Former Rep. Anthony Weiner Had No Other Choice but to Resign, Right?
Gil Kaufman
2011/06/18 11:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
141 votes
|
|
58% | |||
|
69 votes
|
|
28% | |||
|
35 votes
|
|
14% | |||
There are only two ways these things can end: the teary, reluctant resignation speech that clears the path for colleagues to get back to the important business at hand or the defiant stand and vow to fight on in the face of injustice.
In former Rep. Anthony Weiner's case, though, there was only really one choice. Literally caught with his pants down (I'll spare you any more lame double entendres about his hilariously unfortunate surname), Weiner had no other options than to step down.
Amid the heckling from Howard Stern staffers and the quizzical looks from confused elders at the senior center where he made his announcement on Thursday, Weiner finally ended the three-week ordeal that was the late-night comedian's equivalent to holding Mardi Gras at the Super Bowl during the "American Idol" finale while a reunited ABBA played house band.
Unlike other political wang-wavers in similar situations, Weiner felt he had to give up the fight and just take the fall. He was caught red-handed, the social media maven taken down by the very medium he endlessly championed. The evidence was everywhere, everyone was talking, the embarrassing images stared at him from every screen and every newsstand, and once the allegations surfaced that a minor may have been involved, well … some things are unforgivable.
The fact that he didn't actually have physical sex with any of his digital paramours was almost beside the point. The offer of a job from "Hustler" lord Larry Flynt didn't help either, even though the famed pornographer swore he was making a legitimate offer to the disgraced New York pol to join his online company at a rate that is 20 percent higher than Weiner's congressional salary.
Weiner proved that more than underage pages, bathroom stall foot tapping, affairs with aides or allegedly hectoring wives, it's online dalliances that are the deadliest because they leave an indisputable digital paper trail. And nobody is buying that "hacking" excuse anymore.
As Politico noted, dozens of politicians have been caught stepping out, but the key in Weiner's case was the one thing most of those others didn’t have: photographs.
But did Weiner really have to give up his office?
Republican Sen. David Vitter was busted in a prostitution scandal in 2007 and managed to stay popular with his constituents and get re-elected last fall. Foot-tapping Republican Sen. Larry Craig served out his term rather quietly after refusing to resign despite an arrest for soliciting another man in the Minneapolis airport.
President Bill Clinton defiantly held on after splitting fibers over his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, but former Republican Rep. Mark Foley had to throw in the towel after he was caught sending suggestive IM's to male pages in 2006. And earlier this year Republican Rep. Chris Lee of New York quickly stepped down after getting caught sending shirtless photos to an online mistress.
It didn't help that Weiner wasn't that well-liked by his colleagues, or frankly, many of his constituents. He was described as sort of a "loner" in the House, a status confirmed when few of his fellow Democrats came to his defense.
He could have held out, gone to treatment and stood defiant in the face of the allegations. It might have worked and it could have potentially made his detractors love him a little more for showing such strength. It would have made for great political theater and while distracting to his efforts in the House, Weiner could have looked to such ignoble inspirations as Craig for lessons in how to hold on and keep your head down until the next scandal wave crashes.
As despicable as his cyber-cheating was, I would have loved to watch Weiner fight it out, if only to see the strategy involved in rehabilitating such a political laughingstock.
But let's be honest, it was all the above-mentioned factors, plus the Rep.'s tabloid headline-punchline name that made it impossible for him to hold on. And if we learn nothing else from this scandal (and trust me, nobody in Washington has, because it will happen again), we will remember the strength of social media for both good and, well, stupid.
Mark my words. Weiner will be back. Just ask Eliot Spitzer.
Do you think Rep. Anthony Weiner had to resign?
In former Rep. Anthony Weiner's case, though, there was only really one choice. Literally caught with his pants down (I'll spare you any more lame double entendres about his hilariously unfortunate surname), Weiner had no other options than to step down.
Amid the heckling from Howard Stern staffers and the quizzical looks from confused elders at the senior center where he made his announcement on Thursday, Weiner finally ended the three-week ordeal that was the late-night comedian's equivalent to holding Mardi Gras at the Super Bowl during the "American Idol" finale while a reunited ABBA played house band.
Unlike other political wang-wavers in similar situations, Weiner felt he had to give up the fight and just take the fall. He was caught red-handed, the social media maven taken down by the very medium he endlessly championed. The evidence was everywhere, everyone was talking, the embarrassing images stared at him from every screen and every newsstand, and once the allegations surfaced that a minor may have been involved, well … some things are unforgivable.
The fact that he didn't actually have physical sex with any of his digital paramours was almost beside the point. The offer of a job from "Hustler" lord Larry Flynt didn't help either, even though the famed pornographer swore he was making a legitimate offer to the disgraced New York pol to join his online company at a rate that is 20 percent higher than Weiner's congressional salary.
Weiner proved that more than underage pages, bathroom stall foot tapping, affairs with aides or allegedly hectoring wives, it's online dalliances that are the deadliest because they leave an indisputable digital paper trail. And nobody is buying that "hacking" excuse anymore.
As Politico noted, dozens of politicians have been caught stepping out, but the key in Weiner's case was the one thing most of those others didn’t have: photographs.
But did Weiner really have to give up his office?
Republican Sen. David Vitter was busted in a prostitution scandal in 2007 and managed to stay popular with his constituents and get re-elected last fall. Foot-tapping Republican Sen. Larry Craig served out his term rather quietly after refusing to resign despite an arrest for soliciting another man in the Minneapolis airport.
President Bill Clinton defiantly held on after splitting fibers over his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, but former Republican Rep. Mark Foley had to throw in the towel after he was caught sending suggestive IM's to male pages in 2006. And earlier this year Republican Rep. Chris Lee of New York quickly stepped down after getting caught sending shirtless photos to an online mistress.
It didn't help that Weiner wasn't that well-liked by his colleagues, or frankly, many of his constituents. He was described as sort of a "loner" in the House, a status confirmed when few of his fellow Democrats came to his defense.
He could have held out, gone to treatment and stood defiant in the face of the allegations. It might have worked and it could have potentially made his detractors love him a little more for showing such strength. It would have made for great political theater and while distracting to his efforts in the House, Weiner could have looked to such ignoble inspirations as Craig for lessons in how to hold on and keep your head down until the next scandal wave crashes.
As despicable as his cyber-cheating was, I would have loved to watch Weiner fight it out, if only to see the strategy involved in rehabilitating such a political laughingstock.
But let's be honest, it was all the above-mentioned factors, plus the Rep.'s tabloid headline-punchline name that made it impossible for him to hold on. And if we learn nothing else from this scandal (and trust me, nobody in Washington has, because it will happen again), we will remember the strength of social media for both good and, well, stupid.
Mark my words. Weiner will be back. Just ask Eliot Spitzer.
Do you think Rep. Anthony Weiner had to resign?
Top Opinion
-
freebirdie 2011/06/18 16:01:15Yes, he had to go+10I'm reposting an older answer from another question: I don't understand how people can think this is just a little thing. Yes, they all lie and stretch the truth to it's limits, but this is a U.S. CONGRESSMAN. A man of great power in our country. A man who affects change! A man who has authority and convinces others to vote certain ways. This was different, it was not just an affair with another woman. This was a pervert sending lewd messages and pictures of his penis to strangers--people he didn't even know-- for years!! Then looking you the taxpayer in the eyes and lying to you and blaming someone else. You sent him there, you pay his salary, pension and all perks he enjoys. You work your butt off to pay his bills and he makes us the laughing stock of the world and quite possibly puts us in danger because he feels the need to show his junk to strangers. How about Al Qaeda getting hold of that and blackmailing him to vote in certain ways that could affect things we need or do. Sometimes I think half of our leaders are already being blackmailed because of their idiotic decisions!!!! Soros comes to mind...






















you say that like it would be a bad thing! *LOL*
But, check the laws in your state, you might be surprised what is considered a crime.
Enjoy.
It wasn't a nice try. Not all crimes are punishable by jail time. Please check your definitions. It is a crime that is punishable by monetary amounts. You can do your own research on the 30 million awarded to the spouse by her husband girlfriend. I have my own cigars, thanks!
It is, in some states, the basis of a lawsuit and reason for damages to another party, but that doesn't make it a crime.
Figures. One needs pictures with you.
Obviously.... see the trend.........
I showed you definition of a crime. Give me justfred's definition of a crime. Let me laugh some more.
Definition of CRIME
1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law
(this is the actual definition of crime in a legal sense of the word.
2: a grave offense especially against morality
(this is like 'a crime against nature' or a 'crime against humanity' - not 'the crime of adultery')
3: criminal activity
4: something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful (it's a="" crime="" to="" waste="" good="" food=")
Now I am going to type this very slowly so you might be able to understand. Adultery might be grounds for a lawsuit. It is not a crime. It has not been a crime since the days of the Puritans.
"1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law; especially : a gross violation of law"
Law on books called alienation of affection. If convicted you own monetary damages. Compensatory.
Typical stupid liberal. Go ahead keep arguing your point. Bottom line you are wrong. No matter how many times you state it you are still wrong.
If my neighbor's tree is dead and leaning over my property I can sue him in a civil court to remove it, but that doesn't mean he is guilty of a crime.
Alienation of affection is allowed as basis of a civil lawsuit in order to receive monetary compensation for the loss of something else. It doesn't make it a crime.
Your continuing to insist that it does, however, just goes to prove that you're a blathering imbecile.
an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited.
Look you idiot.
An action of negligence. Adultery could be considered negligence (it would have to be argued.) Depends on the state as I have stated above. Fact 1 me.
Injurious to the public welfare or morals of the state. As shown above it is the case. Fact 2 me.
Legally prohibited. As stated above in certain states, yes. Fact 3 me.
If you have negligence, injury (emotional or physical), and it is legally prohibited it is a crime.
You lose again. Please keep making yourself look stupid. We will have a good laugh at your stupid arse today at lunch. You aren't the sharpest tool in the tool shed. You do make for great comedy. Keep it up fred I need more swearing to make my morning laughter go easier.
You gave a definition of a crime. Here is the link you gave. http://www.merriam-webster.co...
Then you used this definition in your post "an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited." - - except that is not found in your own definitive post.
You claimed three points using this definition...except it wasn't your definition. Not only do you lose on all three points by building a strawman, you also lose any shred of credibility you have ever had in this discussion.
Here is the definition of negligence. http://www.merriam-webster.co...
It says "failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances".
Negligence is not a crime unless under certain instances, and adultery is not an act of negligence, it is a commission of sin. No one 'accidentally' commits adultery. No one commits adultery by failing to exercise care....they do it. It is an overt action.
I would say that you fail again, moron, but in order to do th...
You gave a definition of a crime. Here is the link you gave. http://www.merriam-webster.co...
Then you used this definition in your post "an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited." - - except that is not found in your own definitive post.
You claimed three points using this definition...except it wasn't your definition. Not only do you lose on all three points by building a strawman, you also lose any shred of credibility you have ever had in this discussion.
Here is the definition of negligence. http://www.merriam-webster.co...
It says "failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances".
Negligence is not a crime unless under certain instances, and adultery is not an act of negligence, it is a commission of sin. No one 'accidentally' commits adultery. No one commits adultery by failing to exercise care....they do it. It is an overt action.
I would say that you fail again, moron, but in order to do that you would have to not fail, once.
I am sorry I thought you were smart enough to do your own research. I guess I was wrong. Thank you for correcting yourself.
The adultery itself is not the crime, it is the actions of the other man/woman that determines whether a law has been broken. Go call your lawyer then get back to me.