WeinerGate.

Joe Gearin wrote: This also confuses me: Fox News is the most widely watched cable news program in the U.S. Rush Limbaugh is the most successful radio host in history. Hannity, O'Reily and Savage have extremely popular radio programs. How are these not "mainstream media"?

You noticed that too, huh?

Joe Gearin wrote: I always find it amusing when people think Republicans are more ethical than Democrats, and vice versa. These folks buy into the divisiveness that the political system feeds on. This also confuses me: Fox News is the most widely watched cable news program in the U.S. Rush Limbaugh is the most successful radio host in history. Hannity, O'Reily and Savage have extremely popular radio programs. How are these not "mainstream media"?

You are confusing popularity of a few outlets to the total number of news outlets. All of the outlets you mention above combined is a very small percentage of the total media, the rest of which is liberal. Duh.

He should resign. Josh and Jeff, my big issue isn't that in his personal life he is a creep and a sexual predator, but that he out and out lied about it instead of fessing up. He should be ashamed and resign immediately. If not the voters of his district should send him packing next time his seat is up for re-election.

We as a country have the government we deserve because so many people are willing to look the other way or not care about what these people say or do as long as they have the right letter (R or D) after theoir name. Someday we'll wake up, hopefully before it is too late.

In reply to T.J.:

Well said.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

C'mon, Joe. You can noodle it out!

Fox is a cable channel and has far fewer viewers than the traditional network (read - free) programs of ABC, CBS and NBC.

The MSM also includes print outlets like the NYTimes, Boston Globe, Chicago SunTimes, LATimes, etc, etc. And there are the dwindling number of magazines dominated by Time and Newsweek.

True, talk radio is populated by conservatives. But where else can they get employment to espouse their points?

If one looks at the total audience that consumes what MSM offers, a large percentage of what's offered is most definitely not coming from a "right" perspective.

I'm far more concerned with politicians selling votes to their biggest campaign donors than I am with some congressman posting a pic of his junk to the internet. As long as laws aren't broken, I couldn't care less what politicians do in their personal lives. Their legislative votes are what determines their effectiveness and ability to represent their constituents, not what they do with their Twitter account.

I don't care about the letter (hell, I think I may still be a registered republican, I only pick a side so I can vote in a primary). I think Larry Craig should have stayed in the Senate, he should have just told the public that it was none of their damn business what was going on in that mens room, that he only has his wife to answer to, and that should have been good enough for us. I think the biggest moral failing on display in these cases are so many people demanding to know what some person they don't know is doing with their genitals.

Joe Gearin wrote: This also confuses me: Fox News is the most widely watched cable news program in the U.S. Rush Limbaugh is the most successful radio host in history. Hannity, O'Reily and Savage have extremely popular radio programs. How are these not "mainstream media"?

Haha. No kidding. It is pretty much impossible to find an unbiased source of news.

I honestly don't care either way. The fact that we still have starving kids, poor roads, poorer schools, unemployment, etc etc, kinda keeps me from giving a crap if some random politician shows his shwantz-saber on the internet. Or twitface or whatever.

JeffHarbert wrote: I'm far more concerned with politicians selling votes to their biggest campaign donors than I am with some congressman posting a pic of his junk to the internet. As long as laws aren't broken, I couldn't care less what politicians do in their personal lives. Their legislative votes are what determines their effectiveness and ability to represent their constituents, not what they do with their Twitter account.

Bad behaviour by politicians can easily be used to manipulate their votes in a legislature.

As in, "We've got these embarassing pics and we'll release them if you don't .......".

You don't have a problem with that?

Josh wrote: I don't care about the letter (hell, I think I may still be a registered republican, I only pick a side so I can vote in a primary). I think Larry Craig should have stayed in the Senate, he should have just told the public that it was none of their damn business what was going on in that mens room, that he only has his wife to answer to, and that should have been good enough for us. I think the biggest moral failing on display in these cases are so many people demanding to know what some person they don't know is doing with their genitals.

We pay their generous salaries and benefits, how are they not beholden to us? We are the ones that put them there.

You really think the people who lead the most powerful nation on earth shouldn't be held to a higher standard than a drunken fratboy?

Maybe that's the problem.

The standard that I hold them to includes the decisions they make that actually affect me, not what their boner looks like.

In reply to oldsaw: That's not an indictment of the hypothetical politician, that's an indictment of the hypothetical blackmailer.

Allow me to repeat myself: As long as laws aren't broken, I couldn't care less what politicians do in their personal lives. Hypothetical blackmail or no hypothetical blackmail.

Jeff, I tend to agree with that, but how do you feel about a politician who out and out tells lies and attempts to cover up his actions? It is not about the man's creepy sexual habits - I agree that is an issue between him and his wif to deal with, but it is a matter of trust and integrity.

He claims that he was just texting,and never intended to have actual contact with any of these women. He should resign just for that. It's like Clinton getting a joint but not inhaling. Atleast when a Republican has a sex scandal there is usually some sex involved.

JeffHarbert wrote: In reply to oldsaw: That's not an indictment of the hypothetical politician, that's an indictment of the hypothetical blackmailer. Allow me to repeat myself: As long as laws aren't broken, I couldn't care less what politicians do in their personal lives. Hypothetical blackmail or no hypothetical blackmail.

I totally agree that private, legal actions should have no consequences.

But, our concerns aren't shared by societal mores; there are far too many who use those mores to wreak havoc upon politicians (and others) who fall outside the boundaries of "accepted" limits.

Until/unless that ends, the likes of Weiner need to curb their predelictions or immediately confess to them.

In reply to T.J.: I honestly believe that every single politician will lie to their constituents, and thus the nation, at some point in their career. Every last one of them. It's simply a matter to what extent the lie will go. Some lies may be harmless, others could potentially do great harm.

Should Weiner have told the truth from the beginning? Of course he should have. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, when it comes to trust and integrity, different groups of people have different standards. To some groups, I should be prevented from holding elected office because I have a divorce in my past. To others, I'll be dismissed (or embraced) merely because I live in the South. It's impossible to live up to even a few of these standards, let alone all of them.

I prefer to hold politicians - and even then, only those who represent me - to one single standard: their legislative voting record. Again, so long as no laws are broken, that's the only thing that matters to me as a constituent. I'm not going to vote someone out of office because he lied about posting a pic of his junk to the internet. Or (going hypothetical here) lying about being a drunk, being gay, or anything else.

I will say I think you must weigh their voting record against their personal actions. Someone mentioned Larry Craig. I would have voted against him, not because he exhibited homosexual behavior (I don't care if he's gay or not) but because he also voted repeatedly to limit the rights of GLBT people. That's hypocrisy at best and thinking he's above the law at worst. Either way, it's indefensible. But still, it's the legislative votes that matter.

In reply to JeffHarbert:

I think we're all very clear on what you think about this.

He's a tool, and of course he should resign. What a fiasco. Nice of him to hold a press conference to tell us what we already knew. He should resign if only for the distration it causes from the work that needs to be done. It's stupid that this kind of crap happens. It's also stupid that either side makes a point of using it for political advantage. But they both do and you can't dish it out if you don't take it. Hard to oppose the next nim-rod who can't keep it zipped up if you're going to defend this one. Personally, I don't care what they do in their free time as long as it's legal. They should all just move on. But since they have chosen not to do that, they can't change their minds now. He should just flip them all the bird and leave. Get a job with Elliott Spitzer on CNN and call it a day. The Weiner report. Brought to you by Oscar Mayer.

JeffHarbert wrote: (I don't care if he's gay or not) but because he also voted repeatedly to limit the rights of GLBT people. That's hypocrisy at best and thinking he's above the law at worst. Either way, it's indefensible. But still, it's the legislative votes that matter.

Obviously he voted what his constituants wanted, not voted for his personal preferance or lifestyle. I would applaud that because it shows conviction to his people back home.

It's taken me a while but I'm coming around to the idea that women are different than men, not just in plumbing. Women need more emotional commitment, need caressing and lots of talk, men need only a recepticle.

I started a thread also about Jeremy Clarkson, having an affair (or not) and his wife is filing for a divorce. Because Jeremy carried on with a woman in London it's unforgivable. Had he gotten drink and boinked a pole dancer one Friday night out on the town, she may have eventually forgiven him, but he offered consolance and emotion, that's over the line.

Someone here said "Yeah but he never had sex with her".

Again, if he got soldered, banged a stripper and begged forgiveness he may have gotten it. He crossed that invisible line.

Back to Weiner: He too crossed the invisible line. His people back home trust him to do the right thing for them, he's their representative. Had he gone out to a bachelor party and gotten a Lewinsky, he may have been forgiven.

What he did was breach the People's trust.

Then he adamantly lied about it.

Repeatedly.

I work for the Gov't and have to take Ethics and Security training all the time; they cover things like opening yourself up to entrapment.

Knowing what this guy is about, would you trust him with a secret?

Are you certain he hasn't done something that can't be blackmailed into a National Security issue?

Dan

WeinerGate? the poor Watergate Hotel... it will never live it down.

(when can we drop the "gate" part of political scandals? How 'bout Weiner Dome? Or something like that? Or come up with something fresh to call it...)

alfadriver wrote: WeinerGate? the poor Watergate Hotel... it will never live it down. (when can we drop the "gate" part of political scandals? How 'bout Weiner Dome? Or something like that? Or come up with something fresh to call it...)

Really stirring the pot here! Why are you so scandalous! Why, why... this is Gate-gate.

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

Gate-gate?

Naaah. The Secretary of Defense has far more common sense and knows the boundaries of appropriate behaviour.

I'm just using the terminology used by the media, you readily identified it right?

914Driver wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote: (I don't care if he's gay or not) but because he also voted repeatedly to limit the rights of GLBT people. That's hypocrisy at best and thinking he's above the law at worst. Either way, it's indefensible. But still, it's the legislative votes that matter.

Obviously he voted what his constituants wanted, not voted for his personal preferance or lifestyle. I would applaud that because it shows conviction to his people back home.

He lied about who he was in order to have those constituents.

If he'd managed to get elected while being open about that aspect of his personal life, and then said "I like to sleep with men, but it is clear to me that my constituency considers this wrong, and so I will vote their position on the matter", that would have been honest, if in a bizarre and perverse fashion.

But he didn't. He portrayed a Stepfordian perfection, because that's what his desired constituency demanded.