Now that Anthony Weiner has raised the white flag of surrender on the fact that he did, in fact, send lewd pictures of himself and lied to cover it up, the next great battle is convincing him that he should resign his office. Yesterday, he said he would not resign, and if precedence means anything among Democrats, chances are he won't. Yet, there are several reasons why he should.
First of all, there is still a possibility that he was not completely truthful even yesterday at the New York press conference. He says he did not use government resources to send those images. Yet, it appears that in at least some, the images were sent from his office.
He says there was no actual infidelity in the physical sense. That remains to be seen.
He also tried to downplay his actions in the famous Seattle bulge picture by saying he sent it as "a joke". There is no delicate way to say this, but let's just say that erections tend not to occur during moments of humor and vice-versa.
But the biggest concerns about Weiner are that when it comes to issues of judgement and credibility, he has lost both. The lack of judgement in a congressman sending lewd pictures of himself to young women he has never met speaks for itself. In doing so, he left himself open to blackmail. How could he think that none of these women would ever come forward? In terms of credibility, this is the man who let his minions and friends in the media spread the story that he had been hacked. Two names were mentioned as hackers for over a week as Weiner let it happen. You may think that Andrew Breitbart is a self-promoting bottom-feeder, but he was not guilty of hacking. His story was true, and in fact, it appears the worst of Weiner's photos, the most explicit, have not been released, which is yet another reason why Weiner would be wise to just go away. Weiner lied repeatedly to the media both in groups and individually in separate interviews. How can he ever be believed again?
Yet, he knows that Bill Clinton survived. He knows that Ted Kennedy survived. He knows that Charles Rangel survived, as well as other Democrats. The most he will get from the House Ethics Committee is probably a censure. Big deal.
Republicans are somewhat correct in stating that their own miscreants resign when discovered, while Democrats stick it out. Mark Foley and Chris Lee come to mind. Yet, they should not crow too much. Within the Senate, Larry Craig and David Vitter, both Republicans, are still there. They both should have resigned, but they did not.
At some point, the public needs to know that their elected officials are not all a bunch of egotistical, power-hungry jerks who think they can live under a different set of rules than the rest of us. The honorable thing for Anthony Weiner to do would be to resign from Congress. At this point, it appears he will not do so unless his fellow Democrats in the House force him to. That is because Anthony Weiner is not an honorable man. Forget the pictures; they are but a sexual peccadillo. It looks like Weiner's character flaws go deeper than sex.
Not to worry Gary. Weiner will probably have to quit and immediately start to co-host the CNN news broadcast with Eliot Spitzer.
ReplyDeleteSquid
Oh Gary, you never liked him anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't much care -- he represents a district that will elect someone you won't like either, just, hopefully, s/he won't twitter lewd pictures.
Hold on to your hat Siarlys. Te NY Post, HuffPo, and fox news have picked up information that Weiner has also twittered a porn star named Ginger Lee. It is also mentioned that he offered Lee a PR person to help her deny the twittering. The questin is: Has Weiner used tax payer dollars and time to twitter and provide a PR person hired you our dollars? You can check Google with a search of Weiner/Ginger Lee.
ReplyDeleteSquid
Weiner is really low class. He doesn't even have enough sense of propriety to resign immediately. He will be the subject of derision for as long as he is in office. His Party should be able to see this but maybe they want his future votes more.
ReplyDeleteThe issue, for me, is not the use of government assets as much as it is that a person with such bad judgment, with such personal defects, votes. He votes on crucial issues. We can do better than this creep.
.
How do you apportion taxpayer dollars to a tweet? That is, as the judges say, de minimus, even if technically correct. Ron Johnson can tweet a picture of his underwear too, and my concern will NOT be whether he does so on a taxpayer funded twitter account.
ReplyDeleteNow whether taxpayer funds should be used for ANY twitter account at all, that is a better question. It can hardly be considered government business. At best, its campaigning. Let campaign funds be used to pay for it.
Then you can mutter about whether Weiner committed 1/4378th of the crime John Edwards is accused of. Trivial, trivial, trivial.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteHow about tweeting pics from your capital hill office on taxpayers' time?
Time? Don't be silly. Government officials at that level are on call at all times. I understand about using government-billed phones to do campaign fundraising, but a tweet?
ReplyDeleteEVERYONE uses employer-issued cell phones for personal calls. If that runs them over the number of minutes, then those with a sense of ethics (or who get audited) pay the difference.
Trivial, trivial, trivial.
IF there were cell phones when you were a DEA agent, did you ever call your wife on your government-issued cell phone to ask what she wanted you to pick up for dinner on the way home?
Cell phones came after I retired. Honestly, everybody has been guilty of using govenment phones and cars for personal reasons though, they were pretty strict on the cars, but if you stop at the store in your G car on the way hme that's technically a violation, bit not a big deal.Driving a G car to a vacation would be a big deal.
ReplyDeleteThe point is there is difference between using government property for personal use and using govt property to do the things Weiner did.
I agree on the difference between stopping at the store on the way home, and taking a government car on a vacation. The first is right on your way, a stop in the course of what you are authorized to do, during time you are not being paid for. The second is putting significant wear and tear on the vehicle, using gallons of gas paid for by taxpayers, increasing liability... although if you were on call the night you took your wife to the ballet, you might be EXPECTED to take your government car, in case you had to leave in a hurry. In that case, your wife might drive HER car separately, just in case.
ReplyDeleteWhatever Weiner did, it wasn't being significantly SUBSIDIZED by the taxpayers. The fact that it was in very poor taste doesn't make it a crime.