Bizarre, Politics, Society

Majority of Weiner Constituents Want Him To Remain Their Representative

It is the ultimate example of voters getting the representatives that they deserve. A recent poll shows 56 percent of constituents of Anthony Weiner want him to remain in office. I spoke on the Weiner scandal on CNN last night.

For years, Democrats have been criticizing the blind loyalty shown to politicians from Tom DeLay to David Vitter. Yet, in New York, voters want to retain a politicians who spent a week piling lie upon lie over the sending of lewd photos. In addition, some of the women complained that they only wanted to talk politics — making (if true) Weiner a type of virtual flasher. He then alleged that a crime of hacking was committed and attacked media — calling them foul names and blaming them for the scandal. Despite this record, the voters want Weiner to continue to speak for them. Weiner only admitted his lies when pictures emerged showing him and confirming his role. Stories have now emerged suggesting that he contacted at least one woman to try to convince her to lie.

What exactly does it take? Just because you like his politics and he attacks people you dislike does not excuse a member in such despicable conduct. When people complain about Congress being a cesspool, they need to consider how their own blind loyalties contribute to that problem.

Weiner is now saying that his wife is making him stay in office, though others have suggested that he needs this job. In the end, it is up to the voters to determine the minimal level of honesty and integrity required to be their representative in Congress.

Sources: NY Post

165 thoughts on “Majority of Weiner Constituents Want Him To Remain Their Representative”

  2. Smom,

    What FFLEO said: a review would be appreciated. From what I’ve read online, “Tree of Life” appears to be a film that inspires extreme reactions one way or the other.

  3. Swarthmore mom,

    The last movie I went out to see was in 1972 while on an Army base, just after I completed medic training and was stationed at an Army Hospital involved in medical research. The film was ‘The Cowboys’. I have purchased DVDs of other movies I have missed since then.

    Enjoy your outing and please give us a synopsis and thumbs Up/Down of the film when you return.

    Well, I’ve never been to Spain, but I’ve been to Waco…although I do not know if the ladies are insane there or not…

  4. Headed out to the movie,”Tree of Life”. It was filmed in Waco, FFLEO.

  5. Chaz I get my info from where I get my info. Th detectives siezed the 17 y.o. Computer. There is a possibility criminal charges will be filed. I can’t go into detail at the moment but there is a reason for Pelosi’s reversal.

  6. Not without an investigation he can’t. And I meant “impeach” in the general sense of the word (to charge with a crime or misdemeanor; specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office ), not the legal sense of the word as it is applied to the specific remedy of removal from office – all of those actions are a form of impeaching him, but only one is impeachment in that use of the word.

  7. RE: Tony C., June 10, 2011 at 12:51 pm

    @Former Federal: Except it is ME calling him doctor, he did not call himself doctor, so that is not pretension on his part, and is a term of respect on my part. And anyway, I do not think it is “pretentious” (root is “pretending”) to call yourself by an earned title, except in the case when the topic is unrelated to how you earned that title.

    For example, I do not think a person with a Ph.D. in Engineering should be calling themselves “Doctor” when discussing politics or law; because their education does not inform their opinions on the matters at hand. Thus I would see the use of their title as a fraudulent demand for respect in that venue. But I have no problem if the person has a J.D., or a doctorate in political science, and wants to use their title in such discussions: It conveys the authority that comes with the formal education and degree.

    ########################################

    I wonder what “a person with a Ph.D. in Engineering” could plausibly refer to?

    Could someone have made reference to me, perhaps because of a mistaken belief that my education and work in bioengineering does not properly inform me as to plausibly significant issues related to law and public safety?

    On the other hand, what about a person whose scientific education does not accurately inform their opinions regarding the profession of engineering with respect to bioengineering with respect to public safety aspects of the structure of human society as functions of human brain biological activity, when an apparently non-Registered Professional Engineer not having a Bioengineering Ph.D. and not having a relevant doctoral dissertation proffers an opinion regarding a properly licensed, educated, and informed Registered Professional Engineer?

    I have been gradually and carefully, with due diligence, been working on what is intended to be a properly signed and sealed engineering document to be submitted to the National Society of Professional Engineers’ Legal Counsel, Arthur Schwartz, Esq., as an aspect of an effort to resolutely establish the appropriateness of what I do as a Professional Engineer.

    The Turley blawg has supplied me with wonderfully valuable support for the engineering argument I seek to make and find validated.

    No, I have not gone away. I already have learned as much about the views of certain attorneys and others interested in the nature of the legal system as I deem worthwhile for now.

    While I am willing to allow that people who “believe in the adversarial system” may deem me to be an adversary, I do not believe in such system and I do not deem those who do to be adversaries of me or of my work.

    While there may be people who believe in the adversarial system and also believe life is based on competition (as in “survival of the fittest”?), I find that I have far too much understanding of biology and its substrate to fall under the spell of that form of deception.

    Meanwhile, whether or not the remark about “a person with a Ph.D. in Engineering” was made with me, or my work, in mind, I thought it would be interesting to regard it as “bait” and see what would happen if I “took the bait.”

    On page 29 of the June 2011 issue of PE: The Magazine for Professional Engineers, is a box ad regarding “Engineering Ethics, Licensure, & Legal Hotline!” in which is printed, “This is a members-only benefit, so please have your membership humber handy when you call or email. Questions will be directed to NSPE Legal Counsel Arthur Schwartz and will be answered promptly.”

    My NSPE dues are properly paid, and I have properly paid for this members-only benefit, which I expect to use not very long into the future. As soon as I am ready…

    I wonder if this will comment will generate any flying feathers or fur.

    Oh… I observe that it is human nature to learn to avoid violence, and we are not there yet.

  8. Weiner could not be impeached but he could be expelled , censured, or reprimanded.

  10. Just as she has no authority here. Absent an investigation and an impeachment, she is merely expressing her opinion.

  11. Swarthmore mom,

    What Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Pelosi did today demonstrates that Democrats in power are willing to take the high road on ethics, unlike my Republican Party. Such acts help voters like me—including some Independents—reconsider voting for Democrats (though never again for Obama for me, under no circumstances).

    Nancy Pelosi could have virtually singlehandedly changed the course of history by starting impeachment proceedings against the Bush Administration.

    Vitter is a monumental embarrassment for Republicans like me and he should be removed from office.

    I am not going to question the real motives for their actions against Rep. Weiner; however, they deserve praise.

  13. Did not say I disagreed about Bush. Vitter is a Senator and would have had to be investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee not by Pelosi. Think Pelosi got concerned when a seventeen year old became involved in the Weiner investigation.

  14. Partisanship you say? And what was her excuse when “impeachment is off the table” rolled off her forked tongue? “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” Those words about impeaching Bush were spoken and they were manifestly not spoken with the intent to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” or to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same”.

  15. Pelosi never had any authority over Vitter. He is a republican senator.

  16. Pelosi is cleaning her side of the street but if the republicans want to keep whoremonger Vitter that says more about them.

  17. Apparently Pelosi (she of the spine of Jell-o) has had a change of heart and is now demanding his resignation. HuffPo is running the story on the somewhat grimace inducing headline of PELOSI DROPS THE HAMMER ON WEINER. Where was all this principled stand when it came to Vitter? Where was it when it came time to impeach Bush? I know she has some fans here, but I stand by my contention that Nancy Pelosi is spineless.

  18. @Patric: The difference in youth outlook is 100% tied to the difference in culture and parents. You should be scared of more than the youth outlook, the corrosion starts with the parental outlook. The youth are taught by and are victims of their parents. The youth have no power to inflate grades, teach religion in school, or to get promoted without having learned their lessons. The majority of teachers I have met (one of my sisters was a grade school teacher for 15 years) do not want to do those things, either.

    The corruption of the schooling process is due to the parents demanding and getting special treatment until the system is worn down and ineffective. That fault lies with the baby boomer parents (my generation) that has been angling for something-for-nothing since we entered adulthood, because post WWII with the rest of the world decimated and us relatively unscathed something-for-nothing was there to be had. But the rest of the world has recovered from those wars, and now that we are going to have to actually go to work again, it turns out we have fucked ourselves in the resource department (kids).

    I don’t really blame the kids for their attitudes, I think they have absorbed the short-sighted attitudes of their parents, that want rewards without much work, and pay without delivering value. They want the one big payday. It seems like almost every kid I meet wants to be an entertainment celebrity, and get huge paychecks for doing next to nothing. We created this culture and taught them that, they can be richer with one hit song than if they learned to be a neurosurgeon. We don’t just show them that, we have been downright giddy about it since the 50’s. Now we live with the lessons we have taught.

Comments are closed.