penis enlargement pills because he got a virus? The public MUST KNOW!!!

No, just the tech people. They could look at it, see he wasn't hacked, realize what that meant, and get on with their lives. It's a non-issue.

I don't give a damn WHY the press follows a story. If the story deserves to be followed, then I want the press to follow it, even if their motives don't match mine.

This story did not deserve to be followed. You're desperately trying to justify this gross voyeurism.

Furthermore, the mere fact of following the story wouldn't have compelled a resignation. But the calls from other democrats for him to resign surely has made a big difference in that respect. I've explained why I think that his handling of the situation made a difference for them (and IIRC some of them have explicitly stated that it did). But you haven't even mentioned his fellow democrats in your response to me.

The Democrats called for Sherrod to resign before they knew what was happening. They accepted the smears aimed at ACORN with nothing so much as a word in their defense. Now they're rolling over as Planned Parenthood is getting shut down in state after state.

Their idiotic excuses for rolling over again mean very little to me. They wanted him out of their for political reasons. Weiner's constituents broadly supported him, he would have been re-elected, it was the Congressional democrats that forced him out, and they would have done this whether or not he denied the story in the first place.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Again, though, you would never conclude from someone's bad judgment on the floor of Congress that they are reckless in their sex lives. In one direction, the separation is perfectly obvious.

If your mechanic shows poor judgment in replacing a belt, do you think, "this guy must do weird sexual stuff on the internet?" I certainly don't. Somehow we're able to separate private and professional judgment when going in that direction, but once someone has made a poor decision in their private lives, we make the wild conclusion that this is an inherent personal characteristic that will be voiced over and over.

It seems to me that these issues about "judgment" and "lying to the public" (again, I would expect someone confronted with embarassing, irrelevant personal information to deny it) are post hoc rationalizations for our society's creepy voyeurism.

I've handled a number of family law issues, divorces and the related fall out. I can tell you for a fact that if everyone's personal lives were made public, the "Wiener Standard" would basically rule out 90% of the population from holding office. People make bad personal decisions CONSTANTLY. These people still manage to be highly competent and highly successful in their professional lives. There really is no connection between the two.

George Bush is clearly someone who has terrible professional judgment. His mistakes are long and notable. What does that allow us to conclude about his private life? If Dubya wanted to coach his grandkid's soccer team, would we have to bar him? After all, he handled Hurricane Katrina poorly, so it's likely that he can't be trusted around children. He's a "poor decision maker."

I love when people say Bush was stupid. Every "poor" decision was advantageous to his neocon agenda, the rich get richer.....

FWIW

Teachers, as rule, don't join facebook or twitter stuff because everything you say or your "friends" say can and will be lodged against you.

Shouldn't a US Congressman be at least as aware as a schoolteacher?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

When Weiner said he was hacked, why did we require more information?

Because we knew he was lying.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If Weiner was a Republican, he'd still be in office.

 

[TraneWreck]

Because we knew he was lying.

So?

 

[TraneWreck]

I love when people say Bush was stupid. Every "poor" decision was advantageous to his neocon agenda, the rich get richer.....

Stupid or lying.

Teachers, as rule, don't join facebook or twitter stuff because everything you say or your "friends" say can and will be lodged against you.

Shouldn't a US Congressman be at least as aware as a schoolteacher?

Yes, they should be. In a practical sense, careers can be destroyed over dumb stuff.

That doesn't mean it's right we have such strange standards. I'm generally not of the opinion that we should be upset with people who inadequately guard themselves against idiotic societal overreaction. I also don't think women who wear revealing clothes are asking to get raped.

 

[Ziggurat]

Haha, oh wow. The public has a right to know if a Twitter feed has been hacked?

When that's what Weiner publicly claimed, yes.

Quick, how many times has John Boehner's email sent out one of those spam e-mails for penis enlargement pills because he got a virus?

I don't believe Congress has outgoing congressional mail precisely because email is an unverifiable format. But if penis enlargement pill adds star showing up on Boehner's website, yeah, I think the public would want to know if they're really coming from him or from a hacked web server.

This story did not deserve to be followed. You're desperately trying to justify this gross voyeurism.

And you're trying desperately to excuse a congressman flagrantly lying to the press, the public, his fellow democrats, and his constituents.

The Democrats called for Sherrod to resign before they knew what was happening. They accepted the smears aimed at ACORN with nothing so much as a word in their defense. Now they're rolling over as Planned Parenthood is getting shut down in state after state.

Not equivalent situations at all. You're talking about situations in which democrats jumped the gun in throwing people under the bus. We have the reverse here: they defended him at first, and now they're turning on him as the truth comes out.

Their idiotic excuses for rolling over again mean very little to me. They wanted him out of their for political reasons.

Because he pulled the rug out from under their defense of him by lying.

 

[cwalner]

Because we knew he was lying.

Well, not quite yet at the time. Still the excuse was about on par with 'my dog ate my homework' so further investigation was clearly warranted.

So?

Really? C'mon TraneWreck, do you honestly expect us to believe that when a congressmen gives as lame of an excuse as Weiner did, the press should give him a pass? Or do you just believe that because he is a good liberal, not one of those evil conservatives.

If he had fessed up, but the press kept digging, then yeah, bad on them. But he was clearly hiding something. It might not be any of our business, but I would rather the press err on the side of exposing as much as they can and let the public decide if it is relevant, than having them decide what is important for me to know.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Stupid or lying.



Yes, they should be. In a practical sense, careers can be destroyed over dumb stuff.

That doesn't mean it's right we have such strange standards. I'm generally not of the opinion that we should be upset with people who inadequately guard themselves against idiotic societal overreaction. I also don't think women who wear revealing clothes are asking to get raped.

The MSM decides idiotic societal overreaction.

 

[TraneWreck]

When that's what Weiner publicly claimed, yes.

I don't believe Congress has outgoing congressional mail precisely because email is an unverifiable format. But if penis enlargement pill adds star showing up on Boehner's website, yeah, I think the public would want to know if they're really coming from him or from a hacked web server.

If something goes out from Boehner that has nothing to do with anything, and he says it was a hack, what's the problem?

If it is something worthy of public interest, by all means, go after it. The substance is what makes it important.

And you're trying desperately to excuse a congressman flagrantly lying to the press, the public, his fellow democrats, and his constituents.

Not excuse it, point out it wasn't very meaningful. It was an idiotic move born of idiotic behavior. It's just not particularly meaningful idiotic behavior.

Is this really your standard? Any lie to the public no matter how meaningless means the speaker, if a member of Congress, should resign? Are you willing to defend that position when I give you 20,000....000 examples?

Not equivalent situations at all. You're talking about situations in which democrats jumped the gun in throwing people under the bus. We have the reverse here: they defended him at first, and now they're turning on him as the truth comes out.

We're dealing with a counterfactual in this little exchange.

You thought it was somehow meaningful that I hadn't mentioned calls from Democrats for his resignation. I am explaining why those calls are meaningless.

Democrats crumbled when ACORN did nothing wrong. If Weiner had acknowledged the tweet was his from the beginning, Breitbart still keeps pushing until it's all out there. In this counterfactual, the Democrats still call for his resignation, because as Sherrod, ACORN and now Planned Parenthood show, a person or organization doesn't need to actually do anything wrong to have the Congressional Democrats turn on them.

This is why the "lying to the country" stuff is such a canard. He was forced out because of cock shots. The lying stuff, as with Clinton, is meant to add legitimacy to a completely illegitimate inquiry. The investigation never should have taken place just like Clinton never should have been asked about Monica Lewinsky in the Whitewater probe.

The minute that tweet went out, Weiner was done. The rest of it was going to become public and the fact that he did nothing wrong was irrelevant. It was a frenzy of childish voyeurism.

Because he pulled the rug out from under their defense of him by lying.

No defense would have worked regardless of his behavior because this was a frivolous, stupid thing to begin with.

 

[TraneWreck]

Really? C'mon TraneWreck, do you honestly expect us to believe that when a congressmen gives as lame of an excuse as Weiner did, the press should give him a pass? Or do you just believe that because he is a good liberal, not one of those evil conservatives.

Why were reporters so desperate to learn if the picture was his?

Do all of these issues come up if it's a picture of a landscape and Weiner says, hey, I didn't put that up there, I must have been hacked?

If he had fessed up, but the press kept digging, then yeah, bad on them. But he was clearly hiding something. It might not be any of our business, but I would rather the press err on the side of exposing as much as they can and let the public decide if it is relevant, than having them decide what is important for me to know.

Fair enough. I actually find that to be fairly persuasive, or would if what had happened was the press erring on the side of trying to expose actual corruption. If they had gone after Goldman Sachs with this level of intensity we might have learned something important.

They had a picture with a penis and couldn't let it go. Weiner's response was irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

If something goes out from Boehner that has nothing to do with anything, and he says it was a hack, what's the problem?

That's not even the relevant question. The relevant question is what's the story.

And yes, it's a story, and a legitimate one, if a verified Twitter account got hacked. Even without the sex aspects. It's a much smaller story without the sex angle (but really, welcome to humanity), but it's still a story.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is this really your standard? Any lie to the public no matter how meaningless means the speaker, if a member of Congress, should resign?

No, that's not the standard I'm proposing.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you”. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Not every lie ruins your credibility. But some do. Weiner's lies ruined his credibility. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand. Perhaps you need to watch him lying again to reacquaint yourself with what his lies were really like.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0z5k0mc5yk