Congressman Weiner's inappropriate tweet

[dudalb]

Let me get this straight; is the rationale for ignoring Breitbart the fact that he has smeared people in the past and then turned out to be wrong?

What does that say about the folks who have smeared Breitbart in this thread?

It's the boy who cried wolf routine; Breitbart has been wrong so often that when he is right and actully has the goods that people have a good reason for being very skeptical.
Fact is both sides have attack dogs who main task is throwing stuff at the opposition, regardless of whether there is any truth to it or not. I always put a huge discount on information from sources like that.

 

[Roadtoad]

No more so then several Rightist have defending those on the right when they get caught with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar.

The double standard practices by both sides when it comes to stuff like this is one reason I am coming to the Politics section here less and less.

Agreed. True, Larry Craig deserved to be excoriated for his "wide stance," and for lying about his activities, but all in all, it was comparable to what this is. In other words, it's all ultimately a lot of nothing.

Move along, folks, there's nothing more to see.

 

[Roadtoad]

Somehow I'm not surprised, yet his reporting of this was honest and correct and Weiner is a self admitted liar.

But his honest and correct reporting is a first. Just ask Ms. Sherrod.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Can I just say that this might be the ugliest thread I've seen in the politics forum since I joined? It's just awful. Start to finish. Utterly embarrassing. I'm sorry for even posting in it.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Evidence?



I don't think you'd convict if Weiner were doing it in front of you in plain sight.

As to Breitbart: Same story, different day. NEXT!

To be fair, Weiner hasn't actually broken any laws, so there would be no reason to convict him.


GB

 

[Roadtoad]

Can I just say that this might be the ugliest thread I've seen in the politics forum since I joined? It's just awful. Start to finish. Utterly embarrassing. I'm sorry for even posting in it.

Well, you're not alone. But what makes this particularly awful is the blatantly partisan tone of many of the posts.

You know, honestly, there's a lot more important things going on in the world than obsessing over whether a member of Congress is taking photos of his schlong. That's stupid, but that's also HIS BUSINESS. It got out because one of the recipients didn't want it. That was stupid on his part.

Breitbart, as was his norm, took the view that "It's all about ME." That should have told us everything we needed to know about this "scandal."

I don't know how good a job Weiner did in his district, but if he actually did any good, that's now going to be lost because he lacked common sense. It's the same beef I've had with Gingrich: You have political enemies. Don't go around handing them ammunition. That's just plain stupid.

And so is this thread.

 

[Neally]

But his honest and correct reporting is a first. Just ask Ms. Sherrod.

I imagine he reports stuff every day. Are you claiming every story he has ever reported has been proven to be false? Everyone seems to be focusing on this controversial ones and saying, "Look, everything he says is a lie!"

The courts will decide on the Sherrod case. He's already admitted that he should have waited to see the full unedited version before broadcasting the edited one.

 

[Roadtoad]

To be fair, Weiner hasn't actually broken any laws, so there would be no reason to convict him.


GB

Really! What a thought! Stupidity is not a crime!

It's just Stupid.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

I won't quote the whole thing, but here is an article that sort of sums up how I feel about things. I know a lot of people on here might not agree with GG on a lot of things, but he lines up with my thoughts pretty consistently through time, and really nails it in this case (bolding and snips mine):

...

Reporters who would never dare challenge powerful political figures who torture, illegally eavesdrop, wage illegal wars or feed at the trough of sleazy legalized bribery suddenly walk upright -- like proud peacocks with their feathers extended -- pretending to be hard-core adversarial journalists as they collectively kick a sexually humiliated figure stripped of all importance.

...

What makes the Anthony Weiner story somewhat unique and thus worth discussing for a moment is that, as Hendrick Hertzberg points out, the pretense of substantive relevance (which, lame though it was in prior scandals, was at least maintained) has been more or less brazenly dispensed with here. This isn't a case of illegal sex activity or gross hypocrisy (i.e., David Vitter, Larry Craig, Mark Foley (who built their careers on Family Values) or Eliot Spitzer (who viciously prosecuted trivial prostitution cases)). There's no lying under oath (Clinton) or allegedly illegal payments (Ensign, Edwards). From what is known, none of the women claim harassment and Weiner didn't even have actual sex with any of them. This is just pure mucking around in the private, consensual, unquestionably legal private sexual affairs of someone for partisan gain, voyeuristic fun and the soothing fulfillment of judgmental condemnation. .

...

ALB SAYS: There's a lot more here that's worth reading. You should really click the link.

 

[Snide]

If you can point to anyone in the thread maliciously editing Breitbart's work to humiliate him and destroy his employment, you might have an argument.

Yes, when someone has consistently shown themselves willing to manipulate and lie, they should not be trusted. He turned out to be right in this case, and will doubtless use this "credibility" to launch more smears. Whatever he produces next I will assume to be a lie like SHirley Sherrod, ACORN and Planned Parenthood until evidence presents itself otherwise.

Not only that, but what RoadToad actually said that Brainster was apparently responding to (although without the quote function, so perhaps not) was significantly different in meaning:

That Breitbart's name was attached to it was sufficient cause to view it with skepticism.

"View(ing) it with skepticism" != "ignoring."

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

He doesn't deserve to be smeared, no more than anyone else does. (And no one does.) This doesn't mean you ignore his record, but you don't have to create dreck against him. (He does that quite nicely on his own.)

Well, turnabout is fair play. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities (which are certainly admirable ). But a good smear job would at least put him out of business altogether. Because contrary to your statement, every time he pulls this crap everyone tosses rationality out the window and rewards him for his bad behaviour.

He single-handedly destroyed ACORN, and no-one called him on it until waaaaaay after the fact. He cost Shirley Sherrod her job, and her reputation...before the Obama administration blinked.

GB

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Well, turnabout is fair play. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities (which are certainly admirable ). But a good smear job would at least put him out of business altogether. Because contrary to your statement, every time he pulls this crap everyone tosses rationality out the window and rewards him for his bad behaviour.

He single-handedly destroyed ACORN, and no-one called him on it until waaaaaay after the fact. He cost Shirley Sherrod her job, and her reputation...before the Obama administration blinked.

GB

This is the same rationale and logic that perpetuates war and racism, FYI. Just let it go. Thanks.

 

[Ziggurat]

1) I simply put the names and scandals out there without any spinning of my own. How you responded was entirely up to you. The fact that you maintain that I made no relevant points in that post damages your integrity.

If all you did was put out the names and their scandals, then you're basically stating that you didn't make any relevant points. When I pointed out that you did what you just admitted to doing, that somehow damages my integrity?

Yeah, I don't think so.

All I ask is the courtesy to acknowledge my admissions of wrongness, instead of prevaricating about it.

That I can do. I freely acknowledge that you admitted you were wrong about Weiner.

 

[Roadtoad]

Well, turnabout is fair play. Sorry if that offends your sensibilities (which are certainly admirable ). But a good smear job would at least put him out of business altogether. Because contrary to your statement, every time he pulls this crap everyone tosses rationality out the window and rewards him for his bad behaviour.

He single-handedly destroyed ACORN, and no-one called him on it until waaaaaay after the fact. He cost Shirley Sherrod her job, and her reputation...before the Obama administration blinked.

GB

Beg to differ: The Obama Administration DID blink. That's why Sherrod's out of a job. (Sadly.)

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Can I just say that this might be the ugliest thread I've seen in the politics forum since I joined? It's just awful. Start to finish. Utterly embarrassing. I'm sorry for even posting in it.

Oh please! Spare me the histrionics. It's a lot of fun duking it out over trivial issues.

Of course none of this should matter. But nearly all politicians lie about something. It all comes down to whether the lies are trivial like sex scandals, or life and death lies that lead to illegal wars and torture.


GB

 

[TraneWreck]

Please consider this: A member of Congress sent lewd photos of himself to women who hadn't asked for these. Flirtatious? Yeah, probably. No big deal in most cases, except Weiner gets legislation before him which can have long term consequences. I expect the man to show better judgement, particularly given that it can be (and now is being) used against him.

That's the nice thing about democracy, you can vote on the criteria you value and I can do the same.

I see no particular connection between the poor decision to send cock-shots around the internet and the ability to rationally analyze Medicare legislation and choose the best option for the nation.

Once again, Martin Luther King loved whores. He purchased a number of them making his infidelity much more serious than Weiners. That does not change my opinion of him at all. He was still correct on Civil Rights and other socio-political topics.

That being said, this does lower my opinion of Mr. Weiner. It would not stop me from voting for him if he was opposed by Generic Republican X.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Oh please! Spare me the histrionics. It's a lot of fun duking it out over trivial issues.

Of course none of this should matter. But nearly all politicians lie about something. It all comes down to whether the lies are trivial like sex scandals, or life and death lies that lead to illegal wars and torture.


GB

The propensity for people to argue over the first group of lies rather than the second is what makes this thread embarrassing, along with the simply endless point-scoring by people on both sides through this whole thread.

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

This is the same rationale and logic that perpetuates war and racism, FYI. Just let it go. Thanks.

Not really! I'm not saying we should kill him or call him a Cracker!

It all comes down to context. A liar who keeps lying without consequences deserves to be brought down by lies. If he can't stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

The same goes for politicians.

GB

 

[Gandalfs Beard]

Beg to differ: The Obama Administration DID blink. That's why Sherrod's out of a job. (Sadly.)

A poorly worded sentence on my part.


GB

 

[Roadtoad]

I won't quote the whole thing, but here is an article that sort of sums up how I feel about things. I know a lot of people on here might not agree with GG on a lot of things, but he lines up with my thoughts pretty consistently through time, and really nails it in this case:

Read it. I have to agree.

Yes, Anthony Weiner lied -- about something that is absolutely nobody's business but his and his wife's. If you're not his wife, you have absolutely no legitimate reason to want to know about -- let alone pass judgment on -- what he does in his private sexual life with other consenting adults. Particularly repellent is the pretense of speaking out on behalf of his wife, as though anyone knows what her perspectives on such matters are or what their relationship entails. The only reason to want to wallow in the details of Anthony Weiner's sex life is because of the voyeuristic titillation it provides: a deeply repressed culture celebrates when it finds cause to be able to talk about penises and naked pictures and oral sex while hiding behind some noble pretext. On some level, I find the behavior of the obviously loathsome Andrew Breitbart preferable; at least he's honest about his motive: he hates Democrats and liberals and wants sadistically to destroy them however he can. It's the empty, barren, purse-lipped busybodies who cannot stay out of other adult's private and sexual lives -- while pretending to be elevated -- that are the truly odious villains here.

Consider another view:

But I can't sign up for this. I don't think that cheating on your wife, or lesser betrayals like sexting, are minor marital pecadillos, of no more public interest than whether you remembered to pay the gas bill or unload the dishwasher. I don't think it's the government's job to punish infidelity, but that doesn't imply that society has no interest in whether people keep their vows. Marriage is a valuable social institution. There are good reasons that society should buttress it. So I'm not sure it's a waste of time, in the face of these sorts of allegations, to use a few of our precious news hours to say, "Hey, not okay!" Moreover, in the age of the internet, you cannot simply decline to report this as a neutral act. Instead, you send an affirmative message: "We don't really think he did anything wrong."

Well, except for the fact, Ms. McArdle, as has been pointed out, that we don't really KNOW a damned thing about Weiner's relationship with his wife, and frankly, while you might not consider this okay, it's not about YOU, or even about society in general. Weiner used poor judgement, true, but in the end, there was little that was illegal about this, if anything, and for the most part, it was none of our business.

And frankly, that's probably our greatest flaw in this nation: the assumption that any of this crap is any of our business.

And we wonder why we lack respect overseas...