Well I'm happy to have him as the face of the democratic party if the only dirt on him is that he sent naked photos and texted with women, then lied to cover it up. That guy is AWESOME for all of his political stances and we need more congressmen like him!
Huh? Congress writes it's own rules. They state that the members must live up to certain ethical standards and moral conduct. These things override past election results. The House can expel him, if they choose to, but it's rare. The bastards let serious shit slide with a slap on the wrist (see Rangel). In this case, your party's leader (among many others) have called upon him to resign, and Pelosi has started an ethics committee investigation. I can think of several republicans who resigned the day their issues became public, and fewer who fought it. I can think of democrats who choose to fight it and refuse to resign - most recently Rangel and Maxine Waters - but can't think of any who resigned without a fight. If that's not the answer to your question, then rephrase it.
Hmm, well there are plenty more with views like him. I don't think you want someone you lied to the American people, and mainly his constituents as the face of any party. (Insert presidential joke here)
Perhaps you're right, but have you seen some of the stuff he stands up for? [video=youtube;_O_GRkMZJn4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O_GRkMZJn4[/video] [video=youtube;3IJDQCYMM-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3IJDQCYMM-A[/video]
He is one of the leaders of a Party that desires more control over your life. It looks like he has basic problems running his own. Do you really think that he's the best person to promote the notion that you should cede decisions about your life to the likes of him?
Wait, his problem was with his sex life. Last time I checked, the republicans are the ones that want to be involved in my sex life.
So, your argument is that because the Democrats aren't preaching sexual morality (abstenence, fidelity, adoption over abortion), that they should be held to no standards whatsoever? What two or more people choose to consentually do to one another is none of my concern. That doesn't mean I cheat on my wife or seek online dalliances with young women, some of whom are underage. It speaks to a moral defect, IMO. And we haven't even begun to discuss how smoothly and convincingly he lied to simply try to avoid embarrassment. I'm reminded of the Seinfeld when Jerry answers the phone and George comes out of the bathroom with his pants around his ankles screaming "Vandelay! Say Vandelay!". He then trips and falls. Jerry looks down at him and says disdainfully, "So you want to be my latex salesman." I look at the likes of Anthony Weiner and say, "So you want to control my health care."
The scary thing about Weiner is that if you look at his bio, he's never had a private sector job, and his only collegiated degree is a B.A. in PoliSci from Plattsburg State in New York. He's basically unemployable in the real world of private business, and has no real world experience at all. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43385259/ns/today-today_news/
My argument is not that there are no standards. my argument is that I will frown upon his sexual deviance and then appreciate him for other things. If he was John Edwards who used campaign money to pay off his sexual deviancy, I would be upset. If he was a doctor that smoked, I would be upset. If he was a priest proclaiming purity from his pulpit, I would be perturbed. But he his none of these things.
Damn you're right! He doesn't have any other real world experience. I would hate it if my doctor only had experience being a doctor and not a mechanic! Or, what if a lawyer only had experience with law, and not with selling insurance. That would be a terrible thing indeed!
What is a politician? They are supposed to write laws to govern the doctors, lawyers, insurance salesmen, business owners, etc. I prefer my politicians to have private sector experience, so they know to some degree what it's like to be in that position, when they are in a position of political power. Weiner has lived inside of a political bubble his entire life, and it shows in his partisan rants. Now, if Weiner wants to write laws that govern politicians only, he is probably the right guy for the job, since that is his experience.
By that same logic: should they have experience in all the fields, if they are to represent the people properly? e: I feel that his rants are very partisan, but he is doing nothing more than republicans have done the last 10 years. I think it is undeniable that the democrats have been push overs until Obama came to office. They were VERY amenable with Bush and the "with us or against us" strong-arming. I have yet to see the republicans be bipartisan despite what I feel are compromises, and so to me Weiner is standing up and pointing it out.
Does anyone find it funny that he's complaining about process, even as he relies on it to shout down another member of Congress? I do Ed O.
I find it funny that you observe that he's using process to stop another member of Congress from going against process to interrupt him when he has the floor, while ignoring that he's complaining about the Republicans using process to not assist in paying for the healthcare of the 9/11 first responders. You can say what you want about the weiner (note the little w there), but its tough to argue against the point he's making here. For the record, I'd prefer to see Weiner resign and get himself in order before running for office again.
