Weiner Rises!

|
(27)
we're a happy family....
weinerwedding.jpeg

Midnight Wednesday, Anthony Weiner--who resigned from Congress two years ago because of a "sexting" scandal--has announced he will run for mayor of New York City. He will enter a crowded field to replace Michael "Big Gulps Are Murder" Bloonberg.

As he has a boatload of cash and 100% name recognition, he will be a force to be reckoned with. Plus, his main opponent, Christine Quinn has serious personal issues of her own. New York politics and politicians being what they are, from Walker and LaGuardia to Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani, means that this will be very amusing to the rest of the country.

Weiner, if you recall, sent out bare chested (among other things) pics to females via text a few years ago. That was the proximate cause of the uproar behind his resignation. It can be debated whether this was really the reason or not--Weiner went after the insurance industry with an awful lot of gusto. And, like fellow New Yorker Eliot Spitzer, he paid for it--screw with the mega-wealthy while you are playing games on the Internet or with hookers and they will snag you.

The difference between Weiner and Spitzer is while Spitzer (a lawman) was breaking the law and having actual sex, Weiner was doing neither. For all of the hand-wringing and ridicule Weiner brought on himself and his wife, he did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact, he did absolutely nothing at all, because sexting and cyber sex are not sex. At all. By any stretch of the definition of sex.

Minus actual contact between parties, there is no sex. Weiner could not impregnate the women he was sexting nor could he directly provide them sexual pleasure and most importantly, if this is sex, when has sexting ever led to an STD? If there is no sexual transmission, there is no sex. The objection that he was indiscreet stands (no pun), but if there was any real unhappiness over these non-existent trysts, where is it?

Cyber sex is no more sex than a strip club or porn is sex or for that matter, flirting is sex. Because that's all cybersex really is, flirtation. And for all the noise this nonsense generated, Huma Abedin (Mrs. Weiner) never left him--it is entirely possible that she sees this for what it is--nothing. She may even like the idea that her husband is a popular figure among women and that when it comes to the actual act, it's her and he. (So far as we know).

Weiner, like Spitzer and even the pitiful John Edwards, were held up as pariahs because of their dalliances. But the truth is, they enraged the powers that be, from hammering Wall Street to suggesting that there are "two Americas" where the lesser one gets screwed a lot harder than anything in A Weiner's provocative prose and photos. As the voters of South Carolina just sent back a cheater whose actual behavior is a hundred times worse than Bony Tony's was, maybe this idiocy can finally be put to rest once and for all, but I wouldn't count on it. 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Anthony Weiner has close to $5M in his "war chest."

But he also has $1M in matching funds, which will expire after this year.

I would predict that Weiner will run a thrifty campaign, less than that $1M figure.

Unless of course he becomes the frontrunner and has an actual chance to win.

Then he will double-down.

Until then, I believe this year's election is all about re-establishing his credibility and grabbing those matching funds.

Posted by MrJeff2000 on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:11 am

You should surely know that. downloading kiddie porn (not that that happened here) is just the most obvious example.

And of course, when you say he did nothing "wrong", you mean he did nothing illegal, but not all wrong things are against the law.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:20 am

For wrong, there has to be an aggrieved party.

Which is whom?

 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:29 am

"For all the ridicule heaped upon Weiner and his wife".

Maybe he doesn't mind ridicule but it's reasonable to assume that his wife did. So it was wrong because she was put into that position.

And I think most people would say that in general it is wrong too. Else why did anyone even deem it worthy of note?

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:38 am

Actually, it isn't reasonable to assume that in the least. They're still together and have a family and she has never said anything past the usual "contrition-lite".

"Most people in general" thought the world was flat and slavery OK at one time. Which means that "public opinion" isn't pertinent or relevant, is it? 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:47 am

on this planet who are OK with their husband doing something like this?

Maybe some, particularly if they're as bad or worse themselves. In this case I suspect she was just doing the "politician's wife" thing and standing by her man in the same way that Hilary Clinton did. HC behaved with decorum but few people think she wasn't pissed at him privately.

Maybe in France this type of thing doesn't matter, but I'd say it still matters in America, which of course is why you think this is a news story.

Posted by Guest on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:00 pm

When I was doing a two month stint on 106.9 up in SF, this was one of the very first topics--not AW's issues, cybersex.

The most remarkable part of the segment (which was two goddamned hours long, San Franciscans are passionate about their sex, for or against) was who was for this and who was against it. The women--by about 3-1--were completely in favor of cybering and sexting and the men, split 50/50. You'd think the dudes would be gung ho and weren't.

The women, 3/4's of them, got it. This activity livens up what had become drab in their lives. Lots of them were telling me on the air that they not only indulged but were proud of it--showed they were free thinking women (and no, I never got into that with any of 'em).

Face it--men are way more prudish than women. They feel like a woman is a possession half the time and what she wants doesn't matter.

To quote Mr. Burnett, the men don't know, but the little girls understand.

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:12 pm

I remember that show, Johnny. I was listening closely. You were prescient, as usual.

I wish you had a new show in SF.

Posted by Peter on May. 23, 2013 @ 9:27 pm

I don't know who, or how powerful his opponents in the race are, but I believe New York voters are greatly more discriminate than those in South Carolina, so it may be a long climb up from the bottom for Anthony Weiner.

Posted by Guest Frank A. Shefton on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:33 am

I don't know who, or how powerful his opponent are, but I believe New York voters ar greatly more discriminate than those in South Carolina. So I think it's an uphill climb to the bottom for Anthony Weiner.

Posted by Guest Frank A. Shefton on May. 23, 2013 @ 11:37 am

Some thoughts:

1) Bloonberg = Bloomberg

2) "Walker and LaGuardia to Ed Koch and Rudy Giuliani..." -- come on! Gotta mention Bella Abzug!

3 I'd like to amplify your point that the Democrats mentioned presented themselves as dangerous to big moneyed interests and that's why they were brought down at the hands of the "liberal media," but I'd also point out that the sexual pecadillos which were ostensible reason to bring them down -- even if strictly speaking illegal -- are not the sort of "criminality" that the State should in any way be engaged in prosecuting.

Edwards *is* a slime ball, and it is with some chagrin that I recall being disappointed in not having a chance to vote for him over Hillary and Obama. Is there any hope at all for 2016?

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:16 pm

She never won, though.

Favorite NYC mayor was John V Lindsay, the last of the great Republicans. 

Posted by JohnnyW on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:18 pm

as the man was himself. I think he was one of the earliest casualties of an increasingly doctrinarian Republican Party.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:39 pm

as the man was himself. I think he was one of the earliest casualties of an increasingly doctrinaire Republican Party.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:40 pm

You liked Lindsay better than Koch?

Posted by basta on May. 23, 2013 @ 2:32 pm

youngster when Linsay was mayor.

In my view each man's successes and failures had as much to do with the times in which they governed as their personal makeups. Koch presided over a renaissance in NY that was not exclusively of his personal creation -- and there were some costs of that which were paid by those on the lowest rungs of society.

In regard to personal makeup, I think Lindsay was by far the better man, as exemplified by Koch's later incessant swerve to the right.

Would Lindsay have displayed such phenomenal inattentiveness to the burgeoning AIDS crisis which struck NYC harder than SF at first?

Also -- thought of course I get called an anti-Semite all the time for this sort of comment -- I resented Koch's monchrome attitude with regard to Israel.

In Koch's his support for G.W.Bush he showed his true colors: another Ken Melman/Karl Rove closeted gay man with an authoritarian streak.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 23, 2013 @ 4:38 pm

Anthony Weiner's entry into the NYC mayor's race will prove interesting. I expect him to be a hard man to beat. Or at least Weiner should provide some stiff competition.

Posted by Peter on May. 23, 2013 @ 12:57 pm

Weiner's biggest crime was to engage with those in Congress and the banking industry who were behaving in an inhuman manner toward the people they were screwing while he himself was engaging in human behavior with people that he was not screwing.

Posted by Keith Igoe on May. 23, 2013 @ 5:50 pm

Weiner's biggest crime was to engage with those in Congress and the banking industry who were behaving in an inhuman manner toward the people they were screwing while he himself was engaging in human behavior with people that he was not screwing.

Posted by Keith Igoe on May. 23, 2013 @ 5:51 pm

Lindsay rocked!

Posted by Guest Dave on May. 24, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

Lindsay was a great mayor!

Posted by Guest Dave on May. 24, 2013 @ 3:41 pm

Mayor Bloomberg....

Anthony Weiner....

Eliot Spitzer...

Huma Abedin....

Did this article get cross posted from Haaretz?

I feel like I am reading election news about a city in Israel.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 9:01 am

Mayor Bloomberg....

Anthony Weiner....

Eliot Spitzer...

Huma Abedin....

Ed Koch......

Did this article get cross posted from Haaretz?

I feel like I am reading election news about a city in Israel.

Posted by Guestarama on May. 25, 2013 @ 9:04 am

Mayor Bloomberg....

Anthony Weiner....

Eliot Spitzer...

Huma Abedin....

Ed Koch......

Did this article get cross posted from Haaretz?

I feel like I am reading election news about a city in Israel.

Posted by Guest on May. 25, 2013 @ 9:07 am

Shuddap, would'ya? This is probably anon all butt hurt about the "Bestemor" thing.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 25, 2013 @ 9:05 pm

Johnny does the best puns and stuff I've ever seen in a long long while,

Keep up the good work!

Posted by Quntin on May. 25, 2013 @ 8:37 pm

LOL. Ok thanks for the lesson. Na cestinu jsem hloupy.

Posted by Top cccam server on Jul. 09, 2014 @ 5:57 am