My One Thought About Anthony Weiner

217 comments on “My One Thought About Anthony Weiner”

1. Halfway-reading Portnoy’s Complaint right now and you say this… Serendipity.

2. .
   He’s crippled (if not killed) his career for the foreseeable future and he did it based on his stupidity about the situation and not the situation itself.
   .
   If we take him at his word, there’s been no extramarital sex and no meetings with any of these woman. There wasn’t really a whole lot to hide. If he’d come out and said that he meant to send the photo as a screwy joke to someone he knew and the thing got posted to Twitter by accident instead…
   .
   Stupid, but not as much of a story and no creation of a bigger story by covering it up and telling lies about it for a week. It would have been damaging, but it would be a recoverable “oopsie.” What’s also stupid is that these other photos like this one that are out there weren’t apparently hacked. He’s got these photos stored online somewhere in a file/photo sharing network. What’s even more mind boggling about it is that these six women he’s been sending these photos to are, if he’s to be believed, people he has never met. He can’t even give a definitive answer to the question of if he knows whether or not they’re all of adult age.
   .
   Seriously, WTF was going through his head?
   .
   This is just going to get so much worse for him over the next few weeks. He could have at least contained and managed the damage to his career if he hadn’t gone on a week long press tour where he lied about this in 10, 20 and 45 minute interviews. People would have thought this was weird or “beneath the dignity of the office” if he had said from day one that he and some friends send screwball photos back and forth as sophomoric jokes and he would have taken some hits. But now he’s practically dead career-wise for at least a few years and anything he could have done that was meaningful and useful for his side has been negated by his handing the other side this club to beat him senseless with each and every time he sticks his head up.

   1. Plus his name’s Weiner. That didn’t help.
      .
      PAD

      1. .
         Yeah. I heard a couple of radio talkers discussing the situation earlier this morning. They were liberal, on his side, throwing around scenarios about what might have “really happened” here and actually trying to not talk about it in a “ha ha” manner, but half of what they said still came off sounding like they were intentionally whipping out double entendres.

      2. Heh. Jerry said “whipping out.” And in his previous posting, he kept talking about Weiner’s head.
         .
         There’s just something about a Dickensian name that kicks these things to a whole new level.
         .
         PAD

      3. .
         “There’s just something about a Dickensian name that kicks these things to a whole new level.”
         .
         Yeah. I’m channel surfing the XM right now and I would love to be able to actually see the looks on the faces of the talking heads. One of them asked if his biggest issue was less the matter itself and more about how he handled it. There was a two or three second pause before anyone said anything and I’m sure it was from everyone biting their tongues so as to not be snickering while answering.

      4. Yeah, and you said “Ðìçkensian”.
         .
         The only thing missing would’ve been if his given name was “Richard”.

      5. I occasionally do a radio gig here and there, and today I remarked how fortunately there wasn’t also a picture of his buns floating around.

   2. Simple:

      Graduate of the Gary Hart Institute of Crisis Management, magna çûm laude.

      1. Heh. You said çûm…

   3. the problem was he sent it to a young woman and breitbart knew that.

      saying that would have been just as bad as what he said about it being hacked.

      It’s clear that the woman was passing everything to breitbart for whatever reason.

      1. “the problem was he sent it to a young woman and breitbart knew that.

         saying that would have been just as bad as what he said about it being hacked.”
         .
         No, saying that instead of saying his account was hacked would have saved him a lot of ridicule and lost credibility. It would have saved him from jokes on every outlet from Fox News to The Daily Show about his “ceritude” statement. It would have saved him from making his supporters and defenders from looking like áššëš by
         believing he “did too get hacked” and that should be investigated.
         .

3. Another case where the cover up appears to be worse than the ‘crime’ itself.

   1. Agreed. If he had simply said, “Yeah. That was a silly mistake” he would be fine.
      .
      But saying his account was hacked? Did he not think there would have to be an investigation? Did he not realize that as a Congressman with access to important information, any accusation of hacking would have to be taken seriously? For shame.

      1. It’s like the old cartoon: “If Woody had gone to the police, none of this would’ve happened.” Just fess up and move on.

4. Well, at least he didn’t tap his toe in an airport bathroom. But, hey, it could have been worse… it could have been Barney Frank.

   1. Don’t worry, folks. I think we’ve finally found a good on-air sidekick for Client Number 9 over on CNN.

   2. Who couldn’t see this coming? You know a wedding is destined for ruin when the pastor is Bill Clinton. I mean, c’mon!

   3. There’s a debate now in place amongst conservatives as to whether or not Anthony Weiner should stay or not. (This is, of course, all hypothetical because whether he stays or goes is largely not up to us anyway, and we recognize this… but it’s something we are considering right now nonetheless.) One conservative camp says he should go, either by resigning or by being forced out by his peers, because he is a disgrace that should not be tolerated. The other camp likes him right where he is, representing the Democrat Party and the left in New York. I don’t know, personally, which would be best. Unlike a lot of others, I took no pleasure in his press conference, listening to his voice crack like that. So I’m conflicted on that subject. I don’t know what would be best here.

   4. Whoah, I just saw a picture of this guy from high school… I think I’m gonna call him “Weiner Horshack.”

      http://i52.tinypic.com/2lxfjg8.jpg

5. In politics, there are Weiners and there are losers. 🙁

6. Things I want to see : Jon Stewart admit he was wrong with his auto-defence of the man.
   Weiner resign, because he’s demonstrated he’s just too dumb to lead anyone.
   Democrats distinguish themselves from Republicans, by tossing people like this out, instead of giving them a standing ovation. *cough* *cough* David Vitter *cough*

   Things I don’t want to see : Weiners weiner.

   1. John: Jon Stewart admit he was wrong with his auto-defence of the man.
      .
      Really? Why? He had been friends with him for decades. He didn’t believe he did it. Of course he would automatically come to his defense.
      .
      If your friend was accused of something you didn’t believe he did, I hope that you would come to his defense.
      .
      Because that’s what friends do.
      .
      In fact, Jon was wrong in only one thing… his belief that his friend did this. His defense is exactly what was required as a friend.
      .
      If he apologizes for it, I will think of him as less of a human being.
      .
      TAC

   2. Democrats already do distinguish themselves from Republicans when it comes to scandals. Democrats tend to circle the wagons when this happens to one of their guys a lot more than when it happens to Republicans (Barney Fwank, Ted Kennedy etc). The reason why Democrat scandals aren’t as big a deal is because Democrats don’t purport to champion things like traditional values in the first place. Weiner will be fine, you guys. He’ll get his own news show on CNN or MSNBC before the next year is over.

   3. Jon Stewart admit he was wrong with his auto-defence of the man.
      .
      Maybe I’ve missed something, but I did catch a Daily Show segment where Stewart talked about this, and I didn’t see it as Stewart automatically defending Weiner.
      .
      It was mocking, it showed the photo (which is by no means “lewd” as so many in the ‘left-wing media’ have described it… unless I’ve also missed another photo that was supposedly sent out). If anything, it was mostly disbelief on Stewart’s part: disbelief that his friend would do this in the first place, and then further disbelief that it would be denied when it was so quickly pointed out that no hacking took place.

      1. Plus Jon Stewart did indeed apologize last night. What do people want from him? Blood? Well, they got that, too.
         .
         PAD

      2. Peter,
         No, I was happy with Jon Stewarts apology last night.
         .
         Other guys up above there:
         He wasn’t just defending his friend. He had a go at CNN, implied there was evidence in the meta data which exonerated his friend, and that he was familiar with his friends junk, and that wasn’t his junk in the picture.

      3. Yeah, when all is said and done, we still don’t know if that was a gag picture or not. He could just as easily have stuck a cucumber in there.
         .
         PAD

      4. It would be nice if Stewart would apologize to Andrew Breitbart in a host-to-guest scenario on the Daily Show, but the Daily Show camp did, according to Breitbart, send out an email stating that they do not like to have conservative pundits on the show. Now, the Daily Show has had conservative pundits on before so either this is a new relatively new policy or this is a temporary guideline. I dunno.

7. We Jews… We happy Jews… We band of bûggërëd…

   1. Oh my aching ribs… I swear, this is the funniest thing. If he’d just done a Charlie Wilson and owned up to it the first time… but no, he tries to spin it and gets a faceful. Oh, God, that can be taken a zillion different ways…

      1. Yes, it’s very hard – pardon me, it’s very difficult to say anything about this whole situation without hitting an accidental punchline.

8. Off topic…how do you shroud someone? My IQ drops when I read a Darin comment, and I want to avoid that….

   1. It’s an exercise in self-restraint: see name, scroll past post.

   2. What Craig just said. It’s the equivalent of shunning. You just ignore him and make a point of never responding to him.
      .
      PAD

      1. Oh, OK..thought there was a physical way of doing it.

      2. .
         “Oh, OK..thought there was a physical way of doing it.”
         .
         Well, if you absolutely have to have a physical way to do it, you can always put your hand on the screen to cover his posts.
         .
         🙂

   3. There exist disemvowelling and “I like pie” scripts that allow individual users can filter out specific individuals. I have no idea where they can be found for WordPress, though.

      1. Disemvowelling is something that can only be implemented by the moderators of this board. I’ve done it maybe once (maybe twice) before, with someone(s) whose actions had become so foul that I felt he/they had forfeited any claim to being allowed here.
         .
         Pronouncing someone Shrouded is simply a means of informing them that, while they will be allowed to hang out and spout off, they won’t be responded to by me and whoever else chooses to decide that he/she is a waste of time.
         .
         PAD

      2. There also exist created scripts using plug-ins that let an individual person’s browser filter out comments via several methods, including disemvowelling. (For example, this one created for a political commentary site: http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/1348/obsidian-wings-disemvoweler/)
         .
         Shrouding works in a pinch though.

9. Can’t say I think this is all that bad. He acted stupid? That isn’t a crime. He lied? I don’t find that surprising. Has anyone ever admitted the truth in a sex scandal? And just how many lives were lost due to his actions?

   I’m not saying he wasn’t stupid. Or that he doesn’t deserve some scorn. But compared to a vast number of scandals, this is nothing. He should not be booted out of office for this. He should not be scorned by the rest of his party. And I say this as someone who is represented by him but can’t name a single accomplishment of Weiner’s time in office. I want someone better. But not because he did these things.

   The real scandal here is that his privacy was violated. The “sexting” is none of our business, and it’s shameful that SOP for smear campaigns includes hacking into people’s lives. It bodes well for the future, as no one will want to run for office but saints.

   1. It disgusts me that people like this tend to be our would-be rulers. Schwarzenegger, Weiner, Clinton, Al Gore, the late Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank… so many sex or sex-related scandals out there on both sides of the political aisle. I don’t like the fact that so many of our leaders misbehave, like this in particular. Now, the real scandal when it comes to Weiner, in my opinion, are these facts: He said he’d been hacked when he wasn’t. He claimed a crime had been committed. In an attempt to come to his defense, the Democrat machine went after Andrew Breitbart and his website, who were very disciplined in their reporting of this. These are no little things. Weiner has stated that he will not resign and Nancy Pelosi has requested a formality to create the illusion that he will be investigated. The Democrats are already circling the wagons trying to protect this guy. It’s what they do. That’s the proper way to look at this. Not “oh he made a mistake or he was stupid and that’s not a crime.” That kind of response is just dancing around the particulars of the matter in an attempt to garner sympathy. He claimed a crime had been committed and real people were affected by this pervert.

      1. I’d be very interested in seeing what this man had to say about Mark Foley in 2006.

      2. I’d also be very interested in seeing what this man had to say about Larry Craig in 2007.

   2. .
      “Has anyone ever admitted the truth in a sex scandal?”
      .
      Yeah, but there really was no sex scandal here, Simon. That’s the thing that’s the biggest problem with this.
      .
      Weiner, if we take his current story at complete face value, had been either just sending to or exchanging some really stupid photos, the type of which you would expect to see from teenagers more than an elected official, with some women. There was no sex or even close physical proximity. It was a more “adult” version of sending gag emails back and forth with friends.
      .
      When the first photo hit the news, Weiner could have said that it was a photo accidently posted to the site that was originally meant to be directly sent. He could have said that, yeah, it was of a juvenile nature, but that it was a part of a dumb gag that had been going on between him and the intended recipient.
      .
      Some people would have still found the idea offensive. Some people would have insisted on digging for dirt for a while and looking for an affair that, supposedly, is nonexistent. But most people would have shrugged, discussed for about a cup of coffee how it was a stupid move on his part, we would have gotten maybe an extra day of jokes about on TV and then it would have gone away.
      .
      What we got instead was a week long media tour by Weiner were he started it by being almost confrontational with the media, later on told every reporter that he sat in front of, and all of us by extension, that his account was hacked, said that he didn’t send it and also said that the people saying that he sent it were wrong/liars. He then gets backed into a corner by the news that more photos and a few more women were about to become news and comes out with his tearful Monday afternoon press conference where he says that he’s been sending these photos for a while, that he lied about it all week and that he can’t even say with 100% certainty that all of the women are of adult age.
      .
      That is what killed him here. Most the people out there, even some of the ones who like to play up their holy roller appearance, can relate to sending and have in fact sent the odd slightly risqué gag email. People may have raised an eyebrow over the fact that the photos were of him rather than the generic internet photos that emails like that are usually full of, but it was still a much more manageable story to deal with and one that would have blown over in less the a week’s time with everyone but the rabid partisans in the media. But Weiner had to go and drag out the initial phase of the story and compound that stupidity by telling lies about it and digging the whole deeper by, basically, smearing the people who were telling the truth about the story.
      .
      There was no sex scandal. There never really was a sex scandal. What there was was a moment of sophomoric stupidity that turned into a cover-up and lies scandal. He’s damaged his career and flushed his immediate political ambitions (Mayor of New York from what I understand) right down the drain because he panicked and created a giant scandal out of a relatively minor faux pas.
      .
      Sadly, hotheaded firebrand that he can be, I had thought that Weiner was smarter than this and I know that many more thought the same. The fact that he acted so stupidly is as big of a hit to his career and the strength of support that he might have gotten in the immediate future as the cover-up and lies themselves.

      1. I never thought he stood a chance to be mayor, quite frankly. Not much charisma, and also from the wrong borough, since we always elect Manhattanites. I also don’t see him losing his seat in the same city that keeps sending Charles Rangel back, unless the most religious voters in our district inflict upon him some “moral outrage.”

         If only he had handled things like Barney Frank did, I suppose. Not that I either recall the details of Frank’s scandal not wish to look them up, but he was in trouble and handled it well enough that, thankfully, he is still with us. But men like Barney Frank are rare.

      2. Yeah, but there really was no sex scandal here… There was no sex scandal. There never really was a sex scandal.
         .
         And of course PAD started this thread with the line about how it is funny for a Jewish guy to be involved in a sex scandal in which there is no actual sex.
         .
         Since a significant part of sex involves anticipation, flirting and other aspects that are entirely cerebral, (the brain is a sex organ after all), it may be a bit too forgiving to say that there was not sex involved.
         .
         The act itself is not necessary for prostitutes and their clients to be charged with a crime, only the intent. Why was Larry Craig arrested for tapping his foot?
         .
         I’m not saying Weiner is guilty of solicitation. The entire thing may have been consensual, but to say that sex has nothing to do with it, is a little disingenuous. Weiner sure apologized to his wife a lot in that new conference for sex to have had nothing to do with it.

      3. Weiner sure apologized to his wife a lot in that new conference for sex to have had nothing to do with it.

         It’s not the sex he had to apologize to his wife for, its the betrayal.

      4. .
         “The act itself is not necessary for prostitutes and their clients to be charged with a crime, only the intent. Why was Larry Craig arrested for tapping his foot?”
         .
         That’s called getting charged with soliciting sex or lewd behavior in a public place. That’s not getting arrested for having sex.
         .
         And don’t try and make the definition of sex to overly broad here. The way you’re opening the definition up; well, most of us would then have had “sexual relations” with hundreds of thousands of people and Facebook and MySpace are practically sites for never ending orgies,

      5. I said I wasn’t accusing Weiner of soliciting, but he was flirting.
         .
         When Jimmy Carter was running for president is 1976, he said in a Playboy magazine interview that anyone who has looked on a woman with lust in his heart has already committed adultery. Admittedly this is a very strict religious stance and certainly not illegal but it seems to be the way men, at least, are hard wired.
         .
         Of course the fantasies in your head are normal and certainly not illegal but they are sexual. It is hard to see Weiner’s actions as anything other than sexual. When it becomes something other than normal is when you actually act on those fantasies to the detriment of your reputation. That makes it an obsession and a sexual scandal.

      6. .
         I still think some people are stretching the meaning of the term “Sex Scandal” when they include this based just on what’s on the record at the moment. There was no sex. There was no physical contact. Hëll, if he’s to be believed, he hasn’t even met these women in the flesh. And I would believe that since he couldn’t say for sure whether all the women he’s corresponded with are all of legal age.
         .
         There was no “sex” in this scandal. It was stupidity scandal that turned into a massive stupidity scandal with a cover-up. But sex? Not so much.

10. Silly me, I also had thought that “shrouding” involved some operation that just made the person’s post disappear. If only that were possible.
    .
    You know, the politician that will earn my eternal admiration will be the guy that says: “It’s my personal life, it’s none of your business, fûçk you.”
    .
    (As long as it doesn’t involve minors, or anyone being forced to do anything they don’t want to do, or a family values hypocrite that votes one way and lives another, like Foley)

    1. You know, the politician that will earn my eternal admiration will be the guy that says: “It’s my personal life, it’s none of your business, fûçk you.”
       .
       The only politician I’ve ever seen say that was a fictional one: Alan Alda’s Arnie Vinnick when questioned about his religious beliefs and church attendance. He stopped short of “fûçk you,” but the episode ended with him saying that he was never going to answer those questions because it wasn’t anyone’s business but his, period. And because it was fiction, that was the end of it. As opposed to real life where if a candidate said that, then ALL the questions he got from that point on would be nothing but questions regarding his religion.
       .
       PAD

       1. Bloomberg seems to have come close to this in terms of his personal beliefs. He never pretends to be the least bit devout and never panders to the religious, and no one seems to mind one bit or ask him why he never goes to shul.

       2. Perhaps something to do with Bloomberg being a Jew. He’s already part of the only non-Christian group the Right doesn’t automatically distrusts.
          .
          He’s also strictly a NYC politician. And New Yorkers are notorious for being all decadent atheist muslim devil-worshippers anyway.

    2. Weiner killed himself on this with the claim that he was hacked. Left wing partisans immediately fingered Breitbart and other conservatives as the hackers and within hours had analyzed the photos and declared that they were “obvious” forgeries and this “fact” was picked up by liberals who should have known better than to trust a bunch of armchair detectives. They sooooo wanted Breitbart to be guilty they ignored Occam’s razor. When it became increasingly obvious that the most likely explanation was the correct one…they doubled down. Bet big, lose big.
       .
       (A few are STILL insisting that they were right. At least one nitwit has stated that even if Weiner called him and told him directly he would still not believe that his account had not been hacked. The conspiracy du jour is that Breitbart hacked the account, found the pictures, emailed them, and now poor Weiner has to falsely admit to it because Breitbart has the x-rated pictures that he will release if he does not confess. Or something).
       .
       Weiner’s career is DOA. Not from republicans; he is now their favorite Democrat. May he live forever. They would love to have him be the guy they face on every chat show. Now matter what the subject, they will work in lots of perfectly innocent words that can have double meanings. It’s easy since the number of dìçk jokes is nearly equal to stars in the known universe.
       .
       No, it’s Democrats who loath the guy now. Not for the sexting. Not for the lies. For making them beclown themselves in his defense and even worse, giving Andrew Breitbart a story arc that is absolutely better than anything he could have wished for. Mouthy up and coming liberal firebrand caught with pants down, blogger reports it, almost immediately accused of lying and possible crime in doing so, politician fights back, blogger sticks to guns, media gives politician the benefit of the doubt, liberals come up with increasingly implausible excuses, the whole thing collapses, blogger takes over press conference, demands apology…and gets it. Wow. That’s the kind of bad storytelling that only reality can serve up.

       1. No, it’s Democrats who loath the guy now. Not for the sexting. Not for the lies. For making them beclown themselves in his defense and even worse, giving Andrew Breitbart a story arc that is absolutely better than anything he could have wished for.

          Or more precisely, better than almost anything Breitbart could have manufactured.
          .
          Considering Breitbart’s dishonesty against Shirley Sherrod, Planned Parenthood, and ACORN, I was inclined to assume that this was simply his next manufactured scandal. That Weiner actually gave that fraudster credibility is tragic.

       2. What Sasha said. The fact that Breitbart was right THIS time doesn’t mean a lot of people weren’t justified in thinking he’d invented it. When you make your career out of making šhìŧ up, don’t be surprised when people accuse you of, well, making šhìŧ up.

       3. When you make your career out of making šhìŧ up, don’t be surprised when people accuse you of, well, making šhìŧ up.
          .
          Sounds very much like the National Enquirer or whichever one of those worthless bs ‘newspapers’ it was that finally got it right with regards to John Edwards.
          .
          And how many times have they been right since?

       4. .
          “When you make your career out of making šhìŧ up, don’t be surprised when people accuse you of, well, making šhìŧ up.”
          .
          Hëll, Breitbart is such a compulsive liar that he got busted for it this morning when talking to Matt Lauer. Lauer, who was being a bit of an idiot himself, questioned Breitbart about Breitbart’s posting of the picture. Breitbart stated that he posted it because, once Weiner claimed his twitter or whatnot was hacked, he made it news. Lauer stopped him and pointed out that Weiner only made that claim after Breitbart posted the picture and did the story about it. Breitbart paused for about a second, responded with a sheepish reply and then plowed right ahead with his prepared narrative.
          .
          Breitbart’s also being a major áššhølë here. He’s teasing that he’s got an even more explicate photo and he’ll use it if Weiner says anything to or about him (all the while saying that he did all of this to save Weiner’s family/marriage.) I thought that this was a šhìŧhëád stunt when Larry Flynt pulled this kind of blackmail threat years ago now and I think it’s a šhìŧhëád stunt now. Predictably, the same talking heads who whined about how bad Larry Flynt was years ago are backing Breitbarts’s little blackmail stunt now.

       5. Breitbart’s also being a major áššhølë here. He’s teasing that he’s got an even more explicate photo and he’ll use it if Weiner says anything to or about him (all the while saying that he did all of this to save Weiner’s family/marriage.)

          Brietbart’s simply a major áššhølë, period. Despite his professed desire to spare Weiner’s family any further embarrassment, he gleefully showed Opie and Anthony the full monty picture (which he conveniently had stored on his phone) while on their radio show, whereupon the DJs took a picture of said picture and uploaded it.
          .
          Brietbart is now claiming to be appalled at Opie and Anthony’s “complete violation of trust”. What a fûçkìņg tool.

11. What amazes me is that, in an age when emails (new Sarah Palin book) and online photos (Vanessa Hudgens) are so easily made public, he did all this from his personal accounts. Considering what a vocal public figure he is, you think he would have learned a little something from the other public scandals we’ve seen.

    I suppose it’s a result of all that blood flowing away from his brain…

12. .
    “The most upsetting thing about having a friend caught up in a scandal of this nature is finding out A) he’s packin’ jumbo heat, and B) that he’s ripped.” — Jon Stewart on Anthony Weiner http://on.cc.com/mKm8Xf

13. Weiner’s career ain’t dead, but its badly hobbled for a good while. Shame.
    .
    Kudos to Stewart for not glazing over the story as it was breaking. This must be killing him.

    1. On a related note, how soon will it be before Weiner goes on THE DAILY SHOW to do penance?

       1. If he’s smart, sooner rather than later.
          .
          PAD

       2. I think the best thing Weiner could do is to lay low for a while. He spent a week talking (and lying) about this, then he then had a very open press conference (complete with taking questions) where he finally told the truth. Unless it turns out that some of the texts/photos were sent to people non-consentually, I think we have all the information about this that we’re going to get. (Exception: We haven’t heard from his wife; though if past scandals are any indication, she’ll either divorce him, or stand up pained and stoically next to him, proclaiming her devotion to him.) There’s no more air to be cleared, and the more he talks the more he keeps the story alive. He should avoid the press, focus on his marriage and career, and wait to hear what the Senate Ethics Committee decides. Otherwise, he just keeps giving the story legs.

       3. I think the best thing Weiner could do is to lay low for a while. … There’s no more air to be cleared, and the more he talks the more he keeps the story alive. He should avoid the press, focus on his marriage and career, and wait to hear what the Senate Ethics Committee decides. Otherwise, he just keeps giving the story legs.

          Won’t work. He may want to avoid the press, but the press (especially FAUX NEWS) won’t avoid him. They’ll continue to hound Weiner and report on the scandal until something truly dramatic or dire pushes it off the front page.
          .
          (And you can be dámņ sure that Right Blogistan won’t let up since it takes attention away from GOP idiocy, including the fact that the GOP is legitimately threatening to suicide-bomb the economy by courting default.)
          .
          A public and unpleasant self-excoriation is not ideal, but it may be the least worst available choice.

       4. Jon Stewart: “Just what the hëll were you thinking?”

          Anthony Weiner (sheepish grin)

    2. “Weiner’s career ain’t dead, but its badly hobbled for a good while. Shame.”
       .
       Actually, from what I’ve been able to glean, his goose is cooked. the Democrats don’t want this story heading into the 2012 elections and what will likely still be a hobbled economy. They want weiner to go away. Hëll, Pelosi seems to have taken much quicker action regarding this issue than she did for her buddy Charlie Rangel.
       .
       The Democrats are hoping he resigns. if not, New York is due to lose two Congressional seats due to redistricting. All they have to do is eliminate his district and – poof! – problem solved.

       1. His goose may be cooked for now but if Newt Gingrinch proved nothing else, a little while in the desert can rehabilitate almost anyone.
          .
          I just wish the media would focus on scandals of significance once in a while …

       2. .
          I’m not so sure that Newt is such a great example, Sasha. He was able to come back as a talking head and he’s been able to rake insome $$$$ for himself since his time “in the desert,” but he will never hold another elected office at this point and he will never be a serious power player of the kind he once was.

       3. “His goose may be cooked for now but if Newt Gingrinch proved nothing else, a little while in the desert can rehabilitate almost anyone.”
          .
          Actually, I don’t think Newt has ever fully recovered. His baggage is still his baggage. he is still remembered for the shutdown, orphanages, losing seats in ’98 and basically being ousted.
          .
          He has not held elected office for 12 years and it looks like his time has past. he’s incredibly intelligent, but nowhere near the force he was in 1994.
          .
          “I just wish the media would focus on scandals of significance once in a while …”
          .
          Whereas I wish they would focus on stories of significance, period.
          .
          While I feel Weiner’s story should have been covered, the extent to which it was was ridiculous. On Hannity last night, he was supposed to lead off with an exclusive interview with Ann Coulter. Instead, they did three segments totalling about a half an hour on the Weiner story! THREE! Then, of course, it was discussed on his panel. So over half the broadcast was on Weiner.
          .
          Unless someone like Jerry can prove me wrong, I don’t think the Big Three networks, CNN or MSNBC were much better.
          .
          It would be refreshing to see this much attention paid to school reform, the situation with entitlements, helping people truly understand the economy, fresh perspectives on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, our relationship with Pakistan, etc.
          .
          Unfortunately those in power to make such decisions go for what’s easy rather than doing real reporting..not all the time, but too much of the time.

       4. Point taken.
          .
          In which case, may I submit the example of the Republican Party, which was humiliated in 2008 in no small part because of their ridiculous and scandalous behavior, and rode back into power even crazier than before.

       5. Whereas I wish they would focus on stories of significance, period.
          .
          […]
          .
          Unfortunately those in power to make such decisions go for what’s easy rather than doing real reporting..not all the time, but too much of the time.

          Amen, brother. That’s why I can only wish they would focus on the real stuff once in a while … its the best we can realistically hope for.

       6. .
          “Unless someone like Jerry can prove me wrong, I don’t think the Big Three networks, CNN or MSNBC were much better.”
          .
          The cables weren’t. I was surfing all night and it was all Weiner all the time. The really stupid thing is that a lot of what I was hearing wasn’t even half as intellegently articulated as some of what’s here is. And they’re the ones making the six figure salaries for this kind of thing…
          .
          “It would be refreshing to see this much attention paid to school reform, the situation with entitlements, helping people truly understand the economy, fresh perspectives on Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, our relationship with Pakistan, etc”
          .
          Facts and figures and real news aren’t “sexy” and doesn’t draw in the ratings like a scandal or like anything that the words “sex” and “photographs” can both be used in. News is basically dead in this country. It’s been replaced by editorializing and sensationalism and sacrificed at the altar of the Ratings Gods.

       7. News is basically dead in this country. It’s been replaced by editorializing and sensationalism and sacrificed at the altar of the Ratings Gods.
          .
          You’re not wrong about that. When tabloids arose, they were looked upon with incredible disdain by the “legit” news sources. Now, short of articles about Batboy, the tone and subject matter of the stories are drawing so close toward each other that they’re becoming indistinguishable.
          .
          It used to be, in covering politics, that journalists took a hard line between a person’s public actions and what he did in private, especially if the private aspects had no impact on how he served the public. The White House press knew that FDR was in a wheelchair; the public largely didn’t. The press (it is generally believed) knew that JFK was horndogging in the White House. They said nothing because back then sex scandals were simply not something that legitimate newsmen had any interest in writing about. It was considered beneath them.
          .
          Now I don’t know if their attitude was right or wrong, but I’ll tell you this: it sure seems to this observer that junk journalism has pushed out substantive journalism.
          .
          PAD

       8. …junk journalism has pushed out substantive journalism
          .
          The question is, which is the anomaly? This isn’t the first time in history that junk journalism has been considered (fairly, IMHO) ascendant.
          .
          Or does journalism naturally go through cycles, and we just have the misfortune of being in a valley?

       9. I think that Bill Moyers said it best: Journalism should be comparitive, not imperative.
          .
          Andrew Breitbart is the ultimate in the worst of today. Demanding an apology… jesus.
          .
          When Journalists put themselves at the center of the news, instead of, oh, I don’t know, reporting it, we are in the decline of what Journalism is.
          .
          My pop, an old school newspaper editor, is driven up the wall by what happens in the media today.
          .
          And I don’t blame him.
          .
          TAC

14. If the latest stuff coming out about Weiner coaching his pørņ star sexting partner to lie pans out he may be finished. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/56395.html
    .
    Democrats will want him out of there–partly because his presence is an embarrassment and a distraction and partly because it’s one less face between themselves and a microphone. I’ve noticed that it’s often the case that those politicians who are most welcome on the chat shows are not universally beloved by their fellow party members. Weiner was a welcome presence on shows where his over the top attacks on the GOP made for fun soundbites. There’s a void to be filled and someone will fill it, though given the fates of Weiner and Alan Grayson, it seems a role fraught with risk.
    .
    After seeing this bit from ABC news I am rapidly losing the sympathy I had yesterday for Weiner. What a contemptuous little weasel. http://www.punditandpundette.com/2011/06/anatomy-of-liar.html

15. If the latest stuff coming out about Weiner coaching his pørņ star sexting partner to lie pans out he may be finished.

    I’m inclined to agree.
    .
    It somewhat galls me though that Weiner (who apparently didn’t break any laws) may very well be forced to resign, while folks like Vitter (who did) weren’t.
    .
    And on a related note, I still can’t believe that the entire Ensign imbroglio hasn’t gotten nearly the amount of attention it deserves. Can someone give me a plausible reason why?

16. I haven’t read through the thread yet, but this is one of the relatively few times I’m really pìššëd at a politician.
    .
    Not for what he did — it was certainly extremely stupid to say the least, but that’s true of a lot of things a lot of people do.
    .
    No, I’m pìššëd because I really liked this guy — I think he’s a good politician, he makes his cases well and forcefully, his views tended to be similar to mine (so him making his cases well was a very good thing), and he just generally seemed to have an enormous amount of potential to do good.
    .
    And now he’s managed, quite easily, to send it all down the chute. F*ing twit.

17. .
    Well, there’s now news claiming that he may also have lied yesterday when he stated that he did not use government resources while doing this garbage.
    .
    http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/06/weiner-sexting-partner-reveals-her-identity-reveals-‘he-called-me-congress-phone’

18. It amazes me that any politician thinks they can ever get away with anything, any more. You see it as a joke on the Daily Show all the time where a politician makes a statement about something and Stewart and his folks find footage of the same politician saying something entirely contradictory. It seems like a lot of them don’t realize that camera in their face is on, all the time. And it’s practically there even when they can’t see it. Weiner made the mistake of thinking that he, given his status as a congressman, a public personality, and a vocal critic of his opposition, could do ANYthing privately.

    1. It amazes me that any politician thinks they can ever get away with anything, any more.
       .
       […]
       .
       Weiner made the mistake of thinking that he, given his status as a congressman, a public personality, and a vocal critic of his opposition, could do ANYthing privately.

       The reason why so many do is because so many have. Consider how many politicians have committed the most odious actions and have not (and probably will never be) punished in any meaningful way. Hëll, the rapid resurgence of the GOP would be enough to make anyone in a similar political position think “If they can get away with it, why can’t I?”

19. If you had a Web site that was connected to your job, in which you interacted with the public as a representative of your company, and you started sending people you met through it lewd photos, you’d probably be disciplined. If you lied to your bosses about it when asked, you’d probably be fired.

    Whether you broke the law or not wouldn’t really matter. How many people lose their jobs only if they break the law. And in Weiner’s case, his performance has been imoacted and he’s become a liability to his colleagues.

    Granted, you could argue that this shouldn’t be an issue and no one should care and it shouldn’t have the impact it does. But Weiner knows the world in which he lives.

    1. It ceased being a trivial issue that was “just about sex” when he claimed his account was hacked. A Congressman, who gets to peruse a lot of classified data, having his account hacked is not a trivial matter – and neither is lying about it.
       .
       That is the point that is being lost by many.

    2. .
       “Granted, you could argue that this shouldn’t be an issue and no one should care and it shouldn’t have the impact it does.”
       .
       You could argue that and you would have been right had Weiner not been the one who made it a big deal and given it the impact that it had. Without retyping everything I wrote above, Weiner basically could have defused this entire scandal on day one with a few simple words. It was a nothing gaffe and it was certainly nothing compared to the actions of someone like Vitter. Say that you hit the wrong button and posted a picture that was a part of a crude joke with a friend that you intended to send directly to them, admit that maybe that isn’t the best type of thing that you could be/should be doing and move on. The story is done in one and dead for anyone beyond the rabble rousers.
       .
       But going on a media tour and telling lies about it for a week solid before coming out and telling the truth? And claiming that your accounts, the accounts of an elected official, have been hacked? That blew the story up huge and now he’s paying for it by being the scandal de jour in DC.

    3. I have little sympathy for Weiner. The world he lives in is like that because he helped make it so.
       .
       Republican politicians have no incentive to fight this, since many of their more extreme supporters have a view of sexuality that is out of the Middle Ages.
       .
       But Democrats have no excuse for it. It’s cowardice. Instead of stand up and fight and say sex lives are the business of the persons involved and their families, they act like murderers covering up their crimes.
       .
       Jerry is right. The guy made it a big deal. Because he was a coward and a weasel.

       1. .Jerry is right. The guy made it a big deal. Because he was a coward and a weasel.
          .
          Basically you’re saying he acted like a total wiener.
          .
          PAD

20. From The Words Coming Back To Haunt You Department:
    During Weiner’s remarks at the Congressional Correspondents Dinner, he cracked a joke about Michele Bachmann .
    .
    “Michele Bachmann, I don’t know if she’s here. She’s probably not. She’s campaigning in Iowa and organizing in that important caucus state because she’s running for president,” Weiner said. “That’s really all I have for that joke.”

    Well, Bachmann is expected to launch her campaign for president in a few days. And before this scandal, many political handicappers viewed Weiner as the frontrunner in New York’s 2013 mayoral race.

    And that’s really all I have for that joke.

    1. And still…. Bachman running for President – no less funny.

       1. “And still…. Bachman running for President – no less funny”
          .
          Yeah, it’ll be real funny when she wins.

       2. Funny in the sense of major-league gallows’ humor, perhaps.

       3. .
          “Yeah, it’ll be real funny when she wins.”
          .
          Well, I have less faith in her even getting the nod right now than I did a week ago. If the rumblings of this brewing feud between her camp and Palin’s camp pan out to be true, there’s no way that Sarah’s not doing everything she can to metaphorically cut Bachmann’s political throat in the primaries whether Palin is in them or not.
          .
          And I wouldn’t put it past her to try to undercut Bachmann in the actual election if she does get the nod.

       4. The ‘rumblings from the Palin camp” turn out to be – surprise! – a lie told by the media:
          http://www.theblaze.com/stories/politico-issues-correction-after-palin-camp-bashes-authors-for-making-up-quote/

    2. “Yeah, it’ll be real funny when she wins.”

       Wow, can I have some of what you’re smoking? I have a three day weekend coming up, and clearly just a single hit will have me floating through dreamland for days.

       1. What? She can raise money, stirs the base, can continue to impact events as a Congresswoman and has charisma to boot.

       2. And as we keep saying: as the ‘champion’ of the Tea Party, she won’t get any votes from the independents, nor moderates in her own party.
          .
          The Tea Party may be able to get her the nomination; it won’t get her the presidency.
          .
          And heaven help her if she gets the nomination then turns her back on the Tea Party in trying to appeal to more than the far right.

       3. For those who feel Bachmann cannot POSSIBLY win in the general election..well, there were a lot of people who thought a black man with the unique name of Barack Obama would be unelectable, considering all the alleged racism in this country. Guess what? they were proved incorrect.
          .
          On the pro side for Bachmann, she has money and can really turn on the charisma and get people juiced. Not many in the Republican field can say that.
          .
          Plus, the “middle” is highly overrated. If your base doesn’t want to come out for you and is not enthused about your candidacy (see McCain before Palin or even Romney right now) it really doesn’t matter if you appeal slightly more to independents. Because the independents will look at news stories and see the lack of coherent message and enthusiasm and fail to be swayed.
          .
          It’s like, if someone’s own family won’t back them up, why should a stranger?
          .
          Plus, the average voter – and this is one of the things Bill Maher is dead-on about doesn’t pay attention to the nuances of policy. this is true for all parties. They are likely to be drawn to someone who says what she means and means what she says while offering solutions that make sense and deftly explaining why their opponent’s proposals/policies don’t. Bachmann has the first two qualities in spades. If she can pull off the latter two, she will be in the game.
          .
          Plus, she will be going up against an incumbent that not only has a lot of stuff weighing him down now, but who may look ten times worse a year from now. What if we go into a double dip? Or acrash that makes 2008 look like the Roaring 20s? or inflation goes out of control? or we lose our credit rating on Obama’s watch? Or Iran gets a bomb? or $6 a gallon gas becomes a reality?
          .
          Those are all just possibilities, but they are definitely not far-fetched. At the very least, we will still have troops overseas and a high unemployment rate.
          .
          Which in turn is almost guaranteed to depress turnout for Obama among three groups that were vital to his victory in 2008.
          .
          Blacks voted for him at a level of 98%. it will be virtually impossible for him to increase that amazing percentage – and it is even more unlikely that as many African-Americans will turn out to vote this time. The “historic” nature of their vote is no longer there, plus many will realize their lives have not improved and stay home.
          .
          Hispanics voted for him in overwhelming numbers as well. those most concerned about immigration are angry that health care, cap and trade and other things were made a priority when he still had the momentum and the votes to pass an immigration bill. Demonizing Arizona won’t cut it. And those who don’t care as much about immigration will be concerned about the economy gas, jobs, and the education of their kids like everyone else.
          .
          So no way he gets the same percentage or turnout from that group either.
          .
          Then there’s young people who voted for him in droves because of A.) the wars and B.) he seemed young, hip, fresh and exciting.
          .
          Well, the wars have not been on TV nearly as much or portrayed nearly as negatively as they were when his predecessor was in the Oval Office. And many who have lost their jobs or are working at Wal-mart despite having a degree or are looking at a tough job market coming out of college are not going to be nearly as enthusiastic or turn out in the same numbers.
          .
          Which means Obama will have to make it up somewhere. Where? Women? Women traditionally carry Democratic candidates over the finish line. Hëll, if only men were allowed to vote, Bob Dole would have beaten Bill Clinton in 1996. That’s the impact they have.
          .
          But you don’t think Bachmann, with the possibility of being the first woman president, can tap into that and shave Obama’s with that demographic as well?
          .
          That is why Bachmann can beat him.

       4. I think she’s the longest of long shots but it is true that a lot of what I hear people say about her is what i heard them say about reagan before he ran against carter. However, he had the advantage of his unsuccessful run against Ford 4 years earlier, where people got to see the serious side of a guy who had been largely treated as a caricature. For most people this will be their intro to Bachman and the Obama campaign will have lots of time and resources to defining her in the most negative way possible.
          .
          Whoever runs against Obama had better be someone who can think real well on their feet because there will be a lot of gotchs moments. I think that’s why so many like Chris Christie.

       5. Jerome, I don’t think gender solidarity is so comparable to race solidarity. Blacks were thrilled to have Obama in the White House. How many women are thrilled about Palin or Bachmann? Or even Hillary, for that matter?
          .
          The only women I see saying nice things about Palin or Bachmann are the ones that would have voted Republican anyway, no matter the candidate’s gender.
          .
          Women are savvy enough not to waste their vote on people who are, at best, dubious about women’s rights (and that’s being generous), just because said people happen to have an innie instead of an outie.
          .
          Women can be particularly vicious when one of their own disappoints them. You may even say that women are more condescending and forgiving of males. It’s more likely that male voters are the ones more thrilled about moderately attractive women like Palin and Bachmann as Presidents.

       6. Rene,
          Really? I know a LOT of women who were thrilled with Hillary and the thought of a woman president is what had them choosing her over Obama and edwards, since her positions, especially comapred to Obama, on policy was miniscule at best.
          .
          Again, a lot of people who felt McCain was running a drab campaign were excited by Palin’s selection. She losy a few of them eventually but there are a LOT of women who appreciate Palin.
          .
          And I’m not even saying picking a female nominee is a guarantee they will win a majority of the women’s vote. But it is absurd to think it won’t help at least shave the difference.
          .
          Because most women don’t equate abortion “rights” as the be-all, end-all. They are concerned about ‘women’s issues” like education, health care,which traditionally favor democrats but might not with Obamacare and are increasingly concerned about the defense of the nation and the culture their kids are growing up in.

       7. I agree that it’s a lot more than abortion rights, though I wouldn’t discount THAT so easily.
          .
          It’s also that Sarah Palin, feminist extraordinaire, disappeared with the $15.000 item in Wasilla’s budget for forensic rape examinations.
          .
          It’s also that she and Bachmann are from the party that has demonized single mothers, demonized anyone not in a “traditional” family, and their idea of traditional sometimes comes uncomfortably close to some 1950s ideal. You know, the decade when women knew their place.
          .
          Wasn’t it Santorum who said America used to be a great country, before the Sixties came and ruined it all?
          .
          It’s a surprise that the GOP gets ANY women voters at all. I think there is a certain threshold that makes people uncomfortable voting for them, no matter how badly the Dems are doing. That threshold is lower for females than for males.
          .
          I don’t think getting a woman to run will ofset the ever bigger social conservatism the GOP is going for. Obviously, some women ARE social conservatives anyway, and even some gays have voted Republican (though, you ask me, that’s like a black voting for a KKK candidate). But a female with a more moderate agenda would go down easier than either Palin or Bachmann.

21. .
    http://www.slate.com/id/2112318/fr/nl/
    .
    🙂

22. The guy thought he was çøçk of the walk and he ended up screwing himself once he got caught with his pants down. What’s worse, some of his supporters realized the Emperor had no clothes.

23. .
    ++++++++++++++++++++++
    .
    Eric Cantor on Weiner:
    .
    “I don’t condone his activity. I think he should resign.”
    .
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    .
    Eric Cantor on Governor Sanford:
    .
    “As far as his remaining governor … it’s up to the people of South Carolina and that will play out. But, listen, Governor Sanford apologized yesterday. We ought to be, you know, really dedicating our thoughts and prayers to his family right now going through a difficult time.”
    .
    +++++++++++++++++++++
    .
    As predictably ridiculous and pathetic as the spectacle of watching a firebrand politician fall from grace because of his own stupidity and attempts to play CYA rather than be smart and honest has been these last 48ish hours, the comedy gold is coming from watching the predictable hypocrisy and stupidity of many of the high profile Republicans. Well, the comedy gold isn’t so much just them so much as seeing them stutter and stammer when the video evidence of their hypocrisy is played for them.
    .
    Various high profile Republicans and conservative talking heads have been calling the man scum and a vile human being and declaring that he has to resign. Then they get played video footage of their comments during the recent scandals with people like Sanford, Vitter, Ensign and others. That’s almost all about it being a time to think of the poor families, giving them the time they need to decide what to do, leaving it up to the constituents when they vote, etc. You can actually see the gears turning behind their eyes as they try to figure out what to say next.
    .
    And then the real comedy begins… They get asked if these Republicans, these Republicans who in some cases did far worse than Weiner that they wouldn’t condemn before with the harsh language they’re using for Weiner now, are actually in retrospect as bad as Weiner. You can see the mental meltdown as the stammer their way through trying to not condemn greater wrongdoings by members of their party while still be able to condemn Weiner and to somehow explain why Democrats must give up any monies received by or with the help of Weiner while it’s fine and dandy for Republicans to have held on to every dime that was raised by or with the help of recent scandal plagued Republicans.
    .
    And, humorously, they can’t seem to explain how Weiner is so much more worthy of condemnation for his original act (prior to the telling lies part) than recently fallen Republicans since Weiner, unlike the Republicans, didn’t wrap himself in the Bible, family values and the other morality talking points that Republicans give lip service to and this would tend to make him look, on the surface of it, far less a hypocrite at least. The answer? Stammer, stutter, stammer, stutter, etc.
    .
    In the meantime, with much greater consistency on the issues and not on politically hackery, Weiner is catching hëll from his side from many of the same people who also gave hëll to the various Republicans who screwed up in the last few years.
    .
    Remember, kids, “It’s Okay If You’re A Republican.”

    1. “Remember, kids, “It’s Okay If You’re A Republican.””
       .
       +++++++++++++++++++++
       .
       Not to most conservatives. Republicans,/i>, yeah… there are a lot them who think they should be able to get away with things like this the way Democrats often do… but conservatives don’t like this kind of thing and more often than not demand better leaders when it happens. In the case of Sanford, the media surprisingly focused a great deal upon the perceived romanticism of a governor disappearing to be with his South American mistress a lot more than I would have expected for a Republican misjudgement. Particularly the female news anchors. A lot of them seemed to think this was like something out of The Bridges of Madison County.

    2. Jerry, don’t forget the GOP fallback position: when confronted with their own hypocrisy, they can howl that it’s “got’cha” journalism and that dámņëd liberal media is just being unfair.
       .
       PAD

       1. See now I’m tired. I love political discussion more than anything.
          .
          But people like the Shrouded One who just reiterate talking points are just plain annoying.
          .
          They don’t want to have a discussion, they want to start a fight.
          .
          They don’t have independent thought, they repeat what their masters say, and believe every second of it.
          .
          And don’t get me started on the conservatives, either.
          .
          This is where, in a social setting, I walk away. (Yes, I actually have a social network that has nothing to do with the internet… normally it has to do with alcohol).
          .
          As for the troll bit… well of course he wants to start up an argument. Those whom are sheep don’t have the thought processes to actually have a debate. And I mean a real debate, not yelling at each other.
          .
          I’m tired of him. And really, I’m tired of this diatribe about this man’s pëņìš, because in the end, it takes away from what really matters: basketball… err… I mean the economy.
          .
          Hear that? Beer’s calling.
          .
          TAC

    3. Good think I didn’t utilize that GOP fallback then.

       1. Perhaps you should think about “unshrouding” me, Peter. My response to Jerry did indeed mention the media… but my comment was that the media was actually quite favorable to Sanford when his disappearance/affair story broke.

       2. Perhaps you should think about “unshrouding” me, Peter. My response to Jerry did indeed mention the media… but my comment was that the media was actually quite favorable to Sanford when his disappearance/affair story broke.
          .
          Oh you don’t want that Darin. As it stands, you can post whatever you want with impunity.
          .
          And of course people ARE reading your posts. After all forbidden fruit is the sweetest.

       3. .
          You know what, George? Darin has, in his own words, admitted that he only comes to political threads to troll them. He’s done it here before over the years and he started doing his same old, same old here again when he came back around for the latest bit of his stupidity.
          .
          But this time, he got busted for it. And now he’s just posting as much as possible in the hopes that someone will start playing his game and letting him troll again in the way that he enjoys. But we’re all trying to ignore him.
          .
          But you want to keep encouraging him.
          .
          Encouraging a troll to keep trolling is almost as bad as being a troll and this is at least the second time in the last week or so that you’ve done exactly that. You have a different POV on any number of issues to bring to discussions and you at least actually try to reasonably discuss them. Why try and encourage the troll and get the rep as the guy who does something that asinine?

       4. And of course people ARE reading your posts.
          .
          But now we’re left to wonder why you shouldn’t just be shrouded as well.

       5. Jerry,
          .
          My online presence is sporadic at best. I have a full-time job, a wife, chores around the house, a couple of hobbies and comics to read. I’m sure many of you have equally full lives. I don’t pay a lot of attention to any specific individual’s posts or who is or is not currently playing by the rules.
          .
          I also don’t involve myself in online discussions very often because it rarely seems worth the effort.
          .
          I found a few of Darin’s recent posts at least as credible as any others. If he has posted opinions that are obviously troll-like, (and the links provided indicate that is true), ignore those. I do. When he makes an astute observation or asks a logical question why not respond to those to encourage more in depth discussion?
          .
          Craig,
          .
          But now we’re left to wonder why you shouldn’t just be shrouded as well.
          .
          Well that seems a bit like the Red Queen shouting “Off with their heads!” to a steadily increasing number of people.

       6. why not respond to those to encourage more in depth discussion?
          .
          Because that is the last thing Darin is interested in. He’s admitted he’s a troll. He’s admitted he’s just here to stir the pot. He’s proven to be a poor liar several times.
          .
          Well that seems a bit like the Red Queen shouting “Off with their heads!” to a steadily increasing number of people.
          .
          No, it’s just to you for encouraging the troll, even if you say you’re doing it unwittingly. In the end, Darin loves people like you for the exact reasons you stated: you’re not really reading everything, you’re ignorant of his history and previous comments.

       7. .
          George,
          .
          Darin is a troll. He’s posted here various times before and did nothing beyond trolling. He came back to this blog a few threads back and was posting in the exact same trolling manner that he did in years past.
          .
          But he was remembered this time. Why is he posting even normal-ish posts right now? He’s playing his game. He wants people to engage him so that he can go right back to the same old, same old that he did years ago and just a few weeks age right up until this older post was remembered and reposted in a thread he was trolling in.
          .
          **********************************************
          Darin says:

          March 23, 2007 at 6:41 pm
          Guys, Guys, Guys.
          Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
          I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I’ve said. It’s what I’ve done every. Single. Time. Here. when there is a political thread.
          Sheesh.
          Darin
          http://www.peterdavid.net/index.php/2007/03/22/this-is-all-starting-to-sound-extremely-familiar/comment-page-2/#comment-31387
          **********************************************
          .
          And that garbage is exactly what he was doing in the last few threads he had posted in since coming back around here. And now that he’s been remembered and outed, he’s playing “nice” to get people to play his game so that he can go right back into trolling.
          .
          So, no, he doesn’t get unshrouded when he supposedly “makes an astute observation or asks a logical question” because that’s not what he was doing with a single post from the time he came back to the time that old post of his was reposted because he will simply wait a bit and then go right back into the trolling that he so clearly enjoys.
          .
          And, hey, if you don’t want to take my word for it; ask Jerome how well playing nice with him before this older post was dug up worked. He trolled. It’s what he does and it’s what he wants to do again if he can con people into interacting with him again.

       8. I’ll tell you what… if an actual discussion (as best as they can happen in this format anyway) is something these folks want to have, I will oblige them, provided I accept the premise of whatever questions they pose. I won’t take any cheap shots and I won’t try to have fun with whomever does the asking. I’ll stick to one such question/person, though, as much like George, I have a life.

    4. Pretty much. The standard Republican line for a GOP scandal seems to be “We’re human and make mistakes, so cut us some slack.”
       .
       As a corollary, I sometimes wonder if the reason that Repubs demand zero tolerance in Democratic scandals is because they honestly don’t believe that Dems qualify as human. That would explain a lot.

       1. I think that would be a bit of an excessive mindset, even for GOPs. But I’m pretty sure they don’t believe that Demoocrats are real Americans, but instead mere pretenders who are actually trying to drag the country into socialism, communism, and possibly straight to hëll.
          .
          PAD

       2. I think that would be a bit of an excessive mindset, even for GOPs.
          .
          Well, if there’s a line of demarcation, the GOP hasn’t tripped over it yet.

       3. PAD wrote, “But I’m pretty sure they don’t believe that Demoocrats are real Americans, but instead mere pretenders who are actually trying to drag the country into socialism, communism, and possibly straight to hëll.”

          This mindset actually began with Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America. Before then, there was the idea that one’s political opponents were good, decent people who had differing ideas on what was best for the country. (Ronald Reagan said — and I’m paraphrasing here — “We have political opponents, not political enemies.”) Gingrich decided the way to win was to paint the Democrats not as well-meaning-but-differing Americans, but horrible people that were actively out to destroy the country and its principles. And it’s not hard to see that politics today still has a lot of that attitude.

       4. The most scary thing of all? Apparently even Newt is now too moderate for true-blue (true-red?) conservatives.

       5. .
          “This mindset actually began with Newt Gingrich and the Contract With America. Before then, there was the idea that one’s political opponents were good, decent people who had differing ideas on what was best for the country.”
          .
          Uhm… No. Newt was a master at exploiting that mindset and whipping into a fever pitch when he wanted to, but that mindset predates him. Hëll, it predates American politics.

       6. I don’t think there’s any dispute that the mindset predates Gingrich. But personally I feel as if it’s become even more stark and exaggerated in the past twenty years. That the vilification of the opposition in terms of questioning their patriotism or asserting that they want to destroy the country, rather than the notion that they likewise want what they think is best for the country, has been ramped up. I don’t know if that’s so much because of Gingrich, though, as it is the rise of the 24-hour news cycle and the various extremist talking heads. Once upon a time, “Network” was satire. Now it’s more or less the norm.
          .
          PAD

    5. the comedy gold is coming from watching the predictable hypocrisy and stupidity of many of the high profile Republicans. Well, the comedy gold isn’t so much just them so much as seeing them stutter and stammer when the video evidence of their hypocrisy is played for them.

       See also “Republican Accusations of Obama Demagoguery and Obama Reminding Them of Birther Nonsense (Among Other Things)”.

24. BTW, in the “That Was Really Fast” category, a company has released Weiner Brand Condoms (“Protect Your Weiner”) at http://www.weinercondoms.com/ According to the article that led me to this, they had similar products made for Obama, McCain, and (somehow) Palin.

    And considering how Weiner is currently faring, I wouldn’t think something inspired by him would provide all that much protection. Especially since the whole scandal started with leaks…

25. “Sounds very much like the National Enquirer or whichever one of those worthless bs ‘newspapers’ it was that finally got it right with regards to John Edwards.
    .
    And how many times have they been right since?”
    .
    They are far from worthless anymore. The Enquirer was actually in the running for a Pulitzer for it’s Edwards coverage. They have ALSO BEEN RIGHT MULTIPLE TIMES regarding Michael Jackson’s friends and family who were worried he only had about six months to live…six months before he actually died.
    .
    At worst, those papers are gossip mags. But they have so many sources and are willing to pay for info and the result is they actually do break multiple stories.

    1. It’s broken clocks, Jerome. They make up so much stuff, they’re bound to get *something* right now and then. And maybe if they spent less time printing utter garbage, they’d be taken seriously when they have a genuine story.
       .
       They’re a tabloid. They’re less than news. Always have been, and always will be.
       .
       As for Michael Jackson, who didn’t have a dead pool on him? I mean, really, they were worried that he only had 6 months to live? And they weren’t just saying that for, oh, I dunno, years and years before he kicked the bucket? More broken clocks.

       1. Actually, I’d be interested in looking at how many of their headline stories turn out to be true. I think they may actually have a fairly good track record…it’s just that those stories tend to be about things I could not possibly give a rat’s ášš about.

       2. .
          “I think they may actually have a fairly good track record…it’s just that those stories tend to be about things I could not possibly give a rat’s ášš about.”
          .
          In the last 15 or so years? More and more often they’re batting average has been excellent. They have a long history to live down and it’s a history that anyone who doesn’t like what they’re saying in the moment will throw out there as a cheap debate point VS actually discussing the facts, but it is a history that they are not living down like they did many, many years ago.

       3. Craig,
          They were in the conversation for a Pulitzer, for god’s sake. That’s based on actual reporting, not just getting lucky.
          .
          And wouldn’t the MSM have looked even more irrelevant than they do now if they had faled to cover the story and Edwards won the nomination?
          .
          The world has changed. thinking the Enquirer is still in the same boat as totally fictitious garbage like the Globe, etc. is the same as people who feel all comics are for kids or those unable to read real books.
          .
          Same as TMX beating CNN, Fox and everyone else in reporting Michael Jackson was indeed dead and not simply in critical condition. They have better and more numerous legitimate sources a lot of the time.

       4. They were in the conversation for a Pulitzer, for god’s sake.
          .
          Let me ask you something: What do you think of Al Gore’s Nobel Prize? 😉
          .
          And wouldn’t the MSM have looked even more irrelevant than they do now if they had faled to cover the story and Edwards won the nomination?
          .
          I rather doubt that it would have gone undiscovered and unreported by the MSM, as much as you like to bash them.

    2. The most recent example I can think of of the Enquirer actually being treated like a legitimate news organization by the mainstream media was when they printed a headline entitled “Rush Limbaugh Caught In Drug Ring.” All major news outlets ran with it. Of course, when it was found that Limbaugh wasn’t involved with a “drug ring,” it didn’t matter. (He was instead charged with something called “doctor shopping.”) However, when the Edwards story broke, suddenly the Enquirer was back to being just a tabloid rag full of horoscopes and articles on weight loss.

       1. Uh, I meant TMZ obviously above. It’s late.

       2. Well, Craig, the MSM sure as hëll didn’t report it in time for primary season. He conceivably could have won I and either been coasting toward the nomination or clinched before they would have exposed it, dooming the Dems.
          .
          As for Gore, well, that bothers me a lot less than giving it to Yasser @#$%! Arafat (and yes, i know, he got it in conjunction with Rabin for supposedly working towards peace at great sacrifice, etc.
          .
          That looks quite bad now.

26. What I can’t believe is, it’s not being called “Weinergate.” C’mon, newsies! You have a totally legitimate reason to call a sex(sorta) scandal Weinergate, and you’re passing it up!

    1. .
       Uhm… It is being called “Weinergate” in any number of areas in the media.

    2. Pretty much no one is passing it up, actually. Jerry says it actually has nothing to do with sex? It has even less to do with the Watergate hotel.
       .
       Actually, I wonder how the owners of the hotel feel about that. That the last syllable of their hotel gets arbitrarily tacked onto every scandal.
       .
       PAD

       1. Actually, I wonder how the owners of the hotel feel about that. That the last syllable of their hotel gets arbitrarily tacked onto every scandal.
          .
          Which ones? According to Wikipedia, the hotel has been quite a hot potato for several decades. Which, maybe, is an indication that the scandalous associations aren’t good for business.
          .
          Of course, that would mean that enough people are aware that (A) the Watergate scandal was named for the hotel and (B) all subsequent -gates are derived from Watergate. Not sure I would wager on that one.
          .
          Personally, I’m waiting for some kind of scandal involving good ol’ dihydrogen monoxide, so we can wind up right back where we started.

       2. I’ve thought the exact same thing. I was actually waiting for a low bid scandal that was responsible for the levees collapsing and flooding New Orleans to show up and be called “Watergate.”
          .
          PAD

       3. Here’s the list of all the scandals that they have attached the suffix “gate” to. it is more staggering than I thought.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix

27. .
    Okay… This is just… strange…
    .
    “Can’t Make This Up: ‘WeinerGate’ Girl Voted ‘Most Likely To Be Involved In Tabloid Scandal’ In High School”
    .
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/cant-make-this-up-weinergate-girl-voted-most-likely-to-be-involved-in-tabloid-scandal-in-high-school/

28. BEAVIS AND BÙTTHÊÃÐ WATCHING TV.

    BÙTTHÊÃÐ: HUH HUH HUH WEINER SHOWED HIS WEINER ON TWITTER.THATS COOL!

    BEAVIS; UMMMM WHATS TWITTER?

    BÙTTHÊÃÐ: UHHH HUH HUH i THINK ITS LIKE A PØRN SIGHT THAT YOU CAN SHOW YOUR WEINER.

    BEAVIS: WHOA! THATS COOL! LETS JOIN TWITTER!UMMM…HOW DO WE DO THAT?

    BÙTTHÊÃÐ: ÐÙMBÃSS. YOU NEED A COMPUTER OR SOMETHING. HUH HUH HUH

    BEAVIS: HEH HEH HEH COOL. WEHERE DO WE GET A COMPUTER?

    BÙTTHÊÃÐ: UMMMM…HUH HUH HUH…I THINK STEWART HAS ONE. YEAH HE HAS ONE…HUH HUH HUH

    BEAVIS: UMMMM BÙTTHÊÃÐ I THINK YOU FORGOT STEWART IS DEAD. HE LIKED KILLED HIM SELF OR SOMETHING…HE CAME OUT..AND

    BÙTTHÊÃÐ: SHUT UP ÐÙMBÃSS! HUH HUH HUH I KNOW HES DEAD. BUT HIS PARENTS STILL HAS COMPUTER AND STUFF…

    BEAVIS: OHHH THATS RIGHT. HEH HEH HEH THATS COOL..UMM DO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT GAY PØRN?

    BÙTTHÊÃÐ: SHUT UP ÐÃMN ÃSS! (SMACKS BEAVIS IN THE HEAD) YOU DONT HAVE TO LOOK AT GAY PØRN..HUH HUH HUH..BUT I DO I WANT SEE WEINERS WIENER…THAT WOULD BE COOL!

    BEAVIS: (RUBS FACE) HEH HEH HEH THAT WOULD BE COOL!

29. I’m just glad that the guy reportedly as a baby on the way because it gives him something to stick around for. Otherwise my concern is that he just can’t take it anymore and offs himself. I can just see it. “Did the media drive Weiner to suicide? The story at 11.”
    .
    PAD

    1. I think his wife Huma being pregnant gives him an out to resign. He can say that he’ll stay at home with the baby while his wife continues working with Secretary of State Clinton. His being a full time dad might even give him some sympathy votes in the future.
       And to your reader who said that Republicans don’t think Democrats are true Americans, I have heard some Democrats claim that Republicans are both insane and heartless.

       1. .
          “I have heard some Democrats claim that Republicans are both insane and heartless.”
          .
          Seen Ann Coulter promoting her latest book? She thinks that the Kent State shootings were justifiable and what should be done with groups of protesters (only so long as that protest is directed at people she likes I’m sure.)
          .
          “There was the shooting at Kent State. And gosh I know liberals don’t like it and you look at Nexis and ‘it was embarrassing for the whole country.’ I’m not embarrassed; that’s what you do with the mob.”
          .
          Hey, Ann, you flunk both basic history (say hi to Sarah in the remedial class) and you fail as a human being. Yet she’s still one of the darlings of the Republican and Conservative media circles and invited (and paid well) to speak at various PACs and events.
          .
          I think that right there justifies the accusation in regards to at least some of the Republicans and Conservatives out there.

       2. And to your reader who said that Republicans don’t think Democrats are true Americans, I have heard some Democrats claim that Republicans are both insane and heartless.

          The GOP is currently threatening to suicide bomb our already-struggling economy by refusing to raise the debt limit and having America default on its loans. Its ransom demand to prevent this self-inflicted catastrophe is for Democrats to enact drastic spending cuts (without touching defense spending) that will disproportionately affect the most needy and least powerful in our society.
          .
          No one has to claim that the today’s Republicans are insane and heartless; they boldly demonstrate the fact over and over again.

       3. The GOP is currently threatening to suicide bomb our already-struggling economy by refusing to raise the debt limit and having America default on its loans.
          .
          No one has to claim that the today’s Republicans are insane and heartless; they boldly demonstrate the fact over and over again.
          .
          So was Obama insane, heartless or both when he said in 2006:
          .
          “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

       4. So was Obama insane, heartless or both when he said in 2006:
          .
          “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

          Not insane (but definitely political) since no dire consequence would possibly come from his action, and certainly not heartless since he wasn’t demanding to slash programs that primarily affect the most powerless in society as a bribe for his vote.
          .
          Raising the debt ceiling has been a partisan-yet-bipartisan affair for a while now: When the GOP controls everything, (e.g., in 2006) the Dems kvetch; when the Dems have power (e.g., in 2009), the GOP kvetchs; when power is divided (e.g., in 2002), both parties vote to raise the limit. It’s a silly political dance.
          .
          The difference is this is the first time that one side is attempting to impose a massive and drastic political/ideological agenda by threatening to intentionally ruin America’s economy if it doesn’t have its way. There is absolutely no comparison between Obama’s symbolic protest in 2006 and the GOP’s credible threat today.

       5. So was Obama insane, heartless or both when he said in 2006:
          .
          I’d say he was incredibly naive.
          .
          The economy was still going strong at that point, so I don’t think anybody was ever going to say hitting the ceiling and refusing to raise it was a worst case scenario like it is viewed today.
          .
          In the end, we’re at 14 trillion, 10 trillion of which came before Obama took office (or his policies took hold?). Yet, per the GOP, he’s to blame for all of it. As sort of LIFO (last in, first out) blame game with our national debt, never mind how much they contributed over the years.

       6. Ok, so when Obama did it he was simply being a poser–he had no intention of seeing it through and did not believe what he was saying. If it had turned out that their were enough votes to actually not raise the debt ceiling he would have turned on a dime. Got it. Good thing we can trust his word now!
          .
          Craig, even if we accept that Obama is “only” responsible for 4 trillion dollars of debt, he managed to do that in only 2 years! Blame Bush for the entire remainder of the debt and Obama still comes out the loser in that comparison. Of course, it’s far more complicated than that but live by the easy numbers die by the easy numbers.
          .
          Is threatening to not raise the debt ceiling the right thing to do? beats me but if it gets the pols to panic and do something to address this looming disaster then go for it. You think the poor have it bad now, wit until hyperinflation makes the little money they have worthless.
          .
          I hope I’m wrong but I think we could soon be in a crisis as bad or worse than 2008 and we will not have the resources we had back then to fight it. Draconian cuts now, with enough breathing room to minimize the pain (which will be considerable) or wait until we are forced to institute catastrophically painful cuts in the future, cuts that will be done in the naked panic of a crashing economy.
          .
          Hope I’m wrong. I already anticipate next year to be a hard one financially, with some sources of income drying up as a result of expected cuts but it will be worth the pain if the longterm health of the country is put right. Alas, I have little faith in the political class to make the hard choices and, in fairness, there may not be enough people willing to see the options with eyes wide open to make those choices acceptable.

       7. Good thing we can trust his word now!
          .
          And if you look, I’m sure Obama is far from the only one who has said we shouldn’t raise the debt ceiling. Only to, if you look even further, voted for it anyways or didn’t make much of a fuss about it.
          .
          (How did Obama vote on this when in the Senate, btw?)
          .
          Craig, even if we accept that Obama is “only” responsible for 4 trillion dollars of debt, he managed to do that in only 2 years!
          .
          But even then, Obama isn’t solely responsible for all of it, as some of it goes back to policies enacted under Bush II, whether pushed by Bush or Congress.
          .
          Just the same, Bush II probably doesn’t deserve all of the blame for all the debt that incurred under him, as some of that in turn goes back to Clinton’s years.
          .
          As for the ‘political class’ making the hard choices, there are plenty that are more than willing to make them. After all, they won’t be as affected as a result. It’s just the little people – ie, the vast majority of Americans that they never really deal with on a day to day basis – that will suffer.

       8. Ok, so when Obama did it he was simply being a poser–he had no intention of seeing it through and did not believe what he was saying. If it had turned out that their were enough votes to actually not raise the debt ceiling he would have turned on a dime. Got it. Good thing we can trust his word now!

          More likely the then-Republican majority already indicated it had enough votes to pass the debt ceiling increase. There was no real worry.
          .
          BTW, what is your opinion of GOPers who reversed position on the debt ceiling within the last few months?

          Craig, even if we accept that Obama is “only” responsible for 4 trillion dollars of debt, he managed to do that in only 2 years! Blame Bush for the entire remainder of the debt and Obama still comes out the loser in that comparison. Of course, it’s far more complicated than that but live by the easy numbers die by the easy numbers.

          Obama’s spending were one-off expenditures with a short lifespan in response to the dramatic economic downturn. Bush’s spending was multiple, institutional, long term, unfunded, and are the primary cause of the current record deficits. Bush still comes out worse in this scenario.

          Is threatening to not raise the debt ceiling the right thing to do? beats me but if it gets the pols to panic and do something to address this looming disaster then go for it. You think the poor have it bad now, wit until hyperinflation makes the littlemoney they have worthless.

          No, it isn’t. St. Reagan considered the idea unthinkable once upon a time and virtually all economists agree that default would be a bad thing.
          .
          There is real concern that the US’s credit rating may be downgraded if there is no sign that a resolution will come about, and investors are beginning to wonder if investing in the US is a safe investment if our political system is so dysfunctional. To threaten default in order to address the deficit is like framing your kid for a crime to have him do several months of jail time in order to impress upon him the idea that serving years in a federal prison is worse.
          .
          Inflation does not anywhere resemble a pressing concern right now. Mess up the economy by driving it into a depression is much more likely to make it so.

          I hope I’m wrong but I think we could soon be in a crisis as bad or worse than 2008 and we will not have the resources we had back then to fight it. Draconian cuts now, with enough breathing room to minimize the pain (which will be considerable) or wait until we are forced to institute catastrophically painful cuts in the future, cuts that will be done in the naked panic of a crashing economy.

          A double-dip recession is a real possibility, and yet instead of working on bills to boost the economy or address joblessness, the GOP has been obsessed with social issues, sabotaging Obama and his initiatives, tax cuts, and austerity. Despite all their handwringing on the deficit, cutting defense spending or raising revenue is taboo.
          .
          Cuts are needed, but draconian ones certainly aren’t, and definitely not right now. However, the GOP seems hellbent on their exercise of disaster capitalism, destroying the economy to save it, by initiating a financial catastrophe and remaking the US into a Randian paradise.
          .
          (Of course, the other real possibility is that the US will have to go even deeper into debt in order to fix the problems created by Republicans’ failure to jumpstart the economy.)

          <blockquote Hope I’m wrong. I already anticipate next year to be a hard one financially, with some sources of income drying up as a result of expected cuts but it will be worth the pain if the longterm health of the country is put right. Alas, I have little faith in the political class to make the hard choices and, in fairness, there may not be enough people willing to see the options with eyes wide open to make those choices acceptable.

          You and me both buddy, but the long-term health of the economy will not ever be put right so long as the fiscally irresponsible fools who worsened and continue to worsen the economy are controlling the debate. The GOP leaders have already abandoned reason in order to appease the Tea people wing and the current crop of GOP presidential candidates are playing a game of flex-the-crazy-muscles to impress their base (which primarily consisted of birthers — not people I’d trust to think rationally). I fear it will require a real crisis before people realize how radical the Republican Party has become … and that by then it will be too late.

       9. How did Obama vote on this when in the Senate, btw?
          .
          he voted against raising it. Says it was a mistake, now that he’s the one asking for it.

       10. BTW, what is your opinion of GOPers who reversed position on the debt ceiling within the last few months?
           .
           I’m against fake positions. If it’s the right thing to do, do it, regardless of who gets credit.
           .
           Obama’s spending were one-off expenditures with a short lifespan in response to the dramatic economic downturn.
           .
           Looking at the predicted expenditures in the future, the spending deficit is still off the charts in all the upcoming years…and that is using Obama’s rosy estimates, which have so far all ended up being far off the mark. Obama has yet to get serious about addressing the problem, which puts him squarely with most of the politicians on both sides.
           .
           investors are beginning to wonder if investing in the US is a safe investment
           .
           I’d say no, it isn’t. The greatest debtor nation in history, with no apparent plan to address the problem…I would look elsewhere. Invest in farmland. Food is always good to have.
           .
           Inflation does not anywhere resemble a pressing concern right now.
           .
           Those buying food may disagree. And gas is, well, we all know how gas is.
           .
           Given the failure of the Democrats to improve things, despite spending massive amounts of money, it should not surprise anyone to see voters give the republicans another chance. But maybe THIS “recovery summer” will be better than the last one. More likely, I fear, we will keep getting bad news with the word “unexpectedly” added to it, even though the unexpected has been consistently happening for a while now.
           .
           But as long a single Republican walks the Earth, there will be those that will refuse to apportion any hint of failure to the President and his advisers.
           .
           But I’m willing to consider possibilities–what SHOULD we do to stimulate the economy that we didn’t do with all the money we spent already?

       11. The real problem with Republicans isn’t heartlessness. I would respect heartlessness if it were applied across the board to achieve a “Randian paradise.” Not agree with it, but respect it.
           .
           But remember the bailout? It was George W. Bush that passed it. Mainstream Republicans don’t really believe in free market. It’s a con game, a sham. What they do believe in is lemon socialism; socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor.

       12. BTW, what is your opinion of GOPers who reversed position on the debt ceiling within the last few months?
           .
           I’m against fake positions. If it’s the right thing to do, do it, regardless of who gets credit.

           Do you honestly believe that the sudden about-faces by the GOP are all sincere? Considering how dramatic, complete, and convenient the reversals are I’m inclined to say no.

           Obama’s spending were one-off expenditures with a short lifespan in response to the dramatic economic downturn.
           .
           Looking at the predicted expenditures in the future, the spending deficit is still off the charts in all the upcoming years…and that is using Obama’s rosy estimates, which have so far all ended up being far off the mark. Obama has yet to get serious about addressing the problem, which puts him squarely with most of the politicians on both sides.

           Obama’s projections may not be dead-on, but they’re still more accurate and realistic than anything proposed by the GOP. Obama has actually begun to address the problem with the Affordable Care Act (which cut waste in Medicare and helps bend the cost down) and by insisting that Bush’s tax cuts expire (which are the single largest contributor to the debt). In contrast, the GOP has offered nothing remotely credible.

           investors are beginning to wonder if investing in the US is a safe investment
           .
           I’d say no, it isn’t. The greatest debtor nation in history, with no apparent plan to address the problem…I would look elsewhere. Invest in farmland. Food is always good to have.

           What’s worrying investors isn’t the amount of our current debt: The US enjoys great investor confidence due to the fact that we have the largest economy and perfect history of paying our obligations. What concerns them is that the US has effectively become a banana republic, evinced by a US political system so dysfunctional that a no-brainer act like raising the debt ceiling to cover preexisting debts is in question. If investors cannot be assured that common sense will not be trumped by partisan politics, America may irrevocably lose its standing in the world, regardless of whether the deficit is addressed or not.

           Inflation does not anywhere resemble a pressing concern right now.
           .
           Those buying food may disagree. And gas is, well, we all know how gas is.

           The increase in food and gas prices isn’t due to inflation but increased scarcity of supply. (For instance, there have been a number of recent stories noting how recent droughts have affected food sources. The oil market has also been wracked with uncertainty and rampant speculation.)
           .

           Given the failure of the Democrats to improve things, despite spending massive amounts of money, it should not surprise anyone to see voters give the republicans another chance. But maybe THIS “recovery summer” will be better than the last one. More likely, I fear, we will keep getting bad news with the word “unexpectedly” added to it, even though the unexpected has been consistently happening for a while now.
           .
           But as long a single Republican walks the Earth, there will be those that will refuse to apportion any hint of failure to the President and his advisers.

           Considering that the Republicans have pretty much blocked, opposed, and obstructed every initiative that Obama and the Dems have initiated, is it any wonder that things have not improved as quickly as they should have? With the GOP now in control of the House where budgets must originate, they have ensured that things will not improve by refusing to even consider anything the Dem caucus might suggest. There is nothing remotely unexpected about the current downturn: As soon as it became official that the GOP controlled the House and more than 40 votes in the Senate, after declaring that their number one priority would not be stimulating the economy or addressing joblessness but making sure that Obama was a one-termer, I knew that the best America could hope for was to simply not crash and burn. And yet there is still a real chance the GOP will be allowed to drive the nation further into the ditch.
           .
           But so long as there is a Democratic president in office and Dem control of a single house of Congress, there are those who still refuse to admit that the previous 10 years of GOP governance has infinitely more to do with the current crisis than the 2 years of Democratic influence that then followed.

           But I’m willing to consider possibilities–what SHOULD we do to stimulate the economy that we didn’t do with all the money we spent already?

           Here’s the funny part: Most economists agree that the stimulus that passed was *too low* and should have been at least twice as large. The perhaps only non-crazy GOP candidate, John Huntsman, argued that the stimulus package needed to be larger. These same people agree that the government needs to spend more money to get the economic engine running, but so long as the budget is in the grip of people that consider any spending that isn’t military akin to a moral evil, don’t expect any such sanity to prevail.

       13. Do you honestly believe that the sudden about-faces by the GOP are all sincere? Considering how dramatic, complete, and convenient the reversals are I’m inclined to say no.
           .
           Well, no, I don’t think they were sincere? Thought I made that clear. The GOPers who did the about face are as fraudulent as Obama was on the issue.
           .
           Obama’s projections may not be dead-on, but they’re still more accurate and realistic than anything proposed by the GOP.
           .
           Evidence? we really can’t know how accurate they are until they happen, yes? So far the record is not good on that question.
           .
           Obama has actually begun to address the problem with the Affordable Care Act (which cut waste in Medicare and helps bend the cost down)
           .
           And is quite possibly about to be declared unconstitutional
           .
           and by insisting that Bush’s tax cuts expire (which are the single largest contributor to the debt).
           .
           If, as you argue, the Bush tax cuts are “the single largest contributer to the debt” why is it that Obama’s projected budgets (with said cuts gone) continue to show deficits that are unsustainable for the next decade…and then get worse?
           .
           With the GOP now in control of the House where budgets must originate, they have ensured that things will not improve by refusing to even consider anything the Dem caucus might suggest.
           .
           A job that Nancy pelosi and co did not think was one worth doing.
           .
           Most economists agree that the stimulus that passed was *too low* and should have been at least twice as large.
           .
           Citation? I am suspicious of any claims as to what “most” economists would do. Here for example is a survey that says the exact opposite: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124708099206913393.html
           .
           Of course, that will be dismissed as partisan because it comes from the Wall Street Journal, while another survey by a source more sympathetic to one’s own views will be unimpeachable.

       14. Jerry,
           While Coulter surely isn’t being sensitive or tactful, it also is not correct to view the protesters at Kent State as meek victims. I mean they have almost been deified and much of what led up to the tragic ending – including two students being killed who were only trying to get to class and not even part of the protest – is because they WERE a out of control mob.
           .
           this was not a sleepout for the homeless or a feel-good protest where everyone gets to hold signs and listen to speeches all day. These protesters at Kent State were setting buildings on fire, cutting hoses of fire trucks trying to put the blaze out and had local police and foremen araid for their lives. the Governor was perplexed and the situation was so bad that is WHY the national Guard was sent in. To quell days of violence.
           .
           It is worth remembering, since people’s memories seem to have faded with time and been swayed by the tragic end, but a Gallup Poll taken immediately after the shootings showed that 58 percent of respondents blamed the students, 11 percent blamed the National Guard and 31 percent expressed no opinion.
           .
           Hëll, Nixon came to try and find a solution and was “rebuffed”.
           .
           Also forgotten by most, was that on May 14, ten days after the Kent State shootings, two students were killed (and 12 wounded) by police at Jackson State University under similar circumstances, but that event did not arouse the same nationwide attention as the Kent State shootings.
           .
           Apparently, even for the progressive media mere years after the apex of the civil rights movement the killing of black student protesters didn’t rate the same coverage as white ones.

30. My suggestion at this point would be for Weiner to announce that he will resign at the end of his current term (i.e., the Larry Craig option).

    1. So Sasha, you don’t think cutting spending will help. When I lost my job, due to magazines being read online and not on paper, the first thing we did was cut our spending. Raising the debt limit is like a credit company uping your credit line. When they give you more credit, most people tend to spend more. Raise the debt limit and there will be no need to cut out pork barrel spending. Harry Reid can have all the Cowboy Poetry Festivals he wants. There can be more bridges to nowhere and more defense spending on things the pentagon doesn’t want.
       Peter might remember a very bad movie “Americathon.” America was deeply in debt and holding a telethon to raise funds.
       I don’t want us to default on our loans but there has to be a happy medium. Taxing the wealthy won’t help because the truly wealthy have tax writeoffs and are incorporated. Even the comedian Lewis Black is incorporated to cut his taxes. The “so-called” millionaires tax is on people making $250,000. We are dumbing down our definition of wealth. When that doesn’t provide enough funds, they will dumb it down even more.

31. So Sasha, you don’t think cutting spending will help.

    I didn’t say that at all. Try again.

    When I lost my job, due to magazines being read online and not on paper, the first thing we did was cut our spending.

    Ditto here. However, that doesn’t mean that I should stop paying for utilities, food, car payments, or healthcare (especially if I’m using tons of money to fund expensive jaunts on my boat at the marina, or ostentatiously tricking it out).
    .
    (And it certainly shouldn’t keep you from spending money on things that will help you secure a new job. Or from pursuing alternate sources of revenue.)

    Raising the debt limit is like a credit company uping your credit line. When they give you more credit, most people tend to spend more. Raise the debt limit and there will be no need to cut out pork barrel spending. Harry Reid can have all the Cowboy Poetry Festivals he wants. There can be more bridges to nowhere and more defense spending on things the pentagon doesn’t want.

    The debt ceiling isn’t about having credit for future purchases but having solvency to pay for *already incurred debts*. Losing our perfect credit record would be disastrous.
    .
    If you want financial discipline, don’t put the budget in the hands of a party that has an undeniable record of jaw-dropping fiscal irresponsibility (particularly if they loudly and proudly declare they will continue the same policies that caused the deficit to balloon the first place).

    Peter might remember a very bad movie “Americathon.” America was deeply in debt and holding a telethon to raise funds.

    With John Ritter, right? Saw bits of it years ago on Showtime.

    I don’t want us to default on our loans but there has to be a happy medium.

    Are you seriously suggesting that defaulting is remotely a viable option?

    Taxing the wealthy won’t help because the truly wealthy have tax writeoffs and are incorporated. Even the comedian Lewis Black is incorporated to cut his taxes.

    That’s why there are also big disputes about capital gains taxes, estate taxes, closing loopholes, and the like. As far as the GOP is concerned, any attempt at increasing revenue — even by closing loopholes — is off limits.
    .
    And, yes, it would help. The biggest driver of the deficit is revenue lost from Bush’s cuts.

    The “so-called” millionaires tax is on people making $250,000. We are dumbing down our definition of wealth. When that doesn’t provide enough funds, they will dumb it down even more.

    A couple of things: (1) Said increase applies only to *taxable income above* $250,000, not the entirety of gross income. (2) It’s not a tax increase — it’s allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire *as they were designed to*. (3) The rate it would return to is still among the lowest ever applied. (4) No one calls it a “millionaire’s tax” except those trying to make an issue of it.

    1. It strains credibility to think of the democrats as a good alternative to republicans on fiscal issues. people notice when a congress fails to write a budget–one of the few things we expect them to accomplish. People notice when the president’s budget goes down in flames. 97-0??? You couldn’t get a vote like that on “Resolved–We love our Moms” but right now there are senators demanding that the budget be brought up again so that they can go on the record as having voted it down again.
       .
       The only original member of the economic team we still have is Treasury Secretary Geithner, the guy who couldn’t figure out how to pay his own taxes. The others got out of Dodge while the getting was good.
       .
       Two years is enough to get a sense of whether or not the administration is succeeding on the economy and I think it’s fair to say no. I realize that some are willing to just blame Bush for as long as it takes. I suspect if the economy was a lot better they would probably be eager to give Obama all the credit. That’s politics. But we’re in too deep a hole to indulge that nonsense. The president has to take the reigns or stand aside and let Hillary (or someone) take a shot.

       1. It strains credibility to think of the democrats as a good alternative to republicans on fiscal issues.
          .
          Considering that Obama stepped into the White House with a $10 trillion debt-load, the vast majority of which created under Republican presidents, I’m not sure why anybody would think the Republicans are any better.
          .
          One of the great myths of the last 30 years is that Republicans are “fiscal conservatives”. The only reason they attempt to make such a claim now is because a Democrat is sitting in the White House.
          .
          They certainly didn’t care about such things under Bush II. And like it or not, quite a bit that happened under Bush II, like those two wars and the tax cuts, are still very relevant today.

       2. It strains credibility to think of the democrats as a good alternative to republicans on fiscal issues. people notice when a congress fails to write a budget–one of the few things we expect them to accomplish. People notice when the president’s budget goes down in flames. 97-0??? You couldn’t get a vote like that on “Resolved–We love our Moms” but right now there are senators demanding that the budget be brought up again so that they can go on the record as having voted it down again.

          You may not consider it credible, but its what the facts indicate. The “tax and spend” party achieved surpluses under Clinton. The “party of fiscal responsibility” broke the country under Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress. If the choice is between Dems and Repubs, the record shows that the only sane choice are the Democrats. (After all, it wasn’t the Dems who coined the phrase “Deficits don’t matter.”)
          .
          I’m surprised but not shocked that Obama’s budget do better in the Senate … voting on it was a publicity stunt since it would never pass in the House and it was arguably too GOP friendly for Dems. People do seem to have noticed that the GOP budget is completely bogus, unrealistic, and essentially destroys Medicare. They’re already desperately spinning passing that abomination in the House.
          .
          On a related note, it’s curious that no one ever discusses the Progressive Caucus Budget, which actually makes sense and tracks closer to American’s polled policy preferences. Liberal media bias I guess.

          The only original member of the economic team we still have is Treasury Secretary Geithner, the guy who couldn’t figure out how to pay his own taxes. The others got out of Dodge while the getting was good.

          I imagine that any attempt to create a budget with progressive initiatives is useless within the current political environment. I would be less than amazed if frustrated members of the economic team simply said “Fûçk it. We’ll try to clean up the mess if the country survives the Republican agenda.”

          Two years is enough to get a sense of whether or not the administration is succeeding on the economy and I think it’s fair to say no. I realize that some are willing to just blame Bush for as long as it takes. I suspect if the economy was a lot better they would probably be eager to give Obama all the credit. That’s politics. But we’re in too deep a hole to indulge that nonsense. The president has to take the reigns or stand aside and let Hillary (or someone) take a shot.

          The administration was doing well on the economy and job creation was going up since he took office, after dropping precipitously under Bush, and the US auto industry survived and is beginning to recover thanks to Obama’s policies. All this despite lockstep GOP obstruction. Not uncoincidentally, things starting going south again after the GOP sweep in 2010 with not only their refusal to consider any additional spending that would keep the economic engine going but also their insistence to stall it out further by taking more money out of the system via austerity. Economic policy has been all but completely hijacked by the GOP and, of course, the administration is getting the blame for the Repubs actions. Bush and the GOP rightly deserves most of the blame for the credit crisis and virtually all the blame for the deficit because that’s what the facts show. The GOP already has been alternately claiming and denying credit for favorable and unfavorable jobs reports in the last few months. Like you said, that’s politics, but we have no more time for that nonsense. The GOP needs to accept the fact that compromise is not defined as insisting on keeping 100% everything you want while rejecting 100% of your opposition’s policies. The current GOP caucus has to work in partnership with the Democrats or make way for less doctrinaire legislators who understand that democracy isn’t a zero-sum game.

       3. .
          Here are some pertinent facts.
          .
          Fact #1: We have not been living under two years of Obama’s budget policies. The federal budget that covered most of 2009 was the last budget signed off on by George W. Bush. The first real “Obama Budget” that we had was 2010’s.
          .
          This is rather important since it means that a good chunk of that debt that “Obama created” in the last two years was in fact created by W.’s pen.
          .
          Fact #2: Obama did not “create” a huge chunk of the debt and the spending that we saw added to the budget in 2009 or 2010. One thing Obama did do in 2009 was change the way the books were being kept. Under Bush, the war costs were being kept off book. They were being kept as a side cost and not included in the official budget releases concerning the debt and some of the spending going on.
          .
          Obama looked at the Bush book keeping and saw a mess. Actually, while no one from his administration ever actually said he, he saw the kind of book keeping that would land most small business owners in jail on fraud or racketeering charges. All he did was make the numbers more honest and reality based starting in 2009 by adding the war figures back into the overall figures.
          .
          So, again, he did not create much of the debt that he is blamed for creating.
          .
          Fact #3: Neither Fact #1 or Fact #2 mean diddly squat.
          .
          Far, far too many of the voting (and non-voting) population are staggeringly ignorant of how government works or how things work in general when dealing with things the magnitude of a recession like this one. All most people know or care to know is that things aren’t better and it must be because of the guy in office right now doing it to them.
          .
          And that’s what they’ll be thinking throughout most of next year.

       4. Well, they didn’t fail to write a budget, they just failed to agree on a budget…

          I still say the Repubs saddled McCain with Palin to make sure Obama won because they knew there was no way Anyone in either party could “fix” the economy for the 2009-2012 presidential term and they could point fingers at a Dem pres. when 2012 rolls around.

       5. Sasha, you give credit to Clinton for the improved economy and blame to the GOP for what’s happening now that they control the house (for all of what, 6 months?). fairness would dictate that since you give so much credit for blame to who controls the house you must also give equal credit to who controlled the house during the good years of Clinton. Who was that now?.
          .
          Those looking for easy blame/credit equations will have to contort themselves to find them.
          .
          But look, let’s pretend that you and I are examples of what liberals and conservatives are like. One could argue with that premise but let’s go with it. I think liberals are fundamentally good people who are wrong, in my humble opinion, about some fundamental ideas on how best to make a workable society. Except when they are right, such as with civil rights and gay marriage, and several other issues. Some, maybe most, of my friends are more liberal than I am. I think the world of them and have and will continue to work with them and cheerfully argue the issues.
          .
          In contrast and only using what you have said on this single thread…the GOP is “ridiculous and scandalous”, crazy,”insane and heartless”, has only one potential candidate who is “perhaps” “non-crazy”, trying to “intentionally ruin America’s economy”, an economy which they are “sabotaging”, “destroying” by “initiating a financial catastrophe” that has already turned the country into “a banana republic”, compared them to terrorists since they are “radical” “irresponsible fools” who have “abandoned reason” “playing a game of flex-the-crazy-muscles” as they are “threatening to suicide-bomb the economy”. And it’s possible they “honestly don’t believe that Dems qualify as human.”
          .
          Wow! Now tell me, which attitude is more likely to lead to compromise? Which attitude would be better to have among our elected leaders? Which attitude is more likely to lead to conflict and violence if it were held by people less sane than you and me? You know, switch a few names here and there and you could put that stuff on a poster, go to a tea party Rally and fit right in with the more, um, colorful members.
          .
          It’s easy to dismiss analysis of who is to blame for our sorry position when it comes from someone who indulges in such a cartoonish world view of good guys in white hats and bad guys with twirling mustachios. You’re indulging in every bit the talking points that Darin is and you’re better than that.

       6. Well, they didn’t fail to write a budget, they just failed to agree on a budget…
          .
          Kind of a distinction without a difference.
          .
          I still say the Repubs saddled McCain with Palin to make sure Obama won because they knew there was no way Anyone in either party could “fix” the economy for the 2009-2012 presidential term and they could point fingers at a Dem pres. when 2012 rolls around.
          .
          You think they are WAYYYYYYY smarter than they are, ever have been or every will be.

       7. here’s the kind of reality based math that makes me doubt the seriousness of those expounding it: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/801-economy/165673-house-dems-to-call-for-expiration-of-bush-tax-cuts-in-debt-limit-deal
          .
          A group of House Democrats is calling for any deal to raise the debt ceiling to bring about the end of the Bush tax rates for the wealthy.
          .
          They added that allowing the Bush tax rates for the wealthiest to expire at the end of next year would by itself “stop the growth of the deficit over the next decade.”
          .
          Well! Those Tea party fascists at The New York Times tell us at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html that “Extending them (the tax cuts) for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.”
          .
          Which would not only NOT “stop the growth of the deficit over the next decade.” it woud not even pay for HALF of JUST THIS YEAR’S deficit!
          .
          Math is hard.

       8. “But look, let’s pretend that you and I are examples of what liberals and conservatives are like.”
          .
          Bill, I don’t think you are a good example of what conservatives are like, or at least the kind of conservative that the GOP seems to be trying to seduce by acting crazy, as Sasha is saying.
          .
          You are too intelligent to ignore that there has been a upsurge in conservative extremism in the US in the past 10 years. While I don’t think this faction is as big as they think they are, it’s still a group that has hijacked a major political party.
          .
          The “radical” “irresponsible fools” who have “abandoned reason” “playing a game of flex-the-crazy-muscles” as they are “threatening to suicide-bomb the economy” aren’t actually evil or insane. They’re just politicians trying to court what they see as a powerful and noisy group of supporters.
          .
          And a few of the GOP stars look like sincere radicals. Palin, Bachmann, Santorum. You seem to always try to equate liberals and conservatives Do you sincerely believe the Dems have similar figures that are as extreme? More importantly, do you believe the Dems have similar radical figures that are as beloved by their supporters?

       9. Glad to see this thread has evolved from its origins.
          .
          Mr Mulligan, your posts are always an enlightening read. I an envious of your style, knowledge and time.

          Are you aware of Bill Whittel? Interesting video below.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ

       10. .
           “I still say the Repubs saddled McCain with Palin to make sure Obama won because they knew there was no way Anyone in either party could “fix” the economy for the 2009-2012 presidential term and they could point fingers at a Dem pres. when 2012 rolls around.”
           .
           You’re a little behind on that one. Back before McCain got the nod and Obama was elected, I had pointed out here and elsewhere that several high profile Republican strategists and some high profile Conservative talkers had actually publicly said that the best thing for the Republicans was to have a Democrat take the White House in 2008 because the economic crash would take years to correct and that the party out of the White House could point at the hard times and blame the party in the White House.
           .
           Interestingly, some of the same people who knew that it would take the country years to course correct and fix itself after 8 years of fiscal mismanagement under Bush (with 6 years of it under a Republican House and Senate) and basically said as much in late 2008 are the same voices who are now saying that it’s all Obama’s fault.
           .
           Never bet on short term honest streaks surviving political gamesmanship and hypocrisy when it comes to DC politics.

       11. .
           “Sasha, you give credit to Clinton for the improved economy and blame to the GOP for what’s happening now that they control the house (for all of what, 6 months?).”
           .
           Bill? They’ve been in power in the House for just shy of 6 months this time. However, it was the Republicans who were in charge of the house and senate for over a decade prior to the Democrats winning the House and Senate in 2006, it was a Republican who had the White House for 8 years prior to Obama taking it in 2008 and it was the Republicans who owned everything from January 2001 to January 2007 and their policies and budgets that were still in effect until the start of fiscal 2008.
           .
           It was under total Republican control that we went into two wars, one necessary and one unnecessary, that we basically put on the credit card because the Republicans felt that we could spend billions a day above and beyond the normal budget while cutting taxes and thus cutting revenue coming in to pay for those wars.
           .
           The total costs for the Iraq war by the end of FY 2011 is projected to be around $802 billion dollars. The total costs for Afghanistan by the end of FY 2011 is projected to be around $455 billion dollars. There’s another $34 billion dollars of related costs that go into the “enhanced security” category (both here and there) and that cannot be accounted for. And those are, right now, ongoing expenses.
           .
           Now do the math. Add in the additional cost to the deficit that the Bush tax cuts created and are still creating. Oh, and calculate in the fact that the Republicans are backing a budget plan that calls for cutting the top rate from a 35% tax rate to a 25% tax rate.
           .
           The dirty little secret that the Republicans and the conservative talking heads don’t like to talk about is that, despite their claims to the contrary, the Ryan budget and budget like it that they’re supporting do not reduce the deficit. Hëll, the Ryan budget numbers even admit, if you look for it buried in all the fine print, that it adds to the deficit. But, hey, so long as they can give the top money earners an additional 10% tax break…
           .
           Oh, and you Republicans and Republican supporters out there? Take a bow. You’re the one who fought tooth and nail to both go into Iraq and to get the Bush tax cuts into place. YOU are the ones who fought tooth and nail to put a war that cost billions of dollars a day on the government credit card rather than allowing for the actions we’ve always taken as a country and actually looked at ways to pay for the thing. You don’t get to pretend to be credible commentators on fiscal responsibility or pretend to have any moral authority while giving lip service to not burdening future generations with debt. It was you and your policies and the policies you defended and championed that more than just helped us hit the crisis point we’re in now. You don’t get to play the intellectually disingenuous game of talking up your responsible nature now and not getting called on it.
           .
           Oh, and here’s something that you don’t see discussed very often but is kinda funny. Because of their annual income, most of the Republicans fighting for that new 25% tax rate will be among the people reaping the benefits of it. Gee, no wonder they’re so hot to pass it. Screw the country, just make sure that they get theirs.
           .
           And I’m really tired of this mindless talking point on the Right about lowering taxes (but mostly for the top earners) to fix things. The tax rate on the top earners has been at it’s lowest in the last 10 years than any other time in recent history. The country has been working under the tax policies that the Republicans want to push for the last ten years. We’ve also had additional tax cuts in the last yera and a half since, despite the right’s talking points, Obama did put tax cuts into effect in his stimulus bills. But they were smaller targeted tax cuts than he wanted because the Republicans wouldn’t budge on the top earners keeping the Bush era tax levels. We didn’t grow jobs, we crashed and went into a recession. Lowering the top tax rate from 35% to 25% isn’t going to do diddly squat other than give the very rich the ability to stick even more money into their bank accounts.
           .
           Let the Bush tax cuts sunset as the were designed to do and do what a number of the Democrats have advised doing. Take a part of that and add it into the revenue stream to help offset war costs and spending. Take the rest and direct it to larger targeted tax cuts to middle income earners and to tax breaks/incentives for smaller/start up businesses.
           .
           Here’s a simple fact. You give a small army of people who are middle income and living close to paycheck to paycheck right now an extra $20 or $50 a month, they’re going to put that many into their local economy. Some of them may have no other choice but to spend it. You give someone who making hundreds of thousands of dollars or more every year and is already banking money they don’t spend an additional tax break and they’re banking the additional money. It goes nowhere.
           .
           Well, or they go and spend it on an overpriced item in a high end store in New York.
           .
           There were a couple of studies that came out a few months ago that were interesting. They showed that “lower end” stores like Walmart, Target and others were seeing declining sales because their clientele had less and less money to spend. That trend started in the Bush tax policy era and was very noticeable in 2009 and early 2010. Conversely, high end store like Saks Fifth Avenue, the home of $1,500 dollar shoes for woman and $3,000 suits for men, were showing slightly increased sales.
           .
           The simple fact is that the Bush/Republican tax policies really are by the rich and for the rich and really only help the rich to any meaningful degree. They also helped crash the budget and tank the economy. So, no, it doesn’t strain credibility “to think of the democrats as a good alternative to republicans on fiscal issues” at all. Especially since, even under Obama, we haven’t really seen them put into place again yet.

       12. .
           Ahem… Slight typo…
           .
           … and their policies and budgets that were still in effect until the start of fiscal 2008.

       13. Arrrrgh, a whole post eaten up because I failed to put my name and address it on it, stupid, stupid. here’s the short version
           .
           Do you sincerely believe the Dems have similar figures that are as extreme? More importantly, do you believe the Dems have similar radical figures that are as beloved by their supporters?
           .
           Sharpton and Cynthia McKinney come to mind and I’d rate both as worse than either Santorum or Palin. Al is more of a bumbling narcissist but he has blood on his hands and a trail of damaged lives. Doesn’t stop the president from talking to him. McKinney is both stupid and evil and while I almost always disagree when those terms are used to describe politicians (Weiner is not stupid, he did a stupid thing; Ted Kennedy was not evil, though he once behaved in a deplorably cowardly way) she fits the bill. To it’s credit, the Democratic party is well rid of her and it’s true that neither of them will ever get the nomination. Neither will Santorum. If a meteor strike wipes out the entire remaining field while Santorum is out buying fabric cleaner, the party will nominate someone who isn’t Santorum.
           .
           Of course, my definition of extreme may not match yours. A person who does not agree with me on any issues does not instantly become “extreme”. The whole moderate/extreme thing is pretty subjective. A republican who is pro choice almost always gets the “moderate” label. A Democrat who says that republicans are evil, out to kill women and such…gets to be head of the DNC.

       14. My definition of extreme probably doesn’t match yours. Remember that I am from a country where there are real communists in political life. Our current President was part of a armed struggle movement in the 1960s. She is also a closeted lesbian.
           .
           The most “extreme” Democrat politicians look quite moderate to me. Well, perhaps not Cynthia McKinney, I’ll give you that.
           .
           I’d say that Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, the Republican Presidents of the time I came of age are a sort of touchstone to me; they were pragmatic guys. Actually, Dubya before 9/11 seemed to be like that too.
           .
           What’s extreme in post-9/11 Republicans? Flirting with the Fundamentalist Christian movement, for one; engaging in gigantic foreign intervention for reasons that doesn’t seem like solid realpolitiks (ideology trumping the pragmatism of a Reagan), coupled with a disregard for international organizations; and most of all, a tendency to reject any compromise with the other side, a complete certainty of one’s own positions, a penchant for demonizing opponents, abroad and domestically. All of that I see in many post-9/11 GOP politicians.
           .
           But I never use the word “evil” to refer to them. Not Bush. Not even Santorum. I think Santorum is a bit of an áššhølë, but I won’t call the man evil. Evil to me requires persistent, deliberate sadism.

       15. .
           Rene: “My definition of extreme probably doesn’t match yours.”
           .
           And that’s a bit of a problem when you make statements or compare and contrast things looking from the outside in.
           .
           We have a different location for out center than you’re used to. As a result, I think most American moderates see the “extreme” in a different light than you do.
           .
           We have many extreme nutballs on the Left. Some of them are just as bad as the ones on the Right. The big difference right now just seems to be that the Right is more happy to embrace their extreme and declare it as “mainstream” than the Left is at this moment in time.

       16. We have many extreme nutballs on the Left.
           .
           Few of which are running for federal offices.

32. 150 posts on this thread definitely means we all have too many thoughts about Weiners.

    1. Does that make us all Weinerdogs?
       .
       PAD

33. Women are savvy enough not to waste their vote on people who are, at best, dubious about women’s rights…
    .
    Palin and Bachmann are savvy enough to know the difference between women’s rights and abortion rights.

34. “The total costs for the Iraq war by the end of FY 2011 is projected to be around $802 billion dollars. The total costs for Afghanistan by the end of FY 2011 is projected to be around $455 billion dollars. There’s another $34 billion dollars of related costs that go into the “enhanced security” category (both here and there) and that cannot be accounted for. And those are, right now, ongoing expenses.
    .
    Now do the math.”
    .
    Sure, Jerry. No problem. By your own numbers, Obama’s pork-laden “stimulus” cost more with the stroke of a pen than the entire Iraq war and close to what both wars cost COMBINED. that’s not even taking into account the new entitlement of Obamacare.
    .
    And if raising tax rates were such a slam dunlk to increase revenue and decrease the deficit without harming the fragile economy, Obama would have let the tax cuts lapse, no?
    .
    Thanks for proving the point.

    1. .
       “Sure, Jerry. No problem. By your own numbers, Obama’s pork-laden “stimulus” cost more with the stroke of a pen than the entire Iraq war and close to what both wars cost COMBINED. that’s not even taking into account the new entitlement of Obamacare.”
       .
       Yep. And the stimulus bill was a one off. It also went into the economy. It also sent money to states where even republican politicians grabbed it and used it to do what it was designed to do. It went to state and local governments and created short term jobs by hiring local contractors and workers to do things like road works projects. It kept some states, cities and counties from having to make layoffs even more massive and extreme than actually did happen in an attempt to keep the jobless figures from going through the roof and to help keep the economy from crashing even worse than 8 years of Bush era policies helped it to do. It made sure that during most of 2010 there weren’t more people defaulting on home loans, getting their cars repossessed or declaring bankruptcy because they had been laid off during a time period where finding jobs was like finding leprechauns. It, unlike the Bush tax cuts, have actually done at least some good.
       .
       Keeping the Bush era tax rates in place or, as the Republicans right now want to do, dropping them from 35% to 25%? That’s an ongoing expense just like the wars have been. But, hey, maybe guys like Newt can take that extra tax break money and take another two week vacation in Greece with it or spend some more money on an overpriced pair of shoes for his wife.
       .
       “And if raising tax rates were such a slam dunlk to increase revenue and decrease the deficit without harming the fragile economy, Obama would have let the tax cuts lapse, no?”
       .
       And Obama wanted to. However, despite the right’s talking points, Obama’s goal was not to just raise tax levels. His stated plan and the plan stated by other Democrats was to let the rates sunset and then use a part of that revenue stream to create targeted tax cuts to the middle class and to small businesses.
       .
       The Republicans would have none of that and filibustered or threatened to filibuster just about every attempt to address those issues. And now that the Republicans have one branch of the government, their big plan is to do basically nothing for the middle class and small or start up businesses and give an even bigger tax cut to the wealthiest in America.

35. .
    Tell you what. Let’s look at some hard numbers here.
    .
    Unemployment rates for the last 20 years-
    .
    .
    .
    1980 7.1%
    .
    1981 7.6%
    .
    1982 9.7%
    .
    1983 9.6%
    .
    1984 7.5%
    .
    1985 7.2%
    .
    1986 7.0%
    .
    1987 6.2%
    .
    1988 5.5%
    .
    1989 5.3%
    .
    1990 5.6%
    .
    1991 6.8%
    .
    1992 7.5%
    .
    1993 6.9%
    .
    1994 6.1%
    .
    1995 5.6%
    .
    1996 5.4%
    .
    1997 4.9%
    .
    1998 4.5%
    .
    1999 4.2%
    .
    2000 4.0%
    .
    2001 4.7%
    .
    2002 5.8%
    .
    2003 6.0%
    .
    2004 5.5%
    .
    2005 5.1%
    .
    2006 4.6%
    .
    2007 4.6%
    .
    2008 5.8%
    .
    2009 9.3%
    .
    2010 9.6%
    .
    2011 9.3%
    .
    .
    .
    What do those numbers tell us?
    .
    Well, they tell us that Bush left the country in a worse state than it was in when he took office. It shows us that Clinton left the country in better shape than it was in when he took office. It shows that the first jump in the current unemployment figures in Obama’s time in office started under Bush and his policies. Oh, and it shows us that the highest rate of unemployment in the last 31 years was under the stewardship of Ronald Reagan.
    .
    Go ahead. I know the Conservatives and Republicans reading that last bit want to do what they’ve done for decades now and say that the 1982 and 1983 figures are a part of the slide from Carter’s time in office that carried through into Reagan’s time. And you would be right. Major economic downturns take years to correct and the downturn that started under Carter did carry on into Reagan’s third year in office. Of course, most of you can’t say that and not show yourselves to be intellectually dishonest. After all, Reagan had been in office in 1983 the same amount of time that Obama has been in office now and Obama’s predecessor had a lot longer to screw things up. But, saying that with Obama in office is just “blaming Bush.”
    .
    .
    .
    Let’s look at some other numbers.
    .
    09/30/2010 – $13,561,623,030,891.79
    .
    09/30/2009 – $11,909,829,003,511.75
    .
    09/30/2008 – $10,024,724,896,912.49
    .
    09/30/2007 – $9,007,653,372,262.48
    .
    09/30/2006 – $8,506,973,899,215.23
    .
    09/30/2005 – $7,932,709,661,723.50
    .
    09/30/2004 – $7,379,052,696,330.32
    .
    09/30/2003 – $6,783,231,062,743.62
    .
    09/30/2002 – $6,228,235,965,597.16
    .
    09/30/2001 – $5,807,463,412,200.06
    .
    09/30/2000 – $5,674,178,209,886.86
    .
    .
    9/30/1992 – $4,064,620,655,521.66
    .
    .
    9/30/1980 – $907,701,000,000.00
    .
    .
    That’s the debt over the years. What do those numbers say?
    .
    Well, they dámņëd sure look like they say that Republicans in control of the government create more debt than the supposedly “Big Spending” Democrats. But what about 2010? What about the three things that hit the debt hard in 2010? Decreased revenue coming in because of unemployment, putting the costs of the wars back in the official debt numbers and a one off stimulus bill. Two of those things had nothing to do with Obama or the Democrats and their “big spending.” And considering that the one thing that can be laid at Obama’s feet kept banks from going under, kept American industries from going under, created short term jobs and helped retain others for at least a little while longer than they might otherwise have been around… That may actually have been a worthwhile expenditure.
    .
    So, no, I see nothing in the hard numbers that show that Republicans are better at running the country or handling the economy than the Democrats are. Just in the hard numbers, there’s actually evidence that the opposite is true.

    1. .
       F’n typo…
       .
       Unemployment rates for the last 30 years-

    2. The numbers can be interesting but look, we are essentially stuck with the people we have now. Pelosi, reid and co blew much of any chance of being seriously considered as competant economic thinkers when they blew off the budget out of fear that it might hurt them in the election (and how did that work out for them)? If they were smart, the Democrats would boot them out of leadership roles for some new blood but they seem determined to divide the leadership between proven hacks and TV empty headed bomb throwers (Weiner, Wasserman Schultz).
       .
       Oh, it looks like Weiner is off to rehab now and almost all the democrats want him to resign. See, this is where the republicans need me to call the shots for them-I would have really backed the hëll off on this guy and given him the chance to stick around. What a gift. Oh well, he’s going to be a father soon so I hope he gets the treatment he needs, though I am unaware of any new developments in jackassectomy surgery.
       .
       Mr. Haberberger, I thank you for your kind words. In large part any particular good writing qualities on my part should be credited to many of the people on this very forum. it’s why I would advise people who are interested in politics and such to frequent a place where they are not a minority of one but are not also in a mere echo chamber. One leads to just constant unchallenged reinforcement leading to probably douchebaggery and the other just makes you a troll. Folks like Jerry, Bill, Jerome, Craig, Tim, Rene, Sasha, and many others all have made me think. And of course, our esteemed host is the one that makes it work. A forum, like a fish, rots from the head down and the fact that trolls are few and far between and tend to wander away from here after failing to achieve satisfaction can be credited to the general tone of the blog, which Peter has worked hard to foster.

       1. .
          “Pelosi, reid and co blew much of any chance of being seriously considered as competant economic thinkers when they blew off the budget out of fear that it might hurt them in the election (and how did that work out for them)? If they were smart, the Democrats would boot them out of leadership roles for some new blood but they seem determined to divide the leadership between proven hacks and TV empty headed bomb throwers (Weiner, Wasserman Schultz).”
          .
          I know. I’ve certainly said as much before. Hëll, I stated here and written an entire post on my own blog about how Obama proved that he lacks the ability to prioritize properly and that he let his personal agenda to push for healthcare reform get in the way of focusing on job one (the economy.) But when you look at the numbers in the last 30 years for jobless rates, the debt and the GDP; the general policies that the Democrats implement insofar as taxes seems to be the better option. Those basic policies won’t change much right now even with the current crowd in their power structure. Well, barring the fact that they sometimes act like they have no spine these days even when they have a majority.
          .
          There are also other numbers that make sense on a basic level when you look at them. The vast majority of this country are not the top 10% or even 15% of the wealthiest people in the country. There are also by far more people in this country who buy goods and services than there are people who own the businesses that sell those goods and services. When the economy is stagnating or needs a boost, who are you going to target the tax cuts towards to do the most good?
          .
          The Republicans want to drop the top tax rate from 35% to 25%. The upshot of that is that a small amount of people will get a fair chunk of extra change added to their take home pay. Given that most of the top earners in the country are not living paycheck to paycheck or struggling to get by; I don’t see them going out and spending that extra money and “stimulating” the economy with it.
          .
          Now, if, as the Democrats say they want to do, you let the Bush tax breaks sunset and then use some of that money to to target tax cuts to the middle and lower income earners… Well, they won’t see a huge increase in their take home pay, but what they do get will get spent in the local economies. What will happen is that you will get millions of people putting that additional bit of take home every week/two weeks into their local grocery store, retail stores, hardware store, restaurants, etc. Some of them will have no choice but to spend the extra because they’re shuffling bills and needs now. Plus, that little bit of extra money may be the difference between paying a credit card bill or mortgage VS defaulting on a debt and thus screwing them and the debt holder. That’s inarguably going to do more to help at least stabilize things and prevent further downslide than giving a huge tax break to people who are already banking away monies earned above and beyond their currant monthly expenditures.
          .
          Even the usual talking point about “trickle down” is just that much more bs than it usually is right now. Employers are not hiring employees right now because most employers are not seeing their businesses earning money enough to warrant hiring more people. Quite the opposite actually. The results are the unemployment figures that we’re seeing lately. Giving the business owner more take home pay via a tax break isn’t going to get them to start hiring more people. They’ll start hiring again when they suddenly start getting increased sales for goods or services and they find that they once again need additional people to work for them and handle the increased business and that the increased business is enough to cover the cost of new hires. And that’s not going to happen by targeting the tax cuts to the richest and dropping the top tax rate from 35% to 25%.
          .
          Right now, we’re in a sort of viscous circular cycle. Employers that provide goods and services aren’t selling enough of their product to be able to hire more people right now. Because so many people have tight finances right now, people aren’t spending enough and spending consistently enough to create the both the need to hire and the ability to hire without losing even more profit. And very few places, especially in the public sector, can give raises right now and haven’t been for a while now. That pretty much means that the only way that you will see an immediate way to get extra spending money into the hands of the people who most need it is targeted tax cuts to the middle and lower income earners. A part of how you pay for that targeted tax cut so as to not add a huge amount to the debt would be to return the tax level at the top back to the pre-bush tax cut levels.
          .
          And that’s not a huge increase. It’s going from 35% to 39% on the top earners. And under that rate in the 90s combined with middle class tax cuts and breaks, we saw improved employment numbers and GDP and did not see a huge increase on the debt level. It makes sense to go back to that right now. Hëll, it makes more sense than declaring that making the Bush tax cuts permanent or even lowering the top rate will create jobs when we were living under those tax rates when this depression started.
          .
          Even if the people in charge of the Dems right now are not the brightest bulbs, what their side as a whole is proposing seems to make more sense.

36. Test 1 Test 2

    1. Ahh, looks like italics have bled over onto any new posts below Jerome’s June 10, 2011 at 3:06 pm post.

37. Front page headline on the NY Post in regards to whether Weiner is going to resign or stay the course:
    .
    WEINER: I’LL STICK IT OUT
    .
    I’m about ninety percent sure they knew what they were writing; on the other hand, they’re such idiots there that maybe they didn’t.
    .
    PAD

38. Well, as a friend put it this morning: Weiner is going to pull out.
    .
    (No, the puns never end.)
    .
    Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign Thursday
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43425251/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

    1. Here’s a hilarious notion: What if next year he then enters the race as an independent, running for the seat he vacated and letting the people decide whether he should stay or go. I mean, let’s face it, we’ve had politicians who have actually, y’know, done something illegal–which Weiner hasn’t–and their constituency backs them.
       .
       PAD

       1. I dunno…according to Reuters he’s become a republican: http://ibnlive.in.com/news/amid-scandal-us-republican-weiner-to-step-down/160024-2.html
          .
          I mean, New Yorkers will possibly put up with a narcissistic exhibitionist but there are some things you just have to take a stand against.

39. And despite being a story of actual consequence, this report about apparent presidential abuse of power will not receive so much as the merest fraction of attention and scrutiny as the Weiner brouhaha.
    .
    We really are fûçkëd as a nation, aren’t we …

    1. Sex sells best because we’re still a puritanical nation at heart.

       1. True.
          .
          Is there any other Western country that is so weird about such things?
          .
          Many European and Latin American countries have leaders that have an harem of mistresses, and it’s an open secret, and no one gives a dámņ. Well, in some places they give a dámņ, but only to fill the gossip mags, I can’t see a leader losing his job on account of it.
          .
          Only in the US.

       2. And I suppose that if many European and Latin American countries jumped off a bridge, then the US should follow suit?

       3. If you’re calling being less neurotic about sexuality jumping off a bridge, then yes. The US should jump right now.

       4. If that’s what the US should do, then surely there is a better argument than “everyone else is doing it.”

       5. Rene,
          “Many European and Latin American countries have leaders that have an harem of mistresses, and it’s an open secret, and no one gives a dámņ.”
          .
          That’s the problem. it seems more and more “no one gives a a dámņ” about anything.
          .
          And this has nothing to do with a mistress. In many ways, it’s not even about sex. it’s because again, he told a bald faced lie that naturally invited speculation.
          .
          If you or I had our e-mail or twitter accounts hacked, that would be a severe offense. But for a CONGRESSMAN to get his account hacked, when he is responsible for classified information and internal documents? That is something that needs to be investigated. The LIE is what is really fûçkëd up and what eventually made Weiner decide to pull out today.

       6. And this has nothing to do with a mistress. In many ways, it’s not even about sex. it’s because again, he told a bald faced lie that naturally invited speculation.
          .
          One lead to the other: because this country has such as hard on over the topic of sex, it lead to Weiner lying about it.
          .
          Our leaders (and we’ve seen it on both sides of the political aisle) are so afraid to be caught up in a sex scandal that the first reaction is to lie, lie, and lie some more.
          .
          We’ve got sodomy laws in this country. There are still laws regarding co-habitation and other ‘bedroom’ issues.
          .
          It’s not about giving a dámņ or not, it’s that this country cares so much about what goes on in the bedroom that when asked about it, our first reaction is to lie, lie, and lie some more in claiming we don’t care.
          .
          It’s come up numerous times here: violence is ok in America, but sex/nudity is not. And we’re simply pretty back-asswards about it compared to the rest of the world.

       7. Jerome, to give a dámņ about what other people do in the bedroom is not a healthy mindset, IMO.
          .
          Andy, America isn’t alone. There is plenty of Middle East, African, and Asian countries that also care deeply about the personal sex lives of their citizens. Is that good company for America to be?
          .
          I find it sad that Jack Nicholson’s speech in EASY RIDER is still relevant, more than 40 years later. Americans love to TALK about being free, but they hate and fear those who ARE free.

       8. It wasn’t just the lie; it was a lie that implicated others and led many liberals to quickly accuse their political opponents of a dirty tricks campaign or even outright illegal activities. And it was stupid stupid stupid and while I’m sure we can all point to other countries where their politicians are stupid every day of the week and people accept it, I hope we will always look askance at any member of our political class who demonstrates the intellect of a bag of fog.
          .
          And I don’t know if it’s true that we Americans are so different than our European friends–they seem fascinated by our political sex scandals as well. Spitzer was big news in England and Germany, as I recall. conversely, if a European politician is embroiled in a sex scandal the average American could not give a yellow rat’s ášš about it. Like the Silvio Berlusconi scandal that, according to http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/13/us-italy-berlusconi-women-idUSTRE71C0QX20110213, got “Hundreds of thousands of women” at over 200 separate protests…wait, what the hëll? Hundreds of thousands of protesters and we’re the ones who make too big a deal out of sex?
          .
          Americans love to TALK about being free, but they hate and fear those who ARE free.
          .
          Seriously? I roll my eyes. Anthony Weiner died for our sins, there’s a slogan that won’t be selling many t shirts.

       9. Bill, many Europeans love to gossip about sex scandals, but I don’t remember many of their politicians losing their jobs on account of it.
          .
          True, Berlusconi may still lose it, but Jesus, just compare: Weiner sent shirtless pictures to a few women. Berlusconi had sex with a 17-year old prostitute (a crime, in Italy). Weiner is gone, Berlusconi isn’t.
          .
          There are many other reasons for why Berlusconi is so unpopular with Italian women that he motivated a protest. Every time he opens his mouth, he says something extremely sexist. It doesn’t bother me that the man is a lecher, but that he is a pig.
          .
          Oh, I’m not a fan of Weiner either. Like I said before, he was a coward, he was a liar, he was the main culprit of his own fall. But it’s like reading DANGEROUS LIASONS by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos. The amorality of the protagonists isn’t nearly as repugnant as the social hypocrisy and puritanism that they live in.

       10. Craig J. Ries: And we’re simply pretty back-asswards about it compared to the rest of the world.
           .
           Rene: America isn’t alone. There is plenty of Middle East, African, and Asian countries that also care deeply about the personal sex lives of their citizens. Is that good company for America to be?
           .
           This is all still the same argument, and to my ears it sounds an awful lot like stereotypical teenage peer pressure. “Don’t be lame like the losers; be cool like the cool kids.” Let’s try rephrasing the question. How did the Europeans and Latin Americans know that these were the right attitudes to have when there was no one to emulate?

       11. .
           Rene, there was a hëll of a lot more to it than just sending shirtless pictures of himself or sexting.
           .
           Weiner goofed and posted a picture he meant to send. It got out. No biggie.
           .
           Weiner could have defused this entire thing by just saying from the start of the thing that he and some friends/acquaintances have a thing for juvenile gags, the picture was a part of that and he screwed up and posted a picture that wasn’t meant to be posted. There would have been some flap coming from some areas, but there really wouldn’t be much in the way of traction for scandal mongers.
           .
           Seriously, what would the Republicans be able to say about it that would stick? He didn’t break any laws and he certainly didn’t do anything close to what a number of Republicans still in office have done in the last few years. It’s gone and it’s a nothing scandal that fizzes out in a week or less.
           .
           But Weiner, being an idiot, goes straight into panic mode and freaks out. He claims that he didn’t send/post it and that his account was hacked. Of course, he also makes everyone deeply confused by saying that he can’t actually say if it’s him in the picture or not. He spends a week going on the “Nope, Not Me!” tour where he repeats his claims of being hacked, implies wrong doing by his critics/political adversaries, has friends and pundits friendly to him defend him and sees some of his dumber defenders begin to spin their own theories about who actually hacked his account and why.
           .
           And then he comes out and fesses up about the thing after almost a full week. And, double bonus, he actually tells a few more easy to discover lies during the fess up and admits that he doesn’t know all of the women he’s sending the images to and can’t actually say for sure that they’re all of legal adult age. Gee, there’s a really great foot to shove into your own mouth. Everyone now knows that your sending risqué pictures to these ladies, you won’t deny the rumors that there have been other pictures of a more X-rated nature and you’re admitting that you don’t really know for sure if you’re sending these things to underage girls or not.
           .
           And the super bonus that pìššëd øff a lot of the pundits on the Left? He gave serial liar Andrew Breitbart a moment in the sun and a platform to look good with. He gave Andrew F’N Breitbart the ability to play victim and demand an apology because Weiner’s defenders went above and beyond the story that Weiner was putting out there and, based on Andrew Breitbart’s past record, decided that Breitbart must have been behind the fictional hacking and/or faked the photos. Oh, and then, of course, it comes out that he got in touch with some of the girls and tried to give them instructions on how to lie about what happened.
           .
           Weiner came out of this looking bad. His defenders came out of this looking foolish. His allies came out of this looking betrayed. His critics came out of this looking like victims of a smear campaign.
           .
           You can say that his panic was justified because it was about sex, but that denies the reality of the last 20 years of American political sex scandals. Politicians in both parties who have done worse have continued with their careers. Hëll, Clinton stayed in office after an actual affair and telling lies about it. Yes, America as a whole has the emotional maturity of a 13 year old when it comes to matters involving sex or sexuality in just about any way, shape or form. Yes, we have all sorts of hang ups in this country about nudity and the bedroom habits of others. But that ain’t what killed Weiner here. And it wasn’t even the telling of lies that killed him. Politicians lie just about every time they open their mouths. Lots of politicians lied when they got caught in their various sex scandals and they didn’t flame out like this.
           .
           What killed him was the nature of the lies he told, the way that some of the lies encouraged the belief by his defenders of nefarious activities by his critics and the fact that he didn’t reign in those things when he was doing his little media tour. He didn’t just lie by denying things, he created a story that made everything bigger and worse for him and the situation every time either he or his defenders opened their mouths.
           .
           And you know something, Rene? I don’t have the hang ups that many people I know have. I think that most of my fellow Americans act dumber than dog šhìŧ when it comes to matters of sex and/or sexuality, but some things still matter. Weiner or any other politician can chase tail all they want when they’re single, but when you decide to get married you put a stop to that. There’s nothing enlightened or sophisticated about claiming that you are a faithful, loyal (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) spouse while having multiple affairs or about declaring that it’s no big deal. There’s nothing enlightened or sophisticated about claiming that pretty much no taboo matters anymore.
           .
           The Republicans and most of the conservatives out their only give lip service to this idea any more, but character does matter. Character shown in one area of life does show something about who you are and what you will do in other areas of your life. If you’re going to betray a commitment made to someone you supposedly love, why should we believe you’ll truly honor any promise or commitment you’ve claimed that you’ll honor with people you’ve never met and don’t know (us?)
           .
           Now, should an affair mean you have to step down? No. I think that your constituents should have that say. They know better than anyone else how good of a public servant you may or may not be. They should be able to weigh the offense against their view of the worth of your service to them. And certainly something like what started all of this garbage shouldn’t mean that you have to step down. I can’t even say that telling lies should get you booted at this point for the simple fact that we would have no politicians left in office and no one would last more than a week in office under those standards.
           .
           But the simple truth is that Weiner killed himself in this. He went beyond just denials and the expected lies and dragged his friends and defenders into the hole he was digging along with him even as he dug it. Hëll, in some cases he handed them shovels to help him with the digging. What killed him wasn’t the photos or the basic fact that he lied about it. What killed him was how he lied about it and the revelations that dripped out bit by bit in the days following his confession that seriously brought into question his ability to not make really dangerously stupid mistakes that could have potentially hurt him and his party a lot worse than this did. That’s what killed him and not American’s attitudes towards sex or their hang ups about sexuality.

       12. Weiner sent shirtless pictures to a few women.
           .
           When you have to defend an argument by so blatantly spinning reality it kind of weakens your point. Granted, his pëņìš was indeed not wearing a shirt but it’s like saying that Elliot Spitzer got in trouble for giving a young woman some money.
           .
           Mind you, I’m very sorry to see him go (as, doubtlessly, many conservatives are) and if it’s true that most in his district wanted him to stay then by all means he should have. People have the right to be represented by whoever the want. personally, I’d be embarrassed but it’s their call.

40. It’s not about honesty or trust. It’s about sex, pure and simple. Please tell me about one, just one politician that lost his job because of a lie that didn’t involve sex or any illegal situation. Do you remember any policitians that felt threatened because they lied to their brother or their daughter, or because they betrayed their friends? Ever heard of a politician that had to step down because he betrayed a committiment made to his father?
    .
    No, it doesn’t happen. The only lies in non-criminal situations that cause people to lose their position in America are the ones involving sex. It’s only lies to their spouses that matter, and only the lies that involve sex.
    .
    It’s not sophisticated when one betrays one’s wife. It’s not unsophisticated either. It’s just human nature. It’s between him and his wife. I am 35 years old, and I’ve worked with married, single, divorced, and widowed people. One happiness’s in one’s marriage has no impact on one’s effectivess at one’s job. Zero impact.
    .
    I remember when Hugh Grant was arrested for doing the dirty with prostitute Divine Brown in 1995, and some interviewer, perhaps Jay Leno, asked Hugh if he was insane for betraying his hot wife with a not-so-attractive prostitute. What a moron Leno was. It’s sex. It’s not logical. It will never be logical.
    .
    Hugh lied to his wife. Weiner lied to his wife. We all lie. Jerry lies, Bill lies, I lie. But only the lies about sex matter?

    1. Hugh Grant’s never been married, to the best of my knowledge.
       .
       PAD

    2. I lie when I tell my coworker that her dress does not make her look fat. Actually, I take that back. The dress does NOT in fact make her look fat, her enormous ášš makes her look fat. But the point is, my lie does not hurt anyone or accuse others of illegal activities or impact my job or make people ashamed that I represent them or diminish my station or any of a bunch of things Weiner did.
       .
       What lie do you imagine I or jerry do that equates to going on TV and encouraging people to slander those who tell the truth about us?
       .
       Politicians have admitted to unfaithfulness and kept their jobs. What Weiner did was sufficiently grotesque and reckless to call into question his intelligence, which is why he lied about it, tried to accuse others of a crime to direct people away from the lie, arrogantly besmirch those who (correctly) dared to question the lie…the jáçkášš set himself up. Hubris leads to nemesis. Oldest story out there.
       .
       There is a growing sense, and not just among tea Party fans, that our political class is clueless, arrogant, self absorbed, foolhardy and filled with a sense of privilege they have never earned. Weiner embodies all that in spades. Maybe he will serve as a warning for others to clean up their act…I doubt it though.

       1. You know what, you guys are right. I don’t know why I’m spending my time defending a spineless fool like Weiner. I am sorry for my post from yesterday. I was a bit drunk. No, make that a lot drunk, had just came home from clubbing.

       2. Now I’m jealous…:)
          .
          have a restful, quiet saturday…and more of the same tonight, I’ll bet.

    3. .
       “Hugh lied to his wife. Weiner lied to his wife. We all lie. Jerry lies, Bill lies, I lie. But only the lies about sex matter?”
       .
       At this point it seems like you’re deliberately missing two important parts of this discussion and this event.
       .
       (1) Sex scandals alone aren’t career killers in America. Any number of athletes, celebrities and politicians have had affairs or sex life meltdowns that became public events and went on to continue their careers and even regains or surpass their earlier popularity with the public.
       .
       (2) It wasn’t the lie about sex that killed his career, Rene. It was the lie about criminal activity and the things that spun out of control from that lie.
       .
       I’ll compare two events and maybe you’ll get here.
       .
       Bill Clinton-
       .
       Bill Clinton had been engaged in multiple affairs during his time as Governor of Arkansas. This was supposedly a fairly open secret in Arkansas during his career there. It didn’t hurt him greatly there and, when it was pulled out into the public view in the run up to the 1992 elections, it didn’t mean enough to most Americans keep him from getting elected as POTUS.
       .
       He then had his little Monica moment while in office. Now, you can say that America flipped out and that it was a big deal in America, but you would be to a fair degree wrong. The only two groups of people who really worked at making that a big deal were the Republicans and the every increasingly ratings chasing press. Most people at the time felt that it didn’t impair his ability to be POTUS in any way and, while disappointed that he would hand the Republicans something else to look foolish over, most people just wanted it to blow over and go away.
       .
       The impeachment wasn’t even over the sex act. It was over the fact that he lied under oath about it. Even now you see that little discussion take place. People point out that the republicans were so stupid, backwards and desperate that they tried to get Clinton thrown out of office for having an affair with an intern and thought that they could get public support behind them on it. Inevitably, some twit will jump into the thread and “correct” the first person by pointing out that he was impeached for telling a lie about it while under oath. This gets the response about how, yeah, he lied under oath, but he lied about sex. This then gets the… You get the idea.
       .
       And if you go back and look at what the opinion of most of the country was, most people didn’t care. Everyone but the partisan, shrill screamers on the Right and their supporters fully accepted the fact that Clinton did something stupid given the climate in DC at the time, but also knew that even his act of perjury was a nothing offense. At that time in the U.S., even the courts, both civil and criminal, saw an act of perjury made about hiding an affair when the affair was not related to the main body of the investigation/charge/crime being weighed in court as a verbal warning offense in most cases. It was an expected lie. It was a forgiven lie. You simply got told to not do it again and very often got no charges or fines placed against you for that particular act of perjury. Monica had nothing to do with Whitewater and most people just wanted the people in DC to move on, leave that stupid crap behind them and get back to doing their jobs.
       .
       The only people that really cared then or now about his indiscretions in office were the people that hated him to begin with and couldn’t get over the fact that he got elected to begin with. His supporters were disappointed by his lack of good judgment with the hostile climate/witch hunts created by the Republicans at the time (and in his taste in mistresses,) but the vast majority of America didn’t see it as a reason to remove him from office or impeach him.
       .
       He lied about an affair. He had done it before and everyone fully expects him to do it again before he dies. Most people felt that the affair he lied about was not relevant to his job or the witch hunt investigation into a land deal that went down years before either we as a country or Bill Clinton himself had ever heard of Monica Lewinsky.
       .
       And Bill Clinton stayed popular after that. Many said that Gore was making a huge mistake by distancing himself from Clinton in the 2000 election campaign and Bill still causes audiences to go nuts when he speaks at party events or lectures.
       .
       He had an affair. He had multiple affairs. He lied about them. Most people didn’t care.
       .
       Anthony Weiner-
       .
       He didn’t even have an affair.
       .
       He didn’t have sex, oral or otherwise, with anyone during his marriage other than his wife.
       .
       All he did was engage in some ridiculously juvenile flirting via twitter and sent dûmbášš pictures of himself and his privates to various women (most of whom he had never actually met.) Stupid by every standard of judgment, but not a crime and not even close to the actions of Bill Clinton years earlier.
       .
       It was a nothing act that no one would have given a dámņ about. What killed Weiner was the lie, the type of lie he chose to tell and what spun out of that lie.
       .
       And, like I said above, he could have killed this entire situation before it really got started in any serious way by just stepping up and saying that he screwed up. He could have rammed a stake into the heart of the “scandal” and watched it turn to dust and blow away on the morning breeze had he only just said that he engaged in juvenile gags with others on Twitter and that he accidently posted a picture that he meant to send. It’s done and it’s dead and there’s nothing that anyone can do to make it matter to the majority of Americans.
       .
       But he didn’t do that. And, again, you can’t say that it was because Americans are still that “backwards” about sexual behavior since you have a number of politicians on both sides of the isle with affairs and sex scandals on their records who survived and thrived after the affairs became public knowledge.
       .
       He lied. But the lie he chose to tell was politically a bad one and the way he did it was insanely stupid.
       .
       He stated that his account was hacked. That raises issues right there. The first big issue is that he publically stated that he was the victim of a crime. He falsely made the public charge of criminal act having been made against him.
       .
       Further, he then made that horrendous mistake even worse by not keeping his yap shut about certain details. Not commenting “because of the investigation” would have been an amazingly smart thing for him to do. But he didn’t do that. He went on a media tour where he commented endlessly and just made things worse.
       .
       One way he made things worse was by saying that he didn’t post the pictures, but that he couldn’t actually say for sure if they were of him or not or if he took them or not. Yes, that made him look a little screwy, but that was less important to the matter than what it implied. If he didn’t post the picture, then who did and, if it was a picture of him, where did they get it from?
       .
       Doubtlessly you, like me and everyone else, has personal photos (although, maybe not that personal) on our computers or cell phones that we have not posted to social networking sites. If one of those photos suddenly shows up online and we didn’t post it… How did it get there? The only logical conclusion id that someone hacked not only our account, but that they hacked our computer/cell phone/blackberry to gain access to the files on it.
       .
       So now we have Weiner falsely declaring that he’s the victim of a prank that is also a crime and implying that he is further the victim of a full on federal crime. Computer Trespass in a federal crime. It’s also a the type of federal crime that gets a whole lot of powerful people and federal law enforcement agencies sent into action to investigate ASAP and with great concern when the computer that has been trespassed upon also has files on it that relate to federal/government business and actions as would most computer that Anthony Weiner owned. Even his personal computers and electronics would still have some form of work related files on them since he probably used his personal devices from time to time to access his work email and thus hacking his personal devices would allow the hackers access to that or allow them to plant a virus that he would unknowingly upload to other politicians computers in the course of sending and receiving messages and files.
       .
       So, just to take a break for a moment and keep score, we have two very different lies here already. Clinton lied by simply denying the act of an affair. He said that something that happened didn’t happen. That’s all he did and the lie really didn’t send anything into play that wasn’t already happening insofar as legal activities or the Republican obsession/witch hunts. Weiner lied by claiming that he was in fact the victim of a federal crime. That right there should be enough to make the distinction between the two events crystal clear to anyone. Weiner lied by publically charging that he was the victim of hackers and then made statements that implied that he might have not only had his Twitter account hacked, but maybe even his personal electronic devices.
       .
       Weiner’s lie was the type of thing that starts federal law enforcement agencies moving into action. Weiner could claim that he didn’t want a federal agency investigating things because he was going to get other people to look into it all he wanted to, but the fact is that the nature of the charge he publically made ensured that people above his pay grade were going to order an investigation into the events regardless of his wishes on the matter. So then we get taxpayer money and lots of man hours starting to get wasted by investigating the claim of a crime that never actually happened.
       .
       But there’s more!!!!
       .
       During Weiner’s “Nope, Not Me!” tour, he made some claims that created a very bad situation for his defenders and for one man in particular. His comments about the photos, the nature of the photos, where they may have come from and about the statements by Andrew Breitbart that Breitbart had more photos to release later on down the road implied something that at least some of Weiner’s defenders ran with as a theory.
       .
       Weiner claimed he was hacked. Weiner claimed that he didn’t post the photo. Weiner gave very odd non-answers about the other photos that sounded like him saying that he didn’t post them online himself. Someone therefore hacked his account and his computer to get the photo and post it on Twitter and to get these other photos. Breitbart is now stating that he has even more photos to post to his site in the days to come…
       .
       There ain’t a lot of nice options here for Breitbart insofar as Weiner’s publically stated story goes.
       .
       The best thing that could be said about Breitbart by anyone who took Weiner at his word was that Breitbart had been sent these photos anonymously but was now knowingly in possession of photo files stolen from Weiner’s computer during a criminal act and was now posting them online for personal gain. Not only is that going to land Breitbart in hot water, but if the investigation of Weiner’s charges really got going it would have been hëll for Breitbart as his computer files would be seized and checked to see what else of a more vital national interest nature was stolen from Weiner’s computer and sent to him.
       .
       What’s the worst thing that could be (and was) said about Breitbart by some? That he had the photos because either he or someone he employed was the behind the hacking of Weiner’s computers.
       .
       And Weiner, in a week of spinning and telling the lie, did not actively work to reign in those lines of speculation since he was to focused on covering his own ášš and managing the ever more spinning out of control situation. And, while I don’t care enough to look up anything that Breitbart has said about the matter since then because he lied about it himself as soon as he could, I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to find out that he was at least contacted by federal law enforcement agents about being investigated.
       .
       But just as bad as that was that Breitbart, serial liar and áššhølë that he is be dámņëd, was then unjustly and unfairly lied about and smeared by Weiner’s defenders. And as the week wore on and the lies and theories grew, Weiner’s friends and defenders became more and more adamant in their defense of him and in discussing the real “facts” around this hacking and criminal act.
       .
       And then, when it was clear to Weiner that he could not stop what was likely going to happen next that was well beyond his ability to control, Weiner came out and fessed up. Oh, and he also made clear that he didn’t know 100% for sure if all of the random women he was texting and sending photos to were of legal age.
       .
       All of his defenders and friends were made to look like fools and Breitbart, serial liar, con artist and smear merchant, was made to look like the victim of a smear campaign. And. more importantly, Weiner was exposed to the public as someone who made made the unbelievably massive mistake of making a false claim of a federal crime to cover up what most people saw as an insignificant personal mistake. And that</I. is what killed his career.
       .
       It wasn't the photo that killed his career. It wasn't the fact that there's anything sexual about this that killed his career. he's not stepping down because of "sex." What killed his career was the lie, the nature of the lie, the things that the lie implied and the the fact that the lie was of the type that it just made everything about the situations a bigger and bigger mess that spiraled more and more out of control with every word that came out of his mouth that week.
       .
       Clinton had multiple affairs. He didn't leave office and he certainly didn't see the affairs limit him to being Governor of Arkansas. Newt had had an affair on his first wife with his second wife to be and left his first wife while she was recovering from cancer and he still managed to get reelected and go on to become Speaker of the House when he became the face of the Republican Revolution. Chuck Robb had a major sex scandal where the women involved cut herself a deal to pose for Playboy. He continued to win elections for years afterwards even here in (then much, much more) conservative Virginia. There are elected politicians holding office right now who have had "sex scandals" that they at first denied. Weiner could have survived this much more easily than any of them since there was no actual sex involved in this.
       .
       His having to step down wasn't simply about sex or about the simple fact that he lied. It was about the nature of the lie and what he did that week. It showed a level of immaturity and showed a colossally bad sense of judgment that eclipsed any act of "sex" from just about any other scandal that came before it. He went well beyond what most people see as the acceptable lie in these matters of the just the token denial. He claimed that he was the victim of a federal crime and created an atmosphere that, fully his fault or not, others jumped on way too willingly and cast stones at others that were underserved. Because of this, his judgment on matters when under high stress and his word is forever in far greater question than anyone else's who simply denied an affair and his allies and defenders got burned so badly that they're not about to rush to back him up on just about anything any time soon.
       .
       It was not about the sex (that never even actually happened.) It's not about America or Americans or about American's hang-ups about sexual matters. It was about everything else that he did that week.
       .
       If you can't understand that and understand why what he did was so different than what many before him have done… I don't know what else can be said on the matter or discussed with you about it.

       1. .
          “You know what, you guys are right. I don’t know why I’m spending my time defending a spineless fool like Weiner. I am sorry for my post from yesterday. I was a bit drunk. No, make that a lot drunk, had just came home from clubbing.”
          .
          Okay. So you posted that while I was typing and made it clear that I could have been doing better things with my time.
          .
          A pox on your keyboard! A pox I say!

Comments are closed.