"Having no agenda when voters face real problems is a bad omen for incumbents" (Matt Stoller)

"People who run government should, at some level, want to govern. They should want to use the power of a democratic channel to solve the nation's problems. In the past 10 years, seeking to govern boldly has been frowned upon -- seen as naive or impossible.

"The result has been political and financial chaos, marked by periods of placid inactivity. It looks like our political leaders could well be seeking this, even as the public needs solutions."

-- Matt Stoller, in "At least Weiner was
a distraction," in Politico

by Ken

In this interesting Politico op-ed (I guess Politico is happy to have progressive content as long as it's pounding on Democrats), Matt Stoller takes off from the point that Weinergate is regretted as having been a "distraction."

"It's worth asking." he says, "how was Weiner a distraction? What is the Democratic agenda he was pulling voters away from?" And he concludes, "The simple fact is: There's no governing agenda being debated. So Weiner wasn't a distraction -- more like an in-flight soft-core movie in between election jockeying by a bored political class."

Of course Weinergate wasn't a distraction from dealing with our problems. It was a distraction from having to address all the problems that aren't being addressed by Beltway bigwigs except the marauding House Republicans, who aren't actually trying to address those problems either but have made them a handy cover for their blitzkrieg to transform the country into the extreme-right-wing hellhole of their wet dreams. But Matt probably wouldn't accept that as an excuse. "People who run government should, at some level, want to govern," he writes. "They should want to use the power of a democratic channel to solve the nation's problems."

He's not encouraged by what he's hearing from a leading candidate to replace departing chief White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee, Rebecca Blank, "a 'pragmatic progressive' economist, which apparently means someone who feels bad about the damage caused by the problems they aren't trying to fix."

"Could this economy take off again?" Blank said recently in the National Journal. "The answer is absolutely yes. If you look at corporate profits, if you look at consumer balance sheets [improving] … gas prices are falling. I guess I understand the reason to say, 'Let's see if this economy can do it on its own.'"

On its own? Really? Tell this to the more than 9 percent currently unemployed.

The Right, of course, has been anything but shy about its "solutions," and it doesn't seem to matter that they aren't solutions. At least they're saying something, and thanks to inept Democratic ineptitude, they've succeeded in wrapping themselves in the mantle of "fiscal prudence," slashing horrendously wasteful government spending.

You'd think that even on the crassest level of political expediency, the administration would feel the need to have something to say to the public. Matt points out that before Weinergate the Dems were getting a certain amount of mileage beating up on Paul Ryan's assault on Social Security, which managed to be not only lousy policy but dreadful politics. But that's not exactly the same thing as having a political agenda.

As Howie has reported here extensively, in the days when Master Rahm Emanuel was running the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, candidates who hoped to receive DCCC support were somewhere between encouraged and coerced to take no positions on any issues that might be judged in any way controversial, the thinking (for want of a better word) being that that could only cost support and votes. As far as I know, that "philosophy" has been retained in all essentials by the Master's DCCC successors.

It's a dreadful strategy, destructive not just of soul but of political future. It depends, obviously, on the other guys beating themselves, and on a really primitive level, there's some logic to it, when you consider who and what the other guys are. But eventually the public sort of figures out when it's being filmflammed, or at least stonewalled. Now, it turns out, the Master's philosophy is being applied, not just to campaigning, but to governing.

Here's Matt again:

In 2006, 2008 and 2010, incumbents had no answers for voters who wanted their problems solved. I remember watching [Bill] Clinton give a speech in late 2010, stumping for candidates before the Democratic immolation. Say what you will about the absurdity of his alleged fury toward Weiner, the man can give a stump speech.

Yet, after a half-hour, I still couldn't figure out just what Clinton's reason was for supporting the Democrats. There was something about student loans, and how it was the responsible thing to vote for bailouts. The rest was fuzzy.

Just what would congressional Democrats deliver in 2010 if reelected? They couldn't answer that question for voters. It looked like Democrats in 2009 and 2010 delivered foreclosures and unemployment -- so it's not surprising the public chose another path.

The subtext of 2010 was that Democrats had nothing to run on -- no popular accomplishments, and no agenda for 2011. The GOP faced a similar problem in 2006 and 2008 -- and they also met the voters' wrath. Having no agenda when voters face real problems is a bad omen for incumbents.


There's an obvious problem in that there isn't a whole lot of policy agreement among the political ranks disarrayed against the Right. Still --

[I]t's now 18 months since significant job destruction from the Great Recession ended. What has the Obama administration done?

According to the Federal Reserve's Flow of Funds, the first quarter of 2011 saw the destruction of roughly $270 billion more in homeowner equity. That's wealth gone from consumers -- money that can't and won't be spent. The health care bill's main provisions don't kick in until after 2012, and Dodd-Frank's rule-making is still barely off the ground.

Though the 2012 presidential election cycle is likely to have different contours than the midterms, the administration faces the same questions. What are they considering doing about jobs? What have they delivered?

If Blank is any indication, the plan is hope.

Matt suggests "at least three basic ways the administration could shift this dynamic":

One, the solution most cited now, is to use the government's control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to spark a refinancing boom, adding dramatically to consumer purchasing power. These entities could change the net present value test to allow more loan modifications, write-down debt or simply refinance loans with high loan-to-value ratios.

If the administration pushed bank regulators to account for the value of mortgages and home equity lines of credit now on their books, the write-downs would make good commercial sense as well as helping the economy.

The second solution would be to use government power to create jobs. For one example, the administration could dub the Chinese government a currency manipulator and spark domestic manufacturing by shifting our terms of trade.

It's not as if the government is powerless. Though creativity, boldness and wisdom might be required to find the appropriate tools, I'm sure that those who have found the legal authority to attack Libya without congressional authorization could tackle our domestic problems.

Third, the Obama administration could take legislation to create jobs -- an infrastructure bank, or a Works Progress Administration -- and use a barnstorming tour to pressure Congress to go along.

It's not uncommon for presidents to use the bully pulpit to soften congressional opposition -- Ronald Reagan did it regularly. President Barack Obama hasn't done this, but there's no reason his administration couldn't.

By now it's not exactly news that Barack Obama isn't the FDR type -- someone with a palpable sense of crisis, determined to think creatively and throw whatever he could at the crisis -- the country needed at this point in time. And we know by now that when he thinks and speaks, his primary constituency is always the moneyed elites. But again, even on that crassest political level, doesn't he need to have something to say to the rest of the American people?

#

As the padlock clanks shut on Weinerworld, it's (scummy) business as usual in mediaville

And Noah says: "Nothing to see here, folks, move along"


MEANWHILE IT'S SCUMMY BUSINESS AS USUAL

Al Kamen tells the tale today in his Washington Post "in the Loop" column of a "veteran television producer and media training expert . . . who runs a media consulting company in Manhattan" (I'll be damned if I'm going to give him publicity by naming him, although Al does) from whom an e-mail arrived yesterday morning, as the world was atremble with anticipation of the resignation of Anthony W. -- Ken

“Hi Al,” the missive began, “Are you looking for quotes on the Anthony Weiner resignation?”

Well, sure.

“As a ‘Media Consultant,’ XXXXX wrote, “I have plenty to add on the topic. I can talk about the ‘Anatomy of a Meltdown’ . . . where did he go wrong? How could he have saved his job?”

XXXXX said he would also analyze “the resignation speech, comparing it to Tiger Woods’ speech and others” in similar situations.

“Here are a few things I can say,” he wrote. On the question of image repair, XXXXX opined that Weiner “can never truly get past this story. . . . But, that doesn’t mean he can’t star in a reality show or host a program on CNN.” That makes sense. Fox might have an opening for someone to present the Democratic side on issues. . . .

XXXXX has other thoughts on Anthony W.'s next career move, but I think I'll leave that for the two of them to discuss.

#

Anthony W. calls it quits: Mass murderers move to boot liar off island

From The Hollywood Reporter (seems somehow appropriate):

Anthony Weiner to Resign:
How the Networks Are Covering

ABC will air the congressman’s press conference live, CBS will not break daytime programming.

Rep. Anthony Weiner is expected to resign Thursday following weeks of criticism after he sent nearly-nude photos of himself to women on Twitter.

He will hold a press conference at 2 p.m. ET.

ABC News will air a special report when Weiner holds his news conference to announce his resignation. George Stephanopoulos will anchor from ABC News Headquarters in New York. He will be joined by ABC News senior political correspondent Jon Karl and 20/20 anchor Chris Cuomo. Stephanopoulos also appeared Thursday morning on The View to discuss the Weiner news as well as the field of GOP presidential candidates.

CBS will not break into daytime coverage to cover Weiner's press conference, the network said.

NBC News will provide affilicates with an optional special report anchored by Brian Williams. MSNBC will also cover the press conference live on both TV and its website.

CNN will take Weiner's press conference live. Wolf Blitzer will anchor it, along with John King and Gloria Borger, the network confirmed to THR. . . .

[Don't forget to click to enlarge.]

by Noah

Did he jump or was he pushed?

They booted Weiner for lying? But, but, I thought lying is the official language of Washington! I coulda sworn!

Maybe Congress should just create an annual Wilbur Mills Award For Sexual Weirdness. Mills, for those who don’t know or don’t remember, was the 65-year-old Congressman (and a very powerful one at that) whose secret party-animal lifestyle got outed when he was caught drunk and disorderly with stripper Fanne Foxe after she went for a dive into the Potomac Tidal Basin near the Jefferson Memorial.

Jefferson was not available for comment, nor was Sally Hemings.

This post is about perspective so let’s get one thing straight first: If anyone thinks that Weiner Boy is the only member of Congress or our government to do what he did (or something very similar), then I have a bridge to sell them, for mucho dinero. In fact, I strongly suspect that a good deal of the high level of outrage being expressed by Weiner’s colleagues is more about him blowing their cover and then lying to them (and us, but mostly to them) about it all than what he actually did.

As it is, in Congress groping pages is OK. It’s expected. It’s part of joining the boys' club. Sometimes, as in the case of Rep. Gerry Studds, it goes a lot further, even with minors. All Studds got was a censure, probably as much for getting caught as anything else. Studds served, and served productively, for 20 more years. Senator David "Diapers" Vitter got a standing ovation -- and, you can bet, several requests for his prostitute’s phone number and rate card, if they didn’t have it already. Weiner? Lying? If Weiner had sired a son with the maid in the master bedroom while the wife was out shopping, Washington would give him a standing ovation, too! But sexting? Ooooh no, that’s a big no-no; too traceable!

Just a thought #1:

I bet the last three weeks have seen the burning of a mega-bonfire’s worth of private VHS tapes in the back yards of past, present, and would-be congresspersons; computer file dumping too. In fact, I bet the latest sport among congressmen and senators is seeing who can make their cell phone skip the most on the Potomac surface before it sinks to the muck on the bottom.

I suppose we shouldn’t be shocked that a politician would run afoul of a social media tool and manage to unwittingly go public with his true nature. It’s happened before. The case of Virginia Sen. George Allen being caught in a YouTube moment is a classic example. It’s no surprise that a class (and I use that word with irony) of true dodos has no conception or understanding of how social media have changed our lives and changed what any of us can get away with at various moments in time.

The people in Washington are especially insulated from reality. They prove it on an hourly basis whether through tweets or in front of the TV cameras. Rep. Eric Cantor (aka Soulless Man) is probably the best case in point. It’s utterly fascinating to watch some of these people for whom nihilism in the service of their corporate masters is the only plane of existence they know.

Those who govern us live in an alternate universe, a big Beltway fraternity house where the only world they know is misshaped right down to their thoughts by their own amorality and soullessness, the agenda-mongering of wingnut media outlets like Politico and Fox, and the sociopathic likes of the heads of entities like Bank of America, Exxon, and Goldman-Sachs, or whoever is stuffing their pockets with cash at any given moment.

All real common sense and common decency and all humanity have been removed from the overwhelming majority of these people who govern us. In the case of people like Cantor, it was likely never there. Cretinous corporate beelzabubbas like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu sold theirs for cash and future considerations. John Boehner has taken the payments but probably has some little bits of a charred soul or at least a conscience that he is obviously at war with. I say that because, as much as I dislike the man, I can see that even he doesn’t believe half the crap that comes out of his mouth. He reminds me of Arlen Specter, as he cooks up single-bullet theories of tax code and economics that never did and never will cure any ills.

In short, they are nearly all very shallow people who make us suffer from their cases of arrested development and bad character. They are 10-year-olds trapped in adult bodies. One of them is called Anthony Weiner and he’s willfully run into some sort of a Twilight Zone version of Lord of the Flies called Washington, DC, more specifically Congress.

I’ve always said that Congress is nothing but a bunch of overgrown, arrogant frat boys. The kind of thing that Weiner did is what people who join frats do, when they’re not ritualistically paddling each others’ bare butts, that is. Based on what I have witnessed, being in a fraternity has everything to do with trying to address insecurities about your smarts to advance in life and insecurities about your manhood, whether it’s drinking vast quantities of alcohol and then chasing girls around campus (funny how they have to imbibe all that booze just to raise their level of interest), sucking up to the nearest alpha male, or tweeting lewd pix of yourself to, interestingly enough, college girls even when you’re over 40. Shall we dub this Peter Pan Pervo Syndrome (PPPS)?

At American University, my alma mater in Washington, DC, the big fraternity-boy activity was to get drunk and naked and run around in the courtyard between the two largest girls' dorms, puking all over the place. Very impressive. Many of those frat boys, at least the ones that managed to somehow graduate, ended up putting on a snappy suit and going to “work” in government. Like attracts like. One hand washes the other. Whatever. Arrested adolescent development as a lifestyle: Washington defined.

Just a thought #2:

If you are going to be judged to be too outspoken, you better be clean. You will be targeted. Clinton, Spitzer, and now Weiner, just for three. I’m not on board with the idiocies and obvious narcissism of any of these three jerks, but the idiocies aren’t the main reason for their troubles. The idiocies were just there to be used as a means to an end. These guys stupidly and arrogantly made it easy for their enemies. With Clinton, there really was a vast right-wing conspiracy, and a well-funded one. He wasn’t the first or last to do what he did, but he had more people out to bring him down. Being a centrist just isn’t conservative enough in a universe of Heritage Societies and Birchers like the Koch Brothers.

As for Spitzer, he was about to go after Wall Street again. To the Street, it was horrendous enough when Spitzer was the NYS Attorney General. Once he was governor, he had to go. Wall Street wanted him out of the way so they could remain unchecked.

In the case of Weiner, he was a loud and highly visible advocate of progressive causes such as single-payer health care. He was a top advocate in the movement, and you can bet that he was a thorn in the side of Democratic “leadership” at least half as much as he was a thorn in the side of the Repugs. Don’t think for a second that the Dems aren’t happy to see him go, for more than one reason.

If you don’t have a secret or a character problem, people in Washington don’t feel comfortable with you. It’s the same in any corporate environment. In the case of D.C., political opponents are left to just throw staggering amounts of money at you come election time. (See Alan Grayson.) If you threaten a status quo, the more money your enemies can throw, the better, but most people in politics have a usable secret, and they are often controlled by it. When they step too far out of the lines of the proscribed parameters, out comes the secret and down they go. It works on Righties too. Just ask Newt Gingrich about his resignation as House speaker. Ask Bob “Speaker for a Day” Livingston too.

It’s called politics: a brand of so-called civilized warfare. I’ve been amused for years that as soon as Larry Flynt started offering big money for provable sex scandals involving congressmen and senators, two speakers resigned within days of each other and Bill Clinton was no longer on the fast track to being forced from office. Remember that “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” thing? Suddenly, you coulda heard a pin drop in Washington. Sometimes it’s a beautiful thing when politicians suddenly shut the hell up.

Now ask yourself if it’s easier for a corporation or a bank to control a politician who is in the closet or out of the closet. Type of closet doesn’t matter. It’s about who knows the secrets and who knows who knows the secrets. Votes aren’t for sale just for money. “Nice deal ya got goin’ here. Sure would be terrible if anything were to . . . well, you know.”

There have been numerous players in the Weiner story. For instance, Bill O’Reilly. I had to marvel at the ability and hypocrisy of O’Reilly, a man who chose to be a tool for corporate fascists, just like a call girl dressing up like a nurse or a Catholic schoolgirl for a client. There he was, tsk-tsking about Weiner when the story really got going. Well done, loofah boy! Smell the hypocrisy! Kiss it. Go ahead, kiss it, you worthless little boy! I wonder what fraternity he was in.

Then there’s the creep who targeted and uncovered Weiner’s stupidity and poured gas on the fire in the first place: twisted muck-diving crap-stirrer Andrew Breitbart. This time he might have deserved an apology, after Weiner attacked him in the way that he did. After all, he really did have the photos that Weiner tried to spin doubt upon. Yeah, his digging for the photos and his motives are highly questionable, but his way of asking for an apology was completely classless, as classless as what Weiner did in the first place. In a way, they almost deserve each other; two sides of the same worn nickel. Anyway, Weiner ended up apologizing to him. Now it’s Breitbart’s turn to apologize, to Shirley Sherrod.

We can still wait a long time and no apology will be forthcoming. Meanwhile, I can visualize that this particular 10-year-old is probably laughing with joy that he has gotten so many people to say the word "weiner" so many times, especially the ones on TV. What that probably does for his own wiener, I’d rather not dwell on.

How sick and twisted is this whole sordid affair? It’s so sick and twisted that Andrew Breitbart was given a temporary coat of something that could pass for at least a patina of credibility. But that will be a land so alien that he won’t know what to do with it or how to operate in it. Just like Weiner and his Twilight Zone, Breitbart has created one for himself. His problem lies in the fact that he has sold himself into a life of working in a dual world of media and politics where credibility is an ephemeral illusion that waves through the fingers like a stale fart in a closed elevator. Washington is a world where credibility is rarely real, but much more often nothing more than a concept that is drawn up and marketed by huckster handlers. It’s intangible. It’s a mirage. Remember Daddy Bush wanting some of that “vision thing”? Like it was something you could just buy or a suit you could just put on?

Sooner or later, people like Breitbart usually do something that blows up in their faces. It’s all about the arrogance. Breitbart said he had more photos and they'ere more graphic, but “out of decency” to Weiner and his family he would not release them. At the same time, he used the threat of releasing additional photos to pressure the apology out of Weiner. So, all of a sudden, after releasing his first cache of pix, Breitbart gets a sense of decency? He would like to be considered a journalist, if only of the muckraking kind, but a better word might be blackmailer. (Of course, completely in character, Brietbart ended up finding a way to get his cherished naked photo out there despite the apology deal. Who’s worse in all of this; the disgusting, lying Weiner or the completely lacking-in-honor Breitbart?). It reminds me of those movies where the kidnappers get the ransom and then kill the hostage anyway, just for kicks.

My own feeling about O’Reilly, Weiner, and Breitbart is that it’s a shame that all three of them didn’t get the complete crap kicked out of them in the schoolyard, back in the fifth grade. Their social skills are sadly lacking.

Just a thought #3:

Suppose Monica and Bill had been tweeters and sexters. Time was on our side on that one. Forget about the blue dress. Just wait till everyone has portable technology that can see and hear through walls. Just wait till you can buy it at Radio Shack or Home Depot. Home Depot, of course, will also sell you the lead shielding you’ll need. It won’t stop tweet-hacking, though. For that, you’ll be needing a secure channel app for your tweets. I’m sure it’s being worked on. No doubt the Pentagon has it.

But, speaking of "shoulda gotten the crap kicked out of them in the fifth grade," Repugs and way too many Democrats in Washington called for Weiner to resign and did it with a level of hypocrisy that is nearly infinite. Why? Because Weiner sent his pix to women instead of guys? Is Miss McConnell feeling slighted? Or, as I said, was Weiner-boy guilty of throwing open a window on life in Congress and Congress wanted to slam that window shut, pronto?

Should Weiner have resigned for lying? At least his sex scandal is a sex scandal without real, physical sex. At the end of the day, whether or not he should have resigned should have depended on his constituents, redistricting, his effectiveness, and/or the judicial system. Even if prostitutes or something untoward with minors turns out to be involved, how would that make Weiner any different from many of his colleagues? Cocaine? Psychological problems? A simple case of frat-boy arrested development? Same thing. At this point, who knows? Now, here’s some real perspective!

Just a thought #4:

Who has caused more damage to America: Anthony Weiner or Roger Ailes? Sexting or Fox “News"? You decide.

Even some normal, decent people, such as Ed Schultz, also called for Weiner’s resignation, but why should Weiner have resigned in a D.C. world where people habitually kill people with a pen, the old-fashioned way; where other frat-boy lowlifes (Sen. "Diapers" Vitter comes to mind) defund education, destroy lives by defunding pap smears and defunding breast exams; where mine safety is deregulated and miners die as a result; where the FDA is gutted and food safety is deregulated, so eating your veggies can kill you; where an oil company isn’t called to account for the unnecessary deaths of 11 workers on a flaming platform; where John Boehner can openly hand out checks for votes on the House floor like it’s a parliament in some banana republic; where war criminals like Bush and Cheney get to serve out their full terms and laugh in our faces; where you can be free to become a de facto mass murderer by your actions and votes; where everyone around takes bribes from K Street, and you can just form a cult, rent a house on C Street, declare yourself a church to save money, and advocate for the murder of gay people while calling yourself “pro-life”?

I’m not condoning lying, but if lying is the reason that Weiner had to resign, then every politician in Washington who ever lied should also resign and go home to whatever hole they crawled or slithered out of in the first place. At the very least, that would do wonders for Washington rush hour traffic and air quality.

And, let’s not forget about Clarence Thomas & the Adventures of Long Dong Silver. By the standards set by Thomas, Weiner is now eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. Are tweeted pictures of Weiner in his black robe on the horizon?

#

Welcome to the wacky wilds of Weinerworld

My friend Paul gathered this anthology of late-night comics' musings on Weinerworld, as well as a compendium of the binging cartoonists' output. It seems a shame not to pass on the yuks along with at least a smattering of the cartoons. I suppose it could be argued that they couldn't resist the subject. I might argue that they could have tried. I should add that this compilation dates back to Friday, before the congressman's deliverance into the hands of rehab. -- Ken

“51 percent of New York voters think Congressman Weiner should keep his seat in office. The other 49 percent think that he should disinfect it." –- Conan O'Brien

"What?! The congressman had a sex scandal and had to apologize to Bill Clinton? For what?! Copyright infringement?" –- Jon Stewart on Anthony Weiner calling Bill Clinton, who officiated at his wedding

"It turns out that one of the women Congressman Anthony Weiner was communicating with was a porn star. When asked how it was possible to get involved with someone in such a sleazy business, the porn star said, 'I don't know.'" –- Conan O'Brien

"Congressman Weiner is in a lot of trouble since he tweeted those pictures. But good news for him, he just found out he'll be allowed to keep his porn name ... Anthony Weiner." –- Conan O'Brien

"Sociologists have documented this. Here are the stages of a scandal: First you have the denial, then you have the tearful confession, then it's resignation, and then you appear on 'Dancing With the Stars.'" –- David Letterman

"Anthony Weiner admitted to sending inappropriate messages to several women via Twitter, text, email, and Facebook. I think the lesson here is that if you're going to send explicit pictures of yourself, send them through MySpace, where no one will notice." –- Jimmy Kimmel

"Weiner is now desperately trying to make things better with his wife. You can tell he's sorry. Like today he sent her a picture of his penis with a little sad face on it." –- Jay Leno

"Congressman Weiner reportedly called Bill Clinton to apologize for his behavior. After Bill suggested that Weiner also call Hillary, Weiner said, 'Don't worry, I sent her a text.'" –- Conan O'Brien

"Congressman Weiner has admitted that he did carry on explicit online relationships with six different women. Well, he thought they were women. Turns out three were woman, one was a guy pretending to be a woman, and the other two were congressmen." –- Jay Leno


"The list of women who got sexy pics from Anthony Weiner keeps growing. As of now it's a porn star, a single mom from Texas, a blackjack dealer, and a student from Seattle. Is this a sex scandal of the next cast of Survivor? Survivor: Weiner Island." –- Craig Ferguson

"Today the porn star in question –- talking about Anthony Weiner -– apparently he tried to get her to lie about the messages he sent. But she refused. Good! I'd hate to think a porn star would degrade herself by taking orders from a Congressman." –- Craig Ferguson

"But I have to ask this: What kind of world are we living in when porn stars make Weiners go down?' It's reverse world!" –- Craig Ferguson

"A second woman has come forward now. She says she has over 200 explicit sex messages from the married congressman. She says they're very short messages. Like cocktail wieners." –- Jay Leno

"Weiner says no matter how many photos of him in his underpants surface, he is not stepping down. I said, wow, this looks like a job for Leno." –- David Letterman

"At a press conference this afternoon, Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted that he tweeted out that photo of his crotch. During the press conference, Congressman Weiner was choked up and got a lump in this throat –- not as big as the lump in his underwear, but still, very emotional!" -- Jimmy Fallon

"Weiner admitted to sending underpants photos of himself. It's a huge political scandal. Arnold Schwarzenegger even called Weiner to say thank you." –- Craig Ferguson

"With all this new media, is that considered junk e-mail? Or is it e-mail of your junk? There are so many terms!" –- Jay Leno

"I don't know if laws were broken or not, but Weiner was sending around pictures of him in his underpants and I thought, Well, now, wait a minute, what is the big deal? Don't men and women in Congress get to mail their packages for free?!" –- David Letterman

"This is why Twitter exists. Members of Congress can now send you pictures of their penises electronically. Remember the old days of Senator Larry Craig when you had to get in your car, drive to the airport, find the airport bathroom, try to figure out which stall he's in, knock on the door...Now they send it right to your house." -- Jay Leno


"You know, when Clinton wanted to text someone a picture of his penis, he had to use an Etch-A-Sketch." –- Jimmy Kimmel

"It shows you how the political race has changed. Remember it wasn't that long ago when candidates would ask 'Where's the beef?' You can't ask that now!" –- Jay Leno

"Democrats don't share our values. An elected official is tweeting dirty photos of himself to strange women who he never meets for sex? Come on! At least Republican Chris Lee was trying to get some action! Republican politicians are man enough to hit that thing. Ensign, Vitter, even when it's a gay scandal! They're not tweeting love letters. They're tearing up an airport bathroom until somebody calls the cops on them!" -- Stephen Colbert

"I think we'll all remember where we were when we found out, this is in fact Anthony Weiner's [penis]. Naked, he must look like a windsock hanging off a parking meter." -- Stephen Colbert

"Today Steve Jobs at Apple unveiled their new 'iCloud' technology. Pretty amazing. Experts say this could revolutionize the way Anthony Weiner sends pictures of his penis." -- Jay Leno

"I'm not certain of a lot of things. But there are three things in this world that I know for certain: Empire Strikes Back is the best Star Wars movie. OJ killed those people. And what my erect penis looks like in my own underwear from a bird's-eye view." –- Jon Stewart, on Rep. Anthony Weiner's claim that he could "can't say with certitude" whether a photo posted on his Twitter account of a man wearing just boxer shorts was actually him

"I see only two options here: Either Anthony Weiner has too many photos of his junk to keep track of, or 'Certitiude' is his nickname for his penis." -–Stephen Colbert

"Anthony Weiner pledges to get to the bottom of this. He's asked for an investigation, the police are involved, he's got a dick lawyer he's hired. They know it is a Democrat's penis because it won't stand up. And also because it was sent to a woman." –- Bill Maher

"Congressman Weiner's Twitter account was hacked 'allegedly,' and someone texted a picture of his 'junior senator' to a college girl. Now this is good news for me because I can Google 'wiener photos' at work and not get fired." –- Craig Ferguson


"In real life, in my memory, this guy had a lot more 'Anthony' and a lot less 'Weiner.' ... The only thing they have in common is that they both lean to the extreme left!" –- Jon Stewart, on allegations that Rep. Anthony Weiner, a former housemate of Stewart's, sent out a crotch photo from his Twitter account

"New York Congressman Anthony Weiner has found himself in an uncomfortable position after a photo of what could be him in his underpants was somehow posted for everyone to see via his Twitter account. We had to blur this, but you could definitely see his weiner, and a little bit of schnitzel too I think. It looks like he may have had a Boehner there too." –- Jimmy Kimmel

"If I was Anthony Weiner, I'd blame this all on Brett Favre." –- Jimmy Kimmel

"If this is a prank, I guess we're lucky they pulled it on Anthony Weiner, and not Colin Powell." -- Jimmy Kimmel

"He isn't flat-out denying the picture isn't him. He told Wolf Blitzer it doesn't look familiar. That’s something you’re familiar with. I’m so familiar with mine that if I described it to a police sketch artist, it would be arrested within minutes." –- Jimmy Kimmel

"The question is –- why can’t Congressman Anthony Weiner say with certitude if the crotch in question is his or not? Because he’s got so many crotch shots lying around, maybe one got away? Maybe been taking a picture of his crotch every hour for a month, to create one of those cool YouTube time-lapse videos?" —NPR's Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! 

"Congressman Weiner said the photo leak was a prank, he's a victim, the picture could be taken out of context? In what possible context would you take this picture? Maybe he meant to send it to his doctor, with the message, 'Okay, it's been four hours, time to get you involved.'" -- NPR's Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!


David Letterman's "Top Ten Questions to Ask Before Tweeting a Photo of Yourself"

10. "Is this my best side?"
9. "Will this get me more followers?"
8. "Should I put it on Facebook instead?"
7. "Do I have a last name that would make this especially embarrassing?"
6. "Would it be more personal to fax everyone photos?"
5. "What's the point if James Arness is no longer alive to see it?"
4. "Is there a better way to show people I’m Jewish?"
3. "What would Brett Favre do?"
2. "Isn't this what Twitter’s for?"
1. "What could possibly go wrong?"

Final (???) thoughts about Weinergate

by Ken

As Sam Stein reports today on Huffpost: "Anthony Weiner Seeks Treatment, Requests Leave Of Absence As Top Democrats Call For Resignation." My goodness, didn't E. J. Dionne Jr. just suggest -- in the column I wrote about Thursday night -- that this was Anthony W.'s path out of harm's way at the outset?

Of course we're way past the outset, and whether this can save his House seat remains to be seen. Personally, I don't care all that much, except that I seriously don't like the idea of congressional Republicans being confirmed in their too-well-founded belief that they can hound most anyone they choose out of office. But Anthony W. is a hard case to defend. And it's not as if his district is about to elect a Republican.

In all likelihood, if he chooses to tough it out he can continue being reelected from NY-14 as long as he wishes, but apart from that, his political career is over. (You might say, "What political career?") He can't run for anything else, he can't hope for any role of any responsibility within the House Democratic caucus, and in that sense even his seniority doesn't work in his constituents' favor -- there's not a whole lot he's going to be able to wangle for them in the future.

That said, there are a few Weingergate angles I still want to touch on.


ANTHONY W.'S FUTURE IN CONGRESS SHOULD
BE BETWEEN HIM AND HIS CONSTITUENTS

And at least as of Wednesday, when our local cable news channel NY1 had the Marist Poll do a poll in New York's 14th Congressional District, spanning parts of Brooklyn and Queens:


You can click on this excerpt from "the poll report, but I think you can make out the result: By a 56-to-33-percent majority, adults in the district didn't think Anthony W. should resign, with 12% undecided. Anthony W. needs to stay in touch with the wishes of his constituents as well as searching his own conscience. The rest is just noise.


NOW HOLD ON A SEC -- ABOUT THAT POLL . . .


Yesterday morning, when NY1 anchor Pat Kiernan kept reporting on the poll results, he kept repeating that "only 11 percent" of respondents believed that Anthony W. did something illegal.

"Only 11 percent"?

I realize that in polling terms 11 percent is hardly more than a statistical blip. In any group surveyed, you could probably find more than that who believe that the earth is flat, or that the moon is made of green cheese. Still, 11 percent is something, and in this poll 11 percent of respondents believe that Anthony W. did something illegal, even though no such thing has been reported, nor as far as I know has any reasonable basis for any such suspicion. I suppose this could change, but I'm aware of zero foundation for even suspecting illegality, and yet here we have 11 percent choosing this response. "Only 11 percent? I get surprisingly little comfort from that "only."


OF ALL PEOPLE, MARK F. OF FLORIDA CRAWLS
OUT OF THE WOODWORK? OK, SCREW HIM!

Oh my goodness gracious. This is truly pathetic, not to mention incredibly cynical, counting as it does on the public's feeble grasp of events and even feebler memory of same. Anybody who thinks there's anything remotely similar between the cases of Anthony W. and those of Mark F. is just plain nuts.

Anthony W. sent a shirtless photo -- not exactly high on the indecency scale -- to a 27-year-old woman with whom he had a twittery relationship, and presumably to other solidly adult women. Mark F. used his privileged government position, which charged him with responsibility for overseeing and protecting the House pages, to try to lure under-age young men into online sexual discussions that are generally assumed to have been intended to lead to actual sexual involvement, and there are grounds for believing that there were actual sexual involvements.

I don't know what the statute-of-limitations situation is with regard to possible crimes, but if there's a window there, maybe it's time to pressure the moral vacuum that is the House Republican leadership to launch an independent investigation, one that can't be controlled or even influenced by political scum like themselves -- an investigation that should certainly include the responsibility of the then-House Republican leadership for not only not pursuing but actively covering up the evidence of wrongdoing.

My guess is that even within the Fox Noise Compound there are a fair number of people having their guts up, and praying nobody asks them what they think about Sean Hannity being used to prop up a pathological sexual predator who used his government position to at least try to use the pages as his private harem. But since Mark F., incredibly and preposterously, has chosen to come out of hiding for this purpose, I say nail the bastard to the wall. If the Dems have even a halfway competent messaging machine (OK, there's no evidence of that, but even a 10 percent competent messaging machine ought to be adequate to this task), let it put together a crisp, concise, inflamatory bill of particulars aimed at making Mark F. wish he had not only stayed in hiding but had never been born.

One caveat: I have seen outrage voiced at Mark F.'s charge that the timing of the House Dems' public airing of Foley's behavior was politically motivated. This is dangerous, because this charge is true, isn't it? It was, wasn't it? Wasn't it known by one and all that Master Rahm Emanuel sat on the incriminating information just as long as the House Republicans did, waiting till it was too late for Republicans to get Foley off the ballot in Florida -- and inflicting as much electoral collateral damage on GOP congressional candidates as possible? There isn't any doubt about this, is there?

Of course even here there's a difference. Eventually, however cynically, the House Dems did blow the whistle on Mark F. Would the House GOP leaders ever have? They had an opportunity, after all, to lean on him -- and we know what good leaners those GOP leaners can be -- not to run for reelection. But in fact they were counting heavily on him to run and be reelected.

The thing is, if Foley thinks this in any way helps his case, he's nuttier than any of us suspected. All it says is that the House Dem leadership for different reasons sat on what it knew instead of blowing the whistle in the interest of protecting the pages, which should surely have been the overriding consideration. If Foley is arguing that he should have been crucified sooner, would anyone disagree? I don't think so. Does it help his case? Not in any way I can see. And, oh yes, does it have anything to do with Anthony W.'s case? Again, not that I can see.


WITH REGARD TO THE CHARGES THAT DEMOCRATS
HAVE BETRAYED ANTHONY W., KEEP IN MIND . . .

. . . that in those days of flat-out lying, when he was trying to pretend that he didn't know nuttin' about no pitchers twittered from his account and somebody musta hacked his account, he wasn't just lying to us the public, worse still, from his fellow pols' point of view, he was lying to them. In pol-think, lying to the public is, well, nothing at all; it's what you do to get through the day. But lying to us, well, that's just about unforgivable.

Think back to the response of Beltway Dems when they discovered that Bill Clinton had been lying to them about Monicagate -- especially the ones who had trusted his assurances that he hadn't done anything and consequently went out on a limb defending him. They felt very foolish, and very angry. There don't seem to be a whole lot of rules the modern-day pol lives by, but they do seem to take seriously the axiom that you don't fuck with your own people. If Anthony W. thought any of those people would be rallying to his defense, then maybe we should be looking into the possibility of substance abuse.

I know that as a civilian casualty, I'm not too thrilled with Anthony W.'s lying myself. And as I pointed out the other day, WNYC Radio political analyst Joyce Purnick observed that he has a history of doing bad things and then claiming he didn't until the cloak of deniability was stripped away, dating back to his first primary race for his present congressional seat, when he made believe he didn't know anything about the racist smear campaign against one of his primary opponents which suddenly materialized in the district.

I might not put it this strongly, but I think it's worthy considering the comment our friend me added to a post of Howie's the other day:

Like most people, I don't give a shit about Weiner's sex life. His personal life belongs between him and his wife.



But lying about it is another thing altogether. Nobody likes a liar. Nobody trusts a liar, nor should they.



If Weiner had any - ANY - integrity, he would have answered the questions with "None of your damned business." To me, the fact that he did what he did and lied about it, in the current insane atmosphere about sex, proves beyond doubt that he does not have anything related to the mature judgement being in Congress requires.



Yes, I know that scumpublicans are worse, much worse. That doesn't matter.



Weiner is toast. I say get the fuck out. His brazen lying has done more damage to the progressive cause than anything else in recent memory.



I am so pissed at this asshole.

I'm not foolish enough to try to top that!


UPDATE: A commenter reraises the issue of the free pass given demonstrated Republican degenerate David "The Diaper Man" Vitter, who actually won reelection to the Senate despite what everybody knew about his prostitute habit -- including the fairly disgusting details of his, er, sexual preferences. I guess I assumed there was no need to make the point once again how full the Republican caucuses in both the House and the Senate are of established degenerates, of sexual and nonsexual varieties -- not to mention the assortment of criminals and other deviants elected in this stellar freshman class of Republicans that's recharting the course of American democracy.

I stand corrected, though. The point needs to be made at every opportunity. About 75 percent of the GOP congressional membership should be offered forthwith a choice between prison and an insane asylum, and if they decline, their states or House districts should be flooded with the particulars, with prosecutions where appropriate are prepared. Just clear the scum out!

#

Without Weinergate, would this bunch of pols be any more likely, or more able, to deal with real-world problems?

"Big numbers are thrown around -- Sen. Jon Kyl said Tuesday that Republican agreement to raising the debt ceiling would require $2.5 trillion in spending cuts -- with little inquiry as to how such reductions would affect actual people, future economic growth or our capacity to invest in ourselves. Ah, but trying to answer such questions would distract us from the Weiner story.

"Okay, most of us will always pay attention to sex stories, and apocalyptic fears are usually a form of paranoia. But we’re a superpower with big economic problems. We’re acting like a country that has all the time in the world to dance around our troubles by indulging in ideological fantasies and focusing on the behavioral fantasies of wayward politicians -- who, by the way, keep creating opportunities for distraction."

-- E. J. Dionne Jr., in his WaPo column today,
"Anthony Weiner and the tweet road to oblivion"

"Obama knows -- and, indeed, has stated as much -- that if we continue along our present path we’ll guarantee our children a much more dangerous future. Taking the steps that would reduce the risks of climate change is not going to be politically popular, which is why it is the President’s obligation to press for them."

-- Elizabeth Kolbert, in a New Yorker
"Comment" piece this week, "Storms Brewing"

by Ken

It happens every election cycle. Serious people wail about candidates' failure to engage with real issues. Yet the infotainment noozemedia devote roughly 99 percent of their attnetion to mindless sound bites, sensationalism, and horse-race prognostication, leaving any poor sap of a candidate who fantasized about "running on the issues" to face the fact that approximately nobody gives a damn.

Case in point: I don't know how anyone could run a more issues-rich or issues-intelligent campaign than then-Rep. Joe Sestak did last year in the Pennsylvania Senate race, against a candidate who is a pile of pure garbage, a cynical rich-guy opportunist who ran on a platform that said basically: "I'm betting that enough Pennsylvanians are rich opportunists, low-life slimeballs, or garden-variety morons." It turned out to be a winning bet, and I don't suppose we should be surprised.

But I digress. I know I promised last night ("Confidential to Anthony W. of Brooklyn -- you twit!") that "barring unforeseen circumstances" we would be talking tonight about the results of New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff's online quest for a viable universal cartoon caption -- suitable, for example, for the magazine's much-cherished weekly cartoon-caption contest. I don't know if you could call the developments that have developed since then exactly "unforeseen." Did anyone foresee the circus surrounding Congressman Anthony W. of Brooklyn fading into the night.

True, there is one "unforeseen development." No, I don't mean the tacky disclosure that Mrs. Weiner is pregnant with the couple's first child, which you'd like to think was pretty much their affair. (It was interesting to note, though, that there wasn't any steadfast "little woman" at Anthony W.'s side as he continued blundering his way through his mess.) No, I mean the still-unconfirmed report of the congressman's resignation -- to run for premier of Italy.

BOROWITZ REPORT
June 9, 2011

Weiner Resigns: Will Run for
Prime Minister of Italy

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - Embattled congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) sent shockwaves across the political landscape today, resigning from his seat in Congress and announcing a run for Prime Minister of Italy.



“Today is bittersweet for me,” he said in a resignation speech on the floor of the House of Representatives.  “But it is time to say goodbye to the past and buongiorno to the future.”



Mr. Weiner said that before resigning his seat, he briefly considered running for Prime Minister of Italy while still serving in the House: “I’ve shown that I’m good at multitasking.”



But instead, Mr. Weiner decided to devote himself wholeheartedly to his new campaign: “I’m very excited about this, as all of my followers on Twitter can see.”



Mr. Weiner hit the ground running this morning, blasting Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for his use of prostitutes: “As Prime Minister of Italy, I will bring with me a much more fiscally prudent approach.”



According to early Italian polls, Mr. Weiner is appealing mainly to women in the 21 to 22 demographic.



“That’s a group that Berlusconi has totally ignored,” said Italian pollster Donatello Bibbo.  “He considers them too old.”



BUT SERIOUSLY, FOLKS . . .

"Now, I am always wary of those who do what I’m about to do next: Take a tawdry sex scandal that people read about because we like to read about tawdry sex scandals, and use it to make some larger point."

-- E. J. Dionne Jr., in the above-cited column

It's easy enough to understand E.J.'s wariness, but I find that the people you usually have to worry about are the ones who aren't wary about such dangers.

What's got E.J. down isn't the Weiner story itself, but its place "at the end of what Thomas Jefferson might call 'a long train of abuses.' You really don wonder what's happening to our democracy and those who serve it."

[T]he Weiner episode marked the culmination of several months during which other sideshows involving outrageous male behavior -- John Ensign and John Edwards come to mind — dominated news coverage at a moment when our country’s future really is on the line. (Bill Clinton’s scandal played out when we were in very good shape, which is one reason he survived.)

Add to this the political media’s tendency to prefer covering personalities that the media created in the first place (Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, above all) to those taking the trouble of running for president and thinking through what they want to say. It’s another case of politicians being reduced (or, maybe, reducing themselves) to celebrities.

I have no particular sympathy for the political views of Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty or Rick Santorum, but at least the three of them are doing the hard work that democratic politics requires. Thus: Palin’s unusual comments about Paul Revere got far more attention than did Pawlenty’s economic speech this week. It fell to policy bloggers such as The Post’s Ezra Klein to take Pawlenty’s ideas apart. Thus: Palin’s bus trip to the New Hampshire seacoast got at least as much attention as Romney’s announcement of a real, live candidacy.

"But it’s not all the media’s fault," E.J. says,

and this is not just about politicians who conduct themselves badly in their personal lives. Much of what passes for debate consists of irritable ideological gestures. The recent disappointing economic news has not changed the set-piece Washington deficit debate one bit.

Big numbers are thrown around -- Sen. Jon Kyl said Tuesday that Republican agreement to raising the debt ceiling would require $2.5 trillion in spending cuts — with little inquiry as to how such reductions would affect actual people, future economic growth or our capacity to invest in ourselves. Ah, but trying to answer such questions would distract us from the Weiner story.

The cruel fact is that we now have a politics that is almost totally divorced from real-world problems, except insofar as those problems can be mangled beyond recognition by pols who behave as if their brains function at a barely pre-kindergarten level. (The game of figuring out whether they're too stupid to understand or merely too demagogically cynical or opportunistic has long since lost its charm.)

In this week's (June 13) New Yorker Elizabeth Kolbert has a timely "Comment" piece called "Storms Brewing," in which she writes:

For decades, climate scientists have predicted that, as global temperatures rose, the side effects would include deeper droughts, more intense flooding, and more ferocious storms. The details of these forecasts are immensely complicated, but the underlying science is pretty simple. Warm air can hold more moisture. This means that there is greater evaporation. It also means that there is more water, and hence more energy, available to the system.

What we are seeing now is these predictions being borne out. If no particular flood or drought or storm can be directly attributed to climate change—there’s always the possibility that any single event was just a random occurrence—the over-all trend toward more extreme weather follows from the heating of the earth. As the cover of Newsweek declared last week, “weather panic” is the “new normal.” The larger problem is that this “new normal” won’t last.

The evidence continues to accumulate, Kolbert writes, that we're running out of time to get any kind of control over these developments. She points out that Barack Obama 'appointed some of the country's most knowledgeable climate scientists to his Administration, and it seemed for a time as if he might take his responsibility to lead on this issue seriously. That hope has faded."

Of course, it almost goes without saying at this point that the President’s potential opponents next November are all worse on the issue. Tim Pawlenty, who, as governor of Minnesota, took some commendable actions on climate change, has now renounced them, saying that everyone “has got some clunkers in their record.” Much the same holds for the former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, minus the commendable actions. National Journal has summed up the situation this way: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe.”

E. J. Dionne Jr. extrapolates from the "Weiner circus":

Social networking has taken us where human nature always threatesn to go: downward. Do we want to give politicians incentives to limit their thinking to 140 characters?

And he concludes toady's column:

Britney Spears, appropriately enough I suppose, has a catchy song out with the refrain “Keep on dancin’ till the world ends.” Forgive me for wondering whether her song will provide the soundtrack for some future documentary on our national decline if we don’t get very serious, very soon.

Meanwhile Elizabeth Kolbert concludes her "Storms Brewing" piece:

[N]ow that the immediate crisis has passed, the President needs to stop asking the kind of questions that can’t be answered and start addressing those that can. Obama knows—and, indeed, has stated as much—that if we continue along our present path we’ll guarantee our children a much more dangerous future. Taking the steps that would reduce the risks of climate change is not going to be politically popular, which is why it is the President’s obligation to press for them. It may be beyond our power to control the climate, but we can determine it. This is precisely what we’re doing right now, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not.

Update On The GOP Nuisance Suit Against Blue America-- And More GOP Hypocrisy

Short version: the FEC dismissed the suit this week. Here's the letter they sent us:


And here's the story of the nuisance suit from deranged right wing hack Cleta Mitchell of Republican Party front group Let Freedom Ring, a fascist-oriented "think tank." Their spurious suit claimed we "engaged in the deliberate, willful and intentional violation of the [Federal Election Campaign] Act by specifically requesting that outside organizations make public communications in support of Democratic candidates for Congress." As best as I can tell, the only basis for their claim was that a couple of Inside the Beltway newspapers published a story that Pelosi was concerned that the Democrats were concerned that they were being crushed by outside spending and that they needed liberal groups "to do more-- and quickly." The suit claims Blue America Independent Expenditure Committee made its first buy on October 18, right around the time of the newspaper stories. Our Independent Expenditure Committee spent exactly $83,776.85 this year, on three races, one of which was in the Arizona Democratic primary in support of Randy Parraz ($20,315.00), a race Pelosi couldn't have been remotely interested in. Another was in the race in Alabama's Second Congressional District between Blue Dog Bobby Bright and Republican Martha Roby. We spent $48,364.15 opposing Bobby Bright, the candidate Pelosi was backing. And the third race was in support of Justin Coussoule, the progressive Democrat opposing John Boehner, to the tune of $15,097.70. The DCCC and the DNC made it clear that they had no interest in this race whatsoever. If Pelosi did, it would have taken a mind-reader to have known.

You might ask, "how can the Republicans be so hypocritical?" After all, they are the masters of mudslinging and dirty campaign tactics. And these types of suits against grassroots progressives groups is something they do on purpose, not because they think they can win, but just to help drain away resources that could be used opposing anti-democratic, fascist-oriented politicians. But if you wonder about GOP hypocrisy, I hope you watched Rachel Maddow Tuesday night-- IOKIYAR-- when she looked at the Republican response to the great Weiner weiner outrage. I hope you'll click on IOKIYAR and watch the clip. And watch this one as well:



Cowardly Democrats have demanded Weiner resign. He shouldn't-- and most people in his congressional district, where I was raised-- agree. But what does it prove to Virginia voters who heard conservative Democrat Tim Kaine demanding Weiner resign? That Kaine will be almost as bad as your garden variety Republican? The GOP is all over this today-- and adamantly refusing to talk about David Vitter's criminal case, since the still-serving right-wing senator paid prostitutes to spank him and change his diapers... for decades.

In any case, if you can help Blue America cover the legal costs for the suit just dismissed... we'd really appreciate it. Put the contribution in the PAC slot. Thanks.

Confidential to Anthony W. of Brooklyn -- you twit! (Our promise: no puns added)

Plus: NY-er cartoon editor Bob Mankoff has what one might hope is the last word on the subject

Can I assume that no caption is required?

by Ken

So, Anthony, it turns out that the whole brouhaha came about because you screwed up a single character -- instead of typing "D" to send your, er, business as a "direct message," you typed "@," which sent it "to" the designated recipient all right but made it viewable to one and all. Bianca Bosker has all this and much more on Huffpost Tech (The Twitter Typo That Exposed Anthony Weiner), including the reminder, which should be embarrassing all around, that the New York Times dubbed you a "technophile."

If it's any consolation, Anthony, Bianca reports: "Michael Fertik, CEO of Reputation.com, which helps people manage their online reputations, says the accidental exposure of messages that were meant to be private happens 'millions of times a day.'"

I'm not going to ask you, "How could you be so stupid?" Casting no aspersions,it seems to come with the territory for certain power-driven personality types. (Okay, it's just possible that a couple of aspersions got cast there. After all, we're all only human.) It's bad enough that you were dopey enough to be carrying on this way online. As Bianca points out:

Privacy experts say that Weinergate underscores the importance of users understanding these social networking sites for what they are: social platforms meant to help people connect with one another, broadcast their ideas and create stores of personal information online. Services like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are built for sharing, not secrets.

"Twitter was not really designed for privacy. If you do not want it public, don't put it on Twitter," said Chet Wisniewski, a security expert who writes for a blog run by Sophos, a software provider. "People shouldn't consider social networks a place to communicate private things. ... These services are designed to share, and privacy is a second consideration."

How humiliating is it that you should be hearing this from me, a card-carrying Twitterphobe? But as I say, this is almost the least of it.

Sure, the Twitter screw-up was embarrassing. For a lot of people, though, the sticking point is going to be all the lying that followed, yet another case of a self-important pol violating the Richard M. Nixon Memorial Adage about the killer being not the deed itself but the cover-up.

This morning WNYC radio political analyst Joyce Purnick was recalling how, way back when, when you first sought the Democratic nomination for your congressional district, a strange case developed of virulently racist materials being spontaneously distributed in the district smearing one of the other candidates, and when fingers started pointing at you as the responsible party, you swore just as sincerely as we saw you swearing recently that you had nothing to do with it, only you had to admit eventually that you had everything to do with it, on account of it was proved that you did. For future reference (assuming you have a future), when you're caught with your pants down, as it were, it's too late to come clean.

I know I promised not to ask, but sheesh, how could you be so stupid? Probably it has something to do with the insight of that noted philosopher of the heart, Woody Allen, who so famously explained, "The heart wants what it wants," except in your case the body parts in question seem to be located lower than the heart. Possibly too it has something to do with your impression, conveyed publicly through such feats as your showoffy dating -- prior to your marriage, of course -- that you think women think you're some hot stuff. This is probably not what the legendary producer Max Bialystock had in mind when he declared his philosophy: "If you've got it, baby, flaunt it," but it's close enough.

My gosh, when you find yourself looking up at Harry Reid perched precariously up there on the moral high ground, you know you've dug yourself one heckuva crater.


FINALLY -- OH, IF ONLY! -- NEW YORKER
CARTOON EDITOR BOB MANKOFF WEIGHS IN

Barring unforeseen developments, tomorrow I'm going to be reporting on the just-announced results of New Yorker cartoon editor Bob Mankoff's search for the universal cartoon caption. You may recall that two candidates already before the public were:

"What a misunderstanding" (from digital artist Cory Arcangel)

"Christ, what an asshole!" (from Charles Lavoie)

Bob M concludes his "Cartoon Blog" report today on the universal-caption quest:

The submissions came in before the Anthony Weiner scandal broke, but the course of Weinergate can be nicely bookended by our two main contenders. When Weiner claimed his Twitter account had been hacked, you thought, “What a misunderstanding!” But by the time he tearfully confessed you were more likely to think, “Christ, what an asshole!”

Really, is there anything more that needs to be said? Except maybe this --


FINAL NOTE ON THE OUTRAGE RE. ANTHONY W. VOICED
BY REPUBLICAN PARAGONS OF MORALITY (HA-HA!)

Considering what you clowns do to destroy ordinary decency every second of every minute of every day of every year, you're kidding about Anthony W. being some sort of menace to the republic, right? Well, I suppose it's one way of diverting attention from what you've done with every accursed breath you've drawn in your polluted lives.

Assuming it's laffs you're going for, though, why not do it right and make Sen. David "The Diaper Man Cometh" Vitter your point man for this comedy crusade?

#