The NY Times fawns on Anthony Weiner while recounting his hard luck getting hacked on Twitter. Not even a nod to the likelihood that he was not hacked at all.
They tell us that Mr. Weiner is a former roommate of comedian Jon Stewart. They do not tell us that the young coed was one of the few people being followed by Mr. Weiner:
The recipient of the photo, a college student who follows Mr. Weiner on Twitter, told The Daily News that someone had been harassing her online for weeks and that “I assumed that the tweet and the picture were their latest attempts at defaming the congressman and harassing his supporters.”
And the Time drills down on the question of law enforcement involvement:
Mr. Weiner’s spokesman, Dave Arnold, said on Monday, “We’ve retained counsel to explore the proper next steps and to advise us on what civil or criminal actions should be taken. This was a prank. We are loath to treat it as more, but we are relying on professional advice.”
Well then, if Anthony doesn't want to involve the police, har de har. After all, he's only a Congressman who may have had his email surveilled and his computer compromised, with a Twitter follower who has been sexually harassed.
Fortunately, Iowahawk is bringing his unique sleuthing skills to bear.
The Times closes with assurance that Mr. Weiner is bravely soldiering on:
Despite the unwelcome attention over the weekend, Mr. Weiner has continued sending his unabashed Twitter messages. Late Saturday, alluding to the problem picture and to Sherlock Holmes’s nemesis, he posted, “Touche Prof Moriarity. More Weiner Jokes for all my guests! #Hacked!”
"Unwelcome attention." What kind of a world are we living in when a married Congressman can't send dic-pics to college coeds without critics and cheap shot artists hooting at him?
THE FIGHTING DEMOCRAT: In a bit of unintended irony the Times includes this in their fawning over Mr. Weiner:
He is notorious for being an intense and demanding boss, and his temperament has always been a potential liability. He has tried to use social media to turn his pugnacity into an asset — the first word used to describe him on the home page of his campaign Web siteis “Fighter,” and his grass-roots group is “Democrats Who Fight.”
Let's check the scorecard - the young coed who was following Mr. Weiner (and he, her) has received a lewd photo and been put at the center of a media firestorm. In response, she has taken down her Facebok and Twitter accounts and apparently dropped her byline from her school's on-line publications. I infer she feels a bit put-upon. But why rely on my guesswork? This is from her statement to the Daily News:
The last 36 hours have been the most confusing, anxiety-ridden hours of my life.
Yet the hacker, or prankster, or whatever Mr. Weiner has downgraded this to, has experienced no consequences whatsoever. When is Mr. Weiner going to fight for his followers and bring this slimy hacker/prankster/staffer to justice?
How about "Never"?
Anthony Weiner - yet another "Talk better not be cheap, 'cause it's all I've got" Democrat.
I'm kind of guessing that the MSM can't cover up for him forever. We'll see.
Posted by: jorgxmckie | May 31, 2011 at 07:06 AM
Who exactly is he going to take civil action against?
Posted by: danoso | May 31, 2011 at 07:16 AM
Even Drudge has yet to mention this story and it is gone from Fox News website. The fix is in and working. Leaving it all up to Breitbart.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | May 31, 2011 at 07:17 AM
Who exactly is he going to take civil action against?
such a good question, one the Jos kids are "loathe" to ponder so they just pretend it's Breitbart.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | May 31, 2011 at 07:23 AM
KOS kids.
Posted by: Topsecretk9 | May 31, 2011 at 07:24 AM
If he tells his story to the FBI they'll investigate and discover that he's lying. And that's a crime.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 07:41 AM
So Twitter has remedied the security hole to prevent further hacking? Fantastic! Can't wait to hear from Twitter that their systems have been patched and from Weiner his profound gratitude with Twitter for working feverishly to repair their compromised software.
Penes pictures to co-eds can now continue unabated. Huzzah!
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel | May 31, 2011 at 07:46 AM
What a "providing cover" article by the NYT...just disgusting.
from the article -
"He often posts several messages a day, on topics including Medicare, his coming television appearances and the National Hockey League."
bold mine. 2 topics that just happen to be in Weinergate.
The blatant biased coverage of these tawdry stories are the undoing of the MFM.
Posted by: Janet | May 31, 2011 at 07:54 AM
A really good timeline at the Tatler.
Posted by: Janet | May 31, 2011 at 07:59 AM
I always knew the guy was a weenie.
Posted by: TexasIsHeaven | May 31, 2011 at 08:23 AM
From the last thread, daddy provided the reason for the cover, for Wiener, and the motive for one of Thomas's main tormentors:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9t87E2nxNB0C&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=Zeese,+Kevin;+Soros&source=bl&ots=YsEZvlSu69&sig=aQsyx_6dkVLVAm1YntjXCtSeZhs&hl=en&ei=td3kTfy6L8fg0QGR-_2HBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Zeese%2C%20Kevin%3B%20Soros&f=false
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 08:26 AM
I found this on Ace, they are dialing it up to 12:
http://www.thestate.com/2011/05/31/1840094/clyburns-mission-tame-the-deficit.html
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 08:38 AM
narciso,
The only report on the radio today that mentioned Weiner was that he was the point man on getting Thomas recused from the ObamaCare hearing when it arrives at SCOTUS and this was Fox News (radio edition for the local station).
And is it a coincidence, you think, that both Weiner and Thomas are noteworthy for their "Johnsons". What did Anita Hill say he called his? Long Wong Gong or something to that effect. I wonder what Huma calls Tony's?
Posted by: Jack is Back! | May 31, 2011 at 08:55 AM
UK Telegraph via Drudge:
Barack Obama's decision to play golf on Memorial Day was disrespectful and hardly presidential
Posted by: Extraneus | May 31, 2011 at 08:55 AM
.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 31, 2011 at 08:57 AM
Oh, I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | May 31, 2011 at 09:01 AM
Clarence Thomas allegedly asked Anita Hill if she had seen the porn flick "Long Dong Silver."
My understanding is that "recusal" is a reflexive verb: a judge can recuse himself, but no one can recuse him or force him to recuse himself. An appellate court could presumably void a ruling by a judge if it concludes that his failure to recuse himself affected the outcome of the case.
I'm not at all certain about this, and would like to hear from someone more knowledgeable.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 09:09 AM
Ex,
He would never be allowed to play at our club, not wearing cargo shorts like those. We are an exclusive classy club. We even have Karaoke nights.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | May 31, 2011 at 09:09 AM
Weiner the whiner. The question is;Woody or woody not twitter his weeny?
Posted by: Joseph Brown | May 31, 2011 at 09:20 AM
I wonder what Huma calls Tony's?
For somebody else.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 31, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Maybe they've been watching too many episodes of '24, but have they thought this through,
rhetorical question I know,
http://volokh.com/2011/05/30/pentagon-concludes-cyber-attack-can-be-act-of-war/
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 09:24 AM
DoT,
Either party to a suit can file a motion for the judge to recuse himself. If the judge denies the motion, you can appeal and it will be heard by another judge at that point. What I can't answer is can you do this at the SC level. Which is what I think you were asking anyway. Never mind.
Posted by: Sue | May 31, 2011 at 09:31 AM
Minus 11 at Raz today.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 09:31 AM
--"We even have Karaoke nights."--
Braini-ack calls those "Musical Teleprompters".
His brain sorely missed it in England. As fast as his brain was, it was still no match for his mouth.
His mouth thought the cue cards contained the words to God Save the Queen, and marched on without his brain.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 31, 2011 at 09:33 AM
Weiner only got married last year .. to an aid to Hiliary Clinton LUN
Posted by: Neo | May 31, 2011 at 09:45 AM
As I understand it DOT, if Kagen refuses to recuse herself, no one can do anything about it. Same with any other SC justice. The buck stops there.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | May 31, 2011 at 09:46 AM
--I wonder what Huma calls Tony's?--
Cocktail?
So many levels.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 31, 2011 at 09:48 AM
Clyburn's mission?
Rep Clyburn-D-SC is the Representative to Congress from my District. Rep Clyburn has never seen an entitlement program he was not in favor of adding funds to it.
Appointing him to work on Deficit reduction is a joke.
Posted by: pagar | May 31, 2011 at 09:49 AM
--I'm not at all certain about this, and would like to hear from someone more knowledgeable.--
No experience at the federal or SCOTUS level, so I probably shouldn't even answer but, at the state level in CA each party gets one judicial peremptoray challenge.
Then they can also challenge any judge for cause but it had better be a serious conflict or it won't succeed.
I have the same understanding as DoT, that recusal is something a judge does to himself while a successful challenge by one of the parties or a panel is a disqualification.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 31, 2011 at 09:55 AM
while you're on judges, today the Kloppster pops out of her hidey hole -- will she see her shadow?
Posted by: henry | May 31, 2011 at 09:58 AM
Why isn't the RNC all over this, like the DNC rallied to get Foley, and even GeoAllen for his minor gaffe? I'm beginning to think the "elites" with an R attached are clueless.
Run Sarah Run ! Change the guard, the order, the "normal"....whatever :)
Posted by: glenda | May 31, 2011 at 10:01 AM
I'm familiar with the CA state practice--the peremptory challenge is misleadingly called an "affidavit of prejudice," but all the judges and lawyers understand that no one is really claiming prejudice, and you file such a document if you simply would like your chances better with another randomly-chosen judge.
Thanks Sue and Jane. What it all means to me is that Weiner is simply smearing Thomas; nothing he can say or do will force a recusal.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 10:02 AM
Why isn't the RNC all over this, like the DNC rallied to get Foley, and even GeoAllen for his minor gaffe?
Amen to that, glenda.
Clyburn is one of the d#*n liars about the March 20th, 2010 Tea Party.
"House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said Saturday's ugliness underscored for him that the health care overhaul isn't the only motivation for many protesters.
"I heard people saying things today I've not heard since March 15th, 1960, when I was marching to try and get off the back of the bus," Clyburn said. "This is incredible, shocking to me."
He added, "A lot of us have said for a long time that none of this is about health care at all. It's about extending a basic fundamental right to people who are less powerful.""
LIE.
Posted by: Janet | May 31, 2011 at 10:13 AM
Feds Target Top Execs for Health Fraud
Posted by: Extraneus | May 31, 2011 at 10:13 AM
'Surprise, surprise,' well not really:
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2011/05/cnn_poll_on_oba.php
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 10:17 AM
Biodegradable products may be bad for the environment:
Research from North Carolina State Univ. shows that so-called biodegradable products are likely doing more harm than good in landfills, because they are releasing a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down.
Posted by: PD | May 31, 2011 at 10:21 AM
I'm beginning to think the "elites" with an R attached are clueless.
Hence the Tea Party.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM
The Numbers Are Grim (NYT)
Consumer Confidence falls unexpectedly in May (There's that word again - AP, natch.)
Home-price index at lowest point since 2006 bust
Does anyone know what the President shot yesterday?
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Well worth reading: Stratfor's George Friedman discusses Israel's Borders and National Security.
Posted by: anduril | May 31, 2011 at 10:33 AM
I think the main reason Weiner's weiner is being given a pass is that he is a Dem. However, I think there is another factor. I think inappropriate twitter and email relationships are happening far more frequently than anyone is willing to acknowledge. Sometimes they lead to actual physical meeting and squeezing, sometimes not. But, in addition to the protect the Dem mentality, there is a "there but for the grace of God" (although with NY Times personnel it is more likely "there but for the grace of Gaia's karma") element to operation Protect the Weiner.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 31, 2011 at 10:35 AM
If you are a politician, and a male with a wandering eye, own it. The lies are what bring you down, not the nookie on the side. If the Rep in question simply confessed to his indiscretion, he'd be in big trouble with his wife, but he'd probably get reelected anyway. Heck, even the worst of them, Mr. Spitzer, is profitably employed as a talk show host and missed out on most ofthe legal trouble.
The big stories -- Clinton, Edwards, the ex-senator from Nevada. They got in legal trouble because they tried to cover up, and ran afoul of some Federal law that was never intended to ensnare politicians with a zipper problem.
Posted by: Appalled | May 31, 2011 at 10:36 AM
Laura Ingraham is pounding the hell out of Bart Stupak for selling out Catholics on Bammycare.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 31, 2011 at 10:40 AM
But, in addition to the protect the Dem mentality, there is a "there but for the grace of God" (although with NY Times personnel it is more likely "there but for the grace of Gaia's karma") element to operation Protect the Weiner.
TC, I agree with that. I suspect there are way too many people out there who aren't quite sure they see anything wrong with a married man sending out a picture of his junk to a hot, willing co-ed.
Posted by: MayBee | May 31, 2011 at 10:43 AM
Guess who's a new bankster:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/05/great-2010-cashout-judd-gregg-goldman-sachs
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 10:48 AM
Do you think Rep. Weiner is some of the "rich white trash" that Krugman was talking about?
Posted by: Janet | May 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM
What it all means to me is that Weiner is simply smearing Thomas; nothing he can say or do will force a recusal.
Exactly. The pressure for Kagen to recuse herself will be valid, so this is a pre-emptive attempt to be able to say that she won't step down unless he does.
It's a game.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | May 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM
Does he know what audience he is writing for, of did he submit his piece to the Huff Po incorrectly
http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/31/ask-matt-labash-an-apology-to-sarah-palin-and-nature-vs-nurture/comment-page-3/#comments
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 11:22 AM
Chicago PMI Worse Than Expected
Time To Celebrate The Recovery: Food Stamp Usage Hits Fresh Record
The good news is that we can stop worrying about whether or not the dreaded double dip will occur. That will leave us much more time to focus on Weiner's wiener.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 31, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Kristol, Frum, Moran, take a bow, no seriously:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/becks-explosive-video-vindication-socialist-explain-how-they-worked-with-muslim-brotherhood-islamic-extremists-in-the-mid-east-revolutions-to-unite-arab-world-against-usa-britain-israel/
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 11:31 AM
narciso- while I don't agree with what Matt Labash is saying there, it is as valid to dislike Palin as it is to dislike any other Republican.
Posted by: MayBee | May 31, 2011 at 11:33 AM
No, this much more in the vein of the mad pikachu, who we are well acquainted with,
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 11:40 AM
"WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that former Attorney General John Ashcroft cannot be personally sued over his role in the post-9/11 arrest of an American Muslim who was never charged with a crime.
"By a 5-3 vote, the court said Ashcroft did not violate the constitutional rights of Abdullah al-Kidd, who was arrested in 2003 under a federal law intended to make sure witnesses testify in criminal proceedings.
"Al-Kidd claimed in a federal lawsuit that the arrest and detention violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.
"But even the justices who disagreed about the constitutional issue agreed that Ashcroft could not be personally sued for his role in al-Kidd's arrest. The court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that denied Ashcroft immunity from liability in this case. "
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 11:42 AM
I predict that neither Thomas nor Kagan will recuse.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 11:45 AM
Labash used to be somewhat amusing in his "gee, Dick Cheney is a nicer person than I'd been led to believe" way but it appears PDS has taken over his tiny brain.
narc, I was just reading an editorial in a past Weekly Standard where Kristol was taking shots at Beck over exactly that. The Frum and Moran support should've been a sure tell.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 31, 2011 at 11:47 AM
Obviously the NYT would pursue this story with "vigah" if Little Weiner had a "wide stance" like ex Senator--and Republican--Larry Craig. But since there's nothing wide about Weiner except his mouth, there's nothing to see here--move along.
Posted by: Comanche Voter | May 31, 2011 at 11:56 AM
Quick WI recall update: recall petitions for Rs certified by GAB. Recalls for Ds delayed certification past June 3 statutory deadline.
Lots of people not happy about this.
Kloppenberg will announce something by phone at 11:00 LOCAL.
Posted by: henry | May 31, 2011 at 11:57 AM
The EPA is determined to destroy America and claims they have laws pasted by Congress to back them up.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/congresswomen-epa-claims-theyre-prohibit
"“Under the Clean Air Act, decisions regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be based solely on an evaluation of the scientific evidence as it pertains to health and environmental effects.”
We have seen case after case where so-called scientific evidence in the Global Warming field has been proven false, yet no one seems to challenge the EPA and win on any of this stuff.
Posted by: pagar | May 31, 2011 at 11:58 AM
Kloppster- recount is a wake-up call ... processes not followed ... unacceptable gaps in ballot security ... widespread irregularities esp in Waukesha County.
Concedes. "David Prosser has won this election".
Posted by: henry | May 31, 2011 at 12:03 PM
Kloppenberg conceded the election and said that she had congratulated Prosser on his win, but in her statement did everything possible to say how awful the electoral process in Wisconsin is and in effect delegitimize the election.
Naturally, none of this would apply had she won.
Posted by: PD | May 31, 2011 at 12:06 PM
So, an "unnamed staffer" (soon to be identified, I am sure) is responsible for tweeting Weiner's tweeter. snort.
Posted by: centralcal | May 31, 2011 at 12:10 PM
I just heard that in San Francisco Weiner was coming out for circumcision...
Posted by: Soylent Red | May 31, 2011 at 12:11 PM
oops - nevermind, I misread a tweet from Topsecretk9.
Posted by: centralcal | May 31, 2011 at 12:13 PM
Yeah, Soylent. That Weiner is a cut above the rest.
Posted by: Threadkiller | May 31, 2011 at 12:21 PM
“I’m not going to talk about this anymore,” he said. “I think if I was giving a speech to 45,000 people, and someone stood up and heckled in the back, I wouldn’t spend three days talking to him. I’m going to get back to the conversation I care about.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/05/31/rep-anthony-weiner-refuses-to-say-if-lewd-twitter-photo-was-of-him/#ixzz1NwnHMc2A
Of course, if Weiner was giving a speech to 45,000 people and he flashed everyone OR someone in the back flashed everyone, we'd be talking about it.
He is refusing to say if the picture is of him.
Posted by: MayBee | May 31, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Rush: Anybody notice how much better Sarah Palin looks in a helmet than Michael Dukakis....waiting for a side by side comparrison
Posted by: BB Key | May 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Matt Labash, what a jerk. Holy cow.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 31, 2011 at 12:34 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | May 31, 2011 at 12:34 PM
Go to Drudge for a feast of gang viloence in the US over the weekend...Probably just our version of the Arab Spring
Posted by: BB Key | May 31, 2011 at 12:47 PM
Yes. He's back to the people's work. What a man.
Posted by: MarkO | May 31, 2011 at 12:48 PM
the people's work.
He can't even manage his own life. pathetic. Here is a newly married man following lots of young women on twitter...that in itself is inappropriate. Like algore having a masseuse come to his hotel room after 10 pm. You KNOW it is sketchy....
Posted by: Janet | May 31, 2011 at 01:03 PM
In a desperate attempt to parody the conduct of the Democrats, let me speculate about the evolution of things the next time this happens: the preemptive denial.
"Hi, Pinch? Tony. Good. Listen, I wanted to let you know about this story you're going to hear about in the next couple days so you don't get suckered in. Yeah. There are going to be reports that at around...3pm tomorrow afternoon...no, closer to 3:45, my Congressional office is going to be visited by 3 strippers, a tiny clown car filled with midget strippers, a girls' junior high school marching band all dressed really slutty (but carrying their instruments), three or four guys with HD video equipment, and a boa constrictor. I know, it's outlandish. Well, it just so happens that at about 2:30 tomorrow I'm going to get a really bad headache and send everybody home, and I'll just stay for a minute to lock up. Right, so I won't even have been there by the time the alleged strippers supposedly showed up. So why not, in the afternoon edition, just drop a paragraph on A5 or something, 'Congressman falls ill, will return to work tomorrow', so you can give the story all the attention it deserves and we can both get on with the important business of...yes, our important business. Thanks Pinch."
Posted by: bgates | May 31, 2011 at 01:08 PM
Henry, why were the D recalls delayed? Insufficient signatures?
Any word from the state SCt on the emergency application to vacate the corrupt judge's order?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 01:13 PM
He is refusing to say if the picture is of him.
WEll gee, he certainly would not refuse to say it wasn't him now would he? Gee maybe his wife posted it.
BTW Fox just talked reported on it. Carl Cameron indicated the pix wasn't anything all that unusual, and WEiner said he was hacked. Pretty milktoast.
Posted by: Jane (sit on the couch or save your country) | May 31, 2011 at 01:26 PM
Danube, why D recalls delayed? apparently the Ds threatened to sue the GAB over bad signatures or out of state petitioners or some process thing or another(but not enough to disqualify the petitions), then the GAB declared itself immune from open records law so we may never know -- I hope some facts will come out on what is really going on because it is very confused right now (the delays are real, but the reasons are from a recall organizer, not the GAB itself).
I haven't seen anything on the Sumi appeal.
Posted by: henry | May 31, 2011 at 01:27 PM
I honestly think Weinergate is going nowhere barring some explosive new information from another source. The MSM seems collectively determined to bury it (in a way they weren't with the Spitzer thing).
Posted by: Porchlight | May 31, 2011 at 01:30 PM
Is today the day they vote on the debt ceiling?
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | May 31, 2011 at 01:30 PM
I am also frequently wrong, so take that for what it's worth.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 31, 2011 at 01:31 PM
Sara-
Y.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | May 31, 2011 at 01:32 PM
Between Cameron and Pergram, it's a wonder any journalism happens at all over there:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/assets.sarahpac.com/uploads/72/SPAC_ONT_Gettysburg-2.jpg?1306858206
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 01:33 PM
Carl Cameron indicated the pix wasn't anything all that unusual,
Why do I think every last man in DC is tweeting pictures of his junk to women they don't really know?
Posted by: MayBee | May 31, 2011 at 01:33 PM
What is the GAB? And if the signatures are valid, and there are enough of them, why would the threat of a lawsuit cause them to delay? Does this meand that when June 3 rolls around, the D recalls are dead?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 01:44 PM
Being a Democrat in DC is like being the star QB in high school.
Posted by: MarkO | May 31, 2011 at 01:45 PM
General Accounting Board, that is in charge of these things,
Posted by: narciso | May 31, 2011 at 01:46 PM
Being a Democrat in DC is like a fat pig feeding from the taxpayers' trough.
Posted by: fdcol63 | May 31, 2011 at 01:48 PM
Danube the GAB is the Govt Accountability Board (think state Board of Elections). I don't know why they delayed (except to "look into issues"), but they will miss the June 3 date (required by law) and consider the petitions on Jun 6. Since they are ignoring the law, I don't know what will happen.
The concern expressed by the recall petition guy was that WI would end up with two separate recall elections -- one for Rs followed by one for Ds.
Posted by: henry | May 31, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Why do I think every last man in DC is tweeting pictures of his junk to women they don't really know?
It happens more than you think and not just from Washington.
Back in 1996, I had a long-standing email exchange with another researcher. I'd corresponded with him fairly regularly over a year's time. Always, he was very professional, not much personal info, very much just the facts kind of person. Then I got busy, he took on a new project at work and our correspondence tapered off, eventually stopping. Then about 6 mo. after our last exchange, I got an email birthday greeting from him. Or at least that is what I thought it was, since the Subject read: "Just for you on your birthday!"
When I opened the email, it was a giant picture taken of him [or someone he claimed as himself] at the moment of ejaculation, full view. I almost threw up and then white hot anger just washed over me. Although there had been nothing in our previous exchanges that would indicate he was like this or that this type of picture would be welcome on my end, it made me feel cheap and dirty and highly insulted. I wouldn't even want a picture like that from a man I was madly in lust or love with and yet, this man, who'd seemed so professional, thought this behavior was hunky dory.
There is nothing sexy or erotic about such pictures. They are disgusting and, IMO, indicate a total lack of respect for the receiver. Why men think women welcome such pictures is beyond me, but I know it happens much more than you might think.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | May 31, 2011 at 01:59 PM
Since Palin and her team won’t share where the potential candidate is headed, reporters and producers have little choice but to simply stay close to Palin’s bus. This has resulted in scenes of the Palin bus tooling down the highway followed by a caravan of 10 or 15 vehicles – including a massive CNN bus – all trying to make sure they don’t lose sight of the Palin bus.
This is so funny to me. Link to Hot Air Story.
Posted by: Sue | May 31, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Rush is not swallowing the Weinergate story...
Posted by: glasater | May 31, 2011 at 02:11 PM
The MSM seems collectively determined to bury it (in a way they weren't with the Spitzer thing).
Talk about circling the wagons, I just heard an ABC news report on the radio, talking about the House vote on the debt ceiling tonight. Apparently it's not a binding vote, but was rescheduled because the leadership didn't want to take a chance at roiling the stock market. Anyway, the ABC guy adds that "Congressman Anthony Weiner called this a Republican stunt, while the Speaker's office said..." blah, blah.
How about that?
Posted by: Extraneus | May 31, 2011 at 02:13 PM
Rush is discussing the Weiner's weiner.
Posted by: Sue | May 31, 2011 at 02:14 PM
Sara, I can't imagine why you didn't report that guy to the police.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 31, 2011 at 02:14 PM
KayyyyyyyyyyyyyyRo---munch, munch, munch:(
Posted by: daddy | May 31, 2011 at 02:15 PM
A Republican was given his password? Too bad there is no free press in this country? Nixon would go free today, were he a Democrat.
Posted by: MarkO | May 31, 2011 at 02:15 PM
Sheesh, Ext. I shouldn't be surprised, but sometimes I still am.
Love that Palin story. The poor, poor, MSM isn't given a detailed schedule so as to more easily follow that irrelevant woman's every move.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 31, 2011 at 02:20 PM
OMG. The NYDN has a online poll. Guess what is winning? Weiner's account was clearly hacked. 45% to 42% he wasn't hacked.
Posted by: Sue | May 31, 2011 at 02:20 PM
Good Lord, Sara! You have a related story for almost every news item! I'm glad I don't have one for THIS story. Hah!
Was thinkin' that we need a way to get some of these big blog stories into the mainstream...
Maybe we should all start putting up signs EVERYWHERE asking...
Where Is The Weiner Story?
Overpasses, in the medians (like political signs), on bulletin boards in cafes & restaurants,....
Same for Pigford & so many other ignored stories.
Posted by: Janet | May 31, 2011 at 02:20 PM
I'm thinking we should all start hounding Twitter about the hack. Enough noise and they will have to do something.
Posted by: Sue | May 31, 2011 at 02:21 PM
Why men think women welcome such pictures is beyond me, but I know it happens much more than you might think.
There are a lot more pervs out there than you would like to believe. I'm not sure why but the sense of shame of doing something like that seems to have gone away starting with the 60s.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 31, 2011 at 02:23 PM
Sue, that was funny. Gives new meaning to full employment for reporters.
Posted by: pagar | May 31, 2011 at 02:25 PM
Sometimes, the only reason you know you've stepped in dog shit ... is that you carry it home. And, smell it.
Weiner's wiener ain't that much to talk about. Sort'a like the sock Algore dropped into his jeans ... to enhance himself for a photograph, when he was running for prez.
He didn't win that contest, either.
Posted by: Carol.Herman | May 31, 2011 at 02:28 PM