The New York Post reports:

President Obama was willing to put up with a lot of Anthony Weiner’s antics — the bad boy congressman’s sexting with women he never met, tweeting pics of his own penis, and acid tongue.

But the White House finally got fed up when reports emerged that the pol was in contact with an underage girl.

According to a new book, the cold shoulder from the White House was the beginning of the end of Weiner’s career in Congress.

“We were willing to stand by him before, but I don’t see how we can do it any longer,” White House political director Patrick Gaspard is quoted as telling Weiner’s advisers.

With that, Weiner — who thought he could weather the scandal that started when he accidentally tweeted a crotch shot — lost his trademark bravado.

“I just can’t figure out what I should do,” Weiner told advisers.

I believe the girl in question is the one discussed in posts of mine, here and here and here.

I never knew until now that these posts were so central to Weiner’s decision to step down. Now that I realize this, a lot of things make sense.

About which, more later.

P.S. The book comes out tomorrow and can be ordered here.

Not the first guy to confuse “campaign funds” with “funds used to cover up a scandal.”

Hot Air has more here.

Comment away.

The L.A. Times tells us Romneycare is “similar” to Obamacare (only much, much scarier!):

Romney’s plan follows a lead set by President George W. Bush, who unsuccessfully pushed for a healthcare overhaul. It adopts proposals long championed by conservative healthcare experts.

It also sharply contrasts with Romney’s last foray into healthcare reform. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney successfully pushed a law that guaranteed coverage for all state residents and included a requirement that people buy insurance — an individual mandate similar to Obama’s.

Very similar . . . with one smalllll, tiny leetle difference: Romney’s plan was constitutional, while Obama’s is not. (That last statement is not just my opinion, by the way. It is also the opinion of somewhere between 4 and 5 Supreme Court justices!)

The difference between legal and (at least very arguably) illegal is not a distinction without a difference. It’s like saying: Joanne and Chester both take property from a home and keep it, therefore their actions are “similar” — without noting that Joanne is the homeowner, while Chester is a burglar.

Legal vs. illegal matters. Whether the federal government is overstepping its constitutional authority matters.

I guess this is too subtle a point to expect a newspaper reporter to understand, and therefore far too subtle for the general public. Which means that, for the electorate, Romneycare and Obamacare are really the same — meaning we have basically lost that issue for the election.

But if we wanted to try to take it back, the way to start would be to note the distinction that the L.A. Times refuses to tell you about.

P.S. The rest of the L.A. Times article simply tells you why Romney’s current plan — giving Americans a tax break to make their own choices — is “more revolutionary” and “potentially more disruptive” than Obamacare. Fisk away in the comments.