Poor Anthony

[IBCoupe]

It doesnt matter if it's your word or rule. It's your argument.

I think the subject of the lie matters. Bill Clinton lied about an abuse of power (arguably). Charlie Rangel lied about a crime. Anthony Weiner lied about marital infidelity (at least in the "spirit" of it).

Not all lies are made equal. Lawyers are directed by their code of conduct to do much the same thing, and lawyers misrepresent all the time. Only sometimes is it an ethical violation.

[telcoman]

[
post a link. You use the most biased, least credible sources.. and therefor, your arguments are discredited.

Get it?

I'm not holding my breath...

Is Eric Cantor biased?

http://lostinthe21stcentury.com/2011/06 ... to-resign/

Thank you Rachel for compiling this clip of republican hypocrisy

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#43319387

Eric Cantor on Mark Sanford who was guilty of lying

Eric Cantor on John Ensign lying abuse of power

Eric Cantor on David Vitter using prostitutes

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#43319475

So are you now going to continue to deny the video clips of Eric Cantor are not credible and hypocritical?

Telcoman

[szh]

It doesnt matter if it's your word or rule. It's your argument.

Okay. I certainly think it is a valid argument. To me, the words are pretty clear.

I think the subject of the lie matters. Bill Clinton lied about an abuse of power (arguably). Charlie Rangel lied about a crime. Anthony Weiner lied about marital infidelity (at least in the "spirit" of it).

Partially agreed. Like I said, the actual Weiner deeds were pretty minor as far as I am concerned - if he had simply admitted it and apologized and gone on, I would be mostly (if not totally) unconcerned about it.

Same with Clinton, by the way. What happened with Lewinsky was a matter between Bill and Hillary and I do not think it was any of Starr's business to worry about it. However, the lying about it under oath was unethical.

Not all lies are made equal. Lawyers are directed by their code of conduct to do much the same thing, and lawyers misrepresent all the time. Only sometimes is it an ethical violation.

Okay, but ... you have sorta expressed a "1984"ism in a different way! "All men are equal, but some are more equal than others." You really need to read that book!

So ... my questions (these have nothing to do with Weiner and this situation): When does a lie ("misrepresentation") become an ethical violation for you? Is a deliberate falsehood okay to gain an outcome? And if so, when and why and under what circumstances? And who gets to decide the degree of any ethical violation? Is it left to the individual who lied to make the judgement call?

(I am not talking about simple white lies in situations like dealing with children for example ... I am talking about deliberate misrepresentations, by adults, where it makes a difference and a trust is broken ... or an outcome is changed.)

Z

[Cold_Zero]

If he does end up stepping down perhaps there is room for him in Keith Olbermans old spot on MSNBC

Apparently, he has a connection with John Stewart, so that may be possible.

Many of those on the right who got themselves in trouble committed far worse than sexting on twitter.

This issue with them is not that they (sexually) did something far worse, but the fact that they either used the office (like in the case of Sanford and Spitzer) to fund their escapades or they used their office to cover it up (like in the case of Ensign).

[telcoman]

If he does end up stepping down perhaps there is room for him in Keith Olbermans old spot on MSNBC

Apparently, he has a connection with John Stewart, so that may be possible.

Many of those on the right who got themselves in trouble committed far worse than sexting on twitter.

This issue with them is not that they (sexually) did something far worse, but the fact that they either used the office (like in the case of Sanford and Spitzer) to fund their escapades or they used their office to cover it up (like in the case of Ensign).

Ah Ha So you are human

[telcoman]

Both the texting actions and lying about it fail the above. By the way, the "at all times" pretty clearly means that he does not have to be "on the job" to be subject to it.
Z

I wonder if this was the reason he was sexting?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... -pregnant/

Telcoman

[Bubba1]

I wonder if this was the reason he was sexting?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/ ... -pregnant/

Telcoman

Would have been a better story had Mrs. Weiner's first name been "Anita" instead of Huma.

[Cold_Zero]

Ah Ha So you are human

Just dont tell anyone. If it gets out it could jeopardize my good standing in the Axis of Evil.

[IBCoupe]

Same with Clinton, by the way. What happened with Lewinsky was a matter between Bill and Hillary and I do not think it was any of Starr's business to worry about it. However, the lying about it under oath was unethical.

I tend to think that part of the Problem with Clinton was that it was the President and a White House intern. Had it been just some woman he saw on the sidewalk, I'd agree with you. But the workplace dynamics of the thing make it more serious, in my mind.

So ... my questions (these have nothing to do with Weiner and this situation): When does a lie ("misrepresentation") become an ethical violation for you? Is a deliberate falsehood okay to gain an outcome? And if so, when and why and under what circumstances? And who gets to decide the degree of any ethical violation? Is it left to the individual who lied to make the judgement call?

Strictly speaking about the world of politics now, and not legal ethics, I'd say it depends on the situation. I'd look to a number of factors, among them:
- The subject matter (i.e. Is it personal? Is it job-related? Is it policy-related? Is it about someone else?)
- The parties involved (i.e. Who's lying? Who's being lied to?)
- The impact of the lie (i.e. Was there any measurable damage? How long until we stop talking about it?)

There are probably others, but this is all I'm going to come up with before bed. If you're going to make exceptions for "white lies," then why not make exceptions for "it's none of your damned business lies" or "you'd never know the difference lies?"

[szh]

Same with Clinton, by the way. What happened with Lewinsky was a matter between Bill and Hillary and I do not think it was any of Starr's business to worry about it. However, the lying about it under oath was unethical.

I tend to think that part of the Problem with Clinton was that it was the President and a White House intern. Had it been just some woman he saw on the sidewalk, I'd agree with you. But the workplace dynamics of the thing make it more serious, in my mind.

Good point. I guess I consider the lying to be a more serious problem than the workplace issue.

So ... my questions (these have nothing to do with Weiner and this situation): When does a lie ("misrepresentation") become an ethical violation for you? Is a deliberate falsehood okay to gain an outcome? And if so, when and why and under what circumstances? And who gets to decide the degree of any ethical violation? Is it left to the individual who lied to make the judgement call?

Strictly speaking about the world of politics now, and not legal ethics, I'd say it depends on the situation. I'd look to a number of factors, among them:
- The subject matter (i.e. Is it personal? Is it job-related? Is it policy-related? Is it about someone else?)
- The parties involved (i.e. Who's lying? Who's being lied to?)
- The impact of the lie (i.e. Was there any measurable damage? How long until we stop talking about it?)

There are probably others, but this is all I'm going to come up with before bed. If you're going to make exceptions for "white lies," then why not make exceptions for "it's none of your damned business lies" or "you'd never know the difference lies?"

I was not trying to make a single exception per se. I used that as an example of at least one thing that may be more clear-cut in regard to "it is okay" - my bias perhaps.

However, just one comment before I too go to bed, I don't think that politics should be allowed to have different rules (at least in an idealistic sense) than legal ethics. I am too tired to discuss it further right now ...

Z

[IBCoupe]

Good point. I guess I consider the lying to be a more serious problem than the workplace issue.

I agree, but only because it was under oath. Had it been in a press interview, for example, I wouldn't care as much.

I was not trying to makea single exception per se. I used that as an example of at least one thing that may be more clear-cut in regard to "it is okay" - my bias perhaps.

However, just one comment before I too go to bed, I don't think that politics should be allowed to have different rules (at least in an idealistic sense) than legal ethics. I am too tired to discuss it further right now ...

I don't think it's your bias. We can't put politicians to the same standard as Pinnochio. It's not humanly possible, and it shouldn't be expected of anybody that they be 100% honest 100% of the time.

But I don't think we can link it to legal ethics, either, because most of that has to do with a duty to your client. If we put that same framework up for the Senate, for example, Senatory Kyl of Arizona could have been perfectly justified in flat out lying about an American organization he sought to legally punish for activity he didn't like. He may have thought that the lie he told was in his constituents' best interest, but I draw a distinction, but there he fails all three of the questions that I've supplied.

The lie: "Planned Parenthood spends 90% of its budget on abortion."
The truth: "Planned Parenthood spends 3% of its budget on abortion."
Subject matter: It's policy-related, and it's about an absent third party, not there to defend themselves.
Parties: A Senator is lying to the Senate, in the second-most clearly professional capacity (the first being his vote).
Impact: It was an effort to remove all public funds from an organization that had done nothing wrong, and had gone to pains to avoid violating a law crafted specifically for them (they distinctly separate their abortion monies from their everything else monies)

That's far worse than Anthony Weiner saying on FOXNews, "I didn't sext." And what happened? It was laughed at because he said afterwards that it was "not intended to be a factual statement."

[stebo0728]

I wonder, if the Democrats still controlled the house, would this be an even more front page fight to get him out by the right, and to make sure he stays by the left?

[Bubba1]

Good point. I guess I consider the lying to be a more serious problem than the workplace issue.

I agree, but only because it was under oath. Had it been in a press interview, for example, I wouldn't care as much.

I was not trying to makea single exception per se. I used that as an example of at least one thing that may be more clear-cut in regard to "it is okay" - my bias perhaps.

However, just one comment before I too go to bed, I don't think that politics should be allowed to have different rules (at least in an idealistic sense) than legal ethics. I am too tired to discuss it further right now ...

I don't think it's your bias. We can't put politicians to the same standard as Pinnochio. It's not humanly possible, and it shouldn't be expected of anybody that they be 100% honest 100% of the time.

But I don't think we can link it to legal ethics, either, because most of that has to do with a duty to your client. If we put that same framework up for the Senate, for example, Senatory Kyl of Arizona could have been perfectly justified in flat out lying about an American organization he sought to legally punish for activity he didn't like. He may have thought that the lie he told was in his constituents' best interest, but I draw a distinction, but there he fails all three of the questions that I've supplied.

The lie: "Planned Parenthood spends 90% of its budget on abortion."
The truth: "Planned Parenthood spends 3% of its budget on abortion."
Subject matter: It's policy-related, and it's about an absent third party, not there to defend themselves.
Parties: A Senator is lying to the Senate, in the second-most clearly professional capacity (the first being his vote).
Impact: It was an effort to remove all public funds from an organization that had done nothing wrong, and had gone to pains to avoid violating a law crafted specifically for them (they distinctly separate their abortion monies from their everything else monies)

That's far worse than Anthony Weiner saying on FOXNews, "I didn't sext." And what happened? It was laughed at because he said afterwards that it was "not intended to be a factual statement."

Weiner noted he has no intention of resigning, but he may in for a "battle of the bulge" should there be an ethics probe. He might have broken one rule: using a government issued blackberry for personal illicit use. The "affairs of state" in his case cannot be interpreted as "affairs of state".
In the private sector, many companies consider sexting on a company phone/computer a dismissable offense. I suspect that will become an issue.

In any case, Weiner's "sperm of the moment" decision to lie about his account being hacked, and that he did not sext, and the other silliness may not be illegal (as he was not under oath at the time). But it seems clear his attempted "manipulations by his own hand" have resulted in his staining his own reputation, and credibility. IMHO, he should probably resign quietly and not attempt to "go to great lengths" to fight it.

[IBCoupe]

Stebo,

That wouldn't surprise me, but at worst he faces a censure. Democrats don't want to be seen as fostering corruption (what arguably did in the Republicans in 2006), so they might have resisted defending Weiner even then.


Bubba,

I have no objections to an ethics investigation, and I'd be interested in the results.

But I don't know how he would go to any lengths to avoid resignation. He simply keeps showing up to work.

[AZhitman]

Hope so.

He is a good congressman

Not afraid to speak up

...even if it is a complete fabrication.

[IBCoupe]

Hope so.

He is a good congressman

Not afraid to speak up

...even if it is a complete fabrication.

In his defense, the things people think of when Anthony Weiner speaks out aren't complete fabrications. That's probably why this was reported yesterday.

A new poll by New York 1 and Marist College found 56 percent of registered voters in New York’s 9th congressional district think Weiner should stay, despite bold public lies about his online behavior and the embarrassing details that have since come to light.

Thirty-three percent said Weiner should immediately resign, while 12 percent were undecided, according to the poll.

[telcoman]

In his defense, the things people think of when Anthony Weiner speaks out aren't complete fabrications. That's probably why this was reported yesterday.

Anthony got some unexpected assistance and relief yesterday from him

Hmmm

That didn't work

So try again

Anthony got some unexpected assistance and relief yesterday from

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/us/po ... l?_r=1&hpw

[Bubba1]

Bubba,

I have no objections to an ethics investigation, and I'd be interested in the results.

But I don't know how he would go to any lengths to avoid resignation. He simply keeps showing up to work.

I was kinda hoping my puns would have generated a few groans, but you guys seem to be taking Mr. Weiner's ' great lengths" seriously.

[Bubba1]

Hope so.

He is a good congressman

Not afraid to speak up

...and let it all hang out.

[telcoman]

Bubba,

I have no objections to an ethics investigation, and I'd be interested in the results.

But I don't know how he would go to any lengths to avoid resignation. He simply keeps showing up to work.

I was kinda hoping my puns would have generated a few groans, but you guys seem to be taking Mr. Weiner's ' great lengths" seriously.

I predict he'll be reelected

[szh]

Looks like the Democratic "brass" are giving up on him though ...

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/11/as ... tter-daily

Z

[Cold_Zero]

Just got this message:
Disgraced Senator Weiner will resign at a Press Conference this afternoon at 2pm

[IBCoupe]

Yep. He shouldn't, but it looks like he will.

[Eikon]

I predict he'll be reelected

oops!

[Bubba1]

Yep. He shouldn't, but it looks like he will.

It's official, he resigned. With all the pressure applied by the Party, I didn't think he was going to... "stick it out"

[AZhitman]

I guess the question to be asked here is this:

Is it too much trouble to simply "fly straight"? I mean, everyone's got a "List of Things I'd Do If I Were Certain to Not Be Caught". But THINK about it - At what point do you take stock of where you're at in life, and evaluate what you're about to do, and think, "this might backfire on me and cost me dearly"... even something as simple as flirting.

(Let's ignore the fact that taking MySpace pictures of oneself in a mirror is colossally juvenile, and probably speaks more to the man's mental maturity than anything he's done in his career - what a douchenozzle...)

This is a simple question of judgment, and poor impulse control. No different from Clinton's escapades (and many others on both sides of the aisle). It represents an inability to "think ahead" - OR - a disregard for potential consequences... both of which speak to the character of the individual.

Adam Carolla said something the other night on his show: We're always spouting, "don't judge". Maybe we SHOULD be more quick to judge. Maybe rather than making excuses for people's stupid actions (which is a dangerously slippery slope in and of itself), maybe we should hold them to a high standard, and say, "If you're not willing to meet these parameters, we'll find someone who will."

You wanna act like a hormonal teenaged boy who thinks his pecker is the greatest thing since sliced bread? GO FOR IT. But you're gonna be socially and professionally restricted by your judgment and your character, and those we deem worthy of being leaders and role models and examples will be anointed instead.

In fact, let me take this occasion to heap praise upon our current President: By all accounts, and to my knowledge, he's a good husband and father, doesn't have any skeletons in his closet, seeks to "harm none", and despite my disagreement with his policies, I'd point to him as an example of someone my kids can look up to and aspire to be like.

So, Weinerdude will get no slack from me - if showing off his genitals, lying to his constituents, and "hooking up" behind his wife's back is more important to him than fulfilling the duties of his office, he's made his choice - And we, the people, have made ours.

[telcoman]

I guess the question to be asked here is this:

Was he a good congressman and did he do the job for what he was elected to do?

The answer is a resounding YES

He made a terrible mistake in judgment but in my opinion he didn't deserve to be forced to quit.

I'm bummed over the news but perhaps Monday mornings Howard Stern show will lift my spirits.

Telcoman

[AZhitman]

did he do the job for what he was elected to do?

The same could be said of a lot of people you've crucified...

God forbid your bunions should ever see the other side of the "party line".

[telcoman]

God forbid your bunions should ever see the other side of the "party line".

The other side has been destroying jobs and the middle class since Ronald Regan

[IBCoupe]

President Obama's worst personal failure, as far as we've seen, is his smoking, which he's supposedly quit. I don't really buy it, but a jib like that earns some slack on that kind of a flaw, in my opinion.

I have to wonder if the politicians making a mess of their respective lies has to do with some trait common to the type of people who are most likely to become politicians, or if they're actually screwing themselves up ata ratio consistent with everybody else, and we just arbitrarily care more.