Weiner tweets his wanger

[Gob]

Married New York congressman Anthony Weiner has admitted sending a close-up picture of his underpants to a young woman, but says he will not resign.

The Democratic representative also acknowledged "inappropriate" communications with women online.

Mr Weiner had initially said his Twitter account had been hacked when a photo of a man's crotch was sent from it last week.

On Monday he admitted this was not true, saying that he had "panicked".

A tearful Mr Weiner told a news conference he was "deeply ashamed of my terrible judgement".

"I'm deeply regretting what I have done and I'm not resigning," he said, apologising for any pain caused to his family, constituents, supporters and staff.

He said he had intended to send the close-up picture of himself in his underpants as a direct message on Twitter.

It's not big , and it's not clever”
Mark Mardell

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13677357

Direct messages can only be viewed by the addressee, whereas normal Twitter messages are generally accessible.

"Once I realised that I had posted to Twitter I panicked, I took it down and said that I had been hacked," Mr Weiner said.

He then said he had had exchanges with women he met online both before and after he married Huma Abedin, a top aide to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, last year.

"I have exchanged messages and photos of an explicit nature with about six women over the last three years."

But he said he had not met the women, and had never had sex outside his marriage.

His admission came on the same day a conservative blogger posted what purported to be photos of Mr Weiner without his shirt on.

Conservative provocateur Andrew Brightbart said he had obtained the photos from a woman with whom Mr Weiner had flirted online.

Mr Weiner, a native New Yorker and former New York City Council member, is known for his outspoken liberal views and his fiery speeches on the floor of the US House of Representatives.

He was widely expected to run for New York mayor in 2013.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13676650

[BoSoxGal]

I can't maintain any respect for a pol so stupid as to email/IM/Craigslist digital images of himself to troll or titillate women. What is this, Jr. High? No wonder our economy is in a mess - the sex-obsessed are running the show while the psychopaths in banking/MIC rob us all blind.

[Andrew D]

And the news is full of stuff about him.

And empty of stuff about the ones who are robbing us all blind.

Just the way they want it.

[The Hen]

Never send anyone anything you wouldn't want the world to know about.

[Gob]

BBC quiz on politician's "Indiscretions"

[BoSoxGal]

Apparently I'm not much for smut news - I only got 1/7 on the quiz!

[Rick]

Apparently I'm not much for smut news - I only got 1/7 on the quiz!

I did worse...

[Crackpot]

5/7

[dales]

And the news is full of stuff about him.

And empty of stuff about the ones who are robbing us all blind.

Just the way they want it.

You are correct.

[Gob]

And the news is full of stuff about him.

And empty of stuff about the ones who are robbing us all blind.

Just the way they want it.

Without wishing to give offense Andrew, that is just so Steve it's not true.

[Long Run]

He was dumb, but if he had just come clean at the start and said he what he did was stupid, this would have been a two day story and he probably would have recovered well before his next election, and this probably would not have ended his chances to be a NYC mayoral candidate. But his denials made it a bigger story, and make it harder for him to recover.

[Scooter]

It's fine to say that this sort of stuff is personal and shouldn't impact on his professional life, blah blah blah.

But, he just finished witnessing an incident like this torpedo the career of a sitting congressman. Not getting a clue that he should cool it, lest the same thing happen to him, speaks to a stupidity and/or a hubris that does reflect on his professional capabilities. And then, as you say, the attempts to hide it that went far beyond initial denials when he was initially ambushed about it, going so far as to seek out media opportunities to perpetuate the lie and add to it, that again is behaviour that could easily duplicate itself when it involves something in his work capacity.

[Andrew D]

And the news is full of stuff about him.

And empty of stuff about the ones who are robbing us all blind.

Just the way they want it.

Without wishing to give offense Andrew, that is just so Steve it's not true.

I am not claiming that those whose interests are served by the American people's being distracted by trivia engaged in some nefarious plot to make that happen. Why would they bother?

Even a cursory observation of the American media will almost immediately reveal that they are attracted, like sharks to blood, to any story that involves a simple scandal, especially if it has a sexual component. Clinton's lying under oath about blowjobs was a press sensation. Iran-Contra fizzled. It didn't matter that the former was nothing but lying about a personal matter, whereas the latter was a widespread conspiracy at the highest levels of government to subvert the US Constitution. What mattered was that the Lewinsky scandal was simple and sexual, whereas Iran-Contra involved tracking the money, paying attention to the exact legal provisions at issue, and so forth. It didn't matter that the former was trivial, whereas the latter was an incidence of corruption rarely seen in US history. The Clinton thing required the audience to do nothing more complicated than tying its shoes, whereas the Reagan thing required an adult attention span.

Getting back to Steve, I do not believe that powerful US interests orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. I do not believe that the plane crash into the Pentagon was faked. I believe that jihadist interests orchestrated those attacks for their own reasons.

But it would be the height of political naivete not to recognize that authoritarian interests in the US saw the opportunity that the 9-11 attacks presented. They did not cause the attacks, but they sure have taken advantage of them.

And that's what I mean by "Just they way they want it." They didn't make Weiner send the pictures any more than they made al-Qaeda (or its affiliates or whatever) destroy the World Trade Center. But the happening of those things (and many others) works to their benefit. And they know it.

[Rick]

Granted Obama didn't appoint him but Gates is still Secretary of Defense...

[dgs49]

Ignoring for the moment the fact that this guy is an elected U.S. Congressperson, and that he acted in a way that was politically suicidal...

What is it with these people who find this sort of anonymous sexual play-acting fun? Is it too mean to suggest that their actual, real, personal lives are sadly lacking in some significant areas?

[BoSoxGal]

Apparently Huma Abedin (Weiner's wife) is pregnant.

I feel terrible for her, because I can't believe that she isn't now recognizing aspects of his character that heretofore had not revealed themselves, and now she is saddled with the guy in one fashion or another for the rest of her life. And she is having all these feelings at a time that should be a purely joyful one for her.

[rubato]

I just don't 'get' this on any level. What a cretin.

But there are other odd fetishes that I don't understand either.

yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

I would imagine it's seen as sort of like watching porn, but stepped up a notch so that it's interactive.

[Sue U]

I agree (pretty much) with a National Review columnist (at least his conclusion):

I Don’t Care What Photos Anthony Weiner Sends

June 7, 2011 5:33 P.M.
By David Gelernter

The Anthony Weiner case is grossly annoying for many reasons — first, of course, because Weiner himself is so annoying. He’s disclosed such a natural, startling talent for bared-faced lying, he’s bound to be a contender for the world championship in the middleweight liar division or wherever he chooses to compete.

Of course we all know that e-mail and related technologies are treacherous and slippery. They sucker you into saying things you regret because they make words so utterly cheap — no need to hear, much less face the people you’re writing to — that they’re disorienting. In the Cybersphere you experience a sort of intellectual weightlessness, as if you were speaking and trying to control the loudness and tone of your voice without being able to hear yourself. I’ve used e-mail nearly every day since the early 1980s, and I’ve sent dozens (maybe hundreds) of e-mails over the years that I’ve regretted, usually because I said something too sharp or harsh or abrupt. I’ve been on my guard for many years now, and I still make mistakes.

Children who have grown up with the technology will find it easier to modulate their tone correctly — or will give up and modulate society’s tone downward instead, to allow for increased harshness, tactlessness, and thoughtlessness in communication. In the interim, we might all cut each other a little slack.

Which brings me back to Weiner. Weiner didn’t commit adultery or anything near adultery. He committed tasteless stupidity, and there’s no law against that. When reporters first asked him about the expose reports, he should have said “Butt out.”

The biggest offense in this case is the dirtying of the public airwaves and news-waves with ugly, trivial junk; it’s an offense like the one that used to be popular a generation ago with “urban youths,” who would carry around giant boom boxes and play music (or whatever it was) at deafening volumes.

For my part I couldn’t care less what sort of pictures or messages Weiner has been sending around the Net, and it’s an imposition to be required to care; to be unable to avoid the topic. I find that I have no interest in Congressman Anthony Weiner’s sex life or virtual sex life whatsoever. And I’ve heard enough tearful on-camera contrition to last me the rest of my life. I don’t want to hear Weiner’s apology. It’s got nothing to do with me, tells me nothing I want to know; the cable news media, conservative and liberal, would do the public a favor if they would agreed to a blanket tearful-apologies ban effective this instant. And in the future, let Weiner and everyone else who has done some trivial stupid thing that no one actually gives a damn about keep his apologies to himself.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/26 ... -gelernter

[BoSoxGal]

He may not have committed adultery in the strictest sense, sure.

But I'm betting his wife considers it a clear case of infidelity.