[EL] Congressman Weiner

Wed Jun 8 08:53:37 PDT 2011

Doug, I can see why.  At least my second post had something to do with  
election law.

Adam, I certainly understand that Dems/liberals would rather talk about me  
than Weiner, so I am not surprised with this response. I am just surprised  
that it took 19 minutes to try to change the subject.

First, I think that candidates should disclose their express advocacy  
communications by filing reports and by putting a disclaimer on their  
communications.

The anonymous speech I want to protect is issue advocacy speech by  
citizens.

Now, back to Weiner, even though you don't want to go there.

    First, he committed a cardinal "reform" sin, so why  aren't you 
condemning him for it?

    Second, it was racist, so why aren't you condemning  him for it?

   Third, it was apparently a lie, so why aren't you  condemning him for it?

    Fourth, the NYTimes condemned it, so why aren't you  condemning him for 
it?

But I digress.  My point was that character matters. If a  politician is 
willing to violate a sacred oath to the person who should  matter to him the 
most and will lie to his wife, his staff, Pelosi, the press  and the world 
when he thinks it will serve his personal interest, why don't you  think he 
would lie to you and sell you out and your precious liberal policies? I  would 
have thought that Dems/liberals would want a politician they can  trust.

So why doesn't character matter to you?  Jim Bopp

In a message dated 6/8/2011 10:06:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
douglasrhess at gmail.com writes:

Gawker?  I am now very very officially and very very sorry that I started 
this thread.  
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone, powered by CREDO Mobile.  
____________________________________

From: "Bonin, Adam C." <ABonin at cozen.com> 
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 09:50:22 -0400
To: <JBoppjr at aol.com>;  <ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net>; 
<paul.gronke at gmail.com>
Cc: <douglasrhess at gmail.com>;  <Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
Subject: RE: [EL] Congressman Weiner

I  thought that anonymous political speech represented the height of  
Madisonian/Jeffersonian ideals and was super-awesome in the moral  sphere.  Did I 
miss some change of heart on the topic? 
[Why  Chris Lee resigned? Perhaps, the other shoe which was about to drop 
--  
_http://gawker.com/5769037/the-craigslist-congressman-and-the-crossdressing-prostitute_ 
(http://gawker.com/5769037/the-craigslist-congressman-and-the-crossdressing-prostitute)   ] 
--Adam 

From:  law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu  
[mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of  JBoppjr at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 9:31  AM
To: ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net;  paul.gronke at gmail.com
Cc: douglasrhess at gmail.com;  Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
Subject: Re: [EL] Congressman  Weiner

Weiner  launched his career with an anonymous hit piece.  

_Click  here: The dirty trick that launched Anthony Weiner's career - New 
York City -  Salon.com_ 
(http://www.salon.com/news/new_york_city/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/06/07/anthony_weiner_1991)  Do you still think 
that character does not matter?  Jim  Bopp

In a  message dated 6/7/2011 7:43:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
ruthalice.anderson at comcast.net writes:

I  still don't understand what political or professional explanation there 
is  for Chris Lee's resignation. If that is what his wife wanted - then 
sure, it  makes sense. But there was no other reason to resign. And what about 
the  David Vitter standard? He actually committed a crime and he was 
re-elected.  I think it might just be tougher for NY politicians because they are 
close.  Perhaps it's distance from major media markets that determines who 
must and  who need not resign.  

RuthAlice

On Jun 7, 2011,  at 9:38 AM, Paul Gronke wrote:

> Maybe if he used a government  Blackberry or web access, though I'm not 
sure how they'd track the  latter.
> 
> It's unfortunate, I think, to see a pundit mention  the "Chris Lee" 
standard in the NY Times:
> 
> David Birdsell,  dean of Baruch College’s School of Public Affairs in New 
York City, said it  would be hard for Mr. Weiner to argue that his conduct 
was any less damning.  “By the Chris Lee standard, these are offenses that 
merit resignation,” he  said.
> 
> No comment at all about whether such a standard is a  reasonable one?  
> 
> ---
> Paul Gronke    Ph:   503-517-7393
>           Fax: 503-661-0601
>  
> Professor, Reed College
> Director, Early Voting Information  Center
> 3203 SE Woodstock Blvd
> Portland OR 97202
>  
> EVIC: http://earlyvoting.net
> 
> <Paul  Gronke.vcf>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun  7, 2011, at 5:29 AM, Doug Hess wrote:
> 
>> All joking aside,  what is the reasoning or grounds behind starting an
>>  investigation of the congressman (or the same with the NY GOP
>>  congressman that had the shirtless pic on craigslist but I guess  left
>> before it was investigated)?  That he sullied the  image of congress?
>> It seems odd to go looking for bigger  violations if there is not yet
>> any evidence of it (i.e.,  inappropriate romantic entanglements with
>> somebody that does  business with congress, etc.).
>> 
>> Doug
>>  _______________________________________________
>> Law-election  mailing list
>> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>>  http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>  
> _______________________________________________
>  Law-election mailing list
>  Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>  http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

_______________________________________________
Law-election  mailing  list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

____________________________________
Notice: To comply with certain U.S.  Treasury regulations, we inform you 
that, unless expressly stated otherwise,  any U.S. federal tax advice 
contained in this e-mail, including attachments,  is not intended or written to be 
used, and cannot be used, by any person for  the purpose of avoiding any 
penalties that may be imposed by the Internal  Revenue Service.   
____________________________________
 Notice: This communication, including  attachments, may contain 
information that is confidential and protected by the  attorney/client or other 
privileges. It constitutes non-public information  intended to be conveyed only to 
the designated recipient(s). If the reader or  recipient of this 
communication is not the intended recipient, an employee or  agent of the intended 
recipient who is responsible for delivering it to the  intended recipient, or 
you believe that you have received this communication  in error, please 
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and promptly  delete this e-mail, 
including attachments without reading or saving them in  any manner. The 
unauthorized use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction  of this e-mail, 
including attachments, is prohibited and may be unlawful.  Receipt by 
anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is not a waiver of any  
attorney/client or other privilege.  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20110608/598696d1/attachment.html>