Anthony Weiner to Take Leave, Seek Treatment

Rep. Anthony Weiner is taking a leave of absence from the House to seek treatment. Via Huffington Post,

Weiner's office put out a statement confirming those reports and announcing that he had requested a "short leave of absence from the House of Representatives so that he can get evaluated and map out a course of treatment to make himself well."

Top Democrats are calling on Weiner to resign. How long can he last? Sam Stein has more here.

< Friday Night Open Thread | East African Al Qaeda Leader Killed in Somalia >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    He can last for at least a year. Maybe longer. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 03:34:48 PM EST
    He's an elected Congressman. He can't be "forced" to resign.  Neither can he really be "pressured".  If the voters in his district think that his sexual habits should disqualify him they can vote him out of office at thie next election.

    I don't see what business this is of anyone not in his district and/or not married to him.

    So he doesn't serve on any (none / 0) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:59:47 PM EST
    committees and doesn't introduce any laws or vote on any legislation that applies to anyone but the people in his district and his wife??

    I don't think so.


    That is not the issue. (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:22:27 PM EST
    You're right, of course, that every congressperson is involved in national governance. But they are elected by and are thus accountable only to those specific voters.   I personally think that David Vitter should resign because he consorted with prostitutes.  But the voters of Louisiana choose to return him to the Senate and because I no longer live there, I've nothing to say about it.  

    So, unless we adopt some kind of at large system for Congress, it seems to me that the people of his district get to say whether he stays or goes---not the leadership of either party.  Or to any bunch of "morality vigilantes"' either.  


    Well technically the House (none / 0) (#109)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:34:51 PM EST
    could expel him -- 2/3 needed.  And who's to say if we have another shoe drop, say in the area of more explicit sexting/pix sent to an underage girl, and he refuses to resign, the expulsion process might get accelerated.  Of course, the Rs are majority in that chamber right now, and may find it politically useful to drag out the ethics investigation and subsequent referrals, well into election season.

    I think Weiner is on the ropes right now, just a step or so from having to throw in the towel, possibly thinking he's still young and, with time away for rehab then maybe landing a radio gig somewhere, he could, a few yrs from now, climb back in to the political arena.


    And on Vitter, just because I (none / 0) (#110)
    by brodie on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:42:29 PM EST
    don't live in that state and the voters there returned him, shouldn't mean I give up my right to free speech in the area of pointing out the hypocrisy of Vitter and the GOP and their senate leadership in the area of morals and family values and enabling law breaking in their members.  Seems like quite a bit can be discussed on Vitter remaining in office, whether or not Weiner steps down, and can be brought up by the Dems again and again in the 2012 election to embarrass the other party and Vitter, perhaps creating something approaching a critical mass that can force the hand of GOP leaders.

    Yes, the idiot voters of Loozyana reelected this piece of Diaper Dandy work.  But that doesn't mean we should revert to pre-Weiner form on our side and largely remain silent.


    Albeit he's a liar, he took the oath (none / 0) (#113)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:52:56 PM EST
    that all federal officials take, including members of Congress -- the oath says nothing of partisan or geographical or other allegiances.

    I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

    I'm with Jim (for once :-).  Congress is to serve the country.  And one vote can matter, one voice can matter, on many a committee that affects me.


    How did AW violate this oath? Seriously? (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:47:01 AM EST
    As I understand it, he sent photographs of his junk to some women after receiving some indication that this would not be unwelcome. Also, he engaged in email exchanges and tweets of a personal nature with at least one of these women (apparently over a long period of time). He is not accused of harassing or even offending any of the recipients. He is not accused of using his office improperly.

    Yes,  lied  about what he did but he was not under oath.  He lied about private sexual conduct which is nobody's business except for the people involved.  So what?

    Serious question:  How did these private discussion and intimate photographs violate his oath of office?


    Deflection doesn't work with me (none / 0) (#166)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    and the point in this subthread is geographical allegiance, only to voters in a district, vs. members of Congress having impact on the country.

    Your point is the topic of other subthreads, of course, so you could take it there.


    By the way, I'm also amused (none / 0) (#176)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:35:45 PM EST
    by the debating tactic of saying that you have nothing to say about something after doing so.

    So, as for Vitter, your argument would be that you ought say nothing about it, because you are not his constituent?


    Voting for the Patriot Act that eliminates (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:21:55 AM EST
    4th Amendment protections, allowing president(s) to be above the law without consequences are IMO violations of the "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;" part of Congressional oath of office.

    What Weiner did might make him less effective in his job but IMO does not violate his oath of office. If we eliminated all those people who did not effectively work for the welfare of the people of this country, we could eliminate almost all the people in government from the WH on down and start from scratch. Which might be a good idea IMO.  


    No, while they are elected by the people in (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:15:41 AM EST
    their district they are accountable to the people of the United States just as baseball players are hired by a team but accountable to baseball fans across the country.

    It should be beyond discussion that there are certain positions in which certain actions will result in your removal.

    Serial lying about a moral lapse is one of them.


    What about (none / 0) (#152)
    by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:48:06 AM EST
    breaking the law by hiring prostitutes?

    Or isn't this as big a 'moral lapse' as in the Weiner case?


    My point is not that two wrongs justify (none / 0) (#167)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:38:02 AM EST
    anything. Obviously they do not.

    The point is simple. Being a Congressman is a special privilege. What he did reflects poorly on his judgement. But the cover up he attempted and the justification he offered should not be accepted.


    All I'm saying is (none / 0) (#168)
    by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    that if Weiner should go, then that goes double for Vitter, to argue otherwise is rank hypocrisy, whether it comes from a Commie, a Tea Partier, a social liberal or an America-hating, terrrorist-hugging, far leftist such as myself.

    I haven't made any such argument. (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:03:34 PM EST
    Why are you trying to provoke a disagreement?

    You're the one who interpreted (none / 0) (#180)
    by Raymond Bell on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 03:29:07 PM EST
    my initial post as "two wrongs make a right", so please look to your own conduct before worrying about what I write here.

    Treatment for what? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 03:38:31 PM EST
    Being human and weak?  

    I hope he doesn't resign.  

    We are, without a doubt, a very phucked up country when it comes to sex.  In truth, we are not very evolved or able to talk about it.  Humans love to get off, American humans can't even bear to suggest we ever mention it.

    Whatever, on to real news.

    Real news? (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:27:51 PM EST
    If you mean any in depth coverage of the three wars we know about, and the covert ones we don't, don't hold your breath.

    But I think this issue with Weiner is more serious than you do.

    I don't begrudge him being human and weak.

    I do think that manipulating emails from women who contacted him to speak of political issues into an outlet for his tortured libido is an abuse of his office.

    I endorse a zero tolerance for this kind of behavior for public officials.

    Let him be human and weak as a private citizen.


    None of the women seem to be complaining. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:14:14 PM EST
    So my question is: Which kind of behavior do you find inappropriate and in what way did he inappropriately manipulate these women?

    I don't understand why this guy should resign, especially since none of the women involved in receiving the tweeted photo of his junk are calling for him to resign.  What's the big deal?

    There's simply no indication that this was some sort of unwanted sexual advance or harassing behavior.  Again, none of these women has made any sort of complaint about his behavior and so it seems to me that this falls well within the realm of private sexual behavior.  

    I do find it curious that the Democratic leadership is so whipped up about this but so nonchalant about nearly everything else, and especially about the revolving door between government and the private sector and the way that we are fast becoming a banana republic.   No outcry, for example, about Peter Orszag going to work for Citigroup or Attwell Baker who was an FCC commissioner who went to work for big money at Comcast right after approving the Comcast-NBC merger. This seems way more destructive to the fabric of our society than does a photo of Weiner's junk.  

    It is as though the only morality recognized in this country is sexual morality (although we are hypocritical about that too---I didn't notice any outrage from the leadership of either party when David Vitter was caught cheating on his wife with numerous prostitutes).


    I totally (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:40:39 PM EST
    agree with you about the disproportionate outrage about this, and the relative silence and indifference about the horrors being perpetrated by this administration in the name of domestic and national security.

    The drones.
    The daily killing of civilians.
    The renewal of the Patriot Act - with the enthusiastic and emphatic pressure from the White House.
    The abandonment of people in foreclosure.
    The flaccid approach to helping the unemployed.
    The lack of regulation for the coal industry.
    The dependence on fossil and nuclear fuels and the support for the corporations that provide them.
    The relatively pitiful effort to invest in alternative, renewal and safe sources of power.

    And on and on.

    But that doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't comment on this example of outrageous and disgusting behavior by an elected official.


    So, it's only a problem if someone (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:10:36 PM EST
    complains?  Otherwise, it's no big deal and there's nothing we can learn about Weiner from any of this?

    Here's Kirsten Powers, who dated the Congressman:

    But there is lying and then there is what Weiner did.  Due to nonstop meetings, I had not had time to watch his media blitz prior to my Greta interview and was slack-jawed when I saw clips of him the next day sneering and pointing fingers at other people for what he knew he had done. I am of the general view that politicians are not the most honest group of people, but, even using that very low standard, what I saw in those interviews was deeply disturbing. There is no way anyone can ever believe anything Weiner says again after that. In fact, I highly doubt that what he said in his press conference is even true.

    Narcissism doesn't begin to describe this kind of behavior. It seems there was nobody he didn't lie to. The New York Times reported this morning that he told donors a week ago that the scandal was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and that "everything [would] be fine."  We also learned after his press conference that he coached a former porn star with whom he had communicated online on how to lie to the media.

    But even if I could see past the lying and extreme narcissism that is noteworthy even by Washington standards, there is the issue of his attitude toward women. What has emerged is a picture of a predator trolling the Internet for women--some half his age--with which to engage in cybersex. We know only about the women who were responsive to his overtures. The odds are very high that he struck out with many, and other women were victim to his unsolicited sex talk. Women should be able to "friend" a married--or unmarried--congressman on Facebook or follow him on Twitter without fear of being the recipient of lewd talk or behavior. Just because a woman "likes" your video on Facebook doesn't mean you can send her a picture of your penis. This is textbook sexual harassment. It may not be illegal, but it's definitely unethical. He is in a position of influence, and many women--especially a 21-year-old--would be afraid to report a congressman doing that to them because he holds so much power. Also, he claims none of the women he contacted were underage, but how could he possibly know that?

    By far the most disturbing information that we have been privy to--there is, no doubt, more out there that we don't know--is the transcript of a nine-month "sexting" relationship Weiner had with a Las Vegas blackjack dealer. Radar Online posted the transcript, and it is rife with misogyny and distorted views about women.  [snip - this is where the quoted material appears] This is not about sex. It's about dominating and inflicting physical pain on a woman, a fantasy the hard-core porn industry makes billions of dollars on selling to men. You don't want to gag a woman with your pen!s unless you have some serious issues with the way you see women.

    I'm not going to quote from those transcripts, but trust me when I tell you they aren't "romantic," they are borderline violent.

    As Arthur Silber says:

    Moreover, for the purposes of meaningful analysis, whether someone happens to "complain" is completely irrelevant. The fact that no complaints are being offered might well be an inextricable part of the problem. It is a monumental failure of understanding that this point is missed by so many.

    Maybe there is a bigger "problem" - all the way around - than we were led to believe, huh?


    Kirsten Powers (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:41:29 PM EST
    i found her post at The Daily Beast quite offensive for its disloyalty to a man who by her own admission has been a real mensch to her & to her family - you left all that out of your lengthy excerpt

    sometimes people who are truly wonderful in some areas of their lives are pathological & nasty in their sex lives - that makes sense because sexuality belongs to the realm of the id & as such has never been & will never be politically correct

    Powers' problem appears to be that Weiner's lies to her made her look stoopid on the teebee

    maybe a case of narcissist meets narcissist?

    i think a true friend would have found it in her heart to at least STFU in public & make her disappointment known to her friend in private if that was what she needed to do

    but i think Powers was saving face, & putting on a very ugly one in the process


    I think it would have been more telling (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 08:27:58 PM EST
    had she left out her history with Weiner, but she didn't; that was right up front.

    Anthony Weiner lied to a lot of people - to his friends, his staff, his colleagues - and he was doing it, apparently, right up until he took the podium to admit that, yes, that was a photo of his crotch.  How far does loyalty extend?  Now we have to remain loyal to those who didn't think enough of our friendship or relationship or years of working together to be honest with us?  Those closest to Weiner have to express their disappointment in private after being asked to lie for him in public?  Doesn't seem like a fair exchange to me, or much of a friendship, either.  

    I posted the part of Powers' column that I did because it shed light - for me, anyway - on the puzzlement of the announcement he was seeking treatment for what had been characterized up to this point as "no big deal;" apparently, it is a big deal.


    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#126)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:23:23 AM EST
    to that great post by Arthur Silber

    Powers (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:53:13 PM EST
    works for Fox News and talked about her relationship on Fox News too.  (Clip here).  I don't find her comments to be necessarily 100% transparent.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:12:49 AM EST
    Arthur Silber:
    The fact that no complaints are being offered might well be an inextricable part of the problem.

    Has Arthur Silber ever had sex? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:07:41 AM EST
    And, if so, I wonder how he managed to accomplish that without running afoul of the rather peculiar code of conduct which he outlines in the context of the relations between men and women.

    Agreed (none / 0) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    please see Andrew Sullivan, at Link

        Weiner has not resigned and, frankly, I see little reason why he should. No one, so far as I can tell, was harassed, no one was abused, no actual sex even took place at all. I'm not sure one can even find any hypocrisy here. Moreover, if online flirting is unforgivable, why isn't off-line flirting unforgivable? And what really is the difference? Apart from pictures that can be used to humiliate - and even blackmail.

    Sullivan continues:

        To be exposed in this way is humiliating. Watching Weiner today was painful; this is the result of raw culture war with no scruples or principles, designed purely to destroy. ... I don't see any broader argument being invoked here, except partisan revenge.

        Should Weiner have done this? For an elected public official, it was unwise, inappropriate, stupid. For a human being, it remains well within the bounds of, well, human.


    With all due respect to both (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:18:24 PM EST
    Sullivan and you - as I assume you posted Sullivan's comments because you agree with them - I don't believe we (1) know the full extent of what Weiner was doing and (2) I wouldn't call getting a crotch shot photo one didn't ask for to fall into the category of "flirting."

    And I don't think it's up to those on the sidelines to determine whether someone was harassed - that, I think, is up to the women at whom the texts and photos were sent: it's how they feel that matters.  And for those who keep insisting that, because no one has "complained," that that means no harm-no foul, I think it is presumptuous of anyone to grasp what it must be like to have been caught up in a media frenzy one didn't ask to be a part of and to want to shy away from it as much as possible.  As most women can tell you - or as you may already know - sometimes, even though one does feel harassed, the choice we often make is to just let it go - to ignore it in hopes it will just stop.  That doesn't mean the behavior in question wasn't harassing.

    As for the "something similar" that happened to Sullivan, I think there's a big difference between putting a picture and other information in an ad seeking whatever, and what Weiner was doing.

    And, quite honestly, I have a hard time taking to heart much of anything from someone who is as much of a misogynist as Sullivan is.


    Exactly, re women not "complaining" (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:28:46 PM EST
    which would only further stoke the media frenzy.
    Many a time, I have not filed an official complaint against fools, sometimes criminally foolish fools.  That does not mean that they were not fools, or had not committee criminal harassment.  It only means that other means finally had made them leave me alone, which is all that I wanted (and/or that I could not afford a lawyer or even more of my time wasted by fools).

    And as for those here who state that the women "seemed" to have "welcomed" the attention of Der Weiner, based on what he said -- well, really, how foolish can one be to believe anything that he says about this?


    Didn't a couple reply/partcipate by their own (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 04:59:43 PM EST
    admission? They could block him on their twitter if they found him bothering them/etc.

    Are you channeling Oliver Stone? (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Mitch Guthman on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 05:56:53 PM EST
    The absence of complaints about harassment is somehow proof of harassment?

    [make that (none / 0) (#179)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:29:33 PM EST
    "or had not committed criminal harassment"]

    Anne & Towanda (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:33:45 PM EST
    I don't disagree with much of what you say about the responses or lack thereof by women to harassment.  However, since we don't know whether these women were knowingly partaking in sexual flirtations via the web or whatever, or were offended by uninvited behavior or something in between, I heartily object to the rush to judgment and the calls for Weiner's resignation based on limited info.  Do I condone the behavior -- no.  But do I think in this situation, as in the WJC situation, that the info we have is sufficient to justify expulsion from office -- the answer is NO.  
    The Dems' conviction that the Weiner story is upstaging their efforts to begin the 2012 campaign by pointing out the differences between Repubs and Dems is, IMO, rather delusional.  The weaknesses of the Dems' ability to campaign effectively against Repubs has, again IMO, little to do with Weiner and much to do with similarities between Repub and Dem positions. E.g., both are focused on deficit reduction vs. job creation.  
    I also believe that by calling for Weiner's resignation, rather than saying the facts are not out, Weiner has otherwise been a loyal, upstanding Dem and a worthy representative of his constituents who deserves the benefit of the doubt, and he and his family deserve the opportunity to deal with the issue in private, they, and not Weiner, are continuing the conversation.  
    In addition, all the concerns you raise about we women being reluctant to complain about incidents of sexual harassment, are valid concerns in general, but we still do not know what is in play here.  

    Have you read today's Greenwald re (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    Libyan oil?

    his constituents have (none / 0) (#41)
    by observed on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:06:35 PM EST
    That call, and they want him gone. Weiner has not been charged with any crime. Unless that changes, congressional leaders should not ask him to resign.

    They [don']t want him gone." (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:10:43 PM EST
    as of last Wednesday, (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:33:50 PM EST
    according to the more favorable of two polls (Marist), a slight majority (56 percent) wanted him to stay, about 33 percent wanted him gone, & the rest were undecided - so even if all the undecideds had rallied to him, that still would have meant a solid third of his own constituents wanting him gone

    in the less favorable of the two polls (SurveyUSA), a slight plurality (46 percent) wanted him gone, 41 percent wanted him to stay, & the rest were undecided - again shifting all the undecideds Weiner's way, there still would have been nearly 50 percent of his constituents wanting him gone

    & that was three or four days ago, before Andrew Breitbart put the full montweet on display, & before this morning's kerfuffle about the 17-year-old in Delaware

    i have consistently said that his political fate should be decided by himself & the voters of his district but it's clear that he was very vulnerable even a few days ago

    i'm sure we'll see what the next poll says if we care to keep tuning in


    One headline states unwelcome (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 03:54:38 PM EST
    attention is being focused on Sen. Vitter, due to Rep. Weiner's travails.  

    & i expect everyone here (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:18:53 PM EST
    who defended Anthony Weiner on the grounds of anti-Puritan sexual liberation to defend Vitter's behavior with equal vigor

    that is unless they decide to clutch their pearls about how he may have broken the law by having sex with a hooker


    Uh... (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:47:16 PM EST
    Patronizing hookers is, you know, illegal.

    "victimless crime" (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:13:11 PM EST
    is what i would expect to hear from all those around here who see nothing more in Weiner's behavior but the healthy expression of his sexuality



    prostitution is not (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Madeline on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:50:15 AM EST
    a victimless crime.

    read the stats on STD's, abortions, violence, drug addiction and suicide.


    my man Donald (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:19:11 AM EST
    missed my point just a bit in saying i was correct to emphasize that prostitution is a victimless crime

    i actually had meant to point out a bit of tribal hypocrisy

    namely, that some members of our "lefty" team, people who roundly defend Democratic Rep. Weiner for having sent at least one woman an unsolicited photo of his genitals, have been quick to condemn & ridicule Republican Sen. David Vitter for his alleged crime of allegedly having consensual sex with a hooker (apparently it's the alleged diapers that skeeve them, poor pearl-clutching babies)

    regarding prostitution, i think it should be legalized, not decriminalized - legalization plus unionization of sex workers would be the only way to build in health & safety protections, job security, etc., for the people working in the industry


    Yes. The libertine streak (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:23:21 AM EST
    that posits prostitution -- and inflicting unsolicited crotch shots -- as "victimless" is an incredibly uninformed perspective.

    "Happy hookers"?  Too many are teenaged sex slaves, as Nicholas Kristof writes, and "Americans often suffer from a profound misunderstanding of how teenage prostitution actually works -- and fail to appreciate that it's one of our country's biggest human rights problems."

    Yes, not girls in Asia.  He's writing about girls  here.  And they are the victims of horrible crimes.


    When someone decides to "seek (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Anne on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    treatment" in order to "make himself well," does this mean he believes he has an actual problem, or is this the I'll-go-to-"rehab" PR cure?

    I don't know - something just seems "off" to me about all of this; if this was all so innocent and private - "nothing to see here" - what's the "problem?"

    Seems to me that by seeking treatment, he's just confirming for those who always saw something icky about it that they had reason to feel that way.  And these are probably the same people for whom "redemption" isn't even a slim possibility.

    I don't know - the whole thing is a huge distraction from real problems that affect millions of people; nothing new about that phenomenon, I guess.

    okey, doke Donald (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 10:13:09 PM EST
    I'll take issue. The guy (Weiner) has been "exposed" as a big-time jerk. That simple. He has very potential to be poison to the party. As a longtime organizational party person, I'm quite sure that you know that. After all the pretzel arguments that all of us could make about this in any & every direction, this jerk can only hurt the party because of the ridicule that will expand from him to all that are seen to be close as colleagues, etc. Granted, it may be spurious. But, an opposition as focused as the Repubs have made hay with less.

    Elsewhere, I stated my earlier conflicted feelings about approaches. I'm clear now: The longer that Weiner stays, the longer the negative attention on him &, quite probably, all who appear to be around him. It won't work. Whether it sucks or not, is not the issue. In simple voter analysis terms, it is more a loser than a winner. This man stepped into it; he acted foolishly & rashly (which tells me a lot about his lack of judgment); and, for the harm that he could do to the party and for the taint that he brings, this jerk must go.


    Leave of absence? Treatment? (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    Weak stuff. trough it out or quit.

    Bad move by Weiner.

    I now lean towards predicting him resignation within a month.

    I conjecture he is negotiating his landing spot.

    This is just to get away (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    from the media.  That's all.

    But I'm all for that.  Perhaps we will get actual reporting, perhaps even actual governing.


    Why do thoughts of Gary Hart come to mind? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:43:59 PM EST
    Self-destruction examples, perhaps?!? (none / 0) (#46)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:27:30 PM EST
    As one who stood among Hart's announcement gathering on the grounds of the state capitol lo those many years ago, applauding Hart's entry into the race, etc....yep, the same thoughts about recklessness, smarter-than-thou antics echo here. Too bad that their supporters may have had more integrity than they did.

    My way or the highway, really? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:09:48 PM EST
    People are people, all of them different and unique and screwed up to the hilt.

    Why would this surprise you?

    He'll go to some therapy, come out quickly, another pol will sodomize a pygmy chimp in the meantime, and this "scandal" will be replaced and fade as they all do.

    IMO, this IS part of him toughing it out, though not how I would choose to do it.  I'd be more inclined to send giant thorny dildos to all my critics.


    Leave of absence? (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:29:21 PM EST
    Come on.

    Terrible move. Leave of absence for what exactly?
    To learn to stop twittering?

    If he does not have the guts to tough it out, then just get out now.


    Yep. It must be harder to (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    brazen these things out than it looks. I always think that if you are tough enough to handle election politics at all, you should be able to handle this stuff, but perhaps not.

    I think part of it is that he was kind of a minor media star, with his appearances on The Daily Show, Bill Maher, etc.  I think he liked being in those circles and having these guys make fun of him might be more than he bargained for.


    Bingo (none / 0) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:54:07 PM EST
    I think that's a much more astute observation than "Dr. Drew's."

    maybe for a nervous breakdown (none / 0) (#30)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    Rep. Weiner has been publicly shamed. Shame is a shattering experience for a narcissist. . . . People who are narcissists and experience such shame can develop depression, or commit self-destructive acts. I would keep a close eye on this man. We have to remember, this is a human being at whom we're all taking aim.

    sure it's CNN psychobabble

    but Dr. Drew has a point i think


    Dr. Drew (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:53:25 PM EST
    has no business making a diagnosis.  I'm sure he's right that Weiner is personally devastated, but you don't have to be a narcissist to do bad things and be devastated when you have to confront the consequences.

    I'd suggest it's not the behavior of a narcissist to volunteer a confession of your sins to your wife or fiancee before anyone else knows about them, which Weiner apparently did.


    Of course it is (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Madeline on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:29:58 PM EST
    narcissists will apologize until they run out of tears.  It is just that they really feel no guilt or shame.  It is about getting what they want.

    Of course (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:03:35 AM EST
    But narcissists do not typically volunteer the information, is my point, unless it's to insist that you accept it.

    Weiner's is really is not the profile of a stone narcissist.


    Dr. Drew is a narcissist (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:56:00 PM EST
    heh (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:05:05 PM EST
    then he must be shattered by your comment (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    Maybe to try and salvage his marriage? (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:39:20 PM EST
    No indication his marriage (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    is in serious trouble.  Quite the contrary.

    Maybe, gosh gee, just maybe he's done some tough introspection and has realized, yes, he actually does have a bit of a problem he needs to figure out and deal with.  What he's been doing apparently compulsively for years is just short of flashing strangers in the park.


    Sorry. Pure speculation. (none / 0) (#59)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:56:31 PM EST
    IOW, he's milking the clock (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:10:44 PM EST
    you could be right, mabye he won't stall long enough, but I'm thinking otherwise.

    I suspect (none / 0) (#111)
    by Makarov on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:45:55 PM EST
    his treatment is more an effort to save his marriage than his political future.

    Is there an actual treatment center (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    for being addicted to social media, internet, smartphones, etc.  "Somebody" could make a fortune.  I think Rep. Weiner will stay the course.  For one thing, I've read he can't afford to forfeit his $800,000 annual salary as a Congressperson.  Who knew they make that much money?  

    $174,000 is his salary, plus (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:18:05 PM EST
    healthcare, pansion, etc. I suspect the $800,000 includes speaking engagements, etc that would dry up if he is not in congress.

    Pretty expensive junk shot, by any standards.


    Which brings up another question: (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:57:11 PM EST
    members of Congress are paid by federal tax dollars.  Why do they get paid for giving speeches while they are collecting a salary from the federal government?  This was illegal in state government--expenses only.  

    No, that's not the case. (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:07:51 PM EST
    At least here in Colorado.  Part time legislative sessions and they all have outside jobs.  Elected cabinet members too--a lot of them teach and/or lecture.  There is an expectation that their elected positions are full-time jobs however and some get themselves in trouble (i.e., very bad press) when they take outside positions that raise conflict of interest issues and/or complain that "the salary isn't sufficient to support their families", but it is not illegal.  

    State employees are required to disclose any outside employment/possible conflict of interest annually and some have to give up professional designations, but again not illegal to have outside employment.  We're not allowed to accept any "gifts" over $50 in value though.  That's been a point of contention--are the children of state employees unable to accept scholarships and the like.  


    Same in VT and even Mass. (none / 0) (#145)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:06:46 AM EST
    I'd be surprised if there were any state legislatures that were so full-time and well paid that members were forbidden to have any outside income.

    Definitely true for employees of the (none / 0) (#157)
    by oculus on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:40:04 AM EST
    State of California.  Is there an exception for members of the State Legislature?  I don't know.  

    $800K is more than the Prez's salary. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:09:01 PM EST
    Where did you read that? His 2010 tax returns state income of $156,117.

    Can't find it. Saw it last night on line. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:19:05 PM EST
    Either you misread it or (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:08:17 AM EST
    somebody lied-- big-time.

    yes there are many (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Madeline on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:40:03 PM EST
    treatment centers that treat all the above.  It's only treatment worthy when the tweeting, etc, etc causes major disruptions in your life.

    What Anthony Weiner was participating in (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:41:18 PM EST
    has to do with sexual addiction.

    Sad (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:34:17 PM EST
    I haven't seen anything conclusive that warrants this, esp. not "contacting a 17 year old."

    Sorry, but it wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:40:10 PM EST
    that long ago that we had a 17 year girl in this house, and if she had been twittering with him I'd be really upset at this point.

    True (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:56:05 PM EST
    and I concern is perhaps warranted.  But I still haven't seen anything that suggests he engaged in criminal behavior.

    Me, either, but (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:01:53 PM EST
    nervous Blue Dogs are probably going nuts, and Pelosi and Schultz are issuing these statements to give some cover to their peeps.

    What they say publically, ie, is immaterial.  How much pressure they put on him privately is what matters, and we don't know that.


    Although, the statement on behalf of (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:04:04 PM EST
    Rep. Weiner re the 17-yr. old is less than complete denial of inappropriate virtual contact and apparently there are recent deletions from her computer.  In other words, maybe more to come/maybe not.  Which doesn't mean he should resign if his consituents want him to remain n office.

    The pain he causes (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    his wife and his constituents, for crying out loud, are nobody's business but his wife's and his constituents'.

    And I ask you the same question I asked somebody else in a previous thread.

    Are politicians now forbidden from communicating with anybody under 18?  There's no indication there was anything hinky about his communications with her, and she herself reportedly denies that there was.

    Good grief.  Could we please get a grip here?

    The answer is clearly not (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:05:43 PM EST
    Obviously, you do not (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Madeline on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:25:11 PM EST
    think politicians do not have to be responsible for their behavior.  I could give a darn if he sleeps with every woman he meets. This is not just about being funny on the internet.

    His behavior is not humorous nor is it common. He is not a 13, 18 year old sexting. He is self destructing.

    There is really something wrong with his compulsion to connect with all these woman and show pictures of his genitalia.  Do you think that is just hilarious? It isn't.

    I ask you to use thought when supporting his sexual requests and body exposure. Supporting him would be for him to get help.


    I agree with Madeline on this (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:54:30 PM EST
    and I also know someone who has such problems, though we have not been able to get him to go to treatment for it.  He has lost all of his sexual boundaries the more that he has participated in this sort of thing, he demands that all of us pronounce what he does as normal but he has become dangerous to children now, though that is not where he started out at all.  He can't control what he talks about around children anymore, it's all he thinks about, and we can't allow children around him.  He calls it all fantasy and a hobby and blah blah blah but he has self destructed, and as far as I'm concerned he is dangerous too.  Because of him I have done a lot of reading about it, none of dealing with it is pleasant.

    Careful not to let your friend's issue (5.00 / 5) (#89)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:13:08 PM EST
    cloud your judgment in this situation ;) We have no evidence that AW had any sexual conversations w/underage women or that he is dangerous to/around children. He might actually find that creepy for all we know.

    I have to deal with that reality all the time (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:28:43 PM EST
    Unfortunately he isn't just a friend.  I inherited him as a family member at the wedding.  How can you tell if someone is participating in something that is along the lines of sexual addiction? If when they are found out it shatters their life that they care about. If someone is having an affair because of a horrible marriage or because they have genuinely fallen in love with someone else, it is almost a relief when the truth is known.  In sexual addiction though you are doing things that will destroy the life you love if you are found out.  You start out leading double lives until the late stages of the addiction.  Then you are just flat out scary.  They get high on the combo of sexual endorphins and risk taking endorphins, then they get addicted to that high and/or begin to use that high just like we all use substances to change how we feel.  Bad thing with this though if it works for you, nothing is ever this good and you build tolerance so over time you must increase the risk to get the same high.

    tracy, while (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by observed on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:26:42 AM EST
    I am sorry for your personal experience, i find your judgment on weiner not supported by the facts. Yes, what he did is icky, but he has committed no crime. It is also not at all clear to me how much of this was unwanted.
    I agree with andgarden. I am very much reminded of 1998. Remember, dem leaders called on clinton to resign then. Idiots in 98, idiots now.

    So judgmental! (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:45:25 PM EST
    What in the world did he ever do to you?

    but you haven't been judgmental at all (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:02:07 PM EST
    not even when you've summarily dismissed other people's comments on events about which you have practically boasted of keeping yourself uninformed (& considerably misinformed at times, too, as a result)

    In spite of my efforts, I seem to have learned (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 08:25:13 PM EST
    more about the episode than many of the people calling for Weiner's head.

    I find retro impressions of Ken Starr and Lucianne Goldberg rather off-putting. So I make no apologies for judging those people who engage in them.


    not sure what you have "learned" (none / 0) (#119)
    by ZtoA on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:42:41 PM EST
    The "D" political party has let you down? Awwwww......

    Watching the two political parties in the US over the past, say, 10 years has been a tragic-comedy of self destruction. You're sad because the democratic political party does not value your values - join the club.

    Both parties are fragmenting and both use current technology to attack each other. Both vie for the same cash piles, both actually are becoming forces that are opposed to their longtime actual ideological and systemic supporters.

    I predict the democratic party will continue to fracture like the republican party has - into its "neo" faction and then into a populist faction.


    It's not about me (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Madeline on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:35:55 AM EST
    it's about a man who made a choice to let everything he ever wanted dissolve in record time because of his inability to control himself.

    You seem to think Weiner was just being a jovial, sexy, sexually open kind of guy. He's 46 years old!

    You think he's so naive about the internet that he just threw his name out there and posted pictures  his body part?

    I think he's loud and at times, immature but I'd rather have had him than some mild mannered Democrat. But......even if he is just a sex texting kind of guy, you think he just threw everything over board to be a prime time exhibitionist?

    you're going to be a lawyer and just might be pretty famous your self someday.  Would you do that?


    Don't disagree with (none / 0) (#142)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:56:42 AM EST
    any of this.  But it has nothing to do with whether he should resign or not.

    Not our nation's finest hour (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by andgarden on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:04:28 PM EST

    If someone (none / 0) (#87)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:07:39 PM EST
    has something really incriminating against him, I just don't understand why they wouldn't come out with it now.  Dirty talk, "sexy" pics, sexts, all exchanged online...that's pretty standard these days.  From what I've seen he hasn't done anything that millions of people aren't already doing.  Other than whether or not he sent the unsolicited junk shot to Ms. Cordova on purpose, I really don't get the fuss.

    well here's the thing (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:54:26 AM EST
    Other than whether or not he sent the unsolicited junk shot to Ms. Cordova on purpose, I really don't get the fuss.

    he says he sent it by accident

    but i don't know why i should ever believe another word he says

    Melissa McEwan said this:

    It matters that he sent unsolicited sexual images to women [& yes, he did, in Ms. Cordova's case, accident or not] because consent matters. And the lack of consent matters. . . . I'm no prude: I like a good d!ck picture as much as anyone. The thing is, I just like consent more.

    If he (none / 0) (#128)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:15:02 AM EST
    accidentally sent a picture of his junk to Ms. Cordova, it's the same as if he did so intentionally?  Come on.  If he intended to harass her with his junk shot for some stupid reason, then there's a problem.  If that was not his intention, then I don't see the problem.

    Ever accidentally see your neighbors naked?  Did you call the cops?  Please.

    Someone should just press him on what he meant by the "joke" he was playing.  I can half believe he just randomly and intentionally sent the junk shot to Ms. Cordova.  But that is still unclear.


    no, YOU come on (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:53:52 AM EST
    it was an X-rated crotch shot that no one asked him to send

    just as a matter of principle, if you shoot your little rocket into cyberspace, you have to take responsibility when it lands on someone else's little planet without the owner's invitation or consent

    but as a matter of fact, the "accidental" part of this saga is as follows

    he accidentally sent the picture to his entire Twitter feed when his intention had been to send it, unsolicited, only to Ms Cordova, without her consent, if you believe her, & i see no reason not to

    Weiner's misfired exposure to his entire Twitter feed is in fact how Breitbart eventually came to know about the picture - if Weiner had not accidentally & momentarily sent it to everyone on his feed, then it would have gone unsolicited to Ms Cordova alone, who probably would not have had her life turned upside down by our esteemed media, which is another story but certainly not the only one

    & then as we now know Weiner lied about the whole thing for a week before trying to pass it off as "part of a joke," thus implying that Ms Cordova was in on the joke when in truth she was confused & dismayed & by her own account rather skeeved

    truly scummy behavior, & Weiner, no one else, is responsible for it

    Ms Cordova "accidentally" saw Weiner naked the way you or i "accidentally" catch a glimpse of a flasher's equipment when he opens his raincoat in our unsuspecting faces  - that is the correct analogy, not "accidentally seeing your neighbors naked"

    "please" indeed


    Not for nuthin'... (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:40:12 AM EST
    Ms. Cordova got the boxer-brief shot...I can't call that x-rated, its nothing ya don't see at the beach or in a Macy's underwear ad.

    Inappropriate, sure...but not pronographically so.


    You didn't get the message (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:38:15 AM EST
    Boxer shorts are pornographic when they are gray. Gray is the new nude.

    And here I though nude photos were currently in for politicians. I'm so confused. Maybe that is only O.K. in the Senate.    


    yes (none / 0) (#163)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    my bad there

    i was too literally following the wording of the comment to which mine was a response

    i am aware that Ms Cordova got the gray-briefs crotch shot

    & i suppose you are aware that it was not something she ever wanted or expected to receive & apparently the concept of consent in this context doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me


    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#183)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:14:57 PM EST
    The ways of love and lust pal. Especially in these uncharted computer versions, wires can get crossed, people can get the wrong impresssion, pick-up/send the wrong signals even easier than the real world.  I think where our opinions most part is what requires "consent" perhaps?    

    Hard to explain or quantify, and I'm out of my element with the internet stuff...in the real world ya can't romance or freak with lawyers and judges. "May I kiss you now?", "May I caress you like this now?", etc. etc.  Not exactly what I'd call passionate:) otoh, ya can't run around pushing yourself on people all willy-nilly.  These are some of the blurriest lines we got, until one party says "no" and clarifies the line...I think a wide berth is reasonable, coupled with no means no.  

    Reasons like this I've always been the guy where my paramour tells me later "I thought you'd never make a move"...I'm the anti-Weiner:)  I'm just not sure it makes him a bad guy...just, for lack of a better term, ballsier in the ways of lust than I am.  And more crass.


    we can agree (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:41:41 PM EST
    that this cr@p is total b.s.

    "May I kiss you now?", "May I caress you like this now?"

    Good... (none / 0) (#185)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:54:24 PM EST
    What is a real world come-on equivalent to a twitter world underwear photo in your opinion? A suggestive smile? A kiss? Taking off your pants in a bar?  something else?

    Kind of uncharted territory, dontcha think?  We might not be far apart.


    real-world equivalent? (none / 0) (#189)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:28:39 PM EST
    that depends, but let's try translating it to the real-world phenomenon of flashing

    if you know someone & the two of you already have a flirtatious/sexual relationship, it can be sexy or at least funny if the other person suddenly turns up wearing nothing but a raincoat & flashes you

    if you don't know someone well or at all (like on the subway) & if there has never been a hint of flirtation between you, it can be shocking, repellent or even threatening if the other person suddenly turns up wearing nothing but a raincoat & flashes you

    the behavior is the same in both cases, but the context defines it

    does that help?

    i don't think this is truly uncharted territory, though the new technology does encourage some people to lose their common sense & respect for others' personal/sexual boundaries, especially if they think they can do so anonymously & get away with it


    Seriously (none / 0) (#190)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:39:25 PM EST
    real-world flashing and the Internet do not have all that much in common.  Go on Craigslist personals sometime and see what you find.

    She did not consent to see his penis in gray briefs, however it got there.  But that's still NOT the same as flashing.

    You do not sign up for explicit content by joining Twitter.  That's a problem.

    What the hell was he trying to do by sending her his briefed junk if he intended to do so, I do not know.  But the Internet is a remarkably crude place.  If you're going to take on Weiner you need to take on that aspect of the Internet too...and I don't know how to do that.  Because although I am sure it is disproportionate, gender wise, that sh*t goes both ways.

    Weiner sends me a d*ck pic, I delete and report to Twitter.  A guy flashes me, I run and call the cops.  I think there are differences between how these worlds work, for better or worse.


    fine (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:46:52 PM EST
    i've been to craigslist many times - like Melissa says, i like a good d!ck shot as much as anyone

    i was trying to sketch out a paradigm for kdog, at his request, not "take on Weiner"

    i'm actually getting kind of tired of the Wenis

    aren't you?


    Heh (none / 0) (#192)
    by lilburro on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 12:02:03 AM EST
    I am getting tired of the Wenis as well.  I respect your points.  I'm sure he'll give us more ammunition this coming week to argue about.  He just doesn't seem like a predator to me (yet), based on what else I've seen in terms of online communications.  I think he probably thinks he is normal...and that is a problem, but that's a BIG problem to tackle.  As I said, the Internet is the Wild West of junk shots.

    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:14:04 AM EST
    i wouldn't call him a predator either

    just a foolish, reckless man who has some issues with women & other aspects of reality

    my guess is that his issues are of such long standing, & of such a nature, that the "tweetment" is unlikely to help

    but from what it's possible to know, no crimes were committed

    i feel sorry for him


    For the record... (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 08:17:07 AM EST
    I respect and value your opinion(s) too A-Fam:)

    We're all tired of the Wenis, but I did find the issues raised and the discussion very interesting.  A healthy, lively debate...I thank you.


    Worry not, kdog (5.00 / 0) (#187)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:53:23 PM EST
    as you're the kind of guy who gets the woman to do the proposing.

    I know, because I like that kind of guy, the kind who doesn't think that he's so great (translated: doesn't know that he's so great).  That's why I did the proposing.

    (Of course, I did it so well that my spouse still thinks that he did the proposing -- and I still let him think so. :-)


    IME that's a classic ;) (none / 0) (#194)
    by Nemi on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 06:42:08 AM EST
    Of course, I did it so well that my spouse still thinks that he did the proposing -- and I still let him think so.

    (E=experience. :))


    Like a good woman should:) (none / 0) (#198)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:35:23 AM EST
    In today's slang it is called "having no game"...I am the gameless wonder.

    I'd be one lonely dude back in the day when women were practically forbidden from making the first move...praise the sun god for the sexual revolution.


    Silly, women never were forbidden (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 11:13:54 AM EST
    from making the first move.  Had many women not done so throughout time, the human race well may have become extinct.

    I read a lot of romance novels and watched a lot of romantic movies and listened to prudish mythology and all that, too, throughout my childhood -- and I still believed a lot of this mythology into my early adulthood.

    Fortunately, I then realized the cognitive dissonance with the evidence around me.  Or, to put it another way, I woke up.  And I grew up.


    Cavewoman... (none / 0) (#200)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 01:35:42 PM EST
    wasn't forbidden, but a Victorian woman?  A 1950's American woman?  Maybe forbidden is the wrong word...frowned upon?  Exposing themselves to being called derogatory terms?

    I think the "joke" (none / 0) (#188)
    by lilburro on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 11:28:11 PM EST
    explanation is vague and doesn't really mean anything.  Ms. Cordova to my knowledge still has no idea why he sent that picture to her, we have no idea why he sent that picture to her ("joke" explanation aside, and no one here trusts him, so why do they trust that), or even if it was intended for her to begin with privately, not even publicly.  Apparently one of the contacts in his Twitter list that he had been exchanging sexual messages with was near her, possibly directly near her handle.  That is what I am referring to.  

    Simply put, there is absolutely not enough information to infer anything other than that Rep. Weiner is a horndog.  Unless someone on this board has a transcript of every online conversation he's ever had, I don't think I'm wrong.  I am giving Rep. Weiner the benefit of the doubt because his previous interactions were dissimilar to this one with Ms. Cordova.    

    I have a problem with unsolicited d*ck shots.  But I feel a bit ambivalent because the story of that particular interaction has not been made clear, to me anyway.  I assume we want some sort of punishment for Rep. Weiner because he functions as an "example" for the nation.  Well, guess what, the Internet is a wild west of unsolicited junk shots, from men and women.  I don't think twitter has an "adult content" warning, so I suppose Rep. Weiner could be kicked off Twitter.  But if you're going to flay him for sending a shot of his junk in his underwear for whatever reason to a student in Seattle, you should be aware of what kind of rules you want to lay down for the Internet at large and men and women using the Internet at large.  Excepting Ms. Cordova for argument's sake, he is by and large pretty normal, for better or worse.  And if he's going to be made an example of for sending Ms. Cordova a junk shot without her consent, I would like to know that that indeed happened and why.  If you find issues of consent on Twitter to be an issue, that is pretty important, in my mind.


    No, that's not what he said (none / 0) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:12:59 AM EST
    He said, correctly, that it went out publicly by accident.  He mean to send the pic to her privately.

    Oh, so that would make it all okay? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:26:41 AM EST
    The bad part was that it went out to everyone, not just to the woman he meant to send it to, who hadn't asked that he send it to her?  Otherwise, it would be fine?

    Trying to understand how that would have made it all okay, and not really able to make that logic work.


    i think (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:24:51 AM EST
    gyrfalcon is correcting the error that lilburro & i both perpetuated above & that i corrected myself in my second comment to her

    One again (none / 0) (#196)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    you are mind-reading to fit your own preferred storyline.

    "Mind reading?" Weiner said he (none / 0) (#197)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 13, 2011 at 09:22:53 AM EST
    did not mean to send the photo to everyone, only to Ms. Cordova; how is it mind-reading to ask how, when the photo was apparently not requested or anticipated to be received by Cordova, his original intent makes the situation better?

    And, for what it's worth, gyrfalcon, I don't have a "preferred storyline;" you must be confusing me with people who have insisted from Day One that this was nothing that should matter to anyone, and those who immediately called for his resignation.  My initial reaction was that Weiner should more or less flip off a media that loves nothing more than bringing someone down - if you're looking for preferred storylines, you can look there, too.

    I've made an ongoing effort to look at this from many angles, and since I don't know all the facts, have pretty much confined myself to lamenting how Weiner's actions - actions he is responsible for - have silenced one of the few true liberals who was pushing Obama from the left.

    I do object to the idea that just because no one complained - or was heard from at all prior to the revelations - does not mean that those who received messages and photos they weren't expecting to be so explicit, and didn't believe their own messages should be construed to think that was what they were after, could not or do not feel they were in some way harassed.

    Mind reading to fit a storyline?  Not me, sorry.


    Seems like it is (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Madeline on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:55:33 AM EST
    fun for some. Also, sounds like a fear of any kind of intimacy. But to each his own.

    Just make sure that if one is married, has children or is a congressman, use a proxy server.


    He was useful with media (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Towanda on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:09:11 PM EST
    but no more, because of not only the lying but especially the nasty treatment of media questioning him (it seems in hindsight that some must have had evidence that he was lying).

    All the focus in this thread on the sex angle misses the lesson of Nixon that every pol ought to know:  It's the attempt at a coverup that is the problem.

    he should be pushed to resign (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by pitachips on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:00:56 PM EST
    for his stupidity and the political damage he's caused to his party, not because his fooling around behind his wife's back is morally outrageous. you gotta be some kind of idiot to be fooling around, as a Congressman, via Twitter and Facebook in this day and age.

    Don't know (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:02:26 AM EST
    if this, Weiner Race-Baited To Win Office, has already been posted but according to the linked Salon article Weiner excused not making it known untill after the election that the leaflets came from his office with this

    "We didn't want the source to be confused with the message."

    Maybe he should have stayed with that practice when "flashing".

    Let's Face the Real Issue Here (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    The real issue behind the call by Dems for Anthony Weiner to resign is that they feel he is upstaging the Dems' desire to criticize Republican policies as a means of gaining votes for Dems running for Congress in 2012.  This is reason described on This Week this morning w/Amanpour as the program featured Rep Wasserman Schultz now calling for Weiner's resignation.  We will now begin a third week -- the argument goes -- in which Weiner is dominating the news.

    I suggest to Dems that Weiner is dominating the news because the Dems are continuing the story with their public calls for his resignation and even before the Weiner 'story' broke, the Dems were largely ineffective in getting across differences between themselves and Republicans.

    i agree with you (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    re: the Dems & their motives

    & i think it should be up to the voters in AW's district to decide whether he stays in office

    honestly, though, my biggest disappointment is not even with Weiner or the rest of the Dems but with people on my own apparently "postfeminist" left-liberal-progressive team who cannot or will not understand how lack of consent in this case points to issues of male entitlement, & who therefore wish that women would just STFU about it

    to judge from some people's reactions, you'd think the mere mention of consent, as the most basic of concepts, was enough to shut down everyone's access to internet pr0n

    disappointed but not surprised


    ridiculous comment, (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by observed on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:12:14 PM EST
    Especially since this is a defense blog

    Has President Obama publicly commented (none / 0) (#11)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:13:24 PM EST
    on Rep. Weiner's situation yet?  Will he weigh in?  

    The effect of the DNC Chair's comment (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:50:33 PM EST
    When Wasserman-Schulz strongly called for Weiner's resignation today, it is presumed that strong request accords with the President's position (since the President is the real "head of the party.") Frankly, for a President to tread directly in such areas, would be unseemly...and, prolong the circus all the more. (IMO, the most important statement was the House Democratic Leadership's position via minority leader Pelosi.)

    I really don't understand why Pelosi and (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:23:16 PM EST
    other Dems. are pressuring Rep. Weiner to resign ASAP.  After all, the Democratic Party hardly pitches itself as the party of "family values" and/or the Christian evangelical right.  

    From what I gleaned from my (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:44:29 PM EST
    one viewing of Chris Matthews in the last 3 years....no one wants to stand on a stage with him in the upcoming elections.

    Remember we are talking about a mutant invertebrate class of human...the Congressional Democrat.


    OTOH (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:58:29 PM EST
    Matthews's more tuned-in a pragmatic guests (can't remember specifically who, but in the category of Howard Fineman and Ben Smith, and maybe even those two specifically) pooh-poohed the whole idea that this would have the slighest effect on the 2012 elections.

    They said, and I think they're probably right, that that's still a long way away in terms of news cycles, and unless there are new revelations and this goes on and on and on, it'll be old news by then that very few people care about over things like, duh, the economy.


    I don't think it will effect the election either (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:47:19 AM EST
    Especially since I don't believe the Dems have a shot at taking back the House. I guess they are relying on the Ryan Plan to create some kind of wave, but I don't see it lasting another 18 months.

    Anyway, short of all the Dems participating in a group junk shot tweet in solidarity, I don't think the Weiner issue will matter.


    Yes, the Democrats could (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:50:18 PM EST
    capitalize on the distraction by sneaking a few bipartisan things into town, such as cutting Medicare and Medicaid in keeping with the Republican's wishes, raise the social security eligibility age to 80, and ignore a few more military actions/humanitarian no-fly zones somewhere that has oil.

    And, even the family values party has some members that stuck it out, for example Vitter  (re-elected), Larry Craig (finished his term), Ensign (stayed for a couple of years one step ahead of  the ethics committee report and DOJ referral) and his spiritual counselor and hush money man, Senator Tom Coburn is not only still there, but also our serious budget deficit slasher as a way to improve the economy.


    PPUS. Won't matter. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:30:20 PM EST
    I'm certain that you could deduce (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:44:37 PM EST
    the outcome of the Democratic leadership doing otherwise, oculus. (I say that as a compliment about your many perceptive comments.) If I'm not mistaken, the word "distraction" actually fits in this situation. And, I wuld argue, that Weiner would be used as more than a distraction until 2012 as an example of Democrats suffering, allowing, etc. behavior by one of our own that, to many prospective voters, as a bit bizarre. The PR circus would continue in damaging vein for Weiner's colleagues...the old "birds of a feather" picture will be painted.

    In party politics, which is our system, Pelosi & Wasserman-Schulz (representing the House & the DNC, as a surrogate for the President) clearly had reached the tipping point with the 17 yr old tweeter-er. In realpolitik, very little would get through the media-driven screen combined with Republican pounce theatrics until the issue is resolved by his absence. Then, the media writes its resolution story and judgmental statement about what happens to innapropriate behavior; and, the Repubs have to be quiet about the situation or really risk attention focused on Vitter & crew.


    Unfortunately, the Dems. in (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:00:44 PM EST
    Congress didn't have their act together vis a vis the GOP b/4 Weiner embarrassed the Dems. in Congress.  Would his resignation resolve this disarray?  Doubt it.

    From TL sidebar (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:59:34 PM EST
    To some extent, the reactions by Reid and Pelosi are simply the institutional Democrats' instinctive timidity at work -- if they'd been alive during the American Revolution, they'd have responded to Benjamin Franklin's famous declaration of "We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately" by thinking, "Well, as long as we get them to hang someone else first, maybe we'll get through this okay."  link

    Perhaps he'll suggest he needs to talk (none / 0) (#29)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:34:16 PM EST
    to his Rabbi?

    A question... (none / 0) (#16)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:20:36 PM EST
    While he is taking a leave of absence, will his constituents be obligated to continue to pay him his tremendous salary?

    to be fair (none / 0) (#18)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:23:31 PM EST
    i think you would have to pose the same question about Gabrielle Giffords

    Personally, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:44:26 PM EST
    and subjectively, I would want to help her in whatever way was possible.

    With Weiner, however, I wouldn't want one thin dime of my money going to pay for his rehab.


    & there's the nub of it, no? (none / 0) (#28)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    she was made "sick" by a crime & is going through rehabilitation

    Weiner is as much as saying that he is sick and also needs rehabilitation (even if you call it "tweetment")

    so do you buy that Anthony Weiner is sick with whatever it was that caused him to send images of his junk around the cyberworld?

    do you lay at his own feet the responsibility for the consequences that have overtaken him?

    some combination of both?

    IANAL, but it seems to me that a rehab leave is a rehab leave and that reps on rehab leave must have equal treatment under the law


    so you're taking the (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:43:20 PM EST
    "pre-existing condition" position

    not applicable

    what if Weiner were an avid motorcyclist? do you think he would not be entitled to on-leave/rehab pay if he had experienced a motorcycle crash while in office?

    we do not know the fine points of his insurance contract, which i think is what would come into play since the word "treatment" has been invoked


    Assuming Rep. Giffords remains on the (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:24:30 PM EST
    payroll, so should Rep. Weiner.

    Apples and.... (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by lentinel on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 05:25:45 PM EST
    She was a victim of a crime.
    He was a perp.

    was there a crime? (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:16:35 PM EST
    if not, how was he a perp?

    A crime (none / 0) (#79)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:45:18 PM EST
    committed while she was working....

    i'm asking lentinel (none / 0) (#82)
    by The Addams Family on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    if Weiner committed a crime

    because she called him a perp


    Perpetrator... (none / 0) (#138)
    by lentinel on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 06:53:08 AM EST
    By "perp", I wish to express that Weiner "brought about" the mess that has befallen him and his constituents. He was responsible. He knew what he was doing. Something just didn't happen to him.

    Giffords, on the other hand, was a victim. She was doing her job and was a victim of someone else's action.

    I will admit that in the current jargon, "perp" implies something criminal. I am not in a position to say whether what Weiner did was criminal under any criminal code.  

    But, I will also admit that subjectively speaking, what he did reeks of something that is in the same sleazy neighborhood of the criminal sexual predator.


    Wouldn't that depend on their benefits? (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    If it's a medical leave he may be granted X amount of paid time then switched to disability? Or he could use his PTO/Vacation time?

    The common denominator (none / 0) (#90)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:27:51 PM EST
    in so many of these cases seems to be some combination of bad judgment and the thrill of risky adventure.

    What is it with men, anyway?


    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by lilburro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:53:44 PM EST
    men don't have a corner on the self-destructive market.  I don't know how "adventurous" it is to snap pictures of yourself and send them along on twitter.  Plus it seems like they all the women knew he was a Congressman...you have to wonder if they ever thought this was such a great idea or not.  If I'm going to engage in online sexytimes with someone, it's probably not going to be an elected official.

    You're right...no corner on the (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    self-destructive market...

    Still...could someone give us a list of the elected women officials who've hit the headlines with this kind of stupidity?


    Thel last glass ceiling (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by ruffian on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 10:17:04 PM EST
    heh...we're not goin' there! (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by oldpro on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 11:59:58 PM EST
    What if a woman politician had (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:38:54 AM EST
    snapped a pic of her naked self and sent it out to various young men via twitter? What would the reaction be? In all the chatter about the Weiner incident, the only reference to female politicos has been to point out that none have so far used social media to flog their sexual wares.

    I found this article in The Chronicle of Higher Education to be thought-provoking. Women are held to such different standards than men. We never ever hear the phrase "Girls will be girls," much less hear it used as a catchall excuse for bad behavior.

    And, yes, bad behavior is what this is about. Whether one thinks Weiner should resign or not, he behaved badly.

    h/t Roxie's World for the link to The Chronicle of Higher Education.


    The reaction (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:06:08 AM EST
    from men hearing about this would most probably be "Heheheh, I wouldn't mind being on the receiving end of that".

    I think that's where we often go wrong in discussing cases like this, the genders of the involved are not interchangeable.

    (Please note, not in disagreement with your post. :))


    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by kdog on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:52:06 AM EST
    we can be equal under the law, and should strive for same...but the sexes will never be the same.

    We're wired differently, we're conditioned differently (though less than in the past), and we're always gonna be different...and thats not a bad thing.  Mars and Venus.


    Yes, I think you are right that (none / 0) (#161)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:09:34 AM EST
    men would react that way upon hearing that a female politician had used twitter to distribute naked pics of herself.  

    I also think that if an unsuspecting man received that photo he would be taken aback. He might still make the same kind of tittering jr. high remarks, or not, but he'd be shocked.

    And that I think is the real difference (biology aside). Men are socialized to act like every sexual advance from a woman is welcome, whether it really is or not.

    Also, if such a photo was floating around out there, we'd be hearing and reading a whole lot of idiots critiquing said woman's physical attributes. I have yet to hear anyone speak ill of the size or shape or anything else of Weiner's member.


    But unfortunately (none / 0) (#170)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:40:43 PM EST
    not only when a photo
    Also, if such a photo was floating around out there, we'd be hearing and reading a whole lot of idiots critiquing said woman's physical attributes.
    It's always annoyed me - no, to be frank: royally pissed me off - when men find it not only appropriate, but perfectly legitimate to openly discuss, to rate, a woman's, any woman's, breasts or other body parts within hearing distance of said woman. Or for that matter how about the idiot who thinks it's for him to tell you, a perfect stranger, "Smile! That would improve your looks".

    The only time I've experienced women openly discussing the size of a "male member" is when talk has been about ballet dancers :) - and even then never within earshot of the person in question. Actually I think most of what they show off is protective jockstrap - though I don't know from what they need protection. 100 pound ballerinas? ;)


    That's a great post (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:32:48 AM EST
    from Roxie; and this really is funny - in a lolsob kind of way. (Love Weiners facial expression, lol.)

    Not sure I agreee with everything in the "Cronicle" though, but this is spot on

    Women's bodies, like women's lives, have always been the subject of stupid jokes and whispered, ignorant remarks.

    I for one hate the terms "vajayjay" and "boobs" ... but then, maybe I am a prude after all? ;)

    I hate "vajayjay", too. (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:59:01 AM EST
    I hate cutsie names for body parts. And I think that the use of such cutsie names is an indication of some amount of prudishness and immaturity.

    Here's the link to (none / 0) (#132)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:42:26 AM EST
    Roxie's World. It didn't work in my above comment.

    Weiner did behave badly (none / 0) (#158)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    No question about that or the fact that his behavior was down right stupid. Both the original deed and the lies after discovery.

    I wonder to what extent (none / 0) (#104)
    by KeysDan on Sat Jun 11, 2011 at 09:09:50 PM EST
    the technology is involved in the reactions to Weiner's actions.   We know the  unexpected role of social networking in political organizing clearly came as a shock to Hosni Mubarak. In a very different, but perhaps similarly surprising manner, reactions may have been registered for the movement of the technology into social interactions that may include pictorial, yet chaste, interplay. A sexual action but not a sexual act.  The idea is revolting to some, even more so in some cases, than a good old fashioned anatomy to anatomy meeting at the Heartbreak Hotel.  Of course, my wonderment does not include anything other than  adult, consentaneous social networking.

    WSWS: The Anthony Weiner affair (none / 0) (#130)
    by Andreas on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 02:37:47 AM EST
    The scandal follows a pattern so familiar that it has become stereotyped: lurid revelations, indignant denials, a media frenzy, self-abasing confessions, breathless speculation about the wronged spouse, whether in hiding or standing by her man, until the spotlight shifts to the next tawdry and equally insignificant scandal.

    There is the cast of characters that has become familiar over the past two decades: ultra-right dirty tricks operatives, the corporate-controlled media, and an increasingly right-wing Democratic Party that cowers before both.

    The Anthony Weiner affair
    By Patrick Martin, 10 June 2011

    I hope he stays (none / 0) (#141)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 07:51:23 AM EST
    We need known liars in congress.  Makes it easy to ignore anything he says in the future.

    We have 100 known liars in the Senate (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 09:45:30 AM EST
    and 435 known liars in the House of Representatives. They are politicians after all.

    TMZ has the photos! (none / 0) (#154)
    by Gerald USN Ret on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 08:57:50 AM EST
    (Please note that though I used the exclamation mark again, I did not peruse all of the supposedly 15 pictures that Weiner took of himself in the Congressional Gym, and locker room.  I take the count TMZ gave at face value.

    Here we have Mr Weiner disgracing the Congress as well as himself though one could argue that he can't do much more to disgrace himself or his party at this point.

    http://www.tmz.com/2011/06/12/anthony-weiner-representative-congress-house-of-representatives-gym-lo cker-room-photos-pictures/

    More than anything (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Nemi on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:49:09 PM EST
    this story is now just ... sad.

    This is what was expected (none / 0) (#162)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:19:51 AM EST
    to break, I bet, by the Dems calling for him to resign.

    Or worse?


    sheesh (none / 0) (#165)
    by The Addams Family on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    as Molly Ivins once said of Camille Paglia:

    Sheesh. What an @$$h0le.

    Well, re that part of his anatomy (none / 0) (#173)
    by Towanda on Sun Jun 12, 2011 at 12:50:45 PM EST
    I guess that we can be thankful that the photos are only frontal nudity.