Rep. Weiner: A career assassination of convenience

As Rep. Weiner's scandal continues to reverberate through the media, how can anyone not be reminded (and be more than a bit confused) about the difference in response from the Democratic Party now versus 12 years ago during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

So far, there is nothing that Rep. Weiner has been accused of that Bill Clinton didn't trump in action: Bill Clinton had sex in the Oval Office, told a bare-faced lie to the American People about it as President, was forced to recant publicly and arguably caused the Democratic Party a great deal of harm.

But during that entire time I don't recall hearing a fraction of the cries for his resignation that now swirl around the media and here on DU call for Rep. Weiner's resignation. I was disgusted by Bill Clinton's behavior but at no time did I ever believe he should resign the office. In fact, I still think Kennith Star's $40 Million dollar investigation was possibly the most expensive witch-hunt in recent political memory.

I am similarly disgusted by Rep. Weiner's behavior but my upset over his actions does not rise to any sizable fraction of Bill Clinton's behavior and I do not believe Rep. Weiner should step down either.

But what's the difference? Why the disparity? Why do I see so many in the Democratic Party calling for Rep. Weiner to step down? I suppose the question will never receive a satisfactory answer, maybe is incapable of being answered to anyone's ultimate satisfaction.

But it is hard to miss, as someone noted here on DU a few days ago, that a sitting DLC President can get a blow job in the Oval Office, lie to the entire nation about it, be caught in the lie for Chrissakes...and it's "Rally The Troops!" from our party.

But a firebrand Leftie House Member commits a fraction of the behavior that the DLC President does, and a sizable chunk of the Democratic Party is calling for him to step down.

The Republicans have it out for Weiner just as they'd have it out for anyone from the Democratic Party. But in the attempt to bring down Rep. Weiner, there's a second team on the grassy knoll and you would have to be blind not to notice they're from our own party.

PB

to at least six women, at least one who did not want sexual photos sent to her.

See the difference?

I don't see the math you're doing as so cut and dried, nor have the calls for Rep. Weiner's resignation hung on some pivotal revelation. If there was some sea-change revelation which radically escalated the calls for his resignation from our side, I wouldn't have had reason to post the OP. This has been almost from the get-go.

PB

If Clinton had been having sex with someone outside the WH (and, who knows, he may have been) the circumstances would have been different. But the boss having sex with a subordinate is another.

How quickly we forget! And that's what will happen with this.

Airc, just when they thought it was over, another would claim to have been raped by him eg. Then the other one who claimed to have been mugged by Clinton's 'goons' because she was talking to Starr about her own relationship with him.

There was Monica, Paula, Kathleen, and at least three others whose names I can't remember, with graphic details of 'rape', the size and shape of his penis etc, on a daily basis for years.

And for eternity there is Starr's pornographic 'Report' floating around so anyone who needs a refressher course on Clinton's sexual history, can go find it, forever.

But, you know what, it's good you forgot. That's the point about Weiner, people will move on and forget.

In fact, as was the case with Clinton, most people have moved on and in this case, it's only been two weeks. With Clinton, it was close to two years.

And in giving older people (aka voters) a disgust of childish and undisciplined behavior.

Technically not a crime, but a possible game changer for Democrats prospects.

He took all the momentum we had going after the the win and New York and brought it to almost a grinding halt. Now no one wants to talk about the Ryan plan or the victory in New York and the larger implications of that victory. Instead all we hear in the national media is about AW.

He used the same account for public communication as he used to tweet his peeper. That's weird and wrong. If any of us had an account on Twitter or Facebook that we used for our high-profile jobs, then used it to find customers/potential customers who liked us to troll for people we could "cyber" with THEN used the SAME said account to do that, we'd quite understandably be toast.

I understand why the party leaders don't want the brand being associated with this shit.

And further, our party is facing a very difficult and very important fight here in Wisconsin right now. While Weiner is not from WI, any damage to the party directly hurts me and us. Again, I understand.

...evidence is so much more easily created now. My point is that the first paragraph in your response, describing his actions, is eclipsed by Bill Clinton's behavior. It's the difference in reaction that's gotten under my skin.

Bill Clinton did more to harm the party Brand, and I think that's a fair viewpoint, than Rep. Weiner ever could or will and (again), there was not the kind of calls for his resignation based on behavior, that have risen for Rep. Weiner.

PB

Dumbya Bush. I believe that with all my heart. The Republicans couldn't run on anything. They couldn't run on the economy because they weren't responsible for its success. The only thing they had going for them is "restoring honor to the White House." Americans are so "fucking dumb," and Bill Maher cogently stated, that they bought into Bush, hook, line and sinker. Had Bill Clinton simply kept his pants on, I truly believe that all the damage that Dumbya Bush and his Rethugs did to this country would have never come to pass.

... and now Bill Clinton proudly proclaims that he and the Bushes are "very close," so close that Barbara and Pappy have "adopted" him. It's disgusting!! We can thank Bill Clinton for a lot of this country's woes!!

From CBS News:


This information was from a book by Taylor Branch who personally recorded many one-on-one conversations with President Clinton in the White House.

PB

in to the different response. Though what makes Weiner actions worse imo is his utter studpidity, taking no steps at all, steps that are easily available, to cover his tracks, knowing full well what would happen if this activity became public, namely giving the repukes a feeding fest to distract from other issues.

If you want to say he embarrassed us or besmirched our reputation, that is more than appropriate. But can we leave the human resources doublespeak out of it?

It's called a metaphor. Google it.

Just not a very good one, YMMV.

even though he used it for both personal and political (and private and public) posts.

I'm not sure how it's different from any publicly-known person taking advantage of/utilising their public image. It's not clearly a case of abuse of authority imo, especially since the informal Twitter account wasn't an official channel of or medium for his public authority.

So I'd still argue he abused his marriage but not his office. I don't know if any of the relationships he had involved harassment (in the sense of coercion) even though they involved infidelity.

If his Twitter name didn't include the "Rep" part, you'd have a better point. He tweeted his peeper using the same Twitter account he used for work. No, it wasn't an official government account, but he used it to reach thousands of people as a Congressional rep. If the account name was @TonyWeinerInMyPants and never Tweeted shit about his job, I would argue that point with you.

however when he posted private messages to these women, he - to some degree - would have have established a separable personal identity with them before he started seriously flirting with them/hitting on them.

Even if he didn't do this sufficiently, his responsibilities re this are still primarily with the individuals involved and his wife. I respect anyone who says he should resign after what has come out - except disingenuous or cowardly Dem officials who wouldn't/don't call for the resignation of other Dem officeholders whose abuses of power affect public matters.

Why couldn't they just say that they would consider resigning if they were him, but that unless there is evidence of coercive harassment it would be irresponsible of them to call for him to leave his office?

I was disgusted by Clinton's performance in the Lewinsky deal. He let me down in a big way. I did not call for his resignation over it, though. I would not have been devastated had he resigned, but I did not call for it. Same with Weiner. I'd be perfectly happy if he resigned. He displayed a shocking lack of understanding of basic ethics in his denial, then admission. I don't call for his resignation, because I am not one of his constituents.

On the other hand, there is a very real difference between a sitting President and a sitting Congressman. That may account for the difference in reaction in the two cases. We are facing a very serious election in 2012 if we hope to regain control of the House. Weiner's childish display doesn't help.

On the other hand, we have a very honorable and straightforward President. That's a good thing.

"I support a public option" . . . spoken after he had already given it away at the negotiating table.

?

PB

not really following what one has to do with the other.

and the apparent decision by the Democratic leadership to allow Clarence Thomas to remain on the Supreme Court with no real effort made to have him indicted for his multiple federal crimes of lying on sworn federal records.

Indict Clarence Thomas

...now, Rep. Weiner will have been chased out of office by torch-weilders from both the Republican and Democratic parties- and that Clarence and Gini Thomas will laugh themselves to the point of incontinence as they skate completely.

PB

to let Thomas skate. That's the only possible explanation for the fact that nobody in the Democratic upper echelons has come forward to pick up the banner that Weiner was carrying.

It's not just the GOP and the Blue Dogs, it's the leadership. They are all part of the problem.

Now, what the hell do we do? First of all, we must not be silenced or intimidated.

Getting rid of Weiner will do no damage to the party at all. It's a safe Dem seat and in the end, Weiner's fate won't have much impact of the fortunes of the party at a national level. Turning on the president, however, is a much different story. Putting your own party's president in the doghouse pretty much guarantees that they will be succeeded by someone in the other party. Just look at the list of recent presidents who lost the confidence of significant numbers of people in their own party. Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, and both Bushes were all succeeded by presidents from the other party. Obviously there were many other factors at work in all of those cases, but it's probably worth noting.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you.

PB

out of office by his own party _will_ damage it. He's been one of the few outspoken liberals who'll go beyond the conventional wisdom with trenchant comments that have the ring of truth. Alan Grayson lost at the ballot box. Weiner did something stupid but that's no reason for a circular firing squad FROM HIS OWN PARTY to force him out. Let him take his leave-of-absence and meanwhile, let's try to find a more suitable bone to throw to the ravenous press corps.

We might get another Dem in his Congressional seat but that's no guarantee he/she will be an effective voice. When Weiner's own constituents don't think he should resign, why are his colleagues so focused on forcing him out? Don't they trust "the people?" Sadly, I fear the answer is no. It's simply cowardice, something we've seen too much of from Democrats ever since 2008. And it's a lot more disgusting than any display of private parts to one or two, apparently willing female e-correspondents could be.

I hadn't followed what he'd discovered about Clarence & Ginny Thomas; can anyone point me to a good source for that? It's crucial for Obama to get another chance to nominate a Supreme Court justice, so maybe the Citizens United decision can start to be walked back. And who's going to pick up on that now?

He won't be able to function as before because if he corners somebody, they can always come back on him with the this stuff. That was his role in the party and now he can't perform it. That ship has sailed no matter what happens from here on out. Whether he stays in Congress or not, the party will have to find someone else to talk tough on the cable news shows. From the party's perspective, he's just another rep at this point and his only job now is to vote the party line. Anybody could do that, so why not make a change in favor of somebody who can offer everything Weiner can but without the baggage?

Weiner scheduled it.

...responded and in which he famously claimed "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". I don't know what kind of timeframe you give for being caught off guard, but that wouldn't seem to fit even a generous definition of it.

PB

It is ethically inconsistent.

and Weiner did it anyway. My reasoning is practical.
We have history and precedence enough that all political leaders know how this story goes. He had no reason to believe it would remain private and would never come back to haunt him.
He had a very clear understanding of the risk and disregarded all of the people it would effect anyway.

I will not concede on that.

If you want to surrender, then let's just castrate every male in politics so we can focus on issues that really matter and be done with it.

I, for one, am not going to give a nice clean victory for those who snooping into other people's bedrooms looking to embarrass their enemies.

I don't think throwing in the towel is practical, it's just convenient.

would you defend Weiner after he tried to play that game and appease his detractors? He gave up his integrity to that principle when he lied.

During the early days of the scandal, before the blue dress, Clinton talked with aids about how to discredit- no it was far worse than that- destroy ML. It was an ugly point in his presidency and a low point for Clinton as a person.

Nope, doesn't wash. Weiner didn't commit perjury.

yet GOPers are such a stupid breed that they do it to THEMSELVES! Amazing we are all still alive after the decades of corrupt rule by the GOP! Probably just dumb luck.

with Clinton, namely that we can't allow one party to make the govt spend years and millions of dollars on a witch hunt so they can impeach the Pres who's of the other party.

Weiner put this out there himself, under his real name and job as a hook.

-- POTUS vs House member
-- consensual BJ vs sending unsolicited lewd photos and messages
-- somewhat normal adult sexual infidelity vs bizarre perverse behaviour
-- brilliant President vs idiot congressman

I'd disagree with the last line in both cases. But obviously a single Congressman is more expendable than the symbolic head of the party.

we don't know that the photos and messages were unsolicited.
'bizarre, perverse behavior'? in the eye of the beholder and yours seems very victorian.
'idiot congressman'? are you in the right place? there are other forums that welcome dem bashing.

ellen fl

-- the college student in Seattle said she was shocked to have received the weiner underwear photos.
-- sending photos of one's genitalia to strangers on-line is also "bizarre and perverse" to many non-victorians.
-- many people on this board have been calling Weiner an idiot for what he has been doing... and correctly so.

i showed my genitalia, in the flesh, to strangers during the free love 60s and 70s. i did not consider that 'bizarre and perverse', either. i have communicated with people online who i have never met but have done so often enough that i do not consider them strangers. do we know that he sent these pics to 'strangers'?


he's not an idiot but he did an idiotic thing. there's a difference. there are plenty of his enemies willing to call him names. must we too?

ellen fl

"Weinergate" has put a Seattle college cutie through the wringer -- jeopardizing her academic dreams, embarrassing her family and shattering her privacy. "I'm just collateral damage," Gennette Cordova, 21, lamented in explaining how her world was turned upside-down when she wound up on the receiving end of a lewd, underwear-clad crotch shot sent from Rep. Anthony Weiner's Twitter account.

"I just want this to be over," she told The Post yesterday during an exclusive photo shoot and interview near her Bellingham, Wash., college campus. Cordova thinks the package-hugging picture -- which Weiner "can't say with certitude" isn't his -- was meant for somebody else and landed in her Twitter account by mistake.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/bitter_tweet_affair_has_co_ed_worn_qCnymOy6zYIBGkdJhLyw1M#ixzz1P6px0GV0

BTW, many of us did crazy things during the 60's and 70's... even me (face palm). But that was then and this is now and Weiner is a Congressman representing Democrats and the people of his district. Furhtermore, Weiner has done so many idiotic things leading up this scandal, including how he has responded to it, that I think he does qualify as an full fledged idiot.

He's responsible for his own actions. Those actions are not the fault of Republicans, even those who may have it out for him.

Were the shoe on the other foot (for example, Chris Christie sent unwanted pictures of his junk to woman on the internet) we would be calling for his resignation - loudly.

...Party in regards to the Clinton and Weiner scandals.

PB

What it comes down to is a simple question: did Rep. Weiner fuck up? The answer is definitely yes. No matter what anyone else does, this story is about Anthony Weiner.

Bill Clinton was a popular President, not a Congressman that most Americans had never heard of before he committed political suicide. And Congressional dems knew damned well that their fates were tied to Clinton's. That is not true with Weiner.

And for the ten thousandth time, it's not Weiner's actions that are so disturbing or disgusting, it's the reckless disregard he had for political consequences he was aware of. That was true of Clinton as well.

Weiner is a liberal. But he's not nearly as important as quite a few other liberals in the House. He was indeed an effective spokesperson on the talking head shows, but beyond that he's not known for being a good legislator.

I might disagree on the point you make in your last sentence but that's beyond the scope of what the OP is about. I can't say I disagree with the remainder of your assessment, though, nor can I say it heartens me.

PB

That's what they have on common. And the scandals they are/were caught up in are only about sex peripherally. If they held literally any other position, nobody would care.

BUT....

Because they are/were members of the Democratic party and sitting elected office holders - ONLY because they're Democrats, and ONLY because they were elected - the corporate media & the GOP are under the impression that they're fair game. It's really sad, and really destructive to our country that other Democrats are all too eager to jump on the RW propaganda bandwagon.

Because they are Republicans? Your logic makes zero sense.

Those were in the media too. I got a hearty laugh out of all of them, courtesy of the same MSM that you claim only publicizes Democratic scandals.

"Journalists" which, mind you, who do nothing but try to dig up dirt on their political enemies?

I'll wait.

But you did mention the MSM and claimed that they viewed Clinton and Weiner as 'fair game' only because they were Democrats. Yet, it's pretty clear the MSM considered the examples I cited to be fair game too.

The one that treats Breitbart and the other RW "journalists" like rock stars? The RW corporate MSM that will allow these "journalists" to spread their lies & unfounded allegations even after they've been proven wrong again and again?

The fact is the RW has spent 40 yrs and billions of dollars to produce exactly the kind of political and journalistic atmosphere we see today: Republicans can literally commit any crime short of murder, and as long as they kiss the ring of the current conservative front man and support the party's agenda, they get at most a slap on the wrist. (And if they don't go along, they're out. What do you think happened to the Teabagger Chris Lee?) But then, if there's even a hint that a Democrat might be able in some fanatics wild fantasy to the subject of a mere accusation - he's toast. The Dems don't have any type of organized propaganda tool like this, or anything that even comes close.

Hillary Clinton once spoke of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that was attacking her and her husband. She was telling the truth. It created all of the Clinton "scandals", and it still exists & operates today, and it's a clear threat to the United States. Such a beast shouldn't be allowed to exist in a free country, because if it does, that country stops being free. Weiner is just it's latest VICTIM.

The MSM had a whiff of his shenanigans way ahead of time but didn't run with it. In your world, it would have been all over the place the instant any reporter got a tip. Instead they got scooped by the National Enquirer, of all outlets.

Edwards is the anomaly that proves the rule: if he had been a Republican, like Arnold for example, we wouldn't have known about his kid until long after it no longer mattered. Schwarzenegger had rumors of his multiple infidelities flying around him for years - decades even. Yet the MSM never bothered him with it. Ever.

With Edwards, the time between the first allegations and his confession was 28 months. There's really no comparison.

I don't view the media as some Republican machine. If you want to, more power to you, but I just don't buy it. Of course the MSM has major flaws, but your argument is just a mirror image of the RW argument that the media is a smear machine controlled by the left. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.

If you still don't believe it you're a fool.

Some of whom *gasp* support Democratic candidates for office (and give them money, too)!

I'd rather have you call me a fool than try to convince myself that black is white.

up till Clinton, the press had always had an off-limits policy about Presidents' sex lives. He had good reason for thinking he could get away with it. So what he did was more understandable to many -- even though he was strongly criticized at the time. (As with Weiner, he was mostly criticized for lying, rather than about the sex.)

For another, Clinton, as President, was the indispensable leader of the party. Weiner is just another House Democrat from a district with plenty of other progressives who could do a better job than he will now be able to do.

Think Al Gore appreciated having to defend his boss while running a very close election. Who knows, had Bill either been more discreet or told the truth, the criminal bushco regime may have never come into office.

A scandal-free Bill would have crisscrossed the swing states to campaign for Gore. Instead they dumped him in California.

he should have been smarter.

He should have used better common sense and he should have assumed that someone would be trying to set him up. He was not well liked and very outspoken.

I think we should require that our Congressmen and women have some brains.

PB

can you be surprised if they shoot you?

seen so far! Also applied to Clinton and Gore in 1998.

Very perceptive and right on!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Thanks, Poll Blind! I had been wondering, "Whatever happened to Vittergate?".

Weiner is a mere Congressman. A schmuck. Big difference. Not too hard to grasp.

nafta and gramm-leach-bliley?

i WILL give him credit for the economy but he was no liberal or man of the people, unless you mean rich people.

ellen fl

:rofl:

He wasn't a horrible president, but he certainly wasn't a stalwart of liberalism that some seem to misremember.

Crawl back under your rock.

you know that you have lost the argument and that what i say has touched a nerve. definitely an unnecessarily nasty response.

ellen fl

One of the best Presidents of the 20th century and you imply he did a bad job.

You deserved a rash of shit for that, sugar dumpling.

Don't like my opinion? TOUGH.

And, no, you don't "win," just because you say so.

Not the way the world works, sweetie pie.

clinton like you apparently do. sorry for pointing out his policy flaws.

again with the name calling. apparently you never learned how to win friends and influence people . . . or that by resorting to name calling, you undermine your argument, if you even had one.

btw, i never said that clinton was a bad president, just that he wasn't the paragon you clintonistas make him out to be.

ellen fl

Rep. Weiner has done nothing to embarrass the Party. He only embarrassed himself. And it doesn't constitute his resignation. He should stand firm. the members of the Democratic Party should stand behind him. Not because we agree with what he did, but because when we needed a voice that spoke from some of our thoughts, it was he that said it. He was there for Health care, 911 First responders,and several other key issues that need voice and attention. The only thing that pissed me off was he knew it was him and he should have just copped to it in the beginning. Because it really is no big deal to most people only repugs and his wife.And when did Brietbart become the Tweet police. He is corrupted as the day is long.

What the Democratic Party is worried about is that the Governor gets to re-district the lines and they feel that he will take away Rep. Weiner's district and they may lose a Congressional seat.And with people like the Koch Brothers they probably have bought the lines before they broke the scandal.They do not leak or do anything without an ulterior motive. Not to mention there are known affairs being carried out in the open in D.C. Like the Speaker of the House. They don't want a tit-for-tat thing going on. Too many have too much to lose.Repugs and Dems. Weiner is not the only Democratic member who is engaging in questionable behavior. And it would explain why some things cannot get done in Washington D.C.

For those who compare him with former President Clinton, should not. Two wrongs do not make either one of them right. One actually lived out his fantasy of convenience in real time, with actual real oral sex. The other just lived out his fantasy of convenience in cyber-space. Both should have known where there is smoke there are republicans.

I really like Weiner (uh, no pun intended), but it leaves one wondering how he could show such lack of judgement. Now, if he is getting treatment for some reason that likely led to his behavior, that's a lot more understandable. When I used to drink, I did a few things that was entirely out of character for me when I got a little "loosened up" after several beers. So, I am not ready to say he should quit, but he and his family need to seriously consider whether he should or not, also considering what are the wishes of his constituents, which ultimately are his employers.

Yes, he is a congressman, but I'll not play 'holier-than-thou' because it is so easy to get caught up in things that start out as innocent and get worse from there. We see that all the time in society. I didn't say it is right, but it is what it is. Remember Tiger Woods. Who in the general public would have ever thought he would have gotten caught up in a messy sex scandal.

So, he showed really poor judgement, but I'm not lighting my torch to join the mob yet.

The party bends whichever direction the rethugs say the wind is blowing. The party has no spine and hence no brand - please!

HERE

PB

It is sad.

I suspect some of the fervor to keep him in place, at least on this forum, is that he was criticizing Obama from the Left in front of an open mic.

There doesn't exist another Democrat in his Congressional district who can match or exceed his legislative record? Really? Is he that rare and special?

If so, too bad he didn't take better care to protect his national profile. No one's dumb fault but his own.

quite a bit since Clinton.

I expect MORE out of our house members, hell I expect MORE out of our president. Period.

I will not tolerate lies or stupid behavior from either aisle. Screw that.

I didn't like what Clinton did, either, and feel he deserved his impeachment. However, he did have the good sense to NOT provide us with photo's. I have a feeling his tenure in the oval office would have been a bit shorter had he done that.

The only person to blame for this mess is Weiner. Had he kept it in his pants, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

And for some other reasons. Though his actions, IMO, are questionable, the onslaught of criticism he's receiving is really unfair, and designed primarily to take the focus off the other major problems with the DNC in 2011. Clinton, while he had his share of critics on the left, was president at a time when Democrats were primarily happy with their standing and with the direction the Party was headed. Also, the country was in a good place and the mass media had yet to be totally controlled by corporations.

Don't worry. The shit that's coming the Democrats' way this summer? Will make Weinergate disappear.

?

PB

there was internet, but not as progressed as it is today.

and during clinton time... du was not around

We wanted to show how Republican we could be and freed up media ownership rules back then, so now we have the fruits of the consolidation of our media into conservative hands.

Fox viewership has grown.

Even though the public is far more liberal than the conservative mass media we have now, their dominance of broadcast news has intimidated too many Democrats.

The saddest example of that was the ACORN furor. Democrats grandstanded about their outrage without pausing to consider the source of the suspicious video. We lost a great organization that helped the poor and registered Democrats, by jumping on the right wing indignant bandwagon before all the facts were in.