Today’s actual New York Post headline: Yeah, I’m a schmuck.
Lots of folks. Anyone that can air 30 seconds worth of this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/flashback-weiners-web-lies-13776485
Anyone that hasn’t seen it, it’s remarkable video filmed last week, but just released yesterday, of Weiner vehemently defending himself and attacking anyone that would dare impugn him. If you watch that video, knowing what you know know, and think he’s fit for any kind of position of trust … well, we are very different people.
He seems a little more of a jerk for calling the cops on that CBS reporter.
OK, that makes sense to me. Yes, he made the thing an even bigger story by going all over the news and vociferously (and confusingly) trying to deny he’d done anything. They always think they’re going to keep it a secret, don’t they?
I’d be wary of trusting anything he says, but “fit for any position of trust” sounds like more of a moral judgment. Weiner wanted to be the next mayor of NYC and he flirted with a bunch of women online. The current mayor decided he was doing such a good job he deserved another term, so he and the city council made a special exemption in the term limit laws so he could run again without the voters getting involved. Bloomberg isn’t running again, but if we’re going to get into who is trustworthy, then I wouldn’t start with Anthony Weiner, as much of an idiot as he is.
The thing is, all the Puritans are going to overplay their hand a la Ken Starr. People are capable of distinguishing fibs told to parry conservative muckrackers and their sexxxy pics versus lies about, say, national policy.
I found this: Anthony Weiner’s Apology Speech (Presented By Guilty Looking Dachshunds)
I laughed my ass off, especially at “I have not been honest with myself, my family, my constituents, my friends and supporters, and the media.”
Of course it is. And like it or not, most voters think that people entrusted with the power of office need to have a certain moral character. Not that they need to be saints, but that their moral failings be somewhat more akin to the average person’s – e.g. “It could have been me.”
I think most people who look at that video are going to see less of “a good guy who made a mistake, and is desperately trying to get out of it, just like I would,” and more of “someone who is really good at lying, and utterly without a conscience.”
We’re talking about Weiner, not Gingrich.
Weiner is likable when he’s not being a sex-crazed idiot. Gingrich is disgusting. Good point!
You know what? I think that sums it up. A creepy schmuck, not a criminal, just a creep.
I think Weiner also actually feels bad. Gingrich is utterly remorseless and did things a lot more cruel.
Lest anyone think I’m partsian, I would also say that I don’t think Clinton was particularly sorry (though he wasn’t as cruel as Gingrich), and that I think McCain did feel bad about his first marriage.
Weiner didn’t seem cold or insincere to me yesterday. He seemed humiliated. He looked a like a teenager who got caught with his dad’s stash of Playboys.
Bwhaaaaa… holy shit but that made me laugh.
So is there a load of Weiner jokes floating around in one of the threads? I have great confidence in the ability of dopers to incite a riot.
That is so funny. Well worth the wait for the time it take to download it.
For those of you not upon your Yiddish “schmuck” and “putz” are both considered vulgar wors, meaning (a) penis, and (b)vulgar term for prick (like our term asshole).
Sorry, but this needs to be said again, and I hate those stupid “This” comments.
Oh, I figured that was the case when you said “as long as he votes the right way, who cares.” And if he doesn’t vote the right way, you do care? Does that apply just to lying about nude photos for you or does it apply to other personal foibles as well? I’ll admit I didn’t exactly have a ton of respect for you before hand, but now that I’ll have to view everything you post through the filter of “he’s a self-admitted partisan apologist” there’s probably not much I can take away from your contributions to this board at all.
My biggest disappointment with Weiner is the lying. As soon as he refused to deny the photos were of him it was clear that yeah, there were photos he shouldn’t have taken, and that was dumb, but I was holding out hope that that’s all it was;* that *I wouldn’t have held against him. (I don’t think Chris Lee should have resigned based on the Craigslist thing either, FTR.) Given Breitbart’s track record and the demonstrated ease of posting photos to someone else’s feed, it was even plausible that he hadn’t posted that stuff. Instead, he had to lie about it and for crap’s sake he made that Breitbart clown look like he might even have a smidge of credibility.
Well?
Forget it, Bricker. It’s Diogenes.
You would only have a point if I thought the sex stuff mattered for Republicans. I always defend Republicans against having to resign for this stuff either. I’m not partisan in how I view the relevance of sex scandals. I don’t care either way.
In the specific context of the post you were quoting, I was saying that partsianship doesn’t affect my perception of whether or not a politician is sincere in making an apology.
I’ve already answered this question. I said (and I said before the confession), that I was taking him at his word for the sake of decency.