Third Party & Independents Archives

Weiner’s limp answers could lead to electile dysfunction

Note to all Congressmen: If you’re asked if the photo of a man’s penis sent from your Twitter account to a 21-year-old female journalism student in Washington State is a photo of YOUR penis — the smart answer is a quick and simple “Not no, but HELL no!”

Any answer *OTHER* than “No” — including a ridiculously obvious, pathetic and impotent niggling over the possibility of Photoshopping this and image-swapping that — is an automatic YES.

New York Democrat Anthony Weiner (that’s his real name) has repeatedly refused to confirm or deny whether the photo in question is of his own wiener, and in-so-doing, has cemented a rock-hard belief – no matter what other limp statement he makes — that at the very least, Weiner must have photos of his own “member of Congress” that are similar enough to the now-famous dong-o-gram to make him hesitate.

“There are photographs of me in the world. Yes,” Weiner said. “We don’t know where the photograph came from. We don’t know for sure whats on it, we don’t know for sure if its been manipulated, if it was taken out of one place and dropped in something else. These days, pictures are Photoshopped and manipulated, and you can never tell if a photo on the Internet is of what or who it’s supposed to be.” He told NBC News that “I can’t say with certitude” whether or not the now-famous image is of his own crotch.

So what does that mean, exactly? It means it MIGHT be a photo of Big Tony’s “Little Tony” and it MIGHT not — he just can’t say for sure. Does that mean that he doesn’t know what his own undie-bulge looks like, or does it mean he can’t tell if it’s one of the pictures he has of his own undie-bulge or if it’s someone else’s.

If Weiner is speaking true, it means that someone entrusted with making laws to govern YOUR life can not REMEMBER whether or not he – or someone else – has taken a close-up picture of his grey-underwear-clad penis with a phone-camera, either recently or in the past.

Hell of a time to play the Ronald Reagan/Ollie North “I can’t recall” card, Weiner. But the plot thickens.

As CNN showed the image on the screen, a puzzled Wolf Blitzer pressed the congressman: “You *WOULD* know if this was your underpants … wouldn’t you, Congressman?” Weiner declined to answer, opting instead to stiffen up and try to beat off the simplicity of the question by saying, “I appreciate you continuing to flash that at me.”

Weiner’s shrinking non-answers face some stiff competition. He ranks somewhere between Bill Clinton’s “what the definition of ‘is’ is” and Larry Craig’s “I take a wide stance when I use public toilets” answer to why he was foot-tapping an undercover police officer in a known homosexual pick-up area of a public airport restroom.

And so, as Weiner’s own private “battle of the bulge” continues and he displays what is either legitimate ignorance born of innocence or abject guilt born of stupidity, I have a big tip for Congressman Weiner: Stop being a dick and answer the question. Or you may find next year when you thrust into the race for Mayor of The Big Apple that New York voters might give you the shaft.

I don’t doubt that Weiner’s Twitter account was hacked, and I’d like to believe that he isn’t stupid enough to have sent the e-schlong to someone who isn’t his newlywed wife. But this cock-and-bull story about not knowing if it’s a picture of his penis or not? That’s not thinking straight with either head.

And for the record, Congressman, this isn’t what they mean by “too big to fail.”

(And yes, every pun in this article was intentional.)

Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 2:48 AM
Comments
Comment #323809

The headline for this sorry story should have read:

WOEFUL WHINER WEINER IS A WEENIE.

Posted by: tom humes at June 2, 2011 4:37 AM
Comment #323814

You really ought to be ashamed of yourself. And no, I’m not laughing.

Weiner is being attacked because he’s a high profile liberal. He’s being attacked by a serial hoaxter, Andrew Breitbart, whose basic MO is using media manipulations of various kinds to push fraudulent charges.

To focus your attack on him, for fumbling a media message, while somebody out there committed a deliberate fraud in order to allege a fake sex scandal, is to be manipulated yourself by this con game.

You should know better. You should be more savvy than this.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2011 10:43 AM
Comment #323815

Stephen,

This time it’s YOU who needs to re-read my post. I’m not attacking Weiner for any real or fake sex scandal.

My entire point is that Weiner is being an IDIOT for not just saying YES or NO as to whether that photo is of HIM.

*HIS* fumbling and intentional vaguery about whether or not that’s his crotch in the photo is damning him, and the longer he persists in playing this game, the worse he’s going to lose.

Breitbart is, indeed, a liar and a sham-artist.

I even SAID I don’t doubt that he was hacked and that I don’t think he’s stupid enough to be having an affair less than a year after a very publicized marriage.

I am just focusing on his stupidity and self-incrimination by playing this ludicrous “I don’t know if that’s a picture of my crotch or not” game.

YOU should be more savvy than this.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 10:49 AM
Comment #323824

Gary,

According to;
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110602/NEWS02/110602016/NY-s-Rep-Weiner-denies-sending-lewd-photo-Twitter?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CHome

Weiner denied that he sent the photo. The news reporting that “he” follows “her” on twitter is in error. The “her” in this non news is a follower of Weiner on twitter.

This is typical bull***t journalism. Unfortunately journalistic ethics no longer requires any investigation into the facts BEFORE breaking any story of this type.
The titillation factor has become the driving force in journalism, and the media is poorer for it.

TMZ is now the rule, not the exception.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 1:08 PM
Comment #323826

Rocky,

Once again, I AM NOT DENYING OR DOUBTING THAT WEINER WAS PRANKED. I *AGREE* that he was probably hacked and that the media’s making *WAY* too much of this non-scandal.

The focus of my article is that Weiner won’t confirm or deny whether or not it’s HIS WEINER in the photo.

That - by definition - implies that he has photos of himself in that vein (pun intended) and can’t or won’t tell if the one sent via the prank is one of his own. I repeat, it’s ludicrous of him to pretend he doesn’t know if it’s a picture of his junk or not.

THAT’S the ridicule here. Weiner simply will not say yes or no.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 1:39 PM
Comment #323829

This whole thing could have been put to rest if Weiner had the FBI investigate being a sitting rep. this could have been done instead of his beating around the bush.

Posted by: KAP at June 2, 2011 2:21 PM
Comment #323832

Gary,

“The focus of my article is that Weiner won’t confirm or deny whether or not it’s HIS WEINER in the photo.”

That he denied sending it, unless an actual investigation proves otherwise, should be enough.
Whether or not it’s an actual picture of “the wiener” is immaterial, and pointless.

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 3:17 PM
Comment #323835

stephen


“Weiner is being attacked because he’s a high profile liberal.”

no he’s being attacked for his failure to give solid yes or no answers. he should have the authorities investigate this. that is unless he actually did this, in which case telling the authorities his account was hacked when it actually wasn’t is a crime.

“To focus your attack on him, for fumbling a media message, while somebody out there committed a deliberate fraud in order to allege a fake sex scandal,”


you don’t know for sure this is a fraud. you’de like to believe it is, but you don’t actually know that for a fact. the FBI could get the information that would clear this up in short order, but he isn’t doing that. if he really didn’t do it, the truth would set him free. why all the obfuscation?


http://video.foxnews.com/v/970399505001/uncut-weiner-on-lewd-photo-flap

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #323836

KAP

“This whole thing could have been put to rest if Weiner had the FBI investigate being a sitting rep. this could have been done instead of his beating around the bush.”

making a false police report is a crime. if it were me, and i knew i didn’t do it that’s the first thing i would have done. the fact he won’t say for sure that the photo is not of him speaks volumes about his character. it tells me he more than likely has taken those types of pictures of himself, and doesn’t know if someone got thier hands on them. if you don’t want people to see compromising pictures of youself, don’t take them in the first place.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 4:07 PM
Comment #323837
dbs wrote: the FBI could get the information that would clear this up in short order, but he isn’t doing that. if he really didn’t do it, the truth would set him free. why all the obfuscation?

Exactly. “Hiring a private security firm” brings with it that you can instruct that firm to present their findings how you want them presented, and filter any investigation results to your liking.

Reporting the incident to the proper authorities brings with it the corresponding requirement to be honest and innocent.

If Weiner has nothing to hide about this “hacking,” why keep so much ridiculously simple information hidden?

Is there anyone reading this website who - if asked “Is that your genitalia in that photo” - honestly could not answer yes or no?

Weiner’s obfuscation is laughable.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 4:08 PM
Comment #323838

rocky

“That he denied sending it, unless an actual investigation proves otherwise, should be enough.”

so we are to just take his word for it right? if this were a republican that’s what you’de be saying? i think not. if he doesn’t request an official investigation his credibility is history.


“Whether or not it’s an actual picture of “the wiener” is immaterial, and pointless.”

like i told kap. if you don’t take those kinds of pictures in the first place, they can’t come back to bite you in the arse. the best he can hope for is to be cleared of sending them. he will from here on out look like a perv in the eyes of most people. while that’s not a crime it will still affect how your constituants view you, and that’s not a good thing for his career.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 4:17 PM
Comment #323839

Gary St. Lawrence-
But here’s what you’re doing: you’re focusing attention on the fumbled messaging, rather than drawing attention, like I’ve done in the past, to the fraud and the highly questionable behavior on the part of Breitbart and others at BigGovernment.

We’ve pretty much figured out how the hoax was perpetrated. The Yfrog account that this came from allows users (or allowed, since it was just recently disabled) to e-mail photos to a special account, from which a tweet is automatically generated. All they had to do was find out the e-mail address (which showed up on information relating to Weiner’s other pictures), mail the photograph to that account, and bingo, instant tent-tweet.

I think the reason he hasn’t definitively ruled it out is obvious if you consider that he’s a modern liberal who just got married to a beautiful woman. The fact that Yfrog undid that feature pretty much demonstrates that he didn’t send it, but that somebody else did. The question is, how much did they violate his privacy?

Which all gets me thinking that by focusing on Weiner’s missteps, we’re losing the opportunity to go after the folks who really have done something wrong, not simply fumbled their PR. We should focus on the most grievous sins first, not the most tittilating.

And really, sir, you filled your post with an ungodly amount of lip-smacking double entendres, essentially feeding off of the vicious smear to commit one of your own. Weiner’s been one of the reliable progressive voices in Congress, so I find it a rather oddly aimed set of potshots to take.

dbs-
Let’s see: somebody exploits a feature of a YFrog account to post a picture of the Representative, to create the impression that he’s cheating on his wife, and sending lewd pictures to a much younger woman, and then follows up by accusing him of being fond of underaged girls on national television.

Fraud is an apt word. The attempt to make gains by deception.

The question is not what Weiner has to hide. He has this odd habit most people have of not wanting their sex lives to become public record. The first and primary reason most people have something to hide, is that they’re not exhibitionists who like having their private lives plastered on billboards.

No, the question is, what are the Right Wing’s claims about Democrats based upon? What are they hiding from people when they make these “hard-hitting” reports?

I think Rep. Weiner’s evasions are a lot easier to understand and justify than the media’s response. If the story is wrong, if the story is a set-up, then you shouldn’t leave it to a bunch of intrepid bloggers to kill it, your news organization should do the deed. And if your source, Andrew Breitbart, has a track record of media deceptions, of withholding critical information from his audience, then your immediate response should be to fact check the story, and challenge Breitbart to back up his story and lay out how he got it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2011 4:21 PM
Comment #323840

gary

ya know, i really don’t know whether or not his account was hacked. i can’t say it wasn’t. it’s entirely in the realm of possibility. what i can do is observe his behavior, and his evasive behavior i would think most prudent people would find a bit troubling.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 4:26 PM
Comment #323841

stephen


“Let’s see: somebody exploits a feature of a YFrog account to post a picture of the Representative, to create the impression that he’s cheating on his wife, and sending lewd pictures to a much younger woman, and then follows up by accusing him of being fond of underaged girls on national television.”

that hasn’t been verified to be true by the FBI or any other official law enforcement agency, so at this point it is just his version. i know you’de like it to just go away, but it’s not going to. even if this was as you say just a politically motivated attack, and completely untrue. it still has to run its course. the quickest way to do that is to let the FBI get those records from twitter, or whatever account it was posted from.

“Fraud is an apt word. The attempt to make gains by deception.”

once again, just you opinion. hasn’t been proven, or verified.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 4:39 PM
Comment #323842

stephen

“then your immediate response should be to fact check the story, and challenge Breitbart to back up his story and lay out how he got it.”

i don’t even follow breitbart. i’m basing my opinions on the interviews i’ve seen of weiner, and his evasive behavior. at this point telling everyone you’re moving on, and won’t be bothered with it anymore, won’t make it go away.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 4:47 PM
Comment #323843
Stephen Daugherty wrote: you’re focusing attention on the fumbled messaging, rather than drawing attention, like I’ve done in the past, to the fraud and the highly questionable behavior on the part of Breitbart and others at BigGovernment.

Ye gads! How many times do I have to say this?!?!?

I AGREE THAT WEINER’S ACCOUNT WAS PROBABLY HACKED. I AGREE THAT BREITBART’S A LYING SCUMBAG. I AGREE THAT THE MEDIA IS BLOWING THIS *WAY* OUT OF PROPORTION.

There … is that clear enough? Or do I need to get a box of crayons?

The question I’m raising is WHY DOESN’T WEINER JUST SAY - YES OR NO - IF THAT’S A PICTURE OF HIS PECKER?

His quibbling - to me - is a STRONG indication that he DOES have pictures of his schwantz on computers and is trying to duck and dodge until he can find some bullsh*t reason to explain it away and make it NOT seem like he has at least in the past engaged in softcore e-porn.

Weiner said this morning that he’s “done answering questions.” That’s a crock because he refuses to answer the SIMPLEST and most RELEVANT question about the entire incident.

You can harp and quibble about conspiracies all you want on this one Stephen, but I just don’t give a rat’s @ss and won’t go along with you on it.

Weiner’s evasive non-answers - IMHO - stink to high heaven and are a clear indication that *HE* is hiding something.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 4:58 PM
Comment #323844

You people have missed the most obvious reason he did not deny that the photo might be him if you have not seen the photo who ever it is should be a porn star.

Posted by: Jeff at June 2, 2011 5:15 PM
Comment #323845
Stephen Daugherty wrote: And really, sir, you filled your post with an ungodly amount of lip-smacking double entendres, essentially feeding off of the vicious smear to commit one of your own.


Stephen, please explain to me how my putting (And yes, every pun in this article was intentional.) at the end of my post was in any way vague or misleading.

It’s called “humor.” Something you apparently lose your sense of when it isn’t Republicans being limelighted.

In other words, lighten up, Francis.


Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 5:16 PM
Comment #323846

Gary,

“so we are to just take his word for it right? if this were a republican that’s what you’de be saying? i think not.”

Please give me the respect of not putting words in my mouth. I posted exactly what I believe. It doesn’t matter a whit what the man’s political persuasion is, whoever is in the picture is irrelevant.

A hack job is a hack job, and Breitbart is a hack.

With the winds of journalism being what they are, Weiner has been put into a lose, lose position. He shouldn’t have to ask for a FBI investigation. The “picture” crossed state lines.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #323848
Rocky wrote: Please give me the respect of not putting words in my mouth.


I didn’t.

Go back and re-read the thread and aim your indignation at the proper target.

As it is, your efforts to constantly divert the discussion away from the point I made to turn it into the partisan agenda you want to perpetuate … *THAT* is what doesn’t matter a whit.

Hack job or not, I don’t care.

What I want to know is why a sitting United States Congressman refuses to answer whether or not an Internet-spread picture is of *HIS* privates.

If it’s NOT him, then the ENTIRE non-scandal dies as it should. If it *IS* him, then it raises a lot of questions about how we might have simply averted an ACTUAL scandal in the near future. And it DEFINITELY raises questions about WHY he won’t answer such a pathetically simple question.

If Weiner’s account *WAS* hacked and the picture distributed is *NOT* of him, then he is 100% the innocent victim you’re trying to paint him to be.

If his account was hacked and the picture *IS* of him, then his constituents deserve to know why he’s got pictures of his package uploaded to his Twitter account and what he intended to use them for.

Either way, Weiner’s hiding something. Which means he’s lying. Which means he’s just another scumbag politician caught with his pants around his ankles … only this time, it’s literally.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #323852

Gary,

I invite you to read the National Enquirer, if their brand of salacious journalism is what you seek.

You are assuming an awful lot when you state;

“As it is, your efforts to constantly divert the discussion away from the point I made to turn it into the partisan agenda you want to perpetuate … *THAT* is what doesn’t matter a whit.”

The point is that this article has no point, other than to titillate the reader, and to kick someone while they’re, theoretically, down. You also assume the picture originated from within Weiner’s twitter account.
Weiner shouldn’t have to answer the question, because common decency dictates the question shouldn’t have been asked.

And common decency is not a partisan agenda.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #323856
Rocky wrote: The point is that this article has no point, other than to titillate the reader, and to kick someone while they’re, theoretically, down. You also assume the picture originated from within Weiner’s twitter account. Weiner shouldn’t have to answer the question, because common decency dictates the question shouldn’t have been asked.


Okay Rocky, we’ll play it your way.

That picture of the grey underwear-clad penis: Is it YOURS?

Yes or No?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 6:17 PM
Comment #323857

Gary,

I don’t wear grey underwear.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 6:20 PM
Comment #323858

dbs-
Then why is Breitbart in ass-covering mode?

The yFrog exploit has been closed now, which pretty much indicates that they’re taking the claims of this exploit pretty seriously.

Gary St. Lawrence-
The whole point of what Breitbart did, I would say, is to humiliate him, regardless of the outcome, and tarnish his credibility.

I’d say cooperating in the man’s humiliation, in promoting a media narrative that helps continue a useless, disingenuous controversy at his expense seems to me to be doing Breitbart’s work for him.

The issue in saying yes or no, is that he may have some private photos of himself that were exploited for this purpose, gained by unsavory means. If he wasn’t posting them himself (I doubt they were actually on a twitter account or any other public resource) then there are few legitimate means by which to gain them.

The photo, if real, is the product of an illegal act. If it’s not him, or a photo manipulation, then the lie is compounded.

Either way, the bigger issue in my mind isn’t organ apparently featured in the picture. The bigger issue is that this whole controversy seems to be based on fraud at best, and criminal behavior at worst. The bigger issue is that the distraction is working.

It is not enough for some to manipulate the facts people are given, people like Breitbart are manipulating the questions, creating a pathway of attention that leads away from conservative’s very real failings and issues, and towards often fictional controversies.

The American people deserve better than this, and you should do better than to help perpetuate a worthless, useless controversy.

Plus, really, I’m not without my own sense of humor. I just don’t think people getting fried in the media over false sex scandals is all that funny, especially when folks like David Vitter visit prostitutes in diapers, yet remain in Congress.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #323861

GSL,

You are absolutely right. Wiener should stop being a politician for 30 seconds and just answer the question. He has nothing to gain by being evasive unless he actually is the one responsible for the photo being posted (which I doubt is true considering the overwhelming evidence to the contrary). Instead, we get the disturbing image of a Congressman who can’t tell the difference between the photo posted on twitter and some other photo the of the Congressman’s penis that he knows exists.

Posted by: Warped Reality at June 2, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #323862
Rocky wrote: I don’t wear grey underwear.

That’s not a Yes or No answer.

What are you hiding?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #323863

Stephen, why do you INSIST on trying to make this thread about Andrew Breitbart. How many times do you have to have people AGREE WITH YOU before you’ll let a dead fart evaporate?

Why do you INSIST on ignoring the ONE QUESTION I KEEP ASKING: Why doesn’t Weiner just stop being a dick and answer whether the picture is of him or not?

Breitbart got exposed as a liar and fraud with the convenient editing job he did on the NAACP video and has done nothing but compound that reality ever since.

If Weiner was as much of an innocent victim as you keep pretending he is, then WHY DOESN’T HE LET THE AUTHORITIES HANDLE IT LIKE ANY NORMAL VICTIMIZED PERSON WOULD DO? And if you come back with that lame “cops have better things to do” nonsense, I’ll pretty much write you off in this thread.

Every single step of Weiner’s response to this fiasco has been one f*ck-up after another. And you want to defend him for it.

I think you need to pick your battles more carefully.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #323866

GSL

SD is just being SD. Weiner the Whiner is still a Weenie. And I did not get that from Breitbart. I think he proved it all by his lonesome. Some people would like to think shit does not stink and go out on a limb to prove it doesn’t. There I think we covered this subject fore and aft.

Posted by: tom humes at June 2, 2011 7:05 PM
Comment #323867

Gary,

“That’s not a Yes or No answer.
What are you hiding?”

If I was to play your game I would answer that I don’t wear underwear, and if I did that I wouldn’t be hiding anything.

The point is that in this society we are presumed innocent. We aren’t required to answer stupid questions that have nothing to do with the gravity of the situation.

Stephen’s point is valid. This is all about Breitbart, and how morons like him muddy the political waters against a perceived adversary, and how the stiffs eat it up.

The point is that people believe this manure.

Somewhere Rush Limbaugh is laughing his fat a** off.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #323875

stephen

“The yFrog exploit has been closed now, which pretty much indicates that they’re taking the claims of this exploit pretty seriously.”

who is they? all he has to do is say that isn’t me, or that is me. do you think he knows? i think he knows. as far as the hacking. he’s a sitting US congressman he could have this officially investigated and be cleared in short order. if i were an innocent man that’s what i would do. but then i’m not that little loud mouth weasel, weiner.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 8:20 PM
Comment #323876

rocky

“Somewhere Rush Limbaugh is laughing his fat a** off.”

so what!

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 8:25 PM
Comment #323878

gary

“Why do you INSIST on ignoring the ONE QUESTION I KEEP ASKING: Why doesn’t Weiner just stop being a dick and answer whether the picture is of him or not?”

he loses either way, and he knows it. the average person could answer that in a heartbeat. no gary that’s not me, or yes gary that is me. the fact that he won’t, says that he knows that there are pictures of him out there, whether intentional or not. is it better to be a liar and be caught, or to be honest and branded a pervert. so what does he do? obfuscate, what else? the fact that he uses that bs excuse about not wanting to waste tax payers money to investigate what he calls a hoax, says it all. BTW gary i’ll answer that question. no gary that isn’t my schmeckel in that photo. LOL!!!!

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #323881

dbs,

“so what!”

Operation Chaos ring a bell?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 9:05 PM
Comment #323883

The FBI should investigate. If a Congressman’s computer has been hacked, it is a serious issue. And if Weiner is lying it is also a serious issue. In either case, it should be investigated.

My guess is that Weiner is indeed telling an untruth and is a very strange little man. If not, he is also a really strange little man. He doesn’t seem outraged or willing to bring in the FBI. This is not normal.

I don’t understand why people do stuff like this. Why would Weiner even take a picture of it, much less send it to a young woman he doesn’t know?

Posted by: C&J at June 2, 2011 9:14 PM
Comment #323884

rocky

he did this to himself. politics is a nasty game. if you provide the ammunition, they will use it. maybe he did send that tweet, maybe he didn’t. only an official investigation will settle it. hiring a private firm as he has will only create more questions. it would appear that he has allowed compromising photos of himself to be taken. if not he would say without reservation that that was not him. as a sitting congressman he should be smarter than that. either way he is now damaged goods, and it is due to his own lack of common sense, and better judgement.

Posted by: dbs at June 2, 2011 9:19 PM
Comment #323891


I want to challenge every Republican here to call for the immediate resignation of David Vitter, who did far worse than fail to categorically deny being the subject of a lewd photograph he did not himself make public by accident or intent.

No, no, instead, he did in fact commit adultery. Not only that, he did so with a Prostitute. Not only that, but evidence came out saying that he liked diaper play!

Yet this adulter, this patron of whores, this indulger of deviant behavior remains a Senator. No, if his political life is not over, I think Anthony Wiener should not pay the price either. If the worse we can say happened here is that a shot of him having a boner in his underwear was leaked, then why is his career dead?

Why is a different standard of what constitutes a scandal being applied here?

Anthony Wiener doesn’t have to prove that he wasn’t the guy in the photo. You folks have to prove he was. And then you have to answer another question: how did the photo get out, if it was him? Or put another way, how did they invade his privacy?

Now, I know he’s a public official, but God help me, aren’t there supposed to be limits? I don’t know about you, but I’m not itching to see Mr and Mrs. Congresscritter when they’re hitching!

The likelihood is, there is no picture of him out there.

But even before that, the original story was that he was having an affair with a young woman, possibly underage. And Guess what? On his CNN appearance, Breitbart was pushing that very narrative. Ah, but now he seems to be throwing his source under the bus, and Democratic Bloggers developed evidence, complete with demonstrations of how the exploit was done, of how a simple use of an e-mail address could create a real tweet from a photo that Wiener wasn’t loading. Anomalies in the size and the associated metadata on the photo confirm that it was out of place.

And out of Wiener’s 40,000 followers, no one really saw it, except for the guy Breitbart’s now throwing under the bus, who also happened to cyberstalk the woman they tried to allege was having an affair with Wiener. Which, if any of you were actually paying attention, rather than following the bouncing ball-sack was the original allegation, now utterly discredited.

The Congressman fumbled the question, fumbled the answer, certainly. But the question we should ask, is why the charges were taken at face value at all, and why we’re concerned about the truth of what’s in the boner-pic at all. What is the bloody point?

I mean, we hear about, even see humorous commercials about couples, married and otherwise, sending each other arousing images. Weiner’s just been married in the past year or two.

Is it naive to suggest that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that any supposedly lewd picture may likely have been sent to his wife?

Tell me, what else is this controversy but the continued attempt by the right to destroy a publically visible critic? To say, “Aha, all those liberals moral degenerates, just as we thought!”

Beating up on Representative Anthony Wiener for all this is just about Republicans trying to reinforce their own members negative views about Democrat’s morality, while pointedly ignoring much worse scandals among their own.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 2, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #323892

I find two things about this situation and the responses in this thread to be fascinating.

1) In any of my posts against Republicans, C&J and KAP angrily rain all over me for being a partisan left-winger, and Stephen Daugherty has - almost without exception - come to my defense every time. Now that I’m lambasting a Democrat, C&J is nowhere to be found, KAP is being civil, and Stephen Daugherty can’t be contentious toward me fast enough.

Tell me, what else is this controversy but the continued attempt by the right to destroy a publically visible critic?

So, after months of posts, Stephen suddenly thinks I’m “the right”?

2) Two defense arguments are being simultaneously launched - sometimes by the same person(s) - that A) Weiner is a Congressman and any hacking of his computer *MUST* be investigated by the FBI because of how serious a crime it is against an elected official, and B) Weiner is a citizen and doesn’t have to defend or explain anything that’s on his personal computer.

Guess which one of those scenarios is just-plain wrong.

Also, what if Weiner used his CONGRESSIONAL computer to upload penis photos of himself (not necessarily *that* penis photo) to his Twitter account? Wouldn’t and FBI investigation expose that if it were the case? As I said earlier, the only reason someone would “hire a private security firm” in a case like this is to CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION.

Also, *WHY* would an elected official upload and store *ANY* photos of this nature on his public Twitter account? Either he’s a moron who didn’t plan ahead, or he’s a liar who’s desperately trying to backpedal his way out of ditch he drove himself into.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 2, 2011 10:54 PM
Comment #323894

What a nonsensical thread. Wiener is entitled to privacy. He can take any picture of himself that he wants and expect it to remain private. It is not a crime. He doesn’t have to answer any questions about the picture. In fact, he shouldn’t answer any questions. Is there no sense of privacy in this country?

On the other hand, if he sent suggestive pictures to a minor or unsolicited pictures to some non-minor, perhaps there is a problem. The issue isn’t the identity of the person in the picture, it is the use of the picture. Who sent it and for what purpose.

From what I can gather from the comments here, there is a strong indication that he was hacked and he never sent the picture to anyone. If that’s true, leave the man alone. Demanding that he publicly admit to his identity in the picture is only requesting that he publicly humiliate himself. Is there no decency in this country?

Posted by: Rich at June 2, 2011 10:55 PM
Comment #323895

Well said Stephen.

Might I add from;

http://www.mediaite.com/online/alleged-recipient-of-alleged-rep-weiner-photo-gennette-nicole-issues-statement/

“Since the story broke, a pile of circumstantial evidence and rampant speculation,throughout the blogosphere, have all but decimated the presumption of innocence due the Congressman, while details that could be exculpatory have been largely ignored or dismissed.”

Also the alleged victim in this has released a statement, which is copied on the above website as well;

“Friday evening I logged onto Twitter to find that I had about a dozen new mentions in less than an hour, which is a rare occurrence. When I checked one of the posts that I had been tagged in I saw that it was a picture that had supposedly been tweeted to me by Congressman Anthony Weiner.

The account that these tweets were sent from was familiar to me; this person had harassed me many times after the Congressman followed me on Twitter a month or so ago. Since I had dealt with this person and his cohorts before I assumed that the tweet and the picture were their latest attempts at defaming the Congressman and harassing his supporters…”

Please go there and read the statement for yourselves.

What I find most appalling about this whole affair is the willingness of you seemingly intelligent people that want to believe all of this speculation, without even a scintilla of evidence.

This issue has the same ring about it as the birther and truther movements and makes just about as much sense.

This man is entitled to answer the questions in any way he deems necessary. He answers only to his constituents.

At this point he is guilty of nothing.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 2, 2011 10:58 PM
Comment #323896

The left is disgusting in their handling and their responses above. It will return to them like a dog to his vomit.

Posted by: tom humes at June 2, 2011 11:03 PM
Comment #323899

For all those interested in Weiners wiener here is the photo and a poll comparing Weiners wieners at different times, you be the judge. Then ask yourself what would you do if you were in this position.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/31/weinergate-poll-does-photo-show-congressman-weiner/

Now lets get serious, Why would this guy answer this question? Either way is a no winner for him, not to mention it is none of anybody’s business. To think that Breitbart can still spew his crap and have so many followers acting like it is anything but fiction is the issue here. You guys are scary, you fall for anything so you must stand for nothing. Breitbart really guys? Trusting Breitbart to report a factual story is like trusting your kid to a pedophile.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 2, 2011 11:29 PM
Comment #323901

Gary St. Lawrence-
The way I look at it, this is about distraction. This is about getting people as far along on a wild goose chase misunderstanding of the situation as they can, so nobody comes back around and asks the basic questions.

Your agreement leaves me rather lukewarm, because you seem to still be distracted by an issues that is largely the product of the media need to continue a dead story. People can parse the meaning of an answer ‘til doomsday, but if they do that instead of actually going out there and finding a real story, then it’s likely to be no more fruitful than the initial charges against Representative Weiner.

The question is, why do you continue to pursue the meaning of evidence, which by all accounts at this point was fruits of a poisoned, deliberately partisan distortion of the truth.

If there’s one thing I don’t believe in, it’s drawing conclusions from absent evidence. I think Weiner’s true motivation is that he wants to keep private pictures between him and his wife private.

I can understand fully why what he said was a ****-up. But in my mind, misspeech is not sufficient cause for concern. The whole problem with this “He’s got something to hide” idea is that it takes the emphasis off his critics having to justify their charges right after their charges turned out to be wrong. You’re essentially rewarding the arguments and efforts of the people who were just proved to be hoaxters.

What about holding them accountable, about being skeptical about their claims?

I mean, really, is Weiner the guy with the worst secrets to hide here, or are his accusers the people whose behavior should be cause for concern. Whose criticism are we prioritizing, a victim who failed to speak clearly, or a victimizer who even now is trying to weasel away from what must be the fifth high profile false story he’s marketed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2011 12:04 AM
Comment #323902

j2, really lets get serious. first off being a sitting rep. he should have gone to the FBI unless he has something to hide. Hacking anyone in a high government position is serious. As far as Brietbart never listen to the guy nor Rush.

Posted by: KAP at June 3, 2011 12:09 AM
Comment #323905

Gary St. Lawrence-
As for my typical behavior?

For my part, if there is one thing that pushes my buttons, it’s the way Republicans seem to eagerly want to humiliate, degrade, and debase Democrats and Liberals like myself. I’m fully willing to stand up for you when some right-winger with an attitude starts with the name calling and the personal potshots.

But when It’s you taking a potshot at a person, especially one I feel has been unfairly slimed, I’m not going to hold back there, either.

One reason I’m here is that I prefer discourse that’s tuned towards factual matters. When everything becomes about calling folks names, everything just becomes a back-and-forth volley of thrown monkey-poo.

I don’t want that, because then nothing ever gets admitted.

But what if that’s the preferred outcome of some in power? What if the whole point of all the controversies isn’t persuasion, but paralysis of a rational discourse that doesn’t favor them?

It seems you’ve got to walk on eggshells and not break one for your grievance or your facts to be taken seriously. And how often does that happen?

The equivalence arguments really get my goat, too. I mean, really, how many government shutdowns can you speak of in the last twenty years being initiated by Democrats? Who are the people who are taking us to the brink of a fiscal and financial disaster by refusing to authorize the Treasury department’s new debt limit, one they knew they were precipitating one way or another by passing their budget bill?

I know Democrats are far from the ideals you envision nowadays. But Nothing I’ve seen over the past two decades tells me that they’re equally bad, taken as whole.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2011 12:38 AM
Comment #323906
Stephen Daugherty wrote: But in my mind, misspeech is not sufficient cause for concern.


Mis-speech?!?! Mis-speech is something spoken erroneously *ONE* time (like Obama’s “57 states” gaff).

Weiner has REPEATEDLY “mis-spoke” four FOUR STRAIGHT DAYS on FIVE television networks, to countless reporters and on every interview he could get his face in front of to say how much he didn’t want the issue publicized (sound like any other idiot politician we know?).

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The question is, why do you continue to pursue the meaning of evidence, which by all accounts at this point was fruits of a poisoned, deliberately partisan distortion of the truth.


Did you have IQ removal surgery over the weekend or something? I don’t recall you being this vapid before.

You keep insisting and implying that I’m somehow questioning whether this was a hack/hoax or not. And I keep telling you I AGREE THAT HE WAS PROBABLY PRANKED.

Are you simply incapable of understanding that my point is that WEINER WILL NOT ANSWER THE PATHETICALLY SIMPLE QUESTION OF “IS THAT YOUR PENIS IN THAT PHOTO OR ISN’T IT?”

I don’t really care WHY or HOW this picture got into the public eye. Whether it’s through an a-hole like Breitbart creating a faux-scandal again, or it’s through Weiner being exposed as yet another American politician with a sexual perversion problem.

I only want to know why a U.S. Congressman refuses to confirm or deny that it’s his dick in the photo … and now in the ringer because of his own stupidity.

As I said at the start of all this: Any answer other than “No” is an unequivocal “YES!”

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 3, 2011 12:44 AM
Comment #323907

One other observation that I meant to make earlier today …

Has anyone else noticed that this entire Weiner “scandal” started immediately after a Democrat won a Republican seat in New York in a stunning political upset?

Anyone who doesn’t think Breitbart cooked this thing up as “payback” against another New York Democrat to “get even” is as stupid and ignorantly partisan as Breitbart is.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 3, 2011 12:46 AM
Comment #323909

stephen

weiner should just answer the question, and allow the FBI to investigate the alleged hacking. regardless of how this story came to be, it’s here and he like anyone else will just have to deal with it. this “it’s not worth my time” BS isn’t going to work, and in fact will just create more questions, as it has.

it never ceases to amaze me how quickly you will condemn someone on the right, but can’t even take an objective look at your one of your own. when the story about foley broke i remember the outrage by the left. i was personally disgusted that the left would hold on to the information until it could be used to thier political advantage, and also especially disgusted that the rep leadership did not clean house immediately when they knew what had happened.

when mark sanford was caught cheating on his wife in brazil, i said he should resign. the fact you won’t take an objective look at weiner, and instead continue to point fingers, and even try to change this to a discussion about the misdeads of david vitter is comical at best.

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2011 7:33 AM
Comment #323910

gary

“Has anyone else noticed that this entire Weiner “scandal” started immediately after a Democrat won a Republican seat in New York in a stunning political upset?”

there is no doubt that this story is politically motivated. wheteher his account was hacked, or he actually sent that photo is still to be determined. this won’t go away for him until he has the officials investigate this.

let’s be honest, why are most stories of this nature released? for political advantage. i don’t think it would have as much to do with the NY election as much as his attack on justice thomas. BTW i don’t see him stepping out of the aca case. the attack was like most, an attempt by the left to remove one conservative justice from the case. without the removal of one right leaning justice they will most likely lose this one. i believe kagan has to stay out of this one because she actually worked on the case.

the short of it is ya, i agree with you there. let’s be honest though, aren’t they all politically motivated?

Posted by: dbs at June 3, 2011 7:49 AM
Comment #323932
really lets get serious. first off being a sitting rep. he should have gone to the FBI unless he has something to hide. Hacking anyone in a high government position is serious.

Make a Federal case out of it KAP! A twitter account! I doubt it was used for conducting official business as Twitter is just not that safe. That is what Breitbart probably wanted, to keep the non-story a story and in the news and use it as a means to blame the Feds for shutting down a conservative site whilst attacking Weiner. To bad Weiner didn’t play along.

As far as Brietbart never listen to the guy nor Rush.

But other conservative sites use his site to make it appear as if the stuff he does is legitimate.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 3, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #323936

Gotta tell ya. I’m full-on in love with this post. =)

Posted by: Spinny Liberal at June 3, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment #323937

Gary St. Lawrence-
If you agree he was probably pranked, then you agree that the folks who did this deceived their audience, and the public in general.

Ah, but Weiner said he couldn’t be certain where the photo came from.

NON-ISSUE. What’s the immoral act we can connect this to? What lends us certainty that this is Weiner’s masculinity on display? What firm fact are we basing these hard suspicions on?

Oh, that’s right, we’re not allowed to have standards, or build our conclusions on logic anymore. We got to act like a bunch of damn gossips!

He was foolish to ad uncertainty into this, but I’ll bet you it’s probably somebody else. The question is, if Weiner was doing something naughty with somebody else than his wife, why did his inquisitors go through the trouble of framing somebody else as his mistress, rather than finding the person he actually sent this image to?

If there is no such person, who gave them the photo, and how do they know it was Weiner’s banana in the bag? Who told them?

The simpler explanation is that Weiner was being excessively cautious because he did send his wife pictures like this, and because he doesn’t know enough about the hack or the computer science involved to be certain himself. Thus the hints of alteration.

Your line of questioning isn’t how you discern truth, it’s how you get yourself distracted by meaningless, made-up controversies.

dbs-
Foley’s downfall began because of a leak from a Republican’s office and from Republican staff members. What galls folks on the left is the level of hypocrisy, especially from folks who publically condemned homosexuality and predatory behavior towards minors. I mean, the Republicans are trying to pick the sawdust out of our eyes with a big tree trunk sticking out of theirs.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2011 6:03 PM
Comment #323938

Photo unlikely to have come from Weiner’s Blackberry. In fact, it’s uncertain what camera the photo came from.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2011 6:23 PM
Comment #323944

j2, They hacked his twitter account, what else could be hacked of his, so yes make it a federal case. I don’t give a crap what other conservatives read or listen to I don’t listen to the likes of Brietbart or Rush.

Posted by: KAP at June 3, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #324062

BREAKING NEWS: Rep. Anthony Weiner apologized for falsely claiming his Twitter account had been hacked after a lewd photo showed up, admits that he sent the photo to several young femail Twitter followers, admits to several online sexually based relationships, claims wife knew/approved

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/06/weiner-to-speak-to-media-this-afternoon/?hpt=hp_t2

So … Stephen Daugherty … what’s your take on this NOW?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at June 6, 2011 4:43 PM
Post a comment