In his June 6 press conference, he mentioned trying to protect his wife as one of the reasons he lied.
An utterly meaningless phrase, and you’re still misrepresenting the text anyway.
That’s a high moral principle then. I commend him.
Remember when John Ensign paid the guy he cuckholded to cover up an affair for him? Where was your outrage then? If he’s still in the Senate after doing a lot worse than Weiner, then lying about sending a tweet is not going to clear the bar.
Ensign’s no longer in the Senate. He resigned over a month ago when it became clear that he was about to be booted out.
Moreover, as has been pointed out, lots of people are still in Congress despite doing worse than Weiner. Nor is it just Republicans like David Vitter who can avoid having their political careers destroyed.
For example Barney Frank and Charley Rangel have been guilty of worse and they’re both still there and Frank is actually fairly influential.
What has Frank been guilty of?
the escort service being ran from his basement comes to mind…
He had nothing to do with that. His then boyfriend was doing it without his knowledge during a time when Frank was not living in the apartment.
Not that there’s anything wrong with prostitution anyway.
He rather foolishly hired a male prostitute whom he’d propositioned to be his aid and allowed the man to live with him and set up a prostitution ring in his apartment(the latter without his knowledge but he should have realized it).
It doesn’t make him a horrible person and I certainly don’t disagree with the people of Fall River who keep re-electing him, but it’s certainly more offensive what Weiner did.
He didn’t “allow” anything. He was victimized by a hustler he’d been foolish enough to trust. He wasn’t “guilty” of anything. He was a mark.
You clearly misunderstand my point.
I wasn’t arguing that he was some sort of “criminal” merely that he engaged in behavior that most people would argue was morally worse than what Weiner did.
Had Weiner hired a prostitute as one of his aides, put her up in his apartment and paid many of her expenses, we’d be having a far different conversation about him.
That said, you’re right that Frank should largely have been seen as a chump though he should be congratulated for showing that gay men are just as likely as straight men to be led around by their dicks.
I don’t see what behavior Frank himself engaged in that even approached being inappropriate. He didn’t pay this guy. He didn’t know he was a prostitute. And (obviously) he wasn’t married, so there was no infidelity issue.
Yes he did pay the guy and yes he knew was a prostitute.
Frank has never to the best of my knowledge argued otherwise.
Anyway if you wish to argue that what Weiner did was worse than what Frank did go ahead(if you don’t you’re arguing here is utterly asinine since I merely mentioned Frank to point out how their are Congresscritters who’ve done worse).
You do know we can scroll up and read what you said before, right ?
That’s what you said. And that was not about his lying, either.
Did she cite it as the reason for her decision ? Or even a reason ? All you have is innuendo and insinuation.
The way I like ? What do I give a shit about the political slant, I’m not even American. And in my own country ? I don’t vote.
But the writing itself is tawdry, dishonest, slitheringly insinuating, full of chest-thumping and calling it “coverage” is giving this blogger a veneer of journalism he would not have if Emile Zola ejaculated on his face. It’s yellow non-journalism.
I couldn’t care less about the politics. I do mind the bullshit.
Did Weiner vote in such a way as to protect himself ? Has he sponsored or authored bills that would cover his own actions ? Did he bribe other officials to keep this quiet ? Did he call for his party or friends to stonewall official investigations or lie on his behalf ? Has he tried to get his internet squeezes cushy government no-show jobs ? Did he lie under oath ?
In short, has Weiner’s on the job performance been in any way, shape or form unethical ? Then what does the code of ethics of his profession has to do with anything ?
He lied to reporters about his private life. Big whoop.
When you hire a code monkey to jazz up your website, you don’t care that he felches goats in his spare time as long as he shows up on time, does his job before the deadline and doesn’t steal too many office supplies. Why should the standards for politicians be any different, exactly ?
Furthermore, show me one politician, a single one, from either side of the aisle; who when caught in something embarrassing did not immediately go in damage control mode for as long as that could hold. Show him to me and I won’t douse Washington D.C. in a rain of brimstone.Show me that politician who, on the first day allegations of a scandal broke, hung his head and said “oh bother, you know about that ? Yeah, I did that. I’ll get me coat.”.
Or, failing that, show me your condemnations of all those who did not as unethical. Either you stand for “the highest moral principals”*, or you don’t.
You can’t use the morals card when it suits you, shuffle it back in the deck when it doesn’t. That’s the annoying thing about the moral card, and why it’s generally stupid (not to mention obnoxious) to try and play it.
[QUOTE=Ibn Warraq]
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.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not saying the whole business is partisan hackery (even if, as you yourself note, it really is - coming from both sides). I’m saying that about **Xema **trying to spin this particular quote of his into something oooh la la or ethically damning.
Weiner wrote “shit” on twitter. That’s not news, that’s not a gotcha, that’s not even an event. It doesn’t “reflect bad on him” or “is ethically questionable”. It’s, in the words of Marley, a non-starter. It’s manufactured outrage.
- and this irritates me too, FFS. It’s spelled “principle”, Code of Ethics ! Principal is what you collect interest on !
According to Frank’s wiki, I gess he initially hired the guy as a prostitute (so I was wrong about that), but that it turned into a real relationship. Frank basiclly paid him to be a housekeeper (with his own money), so it wasn’t like he put him on staff or anything, and Frank believed the guy had stopped working as a prostitute.
So basically that adds up to Frank having done nothing inappropriate whatsoever.
Weiner at least did something, no matter how trivial. Frank did nothing at all. A guy he was sleeping with did something behind his back. You might as well blame Weiner’s wife for what Weiner did.
Yes, a lot of guys have done worse than Weiner with no real consequences, but Barney Frank does not deserve to be mentioned in that company.
Ironically, the Republican who led the charge trying to get Barney Frank censured and/or bounced from the House was none other than toe-tapper, Larry Craig. Karma is a bitch.
No - she gave no detailed list of reasons. But this was the only significant event in the case between Pelosi’s He Can Stay and He Must Go.
Pity you don’t like the style. But probably a sensible choice of targets when you’re unwilling to point to factual errors.
No, he lied to protect himself, and coached/induced others to lie. You claim not to care about this; others (including plenty of member of his party) do care.
Show me a thief that did not try to get away with what he stole for as long as he could. This does not mean that we should fail to prosecute thieves when caught.
To be more accurate, I’m taking it - along with the fact that he was sending her private messages - as evidence that he was cultivating a non-professional relationship with a high-school girl. I don’t see that of itself as “oooh la la” or especially damning, but I think it reflects negatively on him and is relevant. Again, members of his own party feel the same.
Typos irritate you? You must find message boards exasperating.
Are you saying the problem is not his behavior, it’s that he lied to protect his wife (so he says) and his wife happens to be a government official? In other words, there are different rules for people married to government officials (you can’t lie to protect your spouse if he or she works for the government) and people who are married to civilians (lying to protect them is OK)? I’m sorry, this is even more ridiculous and it’s plainly not what that line means. The line means ‘put what is moral and loyal to the country ahead of what’s good for your political party or other people or agencies in the government.’ Weiner didn’t put his political party ahead of the country. He put his own interests ahead of what was good for his marriage, his career, and his party.
No, that was in response to your statement “he clearly didn’t put his loyalty to his wife ahead of anything.” His statement at the press conference could be taken to mean he did put loyalty to his wife ahead of some things (such as being truthful).
Of course you don’t have to be especially cynical to say, in response to Weiner’s claim of trying to protect his wife, “Right - what you mean is you were trying to protect yourself from your wife’s natural reaction to the disclosure of your sordid behavior. If protecting your wife was big with you, you wouldn’t have started this mess.”
I suppose this interpretation is possible, but I don’t subscribe to it.
The Code of Ethics statement is: “Put loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country above loyalty to Government persons, party, or department.” I take this to mean: As a member of Congress, you naturally have loyalty to your party, department, and a bunch of people in government. But make sure that your loyalty to the highest moral principles and to country always comes ahead of these.
Weiner lied, and coached/induced others to lie. IMO, this is disloyalty to the highest moral principles (among which should be honesty) and thus he appears to have violated the Code of Ethics.
I’m seeing the phrase “loyalty to the highest moral principles” as quite important here; you are omitting mention of it. I’m puzzled by this.
Just so. And I think this constitutes a failure to be loyal to the highest moral principles.
I found the source of the spelling problem: it’s the link (upthread) to the Code of Ethics for U.S. Government Service.
My apologies for passing along a typo that you found troubling. I’ll check such things more carefully in future.
I’ll withdraw this comment, as your phrase does make mention of “what is moral”.
The question for me is whether or not Weiner committed acts which lead you to believe that Congress is less savory than it was before he committed those acts.
IMO, Weiner is probably still above average for veteran Congress critters. I have zero doubts that every single Congressman has put their own interests ahead of all those things at some time or another.