Weird… Fast Eddie Schultz is Making Sense (Update: Against All Odds, the Clinton Angle Gets Weirder)
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here. Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]
Update: Okay, this is weird. Apparently Weiner has apologized to… Bill Clinton? You know because he officiated at their wedding and all…
Rep. Anthony Weiner explained himself and apologized for his conduct to Bill Clinton, who officiated his wedding to wife Huma Abedin, sources familiar with the call said.
Yeah, you know because when Bill Clinton is involved in a marriage, he expects the parties to be faithful…
The original post follows.
—————————-
First, I find myself mostly agreeing with Ed calling for Weiner to resign:
And then he tells his guests they are delusional:
Yes, that would make him the most rational and intellectually person at MSBNC. Weird.
Also, I noted a a few other highlights in the second clip. First, did Ed suggest that they still weren’t sure if there was a hack or not? You know, his statement was so off-the-cuff and contradictory with the rest of it, I will assume that was a misstatement.
Second, Bill Press says that Weiner’s conduct was unacceptable but shouldn’t resign. Funny, in’t just letting him go without even asking him to resign, accepting it? Seriously, when was the last time a liberal politico said something was “unacceptable” and then advocated doing something about it?
Third, and isn’t it funny to see these liberals struggle to understand why it mattered? This man has been married less than a year. Did he even take a hiatus from his sexting for his honeymoon? A man who cheats like this in the very first year of his marriage, never meant it when he swore to forsake all others, and to be faithful to her. Ah, but then again, maybe the officiant at their ceremony omitted those words.
And of course Huma Abdeen* is a long-time aide to Hillary Clinton, so she is probably getting top notch advice on how to just let her man repeatedly humiliate her in public and still stand by her Weiner. Perhaps like Hillary, Huma will be convinced to stay on with the siren call of political power. But I have to wonder if there is any reality to their marriage at all.
Finally a few notes on remaining questions. First, he has said that was not certain about the age of his digital paramours. Let’s see that screencap again:
I think we should try to find out who those girls were if only to do an age check. I am not saying the entire world should know who they are, but the press should. And as Patrick has noted there is increasing evidence that at least one teenage girl might have had some direct messaging from him.
Also he said, “I’ve never had sex outside my marriage.” Which, um, is a weird thing to say, because he was only married last year. So was he saying that he was still a virgin at forty-five?
Which, joking aside, strikes me as implausible. I think the more sensible interpretation is that he was trying to say that since he got married, he has never had actual sex with anyone but his wife.
Well, okay, then, and what about before he got married? Did he meet up with any internet girls before he married? Of course so far all of the identified paramours apparently started after he got married (two confirmed and if you agree with me about Cordova, she’s the third).
—————————
* For one second, I considered whether it was significant that she was still mainly known by her maiden name. Then I reflected on it, and decided I shouldn’t read too much into not wanting to be named Huma Weiner.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
So, a bit of googling didn’t turn up any instances of you calling for David Vitter to resign. I could have missed something, though, apologies if I missed it.
Given that Vitter actually broke the law in his screwing around, do you think he should have, too? If not, why?
Jamie (6e1ff9) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:14 am2 wrongs do not make a right.
DohBiden (15aa57) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:18 am“First, did Ed suggest that they still weren’t sure if there was a hack or not? You know, his statement was so off-the-cuff and contradictory with the rest of it, I will assume that was a misstatement.”
That might be deliberate. It sounds much like the “something happened” line that can still be heard from accuser supporters concerning the Duke LAX case. They have stopped directly contesting the facts, but still mutter that vague denial. This is classic conspiracy theory.
jim2 (a9ab88) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:18 amJamie
if you didn’t notice, i have only been blogging here at patterico’s since last october. i had my own blog which was begun i think a year before that.
i wasn’t blogging in 2007 when the vitter thing happened and truthfully i barely heard of it at the time. That being said, i have never said that we should ignore any politician going to a prostitute. i specifically remember commenting to people about a republican congressman who was caught frequenting prostitutes that he had to resign–even if it meant a dem. would be able to nominate his replacement.
i don’t remember if i was talking about vitter or not, though when i said that. but i certainly see no reason to treat him differently.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:22 amjim2
well, it certainly mimics cannonfire’s theories. but still its too ambiguous a situation for my blood.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:23 amCome on, it’s Sgt. Schultz, Aaron, that he found
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:27 amthe nut, doesn’t mean he’s not a blind squirrel.
ian
i am sure his run of sensibleness will end any second now. hell, i am sure the rest of his show was his usual crazy those nights.
But he seemed pretty rational here.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:29 amAlso in ‘crossing the streams’ news, Maureen Dowd,
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/8/2011 @ 7:29 amseems to have somewhat lucid, today.
AW – don’t you recognize “jamie” ?
JD (d48c3b) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:01 amAaron –
I know you’ve only been blogging here for a while, but I didn’t know the vintage of your own blog. I wasn’t trying to craft a gotcha – just curious if you would distinguish the two in some way.
Thanks for entertaining the question.
Jamie (2489bf) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:02 amThe lousy cheating is the LEAST of it. I see the problem as a somewhat more endemic flaw than the forgiveable human lapse type of deal. He’s a narcissist, in desperate need of supply. His compulsion is dangerous – his “barely legal” ixation – he uses the folly of the weak and young to prop himself up.
He’s a cool liar, a turn the tables liar, the type to cover himself and let his victims twist in the wind except in an effort that helps him gain protection.
He can’t check himself when other might be hurt, he acts recklessly and hurts himself. And he won’t ever stop.
This kind of character isn’t jut a politcial liability to his supporters – but is just dangerous to people in general. His character is bad. He is more concerned with image than substance, and is vulnerable to extortion or blackmail and always will be.
He shouldn’t be in a position to govern others.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:28 amAgain, its not just that he has “made mistakes” as humans will. It’s that his character is bad – he has a pathology of personality, which no one can fix, not even himself. The young-girl problem is but ONE manifestation of it but the problem is bigger.
“Getting help” won’t help him and frankly people who need that much help shouldn’t govern.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:32 amJD
i don’t know if jamie is one of the problem children who have come around, but it was a legit question.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:32 amClearly he’s willing to accuse someone of inciting violence, of trying to put a gold trading company
ian cormac (72470d) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:34 amout of business, or forcing a Supreme Court Justice to recuse himself, so his latest exploits don’t surprise.
Could “Jamie” be bothered to deal with the issue at hand? He should know that Mawy Reilly is already working this side of the street.
As for Schultz, his concern — as he clearly stated during a different portion of the same show — is that Weiner’s effectiveness as a member of Congress to ‘help the working man’ (it’s ALL about “class” with the Schultz-ialist) is shrinking . . . going limp, so to speak.
Icy Texan (566f1b) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:42 amSeriously, when was the last time a liberal politico said something was “unacceptable” and then advocated doing something about it?
Um, when a Republican was involved?
Kevin M (298030) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:45 amSarahW–
Some on the left who now are feeling compelled to criticize Weiner for the ick factor of his on-line life and for his flagrant lies about it, are still saying, “b-b-but all that aside he’s such a great congressman–such a powerful voice for progressive causes.”
You have just explained why that is both silly and dead-blind on their part. He is nothing but a hollow and shallow narcissistic hypocrite who cares no more about their precious “causes” or his constituents than he cared about all the people he hurt and deceived over the past 2 weeks. If that is what passes as a powerful voice for progressive causes these days then we on the other side have little to fear.
elissa (cbe76f) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:46 amAnd, damn, but Wiener looks a lot like the young Richard Nixon. Ski-jump nose, widow’s peak, jowls-in-waiting. And he’s got the lying down. Did Tricky Dick know his mom?
Kevin M (298030) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:49 amSargeant Schultz making sense? Wow! Can you believe it? Shouldn’t this be a holiday and I am at work in ERROR?
Has anyone looked at the photos that Weiner sent his mini mes? There is one that is totally creepy of him looking DOWN at the camera.
It is difficult for me to believe that he was sending pics like that to other women who apparently had no problem with it (until they could figure out a way to get their 15 minutes of fame by publicizing it).
These women in his “twitter harem” must really be pieces of work. Apparently they would do “anything” for their man.
It is quite refreshing to see someone go down (pun intended) who really, really deserves it.
Charlotte (dad663) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:59 amJust because the man is a liar and a cheat, that shouldn’t disqualify him from serving in Congress. At least not as a Democrat from New York. Of course, really lousy judgment doesn’t seem to disqualify him either.
BarSinister (b3a9ab) — 6/8/2011 @ 9:20 amAt least her maiden name wasn’t “Anita Abdeen” and then took his last name.
audit5050 (420a70) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:19 amA quick look at Senator Vitter:
Vitter’s phone number was published by the DC Madam, he’d been a client of her prostitution service prior to being elected to the Senate. When questioned by the press, Vitter acknowledged it immediately and reported he had already confessed to his wife years earlier.
What Vitter did was wrong, but it doesn’t begin to reach the level of Anthony Weiner’s list of serial transgressions and lies.
ropelight (45589b) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:43 amDo you really think Weiner will resign? He will not. The D’s have had Senators who’ve killed people (Kennedy)and were serial gropers to boot (Kennedy, Dodd,) KKK members (Byrd), and reps who have boyfriends who run houses of prostitution out of their homes (Frank). And this is not even counting Clinton–both of them. All these guys were or are long term members of Congress. Weiner will hang on and the tide will turn in the press (just wait). If this guy were an R, he would be dead meat and already an ex-member of Congress. As a D, he will live long and prosper. Also look for him, ala Kennedy, to really run hard left on issues of women’s rights and child welfare.
BT (74cbec) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:46 amI don’t think I’m a problem child, but I suppose other’s milage may vary. I don’t comment much here, and I’m not very ideologically aligned with most of the folks here, but I do lurk some, because I find Patterico and Aaron more readable and honest than most of the other social conservatives blogging out there.
Was there another Jamie trolling? I may disagree, but I don’t troll.
As far as distracting from the hating on Wiener, well, perhaps. I do think it is important to be consistent if you want to be taken seriously – either Vitter should have gone for more serious reasons, or Wiener shouldn’t.
I personally disagree – I suspect the number of congress critters who screw around to be closer to 535 than to the number who get caught, and it goes with the territory. In my view, it should take something more serious (Ensign and Edwards, as examples, although Edwards is not on-point, him not being positioned to resign).
And politicians who lie – well, that’s every last one of them, without exception.
Jamie (6e1ff9) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:48 amInstapundit put up a link to Jennifer Rubins, and she links to some asshat named Cohen who authors a thing called Post Partisan at the Wapo condemning you for doing his job for him, only better then he does.
Cohen writes:
It got me thinking about what Weiner’s good buddies in the media were saying about him prior to the the pecker pic.
Sac Bee
A search of Googlenews doesn’t show Weiner asking for a healthcare waiver in New York, but Townhall does.
So he was a hypocrite, lying, scumbag with policy issues long before he was a hypocrite, lying, scumbag with dick pic.
The only difference was his lies were sweet to the ears of his friends in the media.
papertiger (e55ba0) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:52 amI’m guessing Cohen is one of those.
The depth of Jamie’s intellect: “What’s the big deal? They ALL do it!”
Icy Texan (566f1b) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:53 amwell, weiner might resign given that the x-rated pic just dropped. yes, really.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:54 amJamie can certainly point us to his/her contemporaneous high dudgeon and defense of Vitter, etc … Certainly the position remains consistent regardless of party, despite the obvious difference noted above.
JD (d48c3b) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:55 amUnbelievable… just imagine if this was a republican.
“Now set to work, and if by to-morrow morning early you have not spun this straw into gold during the night, you must die.”
trax (6f0afe) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:06 amBut he was a member of the US House of Representatives and his 5 calls to the madame spanned 17 months of that term.
vor2 (6c8528) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:07 amJamie
> Was there another Jamie trolling? I may disagree, but I don’t troll.
There are several banned people who come in under different names. I think that was what JD was trying to imply.
> As far as distracting from the hating on Wiener, well, perhaps. I do think it is important to be consistent if you want to be taken seriously – either Vitter should have gone for more serious reasons, or Wiener shouldn’t.
I’m not sure what weiner did was less serious than Vitter. I mean Vitter was surely in danger of being blackmailed, but so was weiner. What if one of the women said, “vote for X legislation or your weinerpics will go public.” As it is, it’s a little creepy to read the blackjack dealer say he “owes” her for defending him and keeping her mouth shut. I don’t think she meant to sound extortionist, but I wonder how it sounded to weiner?
And I don’t believe that Vitter was doing that in his first year of marriage. That is really a hard detail to get over, because it makes you wonder if he was crossing his fingers when he said “I do.”
As for Patrick, feel free to quiz him yourself. but I am not even sure I have seen him say weiner should resign. And technically if I was going to be cheesily political about it, I wouldn’t want weiner to resign. After all, if he does he will be replaced by a dem who will almost certainly win. Right now weiner is just about the only dem that a republican could beat in his district.
> I suspect the number of congress critters who screw around to be closer to 535 than to the number who get caught, and it goes with the territory. In my view, it should take something more serious (Ensign and Edwards, as examples, although Edwards is not on-point, him not being positioned to resign).
Well, I am not quite that jaded about them, although I am sure there are some presently getting away with it. But I will note that they are getting away with it. so they are at least doing what is necessary to keep it discrete. Which is a little better (but not much).
My attitude is that if they are not faithful to their wedding vow, why should we believe they will be faithful to the oath of office?
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:09 amAW – that is not what I was implying. Jamie is consistently leftist, one of those “a pox on both your houses” that inevitably is just a leftist at heart.
JD (7b97b3) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:13 amJD
sorry for the misunderstanding, then, dude.
i am still traumatized from seeing the less pixelated photo of Weiner.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:16 amNo apology needed, just clarifying.
You are more gnerous than I, as I do not see how that is a legitimate question. Might as well yell BUNNIES !!!!!!
JD (7b97b3) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:28 amThe voice of the bandwagon has regurgitated.
Icy Texan (566f1b) — 6/8/2011 @ 11:41 amAaron –
I mean Vitter was surely in danger of being blackmailed, but so was weiner.
I suppose this is where we start differing. I don’t see the blackmail risk as all that realistic, because buying (sorry, lobbying for) a vote is so much less complicated, risky and expensive than running that kind of operation.
And I don’t believe that Vitter was doing that in his first year of marriage. That is really a hard detail to get over […]
I see that as a problem between the cheater in question and their spouse. For all I know, Abedin might be fine with it – it seems like it may be a marriage of convenience.
But I will note that they are getting away with it. so they are at least doing what is necessary to keep it discrete.
This is an excellent point. If they didn’t in the past, I suspect both parties soon will have a welcome-to-congress pamphlet that has a bullet point along the lines of, “If you happen to have a thing for cameras, or have in the past, *immediately* stop it, and do what you need to to get the older pictures under control.”
Jamie (6e1ff9) — 6/8/2011 @ 1:08 pmDick photo management skills are of paramount importance.
JD (306f5d) — 6/8/2011 @ 1:18 pmjamie
> I don’t see the blackmail risk as all that realistic
its as realistic as with vitter.
> I see that as a problem between the cheater in question and their spouse. For all I know, Abedin might be fine with it – it seems like it may be a marriage of convenience.
I don’t care if she is fine with it, i am not. a politician should be like us, wanting to marry for love, not for convenience.
> and do what you need to to get the older pictures under control.”
I doubt that will appear in writing anywhere. but they might say it.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 1:21 pmI’m just pleased that you have another pic for your wank bank with all the weinergate hoopla…
vor2 (6c8528) — 6/8/2011 @ 1:26 pmHow about instead of merely spouting this week’s liberal meme — the “what about Vitter” pathetic attemt at moving the goal posts — you actually address Weiner, and ONLY Weiner?
Icy Texan (566f1b) — 6/8/2011 @ 1:33 pmAaron,
its as realistic as with vitter.
OK. As a general case, though, that sort of operation is very complicated and risky compared to hiring one of the many outfits who exist in DC to persuade in the professionalized, normal manner that prevails in congress. There is some of that, but it is, as I understand it, typically not directed at elected politicians, who can generally fight back a bit more, and have easier buttons to push, such as PAC donations.
I don’t care if she is fine with it, i am not. a politician should be like us, wanting to marry for love, not for convenience.
Fair enough. I personally don’t expect others to match how I want to live, but I get it. Especially among politicians, though, the notion of marrying for love is of pretty new vintage and not at all universal, and if you look at them, an awful lot of our politicians seem to, ah, love strategically useful people.
I doubt that will appear in writing anywhere. but they might say it.
Well, yeah. I was intentionally being a bit over the top, as with the cheating pol comment. Interesting advice is best kept non-, or at least, less, discoverable.
(On cheating pols, I’d guess that the actual number is about half. I base that on the fact that about 20% of men in general will admit to cheating when asked in studies, the actual number has to be above that, and that people in congress have more power, money, opportunity and feelings of entitlement than average folks, so roughly doubling seems about right to me.)
Jamie (6e1ff9) — 6/8/2011 @ 1:58 pmThey both should have left office. political expedience based on which party the perv comes from is your thing not mine.
vor2 (6c8528) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:01 pmJamie, if weiner sent his dickpics to minors, would you have a problem, i.e., require him to resign? Oh yeah, I forgot to write “per se.”
∅ (e7577d) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:05 pmjamie
> As a general case, though, that sort of operation is very complicated and risky compared to hiring one of the many outfits who exist in DC to persuade in the professionalized, normal manner that prevails in congress.
well, except that the legal way might not work.
Aaron Worthing (e7d72e) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:08 pmKristen Powers sees the light and pretty much nails it. Two pages of honest.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-06-08/anthony-weiners-ex-kirsten-powers-he-lied-to-me/?cid=hp:mainpromo1
elissa (cbe76f) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:12 pmMaybe vor2 will call us racist or sexist or anti-semitic.
JD (d48c3b) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:26 pmnah … just obsessed with weiners
vor2 (6c8528) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:29 pmHas jamie pointed us to its magnificent outrage or calls for Vitter to stay in office back when that was a relevant scandal? Since consistency is so damn important to jamie, maybe jamie can show everyone how a leftist ideologue was consistent on this issue.
JD (29e1cd) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:31 pmpolitical expedience based on which party the perv comes from is your thing not mine
— Ya know, some time spent reacting ONLY to what people ACTUALLY say, and not inventing scenarios and stereotypes in your head, might . . . might . . . lead to people giving thoughtful examination to your words. So lose the hate, the bile, and especially the personal attack angle, and try to just talk about Schultz’s opinion on what Weiner should do next.
Icy Texan (566f1b) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:33 pmCloseted hohosexuals. That is a new one for vor2. Brava.
JD (306f5d) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:39 pmJD –
1) I’m not a blogger, journalist or other member of a class that creates a body of public writings. Sorry I can’t oblige.
2) I recall having a conversation when that happened that my problem was the hypocrisy, not the hookers. (I happen to think that prostitution should be legal.) I wouldn’t vote for Vitter, but if his constituents think he should represent them, well, that’s their call – IIRC, there was nothing prosecutable that came out of that case.
3) I generally don’t respond to annoying people who seem to have bewildering preconceptions about me. Please enjoy this special case.
Jamie (6e1ff9) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:49 pmI have no preconceptions, just views based on your comments, current and past. If they are flawed, I will be happy to re-evaluate. I beg forgiveness for making you stoop down from your moral high ground to waller around with us cretins.
I like the double standard you employ though, that is cute. Aaron must have some type of consistency, defined by you, to maintain credibility, whereas, your credibility is free of such niggling little things like application of the exact same standards you cry out for. Bugger off.
JD (b98cae) — 6/8/2011 @ 2:58 pm25. This scandal burst upon us when HE did. If you want to keep your rich fantasy life, fine, but do not involve other people, especially those 20-30 years your junior and too green to know that you have no regard for them. And do not tweet your penis.
SarahW (af7312) — 6/8/2011 @ 3:09 pmJD –
I’m pleased to see you know all about my standards for judging these things, clearly so much better than either I do or Aaron does – I thought he and I were having a vaguely interesting little discussion that was a nice little distraction during the workaday.
Anyway, annoying, yeah. I won’t responding to you again – patriots to oppress, freedoms to subvert, bad-faith arguments to be made, you know how it is – so enjoy the last word.
Jamie (6e1ff9) — 6/8/2011 @ 3:26 pmSo Schultz can actually pretend to be sane or is he just reading the teleprompter?
kansas (d830b2) — 6/8/2011 @ 3:32 pmI am so sorry that I had the temerity to comment on your BS BUNNIES comment, or have the audacity to apply the standards you called for from AW to you. That is a pinnacle of bad faith on my behalf. I humbly beg your forgiveness and prostrate myself before you in the hopes that someday I can be worthy of your commentary. Until then, I hope you have a wonderful day free of interruptions from people with hard edges that do not call out your BS.
JD (3ad5b9) — 6/8/2011 @ 3:40 pmPretty beefy news cycle the last ten days. For one, I am reminded of the old adage: Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. And second, there but for the grace of God, goes— well, God.
Finally- there is a financial armageddon heading our way and this is all that can get discussed on this blog? When it hits I am going to be thanking Aaron and the rest of this crew for the stalwart job in reporting and analyzing news that means something.
I’m not pissed. I am just wondering how many angels can land on the head of a pin? What happens when Iran gets the bomb and we find out that President Snow Job really is on the downlow, that same news day? What will Patterico be about? The first President to be caught being a homo? Or the fact that Israel is toast because Iran has the bomb? Toss up I guess.
Hey don’t hate the messenger! Hate the message.
PS: Who is Austan Goolsbee again?
Bear1909 (69145a) — 6/8/2011 @ 5:15 pmBear1909, if you’re so convinced people can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, that the fact we’re talking about this wierd Wiener character means we can’t possibly be paying attention to the other ills facing our country and the world, then what makes you believe that Weiner’s obsession with sexting, taking pics of his crotch and sending them to who knows who, and engaging in pornographic chats with his facebook friends (the UK telegraph has the transcript) DIDN’T dangerously distract him from the work he’s paid to do as a Congressman?
That’s one of the defenses the panel on Ed Schultz’s show advances for Weiner.
Or are you of the opinion that only pervy Dem Congressman with strange online exhibitionist tendencies are capable of paying attention to more than one thing at a time?
And as an aside, if Congress wasn’t populated with power mad narcissists busy lying to cover up their double lives, maybe we wouldn’t be facing so many crises at the moment.
Steve (cabe23) — 6/8/2011 @ 8:24 pmI just watched the video of the four talking heads. What a bunch of amoral losers.
Arizona Bob (aa856e) — 6/8/2011 @ 10:36 pm