“What about pictures of your balls? Is that OK? Is this going to be on the test?”
We get to that difficult task in the advanced section.
What does that have to do with anything ?
You said that Weiner cussing in an informal tweet put him in a quote questionable light unquote. **Marley **countered that other politicians have been seen swearing in the most formal of settings without their morals being put in a “questionable light”. You reply that it’s not what you said, you “only” think it’s ethically questionable of him.
The question I’m putting to you is thus: what in holy blazes do these word even *mean *to you ? Was Cheney put in a “questionable ethical light” based on his swearing ? Or maybe you raised a similar bluenosed fuss about it back then ? If so, feel free to quote yourself questioning Dick Cheney’s principles, or morals, or ethics on the basis of his language and the context thereof.
Or you could just concede that this whole line of argument was just idiotic, partisan hackery on your part. And on that blogger’s for running this crap like it’s a story of course, but then he’s apparently a personal friend of Breitbart so, you know. Birds of a feather and all that.
Finally, you’re also wrong in your parsing of the first article of the Code of Ethics, but Marley already covered that much. The full sentence can be paraphrased as “put doing the right thing above toeing the party line or rendering any favours you might owe”.
Which, incidentally, is exactly what Weiner got famous for passionately ranting about a few months back. Call him a sleazeball if you want to, but his actual professional ethics look OK to me from that angle.
Which should be all that bloody matters, but that’s just me.
ETA: damn, this board moves fast. This was meant in response to #112
I used the word “questionable” in a general sense - as in “dubious”, “tending not to reflect well on”.
It certainly wasn’t intended that way. My opinion is that his contact with this girl wasn’t strictly professional (as I understand that term) and thus tends not to reflect well on him. As this contact seems to have contributed to Pelosi’s decision to now call for his resignation, I’m apparently not alone in this view.
Beyond the fact that it’s clearly not slanted the way you’d like, what seems wrong to you about Patterico’s coverage?
Would that include favors to yourself?
It’s quite normal in a debate for all participants to advance evidence in support of their position.
Statements like “You’re wrong!” (and variants) are widely held not to conform to the true spirit of a debate.
While I thought until recently that Weiner was going to survive and still hope he does(barring further revelations) I don’t understand the attacking other posters for “partisan hackery” considering how many Democrats have Bern calling for him to resign.
Granted, many if not most of the Democrats who are doing this are doing it because they see Weiner as a political liability not due to some outraged sense of morality.
For example Ed Rendell and Tim Kaine were huge backers of Bill Clinton, who was guilty of morally worse behavior but are now calling for Weiner to resign.
Right, that’s purely the result of a political cost-benefit analysis on their part. It would’ve been a huge loss for Democrats if Clinton had resigned based on what he did. Weiner’s a Congressman from New York in a strongly liberal district, so even if he quits, he’ll be replaced by another Democrat, and if his district continues to exist, another Democrat would take his place. Supporting him doesn’t get them very much compared to the trouble they think their party might have if Republicans can make hay out of the issue.
Well, I fully quoted the first item in the Code of Ethics: “Put loyalty to the highest moral principals and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.”
I’d be interested to hear how you can put loyalty to the highest moral principles above other common loyalties without actually being loyal to those moral principles.
Like I said, the code is about priorities, not behavior. (Kobal2 gave a good summary of the sentence that’s a little simpler than mine.) I don’t think Weiner put loyalty to government persons, parties, or departments ahead of his loyalty to the country or his loyalty to moral principles. Doing something immoral is not the same thing as putting something else ahead of his loyalty to morality.
He is a government person. So is his wife.
This is off topic but I’m curious what the treatment might be for sex addiction. I mean do they strap you into a chair and force your eyes open like in A Clockwork Orange and show images of the most unattractive people on the planet having sex or pictures of penises with Syph or what exactly?
This is important.
That’s a pretty tortured reading: I don’t think “government persons” means “yourself.” I also don’t see how that supports Xema’s interpretation since he clearly didn’t put his loyalty to his wife ahead of anything. And I don’t think the code is intended to create special rules for officials who are married to other government officials.
So, it’s not OK to lie in order to protect a party colleague, but it is OK to lie to protect yourself?
Not tortured. Not even “enhanced interrogation”.
The line is about loyalty, not honesty.
Loyalty to high moral principles. You don’t think “honesty” qualifies as a “high moral principle”?
Not when it’s about sex. “Honesty” is also a hugely impractical standard to impose on Congress. As Hunter Thompson once said about finding an honest politician in Washington, you might as well go looking for cherries in a Baltimore Whorehouse.
I guess I missed the morals meeting when that exemption was covered.
It’s their own code, not mine. He’s going to have to face an ethics committee hearing, and no one is going to use that defense.
I guess I did. I didn’t know that “morals” had an objective, legal meaning.
Their code doesn’t define “morals.”
He violated no ethical rukles, so h’s fine there. The worst they could do is censure him anyway. The bottom line is that he didn’t do anything illegal, and all the faux outraged moral posturing in the world isn’t going to turn flirting on a cell phone into anything actually important.
But it does use the phrase “highest moral principles” in its very first sentence, pretty well implying that this is important and likely to be understood by those to which it applies.
Question: If asked, what percentage of Senators & Congressfolk would say that “loyalty to the highest moral principles” admits of lying and coaching other to lie? Yes, we of course know they occasionally lie - but do they believe it’s wrong or perfectly okay?
Yes, honesty is a high moral principle. And I don’t think Weiner put loyalty to government persons, party, or department ahead of that principle. His misdeed was marital infidelity, not placing his political party ahead of his loyalty to the country. He did lie, and he did violate the Congressional code of conduct you quoted earlier.