Wiener debate be different if he's independent?

I really don’t care all that much about Wiener one way or the other. ABut how do you think this debate would change is he was either an independent (and a 50/50 one) or if for some reason we didn’t know what is party was? Needless to say this was spurred on by several Weiner threads.

We have 300,000,000 Americans and 535 members of Congress. One would think (and I certainly hope) that for every half a million Americans we could get one that doesn’t email picture of their junk to college women, wear diapers with hookers or cheat with every woman they can lay their paws on. I have a higher standard than that for the guy that changes my oil. If a co-worker was cheating on his wife with a hooker, I’d be disappointed in him. Can’t I hold a U.S. Congressmen to a similar standard?

My bottom line is 90% of our complaints of these guys stem from the letter after their names. And while most might not admit it, I think we hold fire on these guys until we know if they are “our” guy or not. Then we either want to skewer him or defend him and explain away his faults. We should be pissed at all of them for this type of behavior, no matter what their or our political affiliation is.

It might be worse. If he were an independent, both sides would be bashing and denouncing him the way the Republicans are, and fewer people would stick up for him.

It’s evident Weiner wants to stay in Congress and that if he’s forced out (at this point I’m pretty sure he’s toast), it will be largely because Democratic leadership feels this whole thing has become a liability for them because it’s so embarrassing. If he were an independent, there wouldn’t be party leadership, but he would still caucus with the Republicans or Democrats and they would be able to exert similar pressure.

People like sex. The only reason I’d be upset (and call for a resignation) about a sex scandal is if the person in question had run on “family values” or suggested other hypocrisy. Like an anti-gay congress critter reaching for dong in an airport bathroom, or a pro-abstinence Senator who fucks an intern.

Weiner doesn’t bother me much because he never ran on being a moral exemplar.

Not when it’s this salacious and reckless. He’s being condemned on this board by lefties and righties similarly.

If he was an independent, though, he wouldn’t have to worry so much about sucking up to the party leaders.

Is there any Republican you’re aware of that doesn’t fit the category you mention?

And is there any Democrat that does?

I don’t know. Bashing a Congressman who is not a partisan foe, for transgressions of similar nature to, and probably lesser than, those of some partisan allies? I don’t think either party gets many points any more in such a situation except in relation to the tearing down of an opponent.

I don’t know. Who in the Republican Party isn’t a clone of the platform? It’s not my fault that the people who vote for Republicans are stupid enough to be moved by “family values” as a platform issue. Isn’t Scott Brown pro-choice? I wouldn’t call for his ouster if his wife got an abortion. Most Republicans would, however.

I don’t know. I assume some Blue-Dogs are anti-SSM or anti-abortion. One of those dudes would strike me as a hypocrite if they had a gay affair or an abortion for the mistress (respectively).

In this circumstance he would be a partisan foe for both parties, since the OP said he votes against both of them about half the time. Democrats would be saying he’s basically a conservative and Republicans would be saying he’s basically a liberal, and there would be some grounds for both.

My impression is that someone who votes with you half the time is more often treated as a coveted ally than a foe, actually. That’s a “swing” position. Neither side wants to lose him.

People would make fun of him, mock him … but calls to resign are because of partisan posturing, both making hay and trying to cut down the chance to make hay.

Also, if his seat in Congress could conceivably be picked up by one of the main parties, that party would be more interested in getting him out so that they could put a tighter hold (and it’s legislative vote) on that seat.

So, if Congressman Weiner was an independent, and represented a mainly Democratic leaning district, the only Republicans that would be making noise would be the ones who wanted to score “family value” points with their own constituencies, or otherwise wanted to get their mug on the news.

There probably is no hard and fast rule in all this. It depends on the offence, the makeup of the Congress, the news of the day (like when Bin Laden’s death trumping Trump), and so on.

I dunno if this one is totally partisan. Look at responses here on the Dope. There are a certain amount of Democrats honestly pissed off at him, not for the sexting, but for the lying about it … and a certain amount of Republicans who are saying ‘well, that’s his family’s business’.

mlees makes a good ponit- that depends on the opportunity to replace him with someone more favorable to your party. Joe Lieberman would be a good example in that instance. Weiner has typically won his elections with 60 to 66 percent of the vote, and in the real world, if he were forced out, the Democrats would have a great chance to pick up the seat.* If it were more likely the Democrats were going to pick up that seat, I guess they might be trying hard to force him out and Republicans would be trying to keep him.

*If not for the fact that it may be redistricted out of existence next year.

I’m v. liberal, and I want him to resign. The coverup is worse than the crime.

I wanted Clinton to resign, too. However, in neither case do I support ouster (except by the voters).