New scandal on Weiner (time for mommy to take away his internet)

[Blue3]

Former intern is speaking out against the Weiner campaign, saying the people who work there are more excited about getting access to Huma and Hillary and not really for Weiner, and that Weiner calls many female interns "Monica."

The Weiner campaign spokeperson's response?

“F---ing slutbag. Nice f---ing glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again. And then like she had the f---ing balls to like trash me in the paper. And be like, ‘His communications director was last the press secretary of the Department of Education in New Jersey,” Morgan said. “You know what? F--- you, you little c---. I’m not joking, I am going to sue her. She sucked. She like wasn’t good at setting up events. She was clearly there because she wanted to be seen”

*gets popcorn*

[Old Man Svensson]

It's like Weiner and Filner are in active competition with one another for who can be the biggest asshole.

[barfbag]

What would Democrats do if Dick Cheney had such a scandal?

[tpfkaw]

What would Democrats do if Dick Cheney had such a scandal?

Been impressed?

[Old Man Svensson]

What would Democrats do if Dick Cheney had such a scandal?

Probably the same thing as they're doing now. As far as I can tell, the left has pretty collectively ditched Weiner.

[Beet]

When Weiner first announced his "comeback" the thread was full of one-word posts that were like "endorsed!" "endorsed!" "endorsed!"

Not saying I saw this coming, but I'm proud to have been one of the only Dems against him from the start of his "comeback". I tried to tell you guys that his actions were worse than people were saying and suggested that he had serious personality issues / was a fake. Too many progressive political nerds got taken in by him just because he knew how to aggressively self-promote by being a loudmouth on the popular TV shows c-span/cable news.

[Beet]

Look, any serious politician today, any disciplined politician who truly cares about the policies and people they campaign for, who is someone we want in office because they're going to be hard working and motivated enough to get things done. Keeps. A. Disciplined. Personal. Life. As. Well.

Particularly avoids things that makes them look like a scum bag.

The fact of the matter is that part of a politician's job description is to maintain a charismatic, positive public image. Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Mark Sanford, ALL did real damage not only to themselves but to their party and their cause by "personal behavior."

You guys know I love Bill Clinton and would have voted for him for a third term. But if he had kept it in his pants, Gore might have run more closely on his legacy and the George W. Bush presidency might never have happened.

And yeah, it was inappropriate for him to have sexual relations with a subordinate in his employ, however mind bendingly over the top the GOP response (impeachment) was to it.

With all the scandals that have happened in this day and age they should know better. They have no excuse.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Weiner campaign spokeperson's response?

“F---ing slutbag. Nice f---ing glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again. And then like she had the f---ing balls to like trash me in the paper. And be like, ‘His communications director was last the press secretary of the Department of Education in New Jersey,” Morgan said. “You know what? F--- you, you little c---. I’m not joking, I am going to sue her. She sucked. She like wasn’t good at setting up events. She was clearly there because she wanted to be seen”

*gets popcorn*

When I first read this, I thought it was from The Onion or something. Wow.

[Brittain33]

The Weiner campaign spokeperson's response?

“F---ing slutbag. Nice f---ing glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again. And then like she had the f---ing balls to like trash me in the paper. And be like, ‘His communications director was last the press secretary of the Department of Education in New Jersey,” Morgan said. “You know what? F--- you, you little c---. I’m not joking, I am going to sue her. She sucked. She like wasn’t good at setting up events. She was clearly there because she wanted to be seen”

*gets popcorn*

When I first read this, I thought it was from The Onion or something. Wow.

I literally kept scrolling up to check it was TPM and not the Borowitz Report.

[MaxQue]

The Weiner campaign spokeperson's response?

“F---ing slutbag. Nice f---ing glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again. And then like she had the f---ing balls to like trash me in the paper. And be like, ‘His communications director was last the press secretary of the Department of Education in New Jersey,” Morgan said. “You know what? F--- you, you little c---. I’m not joking, I am going to sue her. She sucked. She like wasn’t good at setting up events. She was clearly there because she wanted to be seen”

*gets popcorn*

When I first read this, I thought it was from The Onion or something. Wow.

The Onion said almost nothing on Weiner. Anyways, the whole thing is already sounding as if they wrote it, so, I don't see what they could do.

[emailking]

You guys know I love Bill Clinton and would have voted for him for a third term. But if he had kept it in his pants, Gore might have run more closely on his legacy and the George W. Bush presidency might never have happened.

Even if that is literally true, the implication is all wrong. Clinton is not responsible for anything Bush did in office. There are million things you could point to that may have changed the outcome, possibly even things Clinton did that you agree with. I don't think Clinton should have been worried about whether oral sex could cause a war down the road.

[Beet]

You guys know I love Bill Clinton and would have voted for him for a third term. But if he had kept it in his pants, Gore might have run more closely on his legacy and the George W. Bush presidency might never have happened.

Even if that is literally true, the implication is all wrong. Clinton is not responsible for anything Bush did in office. There are million things you could point to that may have changed the outcome, possibly even things Clinton did that you agree with. I don't think Clinton should have been worried about whether oral sex could cause a war down the road.

Uh, there's a difference between a random act that could have had an effect just like any random act could have any effect (lifting my arm could cause a nuclear war in 10,000 or some such) and knowingly engaging in an act that directly raises the risk of damaging effects on a massive scale. The average person on the street whose only consequence of unfaithfulness is the destruction of their own family can remain faithful / avoid engaging in stupid behavior. Then all the more so those who voluntarily seek out the positions of the highest responsibility in our society where their every action, "personal" or otherwise is going to get out and affect people's opinions of them, and whose ability to do their job is likewise affected by such opinion.

[Napoleon]

The Weiner campaign spokeperson's response?

“F---ing slutbag. Nice f---ing glamour shot on the cover of the Daily News. Man, see if you ever get a job in this town again. And then like she had the f---ing balls to like trash me in the paper. And be like, ‘His communications director was last the press secretary of the Department of Education in New Jersey,” Morgan said. “You know what? F--- you, you little c---. I’m not joking, I am going to sue her. She sucked. She like wasn’t good at setting up events. She was clearly there because she wanted to be seen”

*gets popcorn*

When I first read this, I thought it was from The Onion or something. Wow.

It would be awesome if they reported everything accurately for this.
The Onion said almost nothing on Weiner. Anyways, the whole thing is already sounding as if they wrote it, so, I don't see what they could do.

[Eraserhead]

If he drops out completely, I would bet on de Blasio surging into a tie with Quinn for first place in the polls.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I could really care less who Weiner shows his junk off to, TBH.

[emailking]

You guys know I love Bill Clinton and would have voted for him for a third term. But if he had kept it in his pants, Gore might have run more closely on his legacy and the George W. Bush presidency might never have happened.

Even if that is literally true, the implication is all wrong. Clinton is not responsible for anything Bush did in office. There are million things you could point to that may have changed the outcome, possibly even things Clinton did that you agree with. I don't think Clinton should have been worried about whether oral sex could cause a war down the road.

Uh, there's a difference between a random act that could have had an effect just like any random act could have any effect (lifting my arm could cause a nuclear war in 10,000 or some such) and knowingly engaging in an act that directly raises the risk of damaging effects on a massive scale. The average person on the street whose only consequence of unfaithfulness is the destruction of their own family can remain faithful / avoid engaging in stupid behavior. Then all the more so those who voluntarily seek out the positions of the highest responsibility in our society where their every action, "personal" or otherwise is going to get out and affect people's opinions of them, and whose ability to do their job is likewise affected by such opinion.

First of all, I'm not necessarily referring to random acts. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act may have been the tipping point. Maybe the war in Kosovo led to Bush eeking out a victory? Certainly there must be something Clinton did that you agree with and for which one can plausibly make a case that Florida would have switched.

But alright, forget that. You're placing the blame on things Bush did in his Presidency for Clinton's sex acts. I assume you're referring to things like the War on Iraq, or the slow response to Katrina, or something of a similar scale, given your emphasis in your original post. Yes he knew or should have known there would be consequences, but he should not have been thinking "hey maybe messing around with the intern could cause a pointless war or destroy a city in the next decade...maybe I shouldn't do this." That is a silly line of thought for anyone to have. When considering the damaging effects, these are a bit too "massive" a scale for a reasonable person to consider, would you agree? But the natural implication of your post is that he should have been thinking about just that. Otherwise it doesn't matter if the Bush presidency would have never happened, had he not engaged in the sex acts.

*Maybe* you can blame something like the tax cuts on him (if you disagree with the tax cuts) since an attempt to lower taxes is a reasonable expectation from a Republican presidency. However, I don't think it's reasonable to assume Gore would lose if the Lewinsky scandal became known to the public. Of course, that is debatable. Regardless, I think it's silly to blame him for it.

[Beet]

You guys know I love Bill Clinton and would have voted for him for a third term. But if he had kept it in his pants, Gore might have run more closely on his legacy and the George W. Bush presidency might never have happened.

Even if that is literally true, the implication is all wrong. Clinton is not responsible for anything Bush did in office. There are million things you could point to that may have changed the outcome, possibly even things Clinton did that you agree with. I don't think Clinton should have been worried about whether oral sex could cause a war down the road.

Uh, there's a difference between a random act that could have had an effect just like any random act could have any effect (lifting my arm could cause a nuclear war in 10,000 or some such) and knowingly engaging in an act that directly raises the risk of damaging effects on a massive scale. The average person on the street whose only consequence of unfaithfulness is the destruction of their own family can remain faithful / avoid engaging in stupid behavior. Then all the more so those who voluntarily seek out the positions of the highest responsibility in our society where their every action, "personal" or otherwise is going to get out and affect people's opinions of them, and whose ability to do their job is likewise affected by such opinion.

First of all, I'm not necessarily referring to random acts. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act may have been the tipping point. Maybe the war in Kosovo led to Bush eeking out a victory? Certainly there must be something Clinton did that you agree with and for which one can plausibly make a case that Florida would have switched.

How are the acts you cite not random?

I blame Clinton for any unnecessary action that he full well knows risks becoming a major political catastrophe with the only upside being personal gratification. It's not just sex scandals. If he was smoking dope in the Oval Office, if he had a massive gambling habit, if he called Hillary a bitch and a whore on tape, all these things would have made him an asshole too.

In real life, all of these things are minorly bad, but grand scheme of things, not horrendously bad.

What makes them horrendously bad is that politicians' minorly bad acts have much much bigger consequences than you or I.

A minorly bad action multiplied across the judgement of millions of people becomes massively bad. That's the point. If people see Beet as a scumbag, that's minorly bad but the person getting their Food Stamps in Tennessee doesn't give a sh_t. If people see Obama as a scumbag, that could nuke his popularity and hence his bargaining position on the next budget. That's horrendously bad. That's worse than if I stole $100,000 from my local bank. Get it?

And I'm not blaming Clinton for things that happened under Bush, so the rest of your post is a misinterpretation of my point.

I'm using the things that happened under Bush as an example to show how screwing up can have serious consequences beyond the specific act in question when you're in an important political position.

All the jerks out there should do those of us who care about politics a favor and refrain from putting themselves in positions where their actions damage and reflect on all of us.

[barfbag]

I could really care less who Weiner shows his junk off to, TBH.

You're saying you want to see the pictures too?

[emailking]

First of all, I'm not necessarily referring to random acts. The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act may have been the tipping point. Maybe the war in Kosovo led to Bush eeking out a victory? Certainly there must be something Clinton did that you agree with and for which one can plausibly make a case that Florida would have switched.

How are the acts you cite not random?

Obviously this is subjective. Based on your post, I thought that by "random acts" you were referring to things much more mundane, like going to the store or waving a pen around. (Things that could affect world events 10 years down the line, though not likely as drastically.) Passing a bill through Congress or going to War, to me, seems to be on a much grander scale and does not align with what I would think is a random act. However, on the scale of the the entire galaxy for example, I would consider such things random. But then I would call sex with the intern random too at that point.

A minorly bad action multiplied across the judgement of millions of people becomes massively bad. That's the point. If people see Beet as a scumbag, that's minorly bad but the person getting their Food Stamps in Tennessee doesn't give a sh_t. If people see Obama as a scumbag, that could nuke his popularity and hence his bargaining position on the next budget. That's horrendously bad. That's worse than if I stole $100,000 from my local bank. Get it?

Yes, I understand that you are trying to explicitly delineate a difference between a public figure and an average Joe. I think the delineation is irrelevant. I don't consider being a scumbag worse or a cheater to be worse than robbing the bank for $100,000 regardless of who does which.

And I'm not blaming Clinton for things that happened under Bush, so the rest of your post is a misinterpretation of my point.

I'm using the things that happened under Bush as an example to show how screwing up can have serious consequences beyond the specific act in question when you're in an important political position.

Yes, and we're not blaming Pontius Pilate for the crucifying Jesus when mentioning him by name in the creed every Sunday and pointing out how he ordered the crucifiction. It's just a statement of fact.

Come on man. Read again what you wrote. Even if you really didn't mean to, I think it's a reasonable interpretation. If you're not blaming him then what does it matter whether or not he did it? It might as well be any other random act that had the same effect.

[Lief 🗽]

Weiner's new sexting pal has a porn video now apparently: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/weiner-sexting-partner-already-has-a-porno-out

[barfbag]

How would Democrats react if this was Rick Santorum involved in such a scandal?

[Blue3]

Democrats would react same way that they are now. Laugh, call the guy pathetic, and not vote for him.