Frightning,Many Liberals Will Actually Vote For Weiner

[bonnie]

Anthony Weiner Holds Press Conference To Address New Sexting Claims

Anthony Weiner held a press conference Tuesday afternoon to acknowledge new sexting reports and continue his candidacy for mayor of New York City.

"These things that I did were wrong and hurtful to my wife and caused us to go through many challenges in our marriage," Weiner said. "With 49 days left until primary day, I'm surprised that more things didn't come out sooner."

The announcement follows claims made on the nightlife website "The Dirty" allegedly showing sex chats Weiner engaged in with an anonymous 22-year-old woman.

During the conference, Weiner admitted some of the conversations went on both before and after his resignation from congress in 2011.

His wife Huma Abedin was also present at Tuesday's announcement and spoke for the first time publicly about Weiner's sexting scandal and urged the public to move forward.

"It took a lot of work and a whole lot of therapy to get to a place where i could forgive Anthony," Abedin said."

Prior to the 5PM news conference, Weiner released a statement regarding the report:

I’ve been in contact with a young female girl who wishes to remain Anonymous. She was lured by Anthony Weiner post scandal via Facebook. They had a relationship for 6 months and she believed they were in love. Anthony Weiner like a true sex predator promised Anonymous many things like a job at Politico and a condo in Chicago (a place they could meet up and have sex). The relationship consisted of Anthony Weiner and Anonymous sending sexually explicit pictures of each other and having sexual conversations via phone.

Fellow Democratic candidate Bill de Blasio called upon Weiner to resign:

[Guest]

I hope he slips on a banana peel.

[phkrause]

Talk about a real w(e)inner! What a joke this guy is. He's obviously there only to take votes away from someone, so that someone else can win. Yes he will get a number of votes, all from his groupie's.

[bonnie]

BONNIE

well if president CLINTON can get by with it

why not state politicians

dgrimm60

Be interesting. A moral sleeze can be very popular.And you are right,many didn't think what Clinton did was anyone's business

[Guest]

I can assure you that his goal is not to take votes from somebody else. He's there to win, and I think he just might. But Christine Quinn is trying to give him a run for his money..

Democrats. Pffft!

[joeb]

I'm curious to know exactly what Weiner's wife means by her statement that the public should "move forward". Knowing how politicians and their wives use double speak it makes me wonder.

I wonder if it's like Obama saying he would have the most "transparent" administration in history. Yeah, he's going to transform America, and he's upfront about that, but that lying and deceit are off the scale. In one sense he can claim to be transparent, and still obfuscate on a scale never known before.

[Tom Wetmore]

The title of this topic certainly isn't supported by the polling numbers after this latest confession from the weiner man. He took a sharp double digit drop in the polls. He had been leading all the other candidates, by a narrow margin against the number 2 candidate. Now he is behind by almost twice the margin by which he was leading, putting him in third place in some polls. Of likely Democrat primary voters, barely 16 percent said they would still vote for him. That is among New York City Democrats!

I bet he is out of the race in less than two weeks.

[bonnie]

The title of this topic certainly isn't supported by the polling numbers after this latest confession from the weiner man. He took a sharp double digit drop in the polls. He had been leading all the other candidates, by a narrow margin against the number 2 candidate. Now he is behind by almost twice the margin by which he was leading, putting him in third place in some polls. Of likely Democrat primary voters, barely 16 percent said they would still vote for him. That is among New York City Democrats!

I bet he is out of the race in less than two weeks.

At this time you are correct. Doesn't change the fact that if he somehow won the primary many of the same "it's his private life" crowd that continued to back Clinton would do same here.

Personally I don't see the problem for the many democrats that continued to support Clinton,both men are morally bankrupt.Does that prevent them from fulfilling the duties of the office they would like to or did hold?

Since when has character become so important?

Remember Dodd and Kennedy? How many times were they re-elected by liberal democrats?

[Tom Wetmore]

Yep, just like all the good Republicans that voted for Sanford in South Carolina... or all the voters that kept reelecting serial adulterer/sick wife abandoner, Newt Gingrich, and supported him in his run for president...

[joeb]

I don't know, Tom. I've seen TV interviews with quite a few Democrats and to a person they don't see how Weiner's problems have anything to do with his ability to govern. How they can think that way is beyond me, but they do.

That's the one of the differences I see between the Republicans and the Democrats. Republicans back away from one of their own party pretty quickly when a Republican politician is caught in morally bankrupt behavior, and that person's future as a Republican politician is done and over with. The Democrats go right back to running for office within a couple of years. There's several of them doing exactly that right now.

[Tom Wetmore]

How many did you see? 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? Out of how many Democrats in NY City?

I don't think you can make a generalization of difference of Dem vs. Repub on the support your morally bankrupt politician. Take just to two I have already mentioned. I think that it is a simply fact of human nature that you are more likely to see "forgiveness" (or more precisely, a willingness to overlook) of faults and failings of those with whom you have a greater affinity in the areas in question.

On political ground, a flawed candidate that is a strong advocate for the values and ideals of the voters and likely to accomplish, or has an established record of accomplishing what the voters want done, is going to get a break on personal flaws. But a weak politician is easy to pick off over trivial nonsense that gets in his way, simply because they isn't much on balance to redeem him. Think of the various losers of the most recent presidential primaries that went down in flames over far less. They just didn't have enough fire retardant in their political tricks bag to overcome even silly stuff. And that happens over and over on both sides of the political divide.

But somethings are just too crazy to ignore. Weiner is looking like his flaws go much deeper than sexting stupidity.

[joeb]

How many did you see? 5? 10? 20? 50? 100? Out of how many Democrats in NY City?

I don't think you can make a generalization of difference of Dem vs. Repub on the support your morally bankrupt politician. Take just to two I have already mentioned. I think that it is a simply fact of human nature that you are more likely to see "forgiveness" (or more precisely, a willingness to overlook) of faults and failings of those with whom you have a greater affinity in the areas in question.

On political ground, a flawed candidate that is a strong advocate for the values and ideals of the voters and likely to accomplish, or has an established record of accomplishing what the voters want done, is going to get a break on personal flaws. But a weak politician is easy to pick off over trivial nonsense that gets in his way, simply because they isn't much on balance to redeem him. Think of the various losers of the most recent presidential primaries that went down in flames over far less. They just didn't have enough fire retardant in their political tricks bag to overcome even silly stuff. And that happens over and over on both sides of the political divide.

But somethings are just too crazy to ignore. Weiner is looking like his flaws go much deeper than sexting stupidity.

I've seen 10-15 interviews with Democratic spokespeople, mostly women. The women wouldn't stay married to the guy, but they don't see anything wrong with him as a candidate. How they can say that just blows me away. This guy is completely out to lunch morally and has some serious impulse control issues. Just what we need in government.... NOT.

So, what I basically see your 2nd paragraph saying is that as long as a voter's agenda is accomplished, be that bringing home the pork or doing social engineering via government, voters will vote for them. Yeah, Democrat voters will. I don't see many Republican voters/talking_heads that will give the pervs passes on those things.

The more conservative the state, hence the more conservative the voters, the more likely the politician's career is over. The more liberal the state and the voters the more likely it is that character just doesn't matter.

As to Weiner having more problems that "just sexting", I find "just sexting" to be such a window into his character that it alone is enough to disqualify him from ever holding public office again.

[Tom Wetmore]

And yet your answer ignores and does not explain the recent political comeback of Mark Sanford, while governor, cheated on his wife and lied about it, yet his predominantly Republican base in South Carolina, a conservative Bible belt state, just elected him to Congress. Nor does it explain the mystery of serial adulterer, Newt, in all those years of staying elected.

[bonnie]

And yet your answer ignores and does not explain the recent political comeback of Mark Sanford, while governor, cheated on his wife and lied about it, yet his predominantly Republican base in South Carolina, a conservative Bible belt state, just elected him to Congress. Nor does it explain the mystery of serial adulterer, Newt, in all those years of staying elected.

What is to ignore? The fact that there are some republicans that are morally bankrupt as well.

It was liberals however that overwhelmingly supported Clinton and his sleezy behavior as "no ones' business.

[Tom Wetmore]

What is to ignore? The fact that there are some republicans that are morally bankrupt as well.

That was my point. Pointing an accusing finger at the other side does lose its impact when the same fault exists in your own camp.

Politicians across party lines have sleaze bags in their ranks. Ranting about the other side's ills rings rather hollow if the ills in your own camp are ignored, glossed over, minimized, or just plain tolerated.

I don't think you can say I have been defending the weiner boy. But don't act like sleaze and political "repentance" upon discovery is foreign among Republican ranks.

[bonnie]

That was my point. Pointing an accusing finger at the other side does lose its impact when the same fault exists in your own camp.

Politicians across party lines have sleaze bags in their ranks. Ranting about the other side's ills rings rather hollow if the ills in your own camp are ignored, glossed over, minimized, or just plain tolerated.

I don't think you can say I have been defending the weiner boy. But don't act like sleaze and political "repentance" upon discovery is foreign among Republican ranks.

Never said it didn't happen on republican side.

Much smaller scale tho.

Kennedy has a dead woman and many,many accounts of sleeze, a waitress sandwich with Chris Dodd,Barney Frank and his little "escort service in his basement" Clinton,little flings as "in no ones' business" etc. Now you have the San Diego mayor,who has no intention of resigning.

Usually a republican moral sleeze moral either leaves office or is forced out.

Nixon only lied and republicans called for his head.

[Guest]

Those women were mean to Newt. What else could he do? I wouldn't put up with a mean woman either. Never have.

And as for Sanford. Everybody knows that South Carolinians are different. So if that's all you got...

Remember Robert? ...South Carolina. :)

[Tom Wetmore]

Short memory I think... Hardly smaller scale!

Just to confirm my point and refresh short memories, here are two lists of Democrat and Republican sex scandals.

http://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

http://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

And for the record, notice which list is longer. And consider the details. There are some real salacious and perverted ones on the Republican side as well.

[Guest]

Yes, I guess my memory is short. I'll be the first to admit that. So when I saw you had two lists, I figured you were probably right. Maybe both sides were the same.

I had forgotten all about that slimeball John Edwards. The first guy on your team. Then I looked at the first guy on my side. Herman Cain! LOLOLOL!!

That was nothing but a setup by the left, aided by the mainstream media, to get him out of the race. NOTHING was ever proven! As soon as he dropped out of the race, his accusers vanished into thin air! LOL what a joke.

Then I looked down the list a bit and saw #4 on the list. It was John Boehner. I didn't remember him being in a sex scandal so I began reading. The first thing it said was: "It is rumored..."

Huh?

Really? That's all it takes to make the list on the Republican side, is to have somebody start a rumor about you, with no proof whatsoever?

It ended by saying: "But, it's important to keep in mind that these allegations are rumors at this point, but time will tell."

Really? Wow! That's #4

So I went on down the list. Some "Admitted"s but a lot of "Allegedly"s. Not like the democrat side where almost every single one of them was proven beyond doubt, with no way out of it, or around it. None of that "Rumored" stuff. NONE!!!!

Then I remembered that Tom believes most if not all of his own side's propaganda. And actually believes his own remark about the Republican list being longer and just as salacious. Give me a break!

Sad really.

But now I remember. Thanks for the refresher.

[Tom Wetmore]

As for rumors and accusations, sometimes that is all it is, but sometimes it is he said, she said, so as long as he denies it is still an unproven rumor. But experience says that when it is more than one she saying it, the denials get a bit harder to believe. In my experience, that is usual an indication that there is likely some truth to the accusations. Where there is smoke there is usually fire especially smoke come out all over the place.

One thing to consider, it seems that maybe liberals are just more likely to end up admitting and moving on, as if there is less to lose. My impression is that the denials seem to last a lot longer for conservatives, as if there is more to lose. After all, if one has taken a highly moralistic tone and rhetoric, especially condemning others behavior, it becomes a bit harder to face up to failing in the same way.

[Guest]

You are either in some deep denial, or you're in full on lawyer mode. Or both!

A trumped up rumor does NOT put somebody in the same category as John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, and etc.

Especially when the Alleged accusers can't even be found for comment, much less offer up any proof.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. And ALL of these people btw, denied and denied, until there was just no way to deny it anymore. (I did NOT have sex with that woman, finger wagging)

Nice try though, you democrat lawyer in denial. You do fight for the team.

And I say that with love. You're still a human being even if you are a democrat. :)

[bonnie]

Short memory I think... Hardly smaller scale!

Just to confirm my point and refresh short memories, here are two lists of Democrat and Republican sex scandals.

http://www.ranker.com/list/democrat-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

http://www.ranker.com/list/republican-sex-scandals/web-infoguy

And for the record, notice which list is longer. And consider the details. There are some real salacious and perverted ones on the Republican side as well.

One of the biggest differences is you do not find most conservatives saying,"Oh well,it is no ones business what "he does" in his private life"

Nor electing them year after year when they leave a young woman to die in their vehicle,or brag about making a "waitress sandwich" or their partner running a "escort service out of their home"

Most conservatives want that type of representation gone,most liberals want a chance to try out Monica's knee pads. That is hard to deny when you even had reporters wishing to be in her place.Now liberals are supposedly offended by some texting?

[Tom Wetmore]

I suppose that is why 70 percent of the people in San Diego want their mayor to step down. Remember, California, liberal bastion? Democratic mayor currently in big sex scandal? 70% !!! That seems to be that most liberals in San DIego want him gone.

Oh well, can't fight the bias around here but for so long before it comes out in all its real ugliness...

See you later.

[bonnie]

I suppose that is why 70 percent of the people in San Diego want their mayor to step down. Remember, California, liberal bastion? Democratic mayor currently in big sex scandal? 70% !!! That seems to be that most liberals in San DIego want him gone.

Oh well, can't fight the bias around here but for so long before it comes out in all its real ugliness...

See you later.

Yes,the 70% is surprising isn't it? But he is only a lowly mayor.

Not nearly as powerful as the Kennedy's,Dodds or Clinton

There isn't any question republicans commit the same sleezy behavior,yet I don't think you can find the same "many times rabid support" for the sleezebag as you do on the democrat side.Then it tends to be no one's business.Certainly you don't see even the press keeping it quiet like it did with John Edwards

[Guest]

Yeah that's what's wrong with us, we're biased. Good thing YOU don't suffer from any of that!

If bias is ugly, then how goodlooking are YOU? Of course there's a difference between biased and head totally buried.

Don't leave Tom, what's wrong with you?! You're gonna let Bonnie run you away that easily? LOL