Who's Weiner is it?
 

As the weenie turns:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/0...oto-is-of-him/

I guess the question is: which template / precedent should we follow on this, if it turns out that the congressman is the Weiner waver? Should we follow the Clintonian rule (it's a private matter, leave him alone?), or the Larry Craig rule (throw the bum out)?

Actually, the Clintonian rule and the Larry Craig rule are identical. Rationalize the behavior if he's your bum, throw him out if he's not.

As for Wiener, I could care less whether he stays or goes. I guess we'll have to wait and see what actually happened before we decide whether to be outraged.

Holy Crap:

I'm trying so hard to ignore all of this, but I can't. It's like that Dog in Up,Up, Away that speaks and gets (SQUIRREL), distracted all (SQUIRREL) the time..

It truly is silly. I mean, the guy might have sent a picture of himself in his underwear. However, it's stuff like this that the public actually understands (whether or not it actually occurred).

This and $arah's bus trip are something that the media can explain (even though they don't yet know the full Weiner story nor $arah's intent) and the public can understand (even without knowing the story).

Meanwhile, we still have the impacts of a nuclear meltdown in Japan, a (possibly fizzling) Arab Spring, an economy/stock market that doesn't know whether to shit or go blind and the press is trying to figure out whether it was Wiener's wiener inside those BVD's. :confused:

Its all about priorities.... :rolleyes:

Depending on the size of the bulge, I may help the congressman out by claiming it's mine.

Gotta see the photo first.

I really confused (SQUIRREL). I have HUNDREDs of pictures of me in my underwear on my photo site. Don't (SQUIRREL) you? And even tho I enjoy all variations of fabric and (SQUIRREL)style, and color -- I'm CERTAIN I'd (SQUIRREL) recognize my parts in any of those! Couldn't you?

What's with the (SQUIRREL)? :confused:

You might want an enlargement of the photo before you claim it... :D

Weiners' in hot water!

Pete

I think Wiener is getting the shaft. Or is it that he's being hosed?;)

Guess you didn't see the movie FinnBow:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/40341?q=node/40350

Go out to about 1:20 in the trailer...

My wife and I watch the cable news and whenever we see a segment wasting time on a distraction, one of us will say "Squirrel". Give a dog a talking collar and that's what you get.

Ah ha. I guess I don't really watch many animated movies, particularly since my kids have outgrown them.

I bet Barney Frank took and posted the picture. Those 2 are real cozy.

Weiner has been such a thorn in the side of the GOP I think you are looking in the wrong direction.

Agreed, my first thought was Karl Rove paid a couple of college kids about 5 g's a piece to do that.


Carl

Still doesn't explain Weiner's inablity to rule out that it might be his crotch in that picture. Unless Rov somehow brainwashed Weiner into providing the most idiotic answer possible to the press's questions....

You got it.

Dave

So, does this mean that you are so exceptional that you are able to dentify your crotch shot in a lineup? :D

I think the Republicans are just jealous over the size of that bulge. It proves the notion that they carry guns out of a need to "compensate".

Dave

I read an article somewhere that made me think that it's highly likely that this was a Rove-like job by a political foe. It may well be Weiner's wiener, and that picture may well have existed on his phone or computer. That doesn't mean that someone else couldn't have gained access to his, er... equipment, and sent the picture along. I think that's basically what Weiner is suggesting happened and he may well be proven right.

I also believe that there's a good possibility that he DID in fact send it himself. We've certainly seen other politicians make similarly stupid mistakes.

A big question in my mind, however, is this. If he DID send the picture... so what? Really, what IS the big (or not so big) deal over this? AFAIK, the woman who received it didn't lodge any complaint or even take offense to it. She was not a minor. His picture was suggestive and in poor taste (though do we even know the context?) It was hardly pornographic, exploitive, criminal, etc.

This is just more of the same BS. Keep the public's eye on anything but what really matters.

Well, Federal Law prevents harassment in the workplace based on sex, and the Congressman took an oath to uphold the law. That's part of the big deal. We also saw the forced resignation of a senator, in part, because of sending suggestive emails. So, if we're going to be consistent...

It wasn't in the workplace. Doing stuff like this with your colleagues in the workplace runs up against sexual harassment issues. Sending a picture to someone with whom you have no work relationship doesn't, even though it is certainly in bad taste (if he did it).

Also, your comparison in the OP with the Larry Craig affair was also off the mark. Craig was criminally charged with solicitation. To date, Wiener hasn't been criminally charged with anything.

I don't give a rat's ass what happens to any career politician of either party for their misbehavior, as I have a hard time ginning up any sympathy for any of these clowns. That said, let's let this thing play out before we get lost in a fog of outrage or sling accusations of double standards, etc.

Whell: I'm trying SOOOO dam hard not to get involved here, but your comment just HAS to be embellished on..

Get THIS!

:D:mad::D:mad:

I ASSURE you -- this not a drill. this is not a hoax.. It's Congress at it's finest.. Obviously Weiner was not qualified to say what those guidelines should be, but will leave that up to the schools?

http://www.weiner.house.gov/news_display.aspx?id=610

These Twitter and Facebook accounts are often maintained and updated by staffers. They are used by political types for personal and "business" purposes.

My memory may be faulty, but I don't believe Craig was ever convicted. The allegations that ended up costing him his political career were regarding emails to junior staff members.

OK. Do you have any evidence to suggest that he compelled a female staffer to post the picture of him in his BVD's? You're grasping at straws (again). There is absolutely nothing to suggest that this has anything to do with workplace sexual harassment.

FYI, sexual harassment is defined as "unwelcome verbal, visual, or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is severe or pervasive and affects working conditions or creates a hostile work environment.”

Larry Craig was the fellow who tried to solicit gay sex in a Minneapolis airport bathroom and was charged for lewd conduct. He later entered a guilty plea to a lesser charge of disorderly conduct

It wouldn't need to be posted by a staffer. If it was posted by him, and one of his staffers saw it while accessing / updating his site, it could be grounds for a harassment claim, and it would fit the definition of a visual form of harassment. There have been workplace claims that have been brought based on less egregious visuals.

That's my guess on all of this.

"Sir, did you knowingly send this photo?"

"I did not."

"Is this your junk?"

"Well, I...err...you see, what had happened was..." :D

There is no way that would satisfy the standard for sexual harassment. There might have been claims brought on less "egregious" photos, it is unlikely that they succeeded. A single inadvertent exposure would never get the attention of the EEOC or of any plaintiffs' lawyer who halfway knew his stuff. To establish a sexually hostile atmosphere, one must show that sexual conduct or innuendo is severe and pervasive


Besides the sexually hostile atmosphere, a plaintiff can make a sexual harassment claim by showing an actual or implied connection between keeping a job and sexual favors. There is not even the slightest hint of that in this instance.

What you have described is an incident that an employer should address, but not nearly enough to maintain a claim.

Regards,

D-Ray

Which is exactly why I'm keeping an open mind on this. Weiner has essentially admitted that the picture is of him. He has also adamantly maintained that he did not send the picture. If his staffers maintain and update his Twitter and Facebook accounts, then certainly a staffer would have the capability to send that picture. It is very possible that a disgruntled staffer or (more likely IMO) a staffer planted by Weiner's opponents sent the picture and then alerted a sympathetic media outlet.

I disagree. The EEOC and DOL are becoming far more aggressive in their support of, and pursuit of, claims. The atmosphere has changed significantly in the last year or so.

Good for them. Every now and then, it does a businessman good to get kicked in the crotch. Keeps them humble.:p

Dave

I don't really care that it is his pecker. It's not pornographic, all you really see is his underwear. The recipient of the photo hasn't filed a complaint, (Although I'm sure there are Republicans waving money in her face, tempting her to do so.). Actually, as far as I'm concerned this is a private matter between him, her and his family. It's none of our business. I felt the same way about that turd pusher Craig. Although, I find it amusing anytime someone from the self-righteous, pseudo-Bible thumping party of rabid hypocrisy gets caught bobbing for sausage.

Dave

Having a non-pornographic photo in a place where it might be discovered by a staffer will not support a claim of sexual harassment in any venue. Period.

Regards,

D-Ray

I trust y'all realize just how assinine this whole affair is, there are similar picture in adverts in the paper every day.

My point exactly. It makes no sense, unless of course the GOP is suffering from penis envy...............Maybe THAT'S what's going on here?:p

Dave

Hmmm....

In a rather predictable turn of events, we now have the Congressman engaging in multiple Internet chats over time during work time from his office. You still wanna stick with the " no support of a claim" position? Or, should wait and see what else falls out of this lying twerp's closet?

Dave:

Why does that 70's poster of Farah Fawcett come to mind?? Or Sports Illustrated Swim Edition? That wasn't officially pornographic either. BTW Dude -- you can tell it's CIRCUMCIZED!

PS Dave:

Actually not if his house.gov page is pushing a bill to force colleges to declare how they are keeping their campuses free of sexual harrassment. THat's about as hypocritical as you can get. It BECOMES a discussable issue at that point.

Doesn't matter now.

He's officially TOAST as of about 4:40PM EST.

Ya happy NOW you right wing hyenas.. :mad:

I bet he wins reelection in a landslide.

That does not change your premise from being wrong. It adds elements to the analysis, beyond your original premise. I'm sure that whatever the chat rooms were, they are much much worse in your imagination.

Got a vindictive streak have we?

Regards,

D-Ray