Will Rep Weiner resign? Should he?

[anthriel]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... treatment/

Rep. Weiner is being fairly stubborn about resigning, even with many prominant Democrats (and others!) suggesting he should. He says he will take a leave of absence and seek counseling instead.

Several thoughts on this:

1. Apparently, with the exception of the 17 year-old he messaged (and it doesn't look like his interaction with her included lewd pictures), all the women he contacted were adults. Is this our business? Or is this between he and his wife? Does it have anything to do with his ability to represent his constituents?

2. Does he have an obligation to his party to step down? Obviously this story is embarrassing, and takes attention away from issues that need attention. Is he being a bit selfish with his refusal to walk away?

3. How in the world do people in this position feel like they can get away with this stuff? Should he step down just because someone that criminally stupid shouldn't represent anyone anywhere??

4. Would this be as big of a deal in a country other than the USA?


Feel free to add your questions. #3 is the one that really is rolling around in my head of late.

[vison]

His behavior is stupid, but it was the lying that did him in, as far as I'm concerned.

If he had admitted it from the start, it would be a different matter. But, as is usual with these guys, he lied.

The lying is a "crime". He can run for office again, but he ought to resign now.

Canadian politicians never do things like this. They are all pure as driven snow and honest, too.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for starting this thread, Anthy. I've been meaning to do so for some time.

1. Apparently, with the exception of the 17 year-old he messaged (and it doesn't look like his interaction with her included lewd pictures), all the women he contacted were adults. Is this our business? Or is this between he and his wife? Does it have anything to do with his ability to represent his constituents?

Yes, I think it does reflect on his ability to represent his constituents. Anyone who shows that degree of lack of judgment cannot effectively represent anyone.

2. Does he have an obligation to his party to step down? Obviously this story is embarrassing, and takes attention away from issues that need attention. Is he being a bit selfish with his refusal to walk away?

Yes, he has both an obligation to his party, and to the country, to get out of the way.

3. How in the world do people in this position feel like they can get away with this stuff? Should he step down just because someone that criminally stupid shouldn't represent anyone anywhere??

See my answer to No. 3. Beyond that, I don't have anything to say about how anyone that smart could be that stupid. It reminds me very strongly of former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer.

4. Would this be as big of a deal in a country other than the USA?

I have no opinion on this.

[River]

20 years ago, my family lived in the DC area and my dad knew people who worked on the Hill. Some were lobbyists, others were aides. All of them, however, agreed that everyone's out to see how much they can get away with. They really do think they're smart enough to get away with this sort of stuff...and maybe most of them are.

As for Weiner's fate, that ought to rest in the hands of the people he represents. They're the ones that hired him...do they still want him?

[Primula Baggins]

I've seen it suggested that he should resign, and then run in the ensuing special election. That would more or less settle his constituents' opinions.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Really? I've not seen that, and I think that would be repulsive.

A source is now saying that he is considering resigning after all:

Rep. Anthony Weiner finally considering he may have to resign amid sexting scandal, says source

River, I disagree that the decision should be strictly in the hands of his constituents. He is a member of the United States House of Representative, and as such he reflects the whole country. I don't want him.

[Lalaith]

I think this shows complete and total arrogance. He probably really did think he was smart enough not to get caught, like "those other idiots." (Not a quote of his, for the record.) If it's not arrogance, then it's a lack of self-control. It's also a serious lack of good judgment. Dishonesty just tops it all off.

I think the lack of good judgment and the dishonesty are the two most troubling character flaws and are the ones that would make me say that, if Weiner were my representative, I would want him to resign. (The arrogance is a character flaw that troubles me personally but is not necessarily enough to call for a resignation. And I am actually sympathetic to the lack of self-control.)

Prim's suggestion is a good one, actually. ETA: Repulsive? Yes, but it would also allow the people to voice their opinions. <shrug> I don't know. It's an interesting proposition anyway.

[nerdanel]

For me, the greatest concern is the sexually harassing nature of Weiner's contacts with the women (as best as I can tell). It seems undisputed that he is the one who escalated most of the exchanges from politics to sex. In some cases, this was welcome -- in which case, I do not think it's our concern. In other cases, this was not -- that's the part that's our chief concern. Although he claims not to have had any inappropriate interactions with the minor girl, he hasn't proven himself the most credible relator of events, so his contacts with her remain of potential concern.

I may be in the minority in the US in saying that I feel more equivocal about the "dishonesty" aspect. Let me be clear: politicians should never be dishonest. But we do have a near-hysterical culture about sexuality in the US. Any hint that a married politician has done something other than have consensual sexual relations with his (or her, although female politicians don't usually get into these scandals) spouse sends the country off the deep end. Knowing how grave the consequences are likely to be, politicians often resort to lying. They shouldn't. It shows an absence of character. But I feel obliged to point out that the reason for lying is the often immediate overreaction that results, often in response to consensual conduct between adults that does not merit public scrutiny.

There are three circumstances in which a politician's sexual conduct is legitimately our concern, whether or not that politician is married.

(1) S/he is engaging in sexual conduct contrary to their public stances (e.g., opposing gay rights on "family values" grounds while having gay sex), i.e., being a raging hypocrite;

(2) S/he is engaging in harassing or nonconsensual behavior; or

(3) S/he has had contact with minors that is even remotely sexually tinged.

In these circumstances we rightly take note. In all other circumstances, France has it right: a politician's fidelity to his/her spouse or other private relationships are not our business. While politicians should not publicly lie, they also should have no obligation to answer questions. There should be no scandal to be had.

[JewelSong]

I don't think he should be made to resign...especially since what he did was MINOR compared to other people's actions - who are still in office and have even been re-elected. (Diaper Dave, anyone?)

I do wonder...what was he thinking? What are ANY of them thinking when they do BLATANT things like this? I'm not talking about a discreet affair. It seems discretion has gone the way of the dodo bird and the game now is to see how "in your face" you can be before getting caught. But - WHY? In this case, the congressman can scarcely claim ignorance of how the social media networks worked - he was quite adept at Facebook and Twitter. His actions seemed more like those of an adolescent boy than a man in his 40s.

(And WHY does his name HAVE to be "Weiner?" *headdesk*)

[yovargas]

(1) S/he is engaging in sexual conduct contrary to their public stances (e.g., opposing gay rights on "family values" grounds while having gay sex), i.e., being a raging hypocrite;

(2) S/he is engaging in harassing or nonconsensual behavior; or

(3) S/he has had contact with minors that is even remotely sexually tinged.

In these circumstances we rightly take note. In all other circumstances, France has it right: a politician's fidelity to his/her spouse or other private relationships are not our business. While politicians should not publicly lie, they also should have no obligation to answer questions. There should be no scandal to be had.

Totally, totally agree.

[axordil]

I pretty much come down with nel as well.

As far as arrogance goes: those who do not have some degree of either it, or at the least extremely strong self-assurance, have a hard time being elected to high office. That's not saying it doesn't happen. It's just harder for someone who doesn't think very highly of themselves to break into that level of politics. The system rewards monomania.

[Lalaith]

As far as arrogance goes: those who do not have some degree of either it, or at the least extremely strong self-assurance, have a hard time being elected to high office. That's not saying it doesn't happen. It's just harder for someone who doesn't think very highly of themselves to break into that level of politics. The system rewards monomania.

And that is probably one of the key reasons I strongly dislike politics and politicians in general.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Americans don't seem to have problems with their elected officials being bought and paid for. To get in a tizzy about a minor flirtation on a social site seems a strange set of values in comparison.

[Lalaith]

Really? Posting nude photos of yourself to multiple women is a "minor flirtation"? I disagree with that characterization, Tosh. I also don't like my elected officials to be bought and paid for either.

I must say that I get tired of the way non-Americans characterize Americans. I don't see the same type of negative characterizations going out by Americans toward the Europeans or Canadians, and it's not really because we can't think of things to say.

But this post can be deleted by Voronwë or whoever, because it's fairly off-topic.

[River]

River, I disagree that the decision should be strictly in the hands of his constituents. He is a member of the United States House of Representative, and as such he reflects the whole country. I don't want him.

There are lots of people in Congress I don't want but I've got no place telling anyone they need to fire their hireling. Unless I'm one of the people who did the hiring (if Polis got caught doing something like this I'd be pretty repulsed; with Weiner I'm just amused and nonplussed).

When things like this happen, resignation is expected. But if no laws were broken...what nel said.

[nerdanel]

I must say that I get tired of the way non-Americans characterize Americans. I don't see the same type of negative characterizations going out by Americans toward the Europeans or Canadians, and it's not really because we can't think of things to say.

Now try immersing in nine months of that sort of snide, unfair commentary about what Americans like, think, believe, feel, and do (to be clear, it wasn't mainly/only British people from whom I heard this, but Europeans broadly, as well as many Canadians and a plurality of Aussies/Kiwis). I have just over 72 hours before I return to my (allegedly) backwards, uneducated, uncivilised, violent, unenlightened, non-human rights-respecting, overly individualistic, overly libertarian, car-driving, judicial supremacy-loving country, and I aspire never to live anywhere else again. Ever.

I came here so excited to learn about other Western countries' approaches to shared social problems, but after enduring nine months of overly simplistic anti-American negativity, both inside the classroom and out, I must admit that I am less open to hearing from those who take that approach to conversations involving the United States.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Ok, point taken and no offence taken either at the chiding. We have our own corrupt politicians and elites that disgust me here too. But I was trying to make a serious point. Bear in mind that most of what gets discussed here is American politics.

When I started to look at the process of health care reform that the newly elected Democrat Congress initiated I was amazed to see how many politicians took vast sums from the health insurance industry and sat on key committees. It brought it home to me how large companies control the political process. Indeed Weiner was in the middle of examining that precise problem within the Supreme Court itself. It made me somewhat suspicious about the scandal. Now I may be uninformed but I hadn't gathered that Weiner posted pictures of his bare genitalia. Did he or didn't he? I had believed he had shown pictures of his clothed groin area. But i may be mistaken.
I simply compared the acceptance of gross interference by big companies in the democratic process with outrage at a foolish personal act.
But I know I did it in a snarky manner and for that I apologise.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Really? Posting nude photos of yourself to multiple women is a "minor flirtation"? I disagree with that characterization, Tosh. I also don't like my elected officials to be bought and paid for either.

I must say that I get tired of the way non-Americans characterize Americans. I don't see the same type of negative characterizations going out by Americans toward the Europeans or Canadians, and it's not really because we can't think of things to say.

But this post can be deleted by Voronwë or whoever, because it's fairly off-topic.

I thought it was perfectly on-topic, actually.

River, I agree that there are plenty of Congresspeople that I wouldn't want either, but it is a matter of degree. Weiner has stepped over a line for me that can't be uncrossed. Maybe it was because he was someone that I respected (though didn't always agree with) before this happened. Maybe it is because his Republican colleague Chris Lee had the grace to quickly resign when it was discovered that he did the same kind of thing (but much less of it). Weiner's arrogance is as bothersome to me as his dishonesty.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

The health and insurance sectors gave nearly $170 million to House and Senate members in 2007 and 2008, with 54% going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of 2009, when Democrats collected 60% of the $5.4 million donated by health-care companies and their employees, the data show. Lawmakers that chair key committees have been leading recipients, some of whom received over $1.0 million in contributions.[140]

Matt Taibbi wrote in Rolling Stone that President Obama and key senators who have advocated single-payer systems in the past are unwilling to face the insurance companies and their powerful lobbying efforts. Key politicians on the Senate Finance Committee involved in crafting legislation have received over $2 million in campaign contributions from the healthcare industry. Several of the firms invited to testify at the hearings sent lobbyists that had formerly worked for Senator Max Baucus, the chair of the committee. Mr. Baucus stated in February 2009 that: "There may come a time when we can push for single-payer. At this time, it's not going to get to first base in Congress."[141]

George McGovern wrote that significant campaign funds were given to the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over health-care legislation: "Chairman Max Baucus of Montana, a Democrat, and his political action committee have received nearly $4 million from the health-care lobby since 2003. The ranking Republican, Charles Grassley of Iowa, has received more than $2 million. It's a mistake for one politician to judge the personal motives of another. But Sens. Baucus and Grassley are firm opponents of the single-payer system, as are other highly placed members of Congress who have been generously rewarded by the insurance lobby."

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Now I may be uninformed but I hadn't gathered that Weiner posted pictures of his bare genitalia. Did he or didn't he? I had believed he had shown pictures of his clothed groin area. But i may be mistaken.

Yes, he did send pictures of bare genitalia. I've seen one (needless to say, I'm not goint to post a link).

Regarding the suggestion that the scandal somehow had something to do with his investigation of Justice Thomas, I suppose it is somehow possible that the timing of the revelations might have been related, but no one forced him to do these things, and no one forced him to lie about it.