WeinerGate.

914Driver wrote: I'm just using the terminology used by the media, you readily identified it right?

I know that, and it tells me how little the media is trained to think on their own. Creative people would come up with a "tea pot dome scandal" kind of name, as opposed to just putting "gate" at the end of the same word.

That kind of journalism screams of missing parts of both sides of the story just to rush it to the news stands.

How hard is it to come up with a good name for scandal when you've already got "Weiner" to start with?

The WeinerTwit scandal
Social Weiner
Weiner Wink
Twit-n-Weiner
Weiner Weeny
Weinermedia
Weinerblog

I believe Weiner has become a whiner.

JeffHarbert wrote: Why should he resign? He made a stupid mistake, yes, but no one was harmed and no laws were broken.

May not have broken any laws but he lied on national TV. He lied. I don't expect my representitive to be a saint but I do expect them to be honest and not outright lie! Here in Illinois we have managed to put a few of those politicians in jail and are working on putting a one more as I write this.

I think the appropriate term is Facewiener.

Josh wrote: I think the appropriate term is Facewiener.

I believe that's a Lewinsky.

I'm ok having representatives that have different opinions than I do. I'm ok with them voting as they see fit and sometimes going against the will of their district. I do want to think that I can trust the person though.

I think Jeff is demonstrating my point for me about R and D. He is defending Weiner but is anti-Larry Craig. As far as I remember Larry Craig was fined for tapping his foot on a bathroom floor in a E36 M3ter stall in an airport. He did not deny that he did that. You cannot claim that it doesn't matter what someone does in their private life on one hand (Weiner) and then try to surmise what someone else may do in theirs (Craig) and hold that against them. You double standard baffles me. The only conclusion I can draw is that politicians are good in your eyes if the have a D after their name and bad if they have an R after their name. It is that type of idiotic thinking that got us the type of government we have. Congratulations for being part of the problem.

In reply to jimbbski:

Really? You think any politician who lies should be run out office or sent to jail?

He lied about something personal. It was a lie like the sort of lies maybe half the population have told their spouses.

99% of politicians have lied about something that REALLY matters. Justification for war. Violations of constitutional rights. Illegal campaign contributions or outright bribes. This guy lied about sending out some cheesecake photos to a college student. BFD.

What really gets me is that, aside from this, he's been relatively solid. Regardless of what you think of his politics, he takes debate to the floor, speaks his mind and works unusually hard. I'll take those traits over any particular policy stance.

Lies aren't as important as hypocrisy to me. There's a big difference between lying in a pinch to CYA and acting like Spitzer or Craig. Craig was actively out there stripping rights from gays while taking it up the ass in bathroom stalls. Spitzer was sending prostitutes to jail while making use of their services. Both of those cases were MUCH more morally outrageous than this because both guys were out there destroying people's lives for doing stuff they were into. That's a hateful thing. I feel the same way about any politician who has ever touched coke or pot voting to sendi drug users to jail. It takes a complete lack of empathy to do it.

ppddppdd wrote: What really gets me is that, aside from this, he's been relatively solid. Regardless of what you think of his politics, he takes debate to the floor, speaks his mind and works unusually hard. I'll take those traits over any particular policy stance. Lies aren't as important as hypocrisy to me.

Even if he lies to forward his/your policy stance?

His real problem now is that he's rendered himself ridiculous. Who can take him seriously? It's not that people are so outraged. It's that they're laughing at him.

chuckles wrote: His real problem now is that he's rendered himself ridiculous. Who can take him seriously? It's not that people are so outraged. It's that they're laughing at him.

That never stopped any Vice President.

T.J. wrote: Congratulations for being part of the problem.

Read what I wrote again. I don't care, not even a little, that Craig lied about the circumstances of his arrest. Lies from politicians, unless laws are being broken, don't bother me. I would have voted against Craig because his actions - exhibiting homosexual behavior - went against his anti-LBGT voting record. That's hypocrisy, and that's huge problem for this country. The same is true of politicians who make campaign promises about reigning in corporate power and then repeatedly bow to corporate interests once they're in office. Lies, by themselves, are not the problem. Hypocritical legislative votes that screw constituents are the problem.

Show me where Weiner's actions in this matter go against his voting record and I'll hold him to the same standard.

His name is weiner that is punishment enough unless your name is Jack Imoff

Salanis wrote: How hard is it to come up with a good name for scandal when you've already got "Weiner" to start with? The WeinerTwit scandal Social Weiner Weiner Wink Twit-n-Weiner Weiner Weeny Weinermedia Weinerblog

Weiner Wobble (but he won't fall down?)

I'll twist one of yours- Weiner social- which sounds like when we get together with our neighbors to grill dogs.

Or change the spelling of another - tweet-n-weiner.

As long as we give the Watergate Hotel a break.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56395.html

ppddppdd wrote: In reply to jimbbski: Really? You think any politician who lies should be run out office or sent to jail? He lied about something personal. It was a lie like the sort of lies maybe half the population have told their spouses. 99% of politicians have lied about something that REALLY matters. Justification for war. Violations of constitutional rights. Illegal campaign contributions or outright bribes. This guy lied about sending out some cheesecake photos to a college student. BFD. What really gets me is that, aside from this, he's been relatively solid. Regardless of what you think of his politics, he takes debate to the floor, speaks his mind and works unusually hard. I'll take those traits over any particular policy stance. Lies aren't as important as hypocrisy to me. There's a big difference between lying in a pinch to CYA and acting like Spitzer or Craig. Craig was actively out there stripping rights from gays while taking it up the ass in bathroom stalls. Spitzer was sending prostitutes to jail while making use of their services. Both of those cases were MUCH more morally outrageous than this because both guys were out there destroying people's lives for doing stuff they were into. That's a hateful thing. I feel the same way about any politician who has ever touched coke or pot voting to sendi drug users to jail. It takes a complete lack of empathy to do it.

Right on.

Joey

JeffHarbert wrote:

T.J. wrote: Congratulations for being part of the problem.

Read what I wrote again. I don't care, not even a little, that Craig lied about the circumstances of his arrest. Lies from politicians, unless laws are being broken, don't bother me. I would have voted against Craig because his actions - exhibiting homosexual behavior - went against his anti-LBGT voting record. That's hypocrisy, and that's huge problem for this country. The same is true of politicians who make campaign promises about reigning in corporate power and then repeatedly bow to corporate interests once they're in office. Lies, by themselves, are not the problem. Hypocritical legislative votes that screw constituents are the problem. Show me where Weiner's actions in this matter go against his voting record and I'll hold him to the same standard.

I can't see any record that Weiner voted against his oft-stated principles.

But, this post postulates that (for you) it's OK if a politician lies to gain office. Would you really vote for a candidate that willingly compromised his/her principles just for the opportunity to represent a voting group? How far does one lower the bar to support someone who has no basic principles aside from a desire to get elected?

Does the end really justify the means?

This story has nothing to do with media bias or lies or hypocrisy, and everything to do with Weiner jokes.

Salanis wrote: This story has nothing to do with media bias or lies or hypocrisy, and everything to do with Weiner jokes.

Is this a good time to make light of SF's legislation against cutting on weiners?

oldsaw wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote:

T.J. wrote: Congratulations for being part of the problem.

Read what I wrote again. I don't care, not even a little, that Craig lied about the circumstances of his arrest. Lies from politicians, unless laws are being broken, don't bother me. I would have voted against Craig because his actions - exhibiting homosexual behavior - went against his anti-LBGT voting record. That's hypocrisy, and that's huge problem for this country. The same is true of politicians who make campaign promises about reigning in corporate power and then repeatedly bow to corporate interests once they're in office. Lies, by themselves, are not the problem. Hypocritical legislative votes that screw constituents are the problem. Show me where Weiner's actions in this matter go against his voting record and I'll hold him to the same standard.

I can't see any record that Weiner voted against his oft-stated principles. But, this post postulates that (for you) it's OK if a politician lies to gain office. Would you really vote for a candidate that willingly compromised his/her principles just for the opportunity to represent a voting group? How far does one lower the bar to support someone who has no basic principles aside from a desire to get elected? Does the end really justify the means?

(The following comment is in agreement with Oldsaw)
I expect the people who represent me to have integrity. I realize that virtually none of them do, but if we don't hold their feet to the fire when things like this are revealed, we'll never rid our government of corruption. His actions may have been personal, but these actions speak volumes as to the character of this man.

Heh. Heh, heh. You said "weiner". Heh, heh.

oldsaw wrote:

Salanis wrote: This story has nothing to do with media bias or lies or hypocrisy, and everything to do with Weiner jokes.

Is this a good time to make light of SF's legislation against cutting on weiners?

But if you don't cut 'em first, they tend to explode on you.

We're talking about hot dogs, right?

I seriously have no idea what the man's voting record is or what his stated issues are. I can understand that you are down with hipocracy, but not sure why lying is ok. Him lying and acting indignant at even being questioned about the whole thing tells me all I need to know about the man - he cannot be trusted and should not be representing anyone. Did Weiner introduce legislation to promote the telling of falsehoods or a bill named "The Sexual Creeps on the Internet are People Too Act of 2010"? When he took his oath of office and promised to uphold the Constitution was he lying then? If he was lying is it ok as long as he never claimed to uphold the Constitution?

Jeff, I'm still a bit unclear on your stance, but I am clear that I cannot change your opinion of either Larry Craig or New York's biggest Weiner. So, I guess I'll lay off the weiner for a bit and see how things work out. I'm ok with you having a different opinion than I do.

Josh wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

Salanis wrote: This story has nothing to do with media bias or lies or hypocrisy, and everything to do with Weiner jokes.

Is this a good time to make light of SF's legislation against cutting on weiners?

But if you don't cut 'em first, they tend to explode on you. We're talking about hot dogs, right?

Lorena Bobbit must have heard something similar once.

In reply to T.J.: In short, because lying of this nature has no bearing on the outcome of legislation. Let's not forget why we send people to Washington, DC - to tend and pass legislation that aids constituents. We don't send people to DC because they're paragons of virtue. Passing good legislation is the one and only reason they're there. Their actions related to their job are the only things that should concern us. I simply don't think that lying about posting a pic of his junk to the internet has anything whatsoever to do with his job as an elected official.