Patterico's Pontifications

8/2/2013

Huma Puff Piece in New York Post Actually Very Damning

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:21 pm

The New York Post attempts to do a puff piece for Huma Abedin — but it ends up showing how cynical and power-hungry she actually is. Just pay close attention to the timing:

The worst moments included a Hamptons vacation 12 months ago when she suffered from painful isolation that put even more stress on their marriage.

“All the parties they had once been invited to, Huma was now invited but Anthony wasn’t,” a family member said. “It was a difficult time.”

Then it got worse. A month later, according to the couple, Weiner confessed to her that he had continued to text lewd pictures of himself. He said he also told her that he had frequent phone sex with one woman, 22-year-old Sydney Leathers, and sexting sessions with two others under the pseudonym Carlos Danger.

So he confessed to the Sydney Leathers stuff 11 (12 minus 1) months ago. That would be around September 2, 2012. Let’s plug that into the timeline I gave you the other day:

July 12, 2012: Weiner starts talking to “Sydney Leathers”, according to this timeline from the site that broke the latest story. Quoting the girl:

Anthony Weiner And I First started talking July 12, 2012.

July 18, 2012: People Magazine puff piece appears:

“It took a lot of work to get to where are are today, but I want people to know we’re a normal family,” says Abedin, 37.

“Anthony has spent every day since [the scandal] trying to be the best dad and husband he can be,” she says of her husband, who does all the laundry. “I’m proud to be married to him.”

If the timeline is accurate, then Huma was praising Weiner days after he admitted to her that he was still sexting.

Now. Let’s just assume that the timing is a little off and Weiner confessed to her in late July or August rather than early July. We still have the rest of the timeline:

July 19, 2012: One day after the People Magazine puff piece appears, Weiner finds Sydney Leathers on Formspring.

July 19, 2012 – November 2012: Anthony Weiner engages in intense sexual discussions with Sydney Leathers. From the timeline:

Things were very intense by August 2012/already talks of the Chicago sex condo and having sexual conversations. We would send naked images to each other and have phone sex. Anthony Weiner would send me penis pictures from his Carlos Danger yahoo email to my Gmail.

And now, we have:

September 2, 2012 or thereabouts:: Weiner confesses to Huma. And then keeps texting for another couple of months:

November 2012: Carlos Danger and Sydney Leathers’s relationship “began to fizzle out,” according to Leathers.

Today is August 2, 2013. There’s no way “one month” after their trip 12 months ago is December 2012. And he was sexting clear through November.

So basically, he must have told her: “Heads up, honey. I’m still sending my pics around and having phone sex and talking dirty to this 22-year-old. I’ll be continuing to do so for the next couple months at least, just so’s you’re aware.”

And after all that, we have this:

April 10, 2013: Puff piece appears online in the New York Times that portrays Weiner’s supposed coming clean and being totally honest in June 2011. The article also has Weiner and Abedin portraying their new son as having totally changed Weiner’s perspective:

“But in the confines of our home and our relationship and our parenting this child and our love for each other — she said she wanted to get through it, she wanted not to conflate the giant international news story with the two people who were involved in it. And a lot of women couldn’t do that. And Jordan has given us a lot of perspective. We have to deal with this a lot. It’s not behind us. It kind of bubbles around and comes up in different ways. But she’s, um. . . .” Here, he paused and took a deep breath and started to cry. “She’s given. . . .” He stopped again, could barely get the words out. “She’s given me another chance. And I am very grateful for that. And I’m trying to make sure I get it right.”

Abedin fully participated in that charade. And he wasn’t even done, as he went back to Leathers the very next day:

Immediately after April 10, 2013 New York Times puff piece: After the appearance of the New York Times puff piece, Weiner reactivates his Facebook account and asks Sydney Leathers what she thought of it:

We only spoke once in December 2012, and then I didn’t hear from Anthony Weiner again until April 11, 2013 when a NYT article about him was released. He reactivated his Facebook and asked me what I thought of it.

So Weiner tells Huma all this. And, for the good of her SON:

May 2013: Weiner enters mayor’s race.

And she agrees to it.

She is a disgusting careerist and this article does NOT help her image. As long as you pay attention.

Thanks to JVW for the link.

UPDATE: Yes, of course I proofread the piece. I just decided to stop after the first word.

Comments (105)

105 Responses to “Huma Puff Piece in New York Post Actually Very Damning”

Every time they open their idiot mouths this gets worse for them.
Patterico (9c670f) — 8/2/2013 @ 9:21 pm
Hey Huma, okay with you if I tweet pics of my junk to some babes?

What’s that, hon?

Sure, I’ll take out the trash after I’m done tweeting and having phone sex.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/2/2013 @ 10:09 pm
Is his wife hillary abedin or huma rodin clinton? I am not sure I understand.
Jim (823b10) — 8/2/2013 @ 10:17 pm
Maybe she doesn’t really care if her husband sexts.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/2/2013 @ 10:44 pm
Riding in a stutz bearcat. Those were different times
The men studied rules of verse. The ladies
They just rolled their eyes
pdbuttons (8754f6) — 8/2/2013 @ 11:36 pm
There is something more to think about. Look at Abedin’s pedigree. Her family are very devout Muslims – of the extremist sort. Then note that it is death for a Muslima to renounce her religion or to simply marry out of her religion, let alone to a (gasp) Jew.

So has Weiner, the frisky Willie barer, become a secret Muslim or what? I’m just wondering.

{o.o}
JDow (d8539e) — 8/3/2013 @ 12:13 am
The details of this story don’t matter near as much as the lying about it from Weiner. He’s shown himself to be entirely untrustworthy as an elected official. Plus he’s shown himself to be an absolute moron that he thinks he could escape this scandal considering his name REMINDS people of the SCANDAL!
DejectedHead (017bad) — 8/3/2013 @ 1:14 am
Then note that it is death for a Muslima to renounce her religion or to simply marry out of her religion, let alone to a (gasp) Jew.

Not in most places. There are way too many internet myths about Islam and when you look at them closely you see it’s mainly if not only the Saudi Wahabi weirdos who admittedly would stone her for showing her ankles (hell, her face) or shaking hands with men who are not her husband, father or brothers.

Inflating her religious background is the path to insanity in my opinion. She is, like Patterico says, politically ambitious and, like her mentor, hitched her cart to a flawed soulmate.
nk (875f57) — 8/3/2013 @ 3:20 am
Another child left behind. Typical liberal marriage.
mg (31009b) — 8/3/2013 @ 3:29 am
Is it just my imagination, or does the Weiner kid look a little bit like Webster Hubbell?

And, is there any confirmation for the rumor that Hillary’s getting together with Carlos Danger for a quiet little picnic at Fort Marcy Park to discuss his predicament?
ropelight (a55e1f) — 8/3/2013 @ 5:04 am
some laundry will never come clean…
Colonel Haiku (794a7a) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:24 am
one ambitious, duck-faced woman.
Colonel Haiku (794a7a) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:25 am
Weiner is one guy who, when the chips are down, would be damn happy to be left holding his dick.
Colonel Haiku (794a7a) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:27 am
So many blog entries on this pathetic character(s) that I’ve lost track.
Mark (938403) — 8/3/2013 @ 7:11 am
ends up showing how cynical and power-hungry she actually is

It’s not only that but probably also a mindset or attitude similar to what’s illustrated below. BTW, unlike Huma, this person identifies herself as a Republican and, unlike Huma, also doesn’t have rumors about bisexuality trailing her.

dailymail.co.uk, July 25, 2013: She is best known for playing innocent Shirley Partridge in the hit Seventies series, The Partridge Family. But famed Oklahoma actress Shirley Jones has completely shed that image in a new tell-all book, recounting her kinky sex life with husband Marty Ingels and famous ex-Jack Cassidy.

In her autobiography, simply titled ‘Shirley Jones’, the 79-year-old actress completely turns her TV image on its head in startling – even shocking – ways. But a substantial part of the book is spent on her troubled marriage to the late Jack Cassidy, the glossily handsome actor and singer whom she describes in a passage as her first lover and ‘sexual Svengali,’ and whose lessons she shares candidly.

That includes Cassidy’s…pre-marital sexual encounter with Cole Porter that Jones says left her unfazed, and her apparent tolerance for his infidelities.
Mark (938403) — 8/3/2013 @ 7:26 am
There is something more to think about. Look at Abedin’s pedigree. Her family are very devout Muslims – of the extremist sort. Then note that it is death for a Muslima to renounce her religion or to simply marry out of her religion, let alone to a (gasp) Jew.

So has Weiner, the frisky Willie barer, become a secret Muslim or what? I’m just wondering.

{o.o}

RIGHT, this is a far more likely explanation than a woman who is extremely left wing, has worked for Hillary Clinton, and who’s OK with her husband sexting a bunch of bimbos if that helps him become the Democrat mayor of New York, and who married a Jew isn’t really that staunchly religious herself.

Wiener is secretly pious. How did we miss it?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 7:41 am
Not in most places. There are way too many internet myths about Islam and when you look at them closely you see it’s mainly if not only the Saudi Wahabi weirdos who admittedly would stone her for showing her ankles (hell, her face) or shaking hands with men who are not her husband, father or brothers.

Exactly.

I talk regularly with a Saudi woman. She went to university in Mecca where some of her dormmates were lesbians or at least convenient bisexuals. She doesn’t always hide her face in public, even in Mecca, and certainly not in Jeddah. She does work to advance the rights of women. Etc.

Times, they’s a changin’.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 7:44 am
Shockingly, Perry aka twoof teller is calling you racists and sexists for opposing Huma which is a stand in for opposing Hillary in your War on Womynz
JD (b63a52) — 8/3/2013 @ 9:07 am
Squirrels! Carlos Danger is part of popular culture, now.

The Richmond Flying Squirrels, a minor league baseball team, held a “Salute to Scandal” night during which they sold $1 hot dogs to poke fun at the mayoral candidate with a sexting problem.
“I may move to New York so I can vote for Anthony Weiner,” said a fan.
“We have 70’s night, 80’s night, movie night, sitcom night. Tonight is scandal night where we’re just saying look at what these people have done and hope we get some chuckles along the way,” said Todd “Parney” Parnell, the CEO of the Richmond Flying Squirrels.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/23028429/minor-league-baseball-team-salutes-anthony-weiner-with-1-hot-dog-night#ixzz2avOz1HWB
elissa (3cfe6f) — 8/3/2013 @ 9:41 am
I talk regularly with a Saudi woman. She went to university in Mecca where some of her dormmates were lesbians or at least convenient bisexuals

wow the first Saudi college to admit women opened
maybe 5 years ago? and Mecca has a very elite university so any women attending it would probably not

A: ever ever talk to you as you don’t have position in life to warrant such a conversation
B: admit sexual fantasies to you
C: is such a rebel in a place where it is the holiest and strictest of muslim sites

hands who believes faintly Canadians conviently placed story to excuse Wieners wife?
EPWJ (1cedce) — 8/3/2013 @ 9:57 am
You think Saudi women don’t talk about sex?

lol
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:01 am
Just don’t get him started on Jews in Iran. Remember that? Sheesh.
Simon Jester (6d61c1) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:02 am
I think the ‘Girls of Riyadh,’ would dissabuse you of that.
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:07 am
Not ever to you – I’m going to guess that most probably don’t talk to you just pulling that one out.
Oh I ran a commercial and industrial real estate firm in Qatar with offices in several Saudi cities and yes the women of Arabia are quite vibrant but as with most women – they don’t gossip with men.

I also went to college in New Orleans, again they don’t just blather about it
EPWJ (1cedce) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:11 am
It simply isn’t monolithic, narciso, and things are changing in KSA fast – something the woman I mentioned herself frequently points out to me. Not mainly in that way by any means, but certainly in the treatment and rights of women generally.

Of course, this is less so in some places than others, some families than others, some individuals than others.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:12 am
Oh I ran a commercial and industrial real estate firm in Qatar with offices in several Saudi cities and yes the women of Arabia are quite vibrant but as with most women – they don’t gossip with ~~men~~ you.

Corrected it for you.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:13 am
By “you” I meant EPWJ. Grammar aside, it’s just foolish to think every Saudi follows the exact same personal customs in dealing with every foreign individual.

That was probably never true, and it certainly isn’t true in today’s fast-changing world.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:14 am
Could you rephrase that in English please, EPWJ?
JD (b63a52) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:16 am
True, the Nejd is less moderate then Hejaz or other areas, but still
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:22 am
EPWJ, Fake JD and FC
Starring in
“I Know How Things Really Work”
A Finkelman Production
Icy (7e41ef) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:25 am
JD@18. From his dungeon I think our Perry inadvertently makes an important point, though. From now on, the faux war on womyms meme will be hawked and put front and center anytime anybody dares to disagree with Hillary’s policies, questions her fitness for the presidency or her ethics, or seeks the truth about her awkward time as Secretary of State. They will try to make it a mirror image repeat of the ubiquitous and wholly dishonest “racist!!!” meme that they use when anybody, even today into his second term, dares to say Mr. Obama is less than perfect. The airwaves will be bombarded with the “you neanderthals just can’t stand the idea of a woman president” accusation. It’s not like we have not been warned and that we haven’t already witnessed the effectiveness of that particular political playbook.

One can only hope that the mendacity of the theme will be a little more obvious to the masses this time and that Hillary’s own history will be a little harder for them to bury. But the question is, will a few sane people in the media and especially people in opposing campaigns be willing to actually fight back this time, and speak out–or will America get another “historic presidency” by default because nobody was brave enough to develop an effective counter narrative to the left’s silly and dishonest Republican War on Women and then actually use it.
elissa (3cfe6f) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:34 am
The funniest comment on this thread was the paranoid fear that Wiener is a secret Muslim. Well he’d have to be, wouldn’t he, because Huma is so devout?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:36 am
People never lie on the internet. No, never. Whatever happened to that Manti Te’o story?
PatAZ (fc79af) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:37 am
If you rilly had an interest, you could check Huma Weiner’s background and associates, Present-Tense Lefty.
Colonel Haiku (2c9c13) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:44 am
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/355061/lords-transition-team-mark-steyn
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:46 am
“That was probably never true, and it certainly isn’t true in today’s fast-changing, 7th Century world.”

FIFY
Colonel Haiku (2c9c13) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:46 am
==Is it just my imagination, or does the Weiner kid look a little bit like Webster Hubbell?==

A very big LOL and kudos to you for that one, ropelight. (I still, and will always think CC looks like Web Hubbell, tho.)
elissa (3cfe6f) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:47 am
Interesting tidbits:

Sixty-four percent of Saudi Arabia’s nearly twenty million people are under the age of thirty; the largest youth cohort includes those who are currently only twelve to sixteen years old. Saudi youth are avid Internet and social media users (YouTube use in Saudi Arabia rose 260 percent in 2012, versus an average of 50 percent growth internationally), and are more connected to the outside world than ever before. Moreover, an unprecedented number of Saudi students—some 145,000—are currently studying abroad in thirty countries around the world, nearly half of them in the United States. How will this younger generation shape the future of their country?

Now getting away from KSA and back to Huma’s motivations, maybe she doesn’t care as much about Wiener’s cavorting with other women as others might because of the Islamic tradition of husbands taking more than one wife? So possibly it doesn’t hit her as hard emotionally as it might others? I’m not saying that’s true, but food for thought.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:54 am
I never got that impression,

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/inside_colin_shot_and_heavy_mails_VmHkHRoLOaZmuop6T0OlCP
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:54 am
Why do you care so much about this, Patterico?
Leviticus (c4ea61) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:54 am
I never got that impression,

He’s male.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:57 am
I can’t imagine why this story might strike a chord with our host, Leviticus. Nope, can’t come up with one reason.
JD (b63a52) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:57 am
It’s a poser, JD,
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:03 am
Let’s give L. a temporary break, JD. Being in a later western time zone he prolly just got up and hasn’t had his coffee yet. But when he’s more alert I’m sure it’ll all come back to him.
elissa (3cfe6f) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:04 am
Just because it’s interesting:

In February 2009, [King] Abdullah announced a series of governmental changes to the judiciary, armed forces, and various ministries to modernize these institutions including the replacement of senior appointees in the judiciary and the Mutaween (religious police) with more moderate individuals and the appointment of the country’s first female deputy minister.

… Although male-only municipal elections were held on 29 September 2011 Abdullah announced that women will be able to vote and be elected in the 2015 municipal elections, and also to be nominated to the Shura Council.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:05 am
Quite a host of characters she’s been coming in contact with;

http://twitchy.com/2013/08/03/the-rent-is-too-damn-high-guy-wore-gloves-to-do-what-to-s-e-cupp/
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:06 am
I assume Abdullah isn’t doing that just because he’s a secret feminist. I imagine there are societal forces pushing him in that direction.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:07 am
He’s certainly more moderate then the late Prince Nayef, or his brother the former King.
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:17 am
#31, elissa, it isn’t only leftist opportunists that’re knee-jerk quick to throw the gender card in the face of political opponents. Recall the GOP’s Ed Gillespie and his snide attack on Conservatives opposed to the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. He said Conservatives were afraid of strong women.

I expect that sort of cheap shot from leftists, but I’m not about to put up with it from a Republican Party big shot. Ed Gillespie’s gratuitous insult forfeit the opportunity for him to be heard on any topic. He’s dead to me, If I see his face on TV, I change the channel.
ropelight (a55e1f) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:32 am
UPDATE: Yes, of course I proofread the piece. I just decided to stop after the first word.
Patterico (9c670f) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:36 am
“I can’t imagine why this story might strike a chord with our host, Leviticus. Nope, can’t come up with one reason.”

– JD

Ack.
Leviticus (c4ea61) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:39 am
“I assume Abdullah isn’t doing that just because he’s a secret feminist. I imagine there are societal forces pushing him in that direction.”

Former Conservative – You have amazing insights. Do you have a newsletter to which I can subscribe?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:58 am
Huma will be the Muslim in president Hillary’s
cabinet. Homeland Security honcho would be nice.
Hoss (e39c87) — 8/3/2013 @ 12:29 pm
Hoss, Hillary will never be elected President.
SPQR (768505) — 8/3/2013 @ 12:43 pm
I think the main strikes against Hillary are her age and health. People like vigor in a leader. It’s instinctive.
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 12:50 pm
I think the main strikes against Hillary are her policy ideals, her performance in office, and her temperment.
JD (b63a52) — 8/3/2013 @ 1:00 pm
I think the main strikes against Hillary are her dishonesty and that her reputation has always exceeded her performance.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 8/3/2013 @ 1:22 pm
At this point, what difference does it make? The ads write themselves.
JD (b63a52) — 8/3/2013 @ 1:35 pm
I think the main strikes against Hillary are her incompetence, her ineptitude and her goddam phony Deep South black ChurchLadyisms.
Colonel Haiku (f6fd19) — 8/3/2013 @ 1:53 pm
People Magazine should have some self respect but do they;

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/03/iranian-leader-hey-i-was-misquoted-on-that-isreal-is-a-wound-on-the-world-thing-okay/
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 2:18 pm
Why do you care so much about this, Patterico?

I think you now remember, but in case anyone has forgotten:

You need to stop digging into Genette Cordova and Rep. AW. I cannot insure your safety if you continue.
Do not trust anyone.

Please think about your family. This story is not worth it. I can assure you that.

Please remember, your safety cannot be assured if you continue.

I am trying to help you, a lot of people are very disappointed that this story has continued.

You can continue with the story if you so desire, but your safety cannot be assured.

Thank you for your cooperation and your understanding.

Yours Truly- Alicia

— Alicia Pain, June 23, 2011.

One week later I was SWATted.
Patterico (9c670f) — 8/3/2013 @ 2:22 pm
Anthony Weiner made TWO payments to a “protective services” company that supposedly was part of the effort to investigate the hacking of Weiner that never happened.

One payment was in September 2011 and another was made in December 2011. The latter payment was substantial, in the tens of thousands, as I recall.

If all the work was done in June 2011, why wasn’t it all paid in September 2011?

Meanwhile, Neal Rauhauser and OccupyRebellion (now tweeting as @MissAnonNews) have hinted that they worked for Weiner and had contact with Weiner, including a “conference call.”

Make of it what you will. But it certainly does make me interested in seeing that as many possible see, with utter clarity, any lies that he has told in relation to all this.
Patterico (9c670f) — 8/3/2013 @ 2:25 pm
I think the main strike against Hillary is that she’s a Former Conservative.
(She was a Goldwater Girl in ’64.)
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 8/3/2013 @ 2:34 pm
Park Ridge girl, growing up. Her “southern” connection is Maine South. It may have had a black janitor when she was there but more likely not.
nk (875f57) — 8/3/2013 @ 2:53 pm
I think the main strike against Hillary is the flock that worships her. The Hate America first turds.
mg (31009b) — 8/3/2013 @ 3:05 pm
If we actually had any honorable law enforcement in this nation, they would have subpoenaed the financial records and traced those dollars to see if any went to SWATing suspects.
SPQR (768505) — 8/3/2013 @ 3:20 pm
Anthony Weiner made TWO payments to a “protective services” company that supposedly was part of the effort to investigate the hacking of Weiner that never happened.

Since any money raised for that would have been fraudulent, does he have a legal obligation to compensate his campaign from his own funds?
Former Conservative (6e026c) — 8/3/2013 @ 4:21 pm
So what do you think would happen if Carlos Danger took this 16 question self-quiz to determine if he might could be a sociopath?

http://www.businessinsider.com/questions-that-diagnose-whether-youre-a-sociopath-2013-7#1-are-you-superficially-charming-and-intelligent-1
elissa (043e61) — 8/3/2013 @ 5:25 pm
The question, People needs to ask, is why should we believe you now?
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 5:44 pm
In general, do online sex addictions tend to cross over into real-life sex addictions, or do most keep their online sex lives separate from their real lives? And what about pornography — is that a separate addiction or can they be related?
DRJ (a83b8b) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:21 pm
I think the main strike against Hillary is that she’s a Former Conservative. (She was a Goldwater Girl in ’64.)

I recall someone in this forum claiming awhile back that Barry Goldwater had always been rather libertarian/liberal, even back in his younger years, particularly during the 1960s. The implication was that left-leaning inclinations in a major figurehead of conservative history were therefore a good thing. That so piqued my curiosity that I did some scrutiny of his actual history (his actual words and statements). I then realized such a claim about Goldwater’s past biases was very inaccurate.

Regardless, to have been a liberal over 40 or 60, or 70, years ago is one thing. To be a liberal in the context of today is a whole different matter.

Similarly, to be a liberal when one is rather young (eg, in a person’s teenage or college years) is one thing. To still be a liberal after one is well into or past his or her middle-age years is a whole different matter.

Huma is 37 years old, so she’s entering a cut-off point, while Anthony is 48 years old, and consequently truly a case of stunted maturity. (BTW, Obama is 51 years old)
Mark (938403) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:38 pm
She rather quickly became a follower of Carl Oglesby, the SDS leader, and future Kennedy assasination conspiracist (one seems to go with the other)
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:40 pm
Barry Goldwater was a near perfect conservative–and a patriot with libertarian leanings as befitted someone who grew up free in the open spaces of the west. He’d have made a fantastic president and in his later years he was known as a statesman and was respected by many of those who had earlier vilified him as being too “extreme”.
elissa (5ca337) — 8/3/2013 @ 6:57 pm
This land of mistaken republicans could use a dose of old time Goldwater conservatism.
mg (31009b) — 8/3/2013 @ 7:04 pm
She is much more Alinsky’s girl, on whom she wrote her thesis, then any Goldwater connection.
narciso (3fec35) — 8/3/2013 @ 7:05 pm
I’ve not seen anything to indicate any improper behavior by Weiner before he married Huma. HAve there been any allegations?

So if he was OK before, what happened after they married?

Huma grew up in a very strict Muslim household in Saudi Arabia from about age 2 to 18. Her mother is very much into Sharia law. Could Huma have been circumcised? That is, vagina sewn up, clitoris and labia removed and so on.

Perhaps Weiner did not know what he was getting into when the married. Perhaps he saw her lady parts for the first time on their wedding night and freaked out.

It certainly might explain his behavior.

John Henry
John Henry (415bfb) — 8/3/2013 @ 8:55 pm
That would be around September 2, 2012.

In graf 2, wouldn’t that be July….?
Patricia (be0117) — 8/3/2013 @ 9:51 pm
Actually I was the one arguing Goldwater wasn’t very consistently conservative. He was however an astute politician.

For instance he was pro-abortion for decades prior to the 1964 presidential election. This is evidenced by lifelong support for Planned Parenthood (they give out an award named after him). His wife was a founding member of PP in Arizona in the 1930s, and he supported her in her work. In the 1950s he helped his daughter to obtain an illegal abortion. These were not views he could openly express and remain a viable Republican candidate. Fortunately for him at the time he didn’t have to.

http://www.phoenixmag.com/lifestyle/history/200912/goldwater-s-choice/

But he had to appear to be opposed to abortion to win his 1980 Senate race. He wrote in his memoirs that he had grown complacent since he had won in a walk in 1974, before Roe v. Wade had galvanized the pro-life side, and in fact he was weighing not running for reelection at all. When he finally decided he would run, he entered the race late and without much of a statewide organization. His opponent was much better organized and very well financed. Goldwater needed to catch up quickly so he signed a pledge to support legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade. Consequently he won by a narrow margin, less than 10,000 votes. The margin was provided by “religious conservative” votes and, perhaps even more importantly, by the well organized statewide pro-life political organizations that he desperately needed to coopt.

He later reneged on his pledge because he didn’t plan on running again, and in reality he had always been pro-abortion.

Wikipedia glosses over the facts of this episode in his career in this passage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

In his 1980 Senate reelection campaign, Goldwater won support from religious conservatives but in his final term voted consistently to uphold legalized abortion and, in 1981, gave a speech on how he was angry about the bullying of American politicians by religious organizations, and would “fight them every step of the way.”

Later in life he was widely perceived to have taken a left turn (which is the title of this WaPo article).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm

He hadn’t. He was just more open about what he really thought because he wasn’t constrained by politics. He himself believed he remained the one true conservative, and he says so throughout the article. But you can see from the article he wasn’t consistently conservative at all.

For instance there’s his stance on gay rights:

At 85, after a life in politics spanning five decades (he retired from the Senate in 1987), Mr. Conservative has found himself an unlikely new career: as a gay rights activist. While that’s not his sole pursuit – he returned to Capitol Hill yesterday to testify in favor of scenic overflights of the Grand Canyon – in recent years he’s championed homosexuals serving in the military and has worked locally to stop businesses in Phoenix from hiring on the basis of sexual orientation. This month he signed on as honorary co-chairman of a drive to pass a federal law preventing job discrimination against homosexuals. The effort, dubbed Americans Against Discrimination, is being spearheaded by the Human Rights Campaign Fund, the influential gay lobbying organization.

Then there’s his stance on opening the Citadel to women:

On Shannon Faulkner, the young woman who recently won a court decision to enter the corps of cadets at the previously all-male Citadel military academy: “It’s a state-financed and state-run institute, and there’s no way you can say no to women. Now, if it were privately run with private money, they could tell women to go to hell.”

So which is it? Is it illegal for private enterprises to discriminate or not? You can’t very well say that a private organization run with private money can “tell women to go to hell” but that private organizations run with private money can’t refuse to hire gays.

If you look at his policy positions during his entire career you can see these inconsistencies throughout. Which are not trivial. It’s not small government conservatism nor is it libertarian to demand laws that create the large regulatory bureaucracy required to force private employers to employ people as Barry Goldwater saw fit. And not to follow their own conscience. After all, homosexuality was still illegal back when he was pushing for this. And there is such a thing as a First Amendment which guarantees freedom of religion.

But then Barry Goldwater telegraphed his support for a intrusive federal regulatory bureaucracy when he threw his support behind Nixon and backed the creation of the EPA. Which has to be one of the biggest economy killers of all time. There’s simply no way to reconcile a claimed belief in the free market, which Goldwater said he believed in, and support for the EPA.

One might argue that Goldwater couldn’t have known what a devastating effect the EPA would grow to have. One might argue that, but one would be wrong. This is especially true for a died-in-the-wool opponent of the New Deal, which Goldwater was supposed to have been. There were certainly prominent people who could have explained it to him, such as Milton Friedman. Goldwater certainly knew Friedman, since Friedman had been his economic adviser in 1964.

Despite his vaunted conservatism and his libertarianism, in many ways he’s responsible for the out of control bureaucracy we have today. When read his comments about how government needs to stay out of people’s lives, the question I always have to, “which people?” Because there was always a large group of people he definitely didn’t mind the government regulating in favor of leaving other people alone.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:02 pm
==Despite his vaunted conservatism and his libertarianism, in many ways he’s responsible for the out of control bureaucracy we have today. ==

Oh good allah.
elissa (5ca337) — 8/3/2013 @ 10:18 pm
elissa, the fact is he wasn’t at all consistent.

He opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on federalist grounds, endorsed a federal law prohibiting private employers from job discrimination against gays, but also said that private military academies could discriminate against women and refuse to admit them. “[T]ell women to go to hell,” were the words he used.

You can not square his first position with the second. They’re polar opposites. You certainly can’t square his second with his third, and he held them both at the same time!

Yet he thought all three of those positions were entirely consistent with his conservative principles. Yet as far as I can tell he never explained how.

Can you explain how those three policy positions are in any way consistent with a conservative or libertarian principle?

And yes, I can point policy positions where he advocated (and sometimes voted) to expand government regulatory authority over the private sector which I can’t at all explain by his opposition to the New Deal. Not in theory. And certainly not based on his experience dealing with FDR. How could he not know where the government was going to go?

I certainly can’t explain his EPA vote if Milton Friedman had any influence on him. As one would expect, since Goldwater chose Friedman as his economic adviser for his 1964 run. Here’s Friedman on public policy toward pollution control:

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060423-5.htm

Rather than direct regulation, Friedman has advocated graduated charges for pollution thus creating a market incentive to clean up the air and water. He has talked about selling the right to emit a certain amount of pollutants into the air thereby establishing a market in effluent rights.

Yet Goldwater opted in 1969 to support the direct regulatory approach of Richard Nixon as opposed to a market-based approach.

Again, explain how that is consistent with Goldwater’s stated position that he favored maximum individual liberty consistent with public order? If he did, he would have clearly had to choose Friedman’s market-based approach. Not the regulatory approach entirely inconsistent with maximum individual liberty.

We are living with the effects of Goldwater’s decision today. You can not tell me the EPA that was created with his enthusiastic support is maximizing individual liberty.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:32 pm
John Henry swung his hammer . . . and drove a steel spike right through his own head.
Icy (7e41ef) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:38 pm
More on Goldwater vs. Friedman on the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

I feel very definitely that the [Nixon] administration is absolutely correct in cracking down on companies and corporations and municipalities that continue to pollute the nation’s air and water. While I am a great believer in the free competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment. To this end, it is my belief that when pollution is found, it should be halted at the source, even if this requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy.[50]

Not much of a free marketeer or private property advocate it seems to me. And this was only 5 years after his 1964 campaign when he claimed to be both.

Friedman on why it never requires stringent government action against important segments of our national economy to achieve those very same results.

http://www.colorado.edu/studentgroups/libertarians/issues/friedman-soc-resp-business.html

The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits
by Milton Friedman

The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970. Copyright @ 1970 by The New York Times Company.

When I hear businessmen speak eloquently about the “social responsibilities of business in a free-enterprise system,” I am reminded of the wonderful line about the Frenchman who discovered at the age of 70 that he had been speaking prose all his life. The businessmen believe that they are defending free enterprise when they declaim that business is not concerned “merely” with profit but also with promoting desirable “social” ends; that business has a “social conscience” and takes seriously its responsibilities for providing employment, eliminating discrimination, avoiding pollution and whatever else may be the catchwords of the contemporary crop of reformers. In fact they are–or would be if they or anyone else took them seriously–preaching pure and unadulterated socialism. Businessmen who talk this way are unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.

Those intellectual forces were those such as the “brain trust” behind the New Deal. Which Goldwater opposed, yet here he is aligning himself with them?

The shortsightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.

Goldwater was just such a shortsighted individual in this case. When he threw his support behind Nixon’s EPA he aligned, again with the forces that saw the pursuit of profit as immoral, and that “important segments of our national economy” had to be curbed by government bureaucrats.

Again, as I said earlier, it seems Goldwater should have understood that fact. And exactly where the government would go with the iron-fisted authority Goldwater advocated giving the EPA. Which is exactly where we are now.

There’s far more on this from Friedman at the link.

Then there’s this on Friedman’s economic approach to solving environmental and other issues concerning the national forests.

http://perc.org/articles/friedmans-legacy-freedom-and-environment

Friedman’s Legacy for Freedom and the Environment

The fact of the matter is, as far as I can see Goldwater fathered a movement back in the early ’60s but his idiosyncratic nature meant he never really acted consistently with the stated principles of his own philosophy that founded it.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/3/2013 @ 11:58 pm
Sen. Jeff Sessions on the out-of-control EPA, in particular how the EPA is abusing the Clean Air Act to intrude into and regulate every American’s life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbwSiyMLD8w

In addition to be instrumental in helping create the EPA, Barry Goldwater co-sponsored the Clean Air Act that’s led to this.

To be fair, within a few short years Goldwater himself said the EPA was out of control. And in fact he admitted that if was up to him he’d get rid of the EPA.

But it wasn’t up to him. It was his Frankenstein. It’s still with us.

And this isn’t a case of 20-20 hindsight. Friedman was in fact was advocating at the time against the impulses that created the EPA for the same reasons Goldwater later regretted it.

Goldwater himself should have known better without even talking to Friedman. If he really understood his own conservative/libertarian principles.

Which is why I take the position he was an inconsistent conservative. He could articulate those conservative/libertarian principles. Then ignore them and act completely opposite them, to his later regret.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/4/2013 @ 12:28 am
Steve57, I think I’m going to be sick!!!
mg (31009b) — 8/4/2013 @ 2:01 am
And to think I thought the Daisy advertisement brought him down.
mg (31009b) — 8/4/2013 @ 2:48 am
Actually I was the one arguing Goldwater wasn’t very consistently conservative.

Steve57, I’m quite sure you weren’t the one who I was thinking of that posted something here that prompted me to take a closer look at Goldwater’s attitudes and ideology back in the 1960s. It was another person who I recall as noting that Goldwater wasn’t actually as conservative as he was made out to be — mainly as perceived by his biggest supporters — particularly when he was running for the presidency.

Unlike your characterization — and disapproval of his left-leaning tilt — the other person thought that Goldwater’s liberal sentiments (certainly regarding social matters, and as supposedly stated in the 1960s) was a good thing. Regardless and in actuality, Goldwater’s comments in the 1960s were fairly traditional, sensible and conservative. If anything, they’re more relevant today — when dysfunction (eg, percentage of single mothers, broken homes, negative impact on children, nihilistic behavior, etc) is more extreme — than in the past.
Mark (938403) — 8/4/2013 @ 6:50 am
Which is why I take the position he was an inconsistent conservative.

He’s a good example of why I often point out that there are liberal impulses in perhaps every human out there, always lurking in the background, ready to spring out at the last second like a bratty kid anxious to throw a tantrum. That’s why the following quote often strikes a chord with me:

“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves…”
Mark (938403) — 8/4/2013 @ 6:55 am
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and that’s putting it mildly. I don’t know enough about Goldwater to be a fan. I do know that I would be more distrustful of a rigid, monolithic political point of view than I would be of a multi-faceted one. No Little Red Book, thank you.
nk (875f57) — 8/4/2013 @ 7:15 am
Except his criticisms of the Moral Majority, just happened to dovetail with Norman Lear and the Christian left, that’s coincidental.
narciso (3fec35) — 8/4/2013 @ 7:17 am
Wasn’t that blamed on his new girlfriend (wife?). Should you place more credence to that accusation than the accusation that Reagan was brought over from the left by Nancy’s father?
nk (875f57) — 8/4/2013 @ 7:21 am
Oh, I see by the volume that Steve57 got himself all worked up last night. Steve is entitled to his own opinion on Barry Goldwater’s life and legacy. How I wish Steve could graciously accept that others who either lived through the time or studied history may have different, equally valid and firmly held views and opinions about the man and what he represents.

Mr. Goldwater ran for president in the first election post Kennedy assassination, which also was at the height of the cold war and during the VietNam buildup. It was a particularly and uniquely dysfunctional time in American society and world history.

Barry Goldwater as a westerner and establishment outsider was also the first 20th century politician to clearly articulate to the general public broad conservative principles through his writings and speeches. He was first to suggest that there was a whole conservative movement within the Republican party that could, and needed, to emerge and flower. The eastern R. establishment hated him because it was threatened by him. He was mischaracterized and vilified and misquoted in the press in much the same way that was more recently done from both sides to another conservative “outsider”, Sarah Palin. But Goldwater had much stronger credentials to lead than she.

Barry Goldwater’s candidacy fell but it spawned the Reagan revolution, and Reagan’s nationally televised “A time for choosing” speech in support of Goldwater is one of the four or five most true and inspirational speeches in American history as far as I’m concerned. The speech and the issues it addressed are as relevant today as back in 1964.

He was human and complex and prickly. But throughout a long career Barry Goldwater was, especially for a politician, an unusually honest and honorable man. He changed with the times and met the circumstances which he was presented with. When he made what he later considered to have been mistakes he actually was big enough to admit them. I struggle to understand what benefit accrues to the modern conservative movement by trying to tear down or minimize the importance of one of its few actual heroes.
elissa (d7d7a0) — 8/4/2013 @ 8:13 am
Hillary Clinton’s right hand lil hoochie is kind of a trashy low rent social climber what tells lots and lots of lies when it suits her.

And, yes, Hillary Clinton could get a more better hoochie, but then her right hand lil hoochie wouldn’t have near as much in common with her.

This is a conundrum.

My advice to Hillary Clinton would be to stick it out with Huma because there’s no reason the media can’t smooth this out given enough time, and it’s important to show that you’re loyal to your hoochies when you’re putting a campaign together.

She can always throw Huma under the bus later, and – who knows, New Yorkers being cowardly slackjawed neo-fascist momo children what like to be told what to do, there’s a good chance still that Anthony Weiner could be the next mayor.

And mayors are useful tools.
happyfeet (8ce051) — 8/4/2013 @ 9:30 am
Wasn’t that blamed on his new girlfriend (wife?).

When surfing through some information on Goldwater awhile back (when my curiosity about him was first triggered by one of the threads in this blog), I did come across some assumptions that his second wife (who he married in 1992) did, naturally, have been some influence on his politics and opinions.

Beyond that, people generally move from left to right as they grow older — and presumably shed some of the naivete, unrealistic idealism and foolishness of their youth — so to see the reverse of that occur in a person isn’t exactly all that reassuring or laudable. Also, to gravitate towards the left in the context of the time around Goldwater’s death (the late 1990s) means the former senator was becoming snagged by a level of liberalism that can be judged as quite high by the standards of the 1960s or 1950s (eg, when Hollywood, no less, strongly frowned upon a famous actress for having a child out of wedlock), and before.
Mark (938403) — 8/4/2013 @ 9:31 am
Well said, elissa. And I voted for Goldwater in 1964. He became pretty much a liberal after he married his younger wife. Perhaps just trying to make her happy?
PatAZ (fc79af) — 8/4/2013 @ 9:31 am
I think it’s safe to say Weiner won’t be packing Huma’s puff piece for the foreseeable future…
Colonel Haiku (0abfb2) — 8/4/2013 @ 9:36 am
anthony weiner
heh mos def no smoked sausage
in that guy’s future
Colonel Haiku (0abfb2) — 8/4/2013 @ 9:38 am
“quit isn’t the way we roll in New Yawk City. We wag and then we roll”

– Carlos Dangler Nine Elevening his penis
Colonel Haiku (0abfb2) — 8/4/2013 @ 9:40 am
91. Oh, I see by the volume that Steve57 got himself all worked up last night.

Not really. I still had stuff bookmarked from the last time we went through this.

Steve is entitled to his own opinion on Barry Goldwater’s life and legacy. How I wish Steve could graciously accept that others who either lived through the time or studied history may have different, equally valid and firmly held views and opinions about the man and what he represents.

I do respect that. But the point I’m making is that it’s precisely because Goldwater was so idiosyncratic that everybody across the political spectrum claim his legacy. Everyone from leftist progressives like Obama to George Bush and the big government “compassionate” conservatives to libertarians like Rand Paul to traditional conservatives like Ted Cruz can and do claim to be Goldwater conservatives. And not without reason. Barry Goldwater did give them the ammunition.

This isn’t a question of whose opinion is more valid. It’s a matter of dealing with that reality.

I struggle to understand what benefit accrues to the modern conservative movement by trying to tear down or minimize the importance of one of its few actual heroes.

Comment by elissa (d7d7a0) — 8/4/2013 @ 8:13 am

The point isn’t to tear down Goldwater but rather to learn from his mistakes. He was right of course in his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and he understood why that law was wrong. He had apparently supported local civil rights laws before entering the Senate and grown to understand that such laws were simply the other side of the coin of Jim Crow. Government bureaucrats in charge of determining racial outcomes. He understood then that without the iron fist of government Jim Crow laws the market itself would eliminate discrimination. But then he essentially destroyed that position when he co-chaired an effort to push for federal anti-discrimination laws for gays.

I really do think Friedman nailed it, although he didn’t spell out the larger point he was making:

The shortsightedness is also exemplified in speeches by businessmen on social responsibility. This may gain them kudos in the short run. But it helps to strengthen the already too prevalent view that the pursuit of profits is wicked and immoral and must be curbed and controlled by external forces. Once this view is adopted, the external forces that curb the market will not be the social consciences, however highly developed, of the pontificating executives; it will be the iron fist of Government bureaucrats. Here, as with price and wage controls, businessmen seem to me to reveal a suicidal impulse.

It isn’t just businessmen who seem to have a suicidal impulse. It’s also politicians who purport to advocate the free market who abandon those principles for short term kudos. Goldwater’s statements about why he supported the EPA aren’t really different than George Bush’s various statements about why he advocated big government. For instance:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/12/bush_sorry_i_trashed_the_free.html

“I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the ~~free-market system~~X,” ~~Bush~~Y told CNN television, saying he had made the decision “to make sure the ~~economy~~X doesn’t collapse.”

~~Bush~~Y‘s comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire ~~financial~~X crisis.

There’s no way to use simple word substitution to reflect the difference between a Senator’s office and a President’s administration, but if you insert “environment” wherever you see “X” and “Goldwater” where you see “Y” you have Goldwater’s position on Nixon’s EPA.

In fact liberals have picked up on the similarity between Bush’s catchphrase “compassionate conservatism” and the title of Goldwater’s book “The Conscience of a Conservative.” When conservatives refuse to abandon their principles, as both Goldwater and Bush did, they accuse conservatives of lacking both compassion and a conscience.

The fact is that Goldwater made the problem of reining in out of control government harder. I can well imagine the Obama quoting Goldwater on his views of religion, as well as noting his lifelong support for Planned Parenthood, to support his push for the employer mandate. And you know what? It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch.

Actually I wouldn’t be surprised to find Justice Kennedy using Goldwater quotes to defend his DOMA decision, in which he ruled that the proponents of DOMA could only have been motivated by an irrational impulse to “injure” gays, as essentially conservative. And again, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch. Goldwater did provide such quotes particularly when talking about the religious right.

My point isn’t to tear down a beloved icon. My point is that one of the obstacles we have to face when pushing back against Obama, the progressive left, and the establishment GOP in the future is Mr. Conservative himself. That isn’t an opinion. It’s a fact.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/4/2013 @ 12:20 pm
elissa, I suggest you follow this link to see why I’m making this point.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/83437920/Today-s-GOP-vs-Barry-Goldwater-on-Energy-and-the-Environment

In addition to the article on “Today’s GOP vs. Barry Goldwater on Energy and the Environment” at the bottom of the page you’ll find links to:

– Today’s GOP vs. Barry Goldwater on Taxes
– Today’s GOP vs. Barry Goldwater on Gay Rights
– Today’s GOP vs. Barry Goldwater on Gun Control & Second Amendment Rights
– The GOP is Out of Touch With Conservatism
– Today’s GOP vs. Barry Goldwater on Social Security

To advocate for the vision of the Barry Goldwater of 1964, one of the people we’re going to have to fight is Barry Goldwater.

And I like you admire the Barry Goldwater of 1964.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/4/2013 @ 12:40 pm
84. Steve57, I think I’m going to be sick!!!

Comment by mg (31009b) — 8/4/2013 @ 2:01 am

If you think I’m making you sick, wait until “Goldwater Girl” Hillary! gets the nomination and claims to be a traditional conservative.

Like Obama claims to be another Reagan except 10 times worse.

I’m only talking about Goldwater because I’m looking ahead, not in the rearview mirror.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/4/2013 @ 1:17 pm
77. Patterico: 77.That would be around September 2, 2012.

Comment by Patricia (be0117) — 8/3/2013 @ 9:51 pm

In graf 2, wouldn’t that be July….?

Since this was first uploaded to the New York Post website at 2:06 AM on August 1, 2013 and
is actually a report of what is in People Magazine

Friends and family told People magazine….a friend, Rory Tahari, told the magazine.

12 months ago probably means July, 2012, and when he told Huma becomes August 2012. Almost a year.

The chronology is probabkly designed to imply, if not outright state, that this started AFTER the FIRST PEOPLE MAGAZINE STORY, and that it didn’t last very long.

This contradicts what Sydney Lethers says, but Weiner and company may reason she may not be able to prove it, or people don’t know, or he can say it “basically” ended in August.

Notice that in the second People magazine story, a year later, Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin are not themselves sources.

If any contradictions are discovered this can be attributed to the fact it is hearsay – people get things wrong – and of course they were not around to be asked any inconvenient questions by anyione working for People Magazine.
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 8/4/2013 @ 1:38 pm
Anthony Weiner gave an interview to the New York Daily News last Monday.

It seems like after it was published, somebody called up to correct the transcript, because one weasel word was left out.

The article now says

In an interview with Anthony Weiner in Tuesday’s paper, a question posed to the mayoral candidate and his answer were transcribed incorrectly. A question about sexting should have ended with: “There’s been nothing else?” Weiner’s answer was: “I mean, oh yeah, all that stuff is behind me. You can quibble about beginnings, middles and ends, but it was basically a year ago.”

Asoriginally published, the word basically was left out!

It’s quoited without the word basically in comments 6 and 33 here too:

https://patterico.com/2013/07/30/weiner-dodges-question-on-whether-he-is-still-sexting/
Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42) — 8/4/2013 @ 1:44 pm
Apparently they’ve developed a therapy in the Dominican Republic that would cure Anthony Weiner of his penchant for tweeting pics of his junk forever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/02/geraldo-ramos-passes-out-drunk-wakes-up-no-penis_n_3697194.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Maybe Huma should send him down to try it out.

Better yet, maybe she should accompany him just to make sure he’s not hanging out at Bob Menendez’s place instead of seeing the doc.
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/4/2013 @ 11:15 pm
Thing I learned today. A new meaning for “playing the banjo”. http://www.tmz.com/2013/08/05/anthony-weiner-sydney-leathers-sexting-porn-vivid-masturbation-video/ May not be SFW as you can guess.
nk (875f57) — 8/5/2013 @ 6:38 pm
What could be more repulsive than a masturbation video involving either Weiner or Leathers? Except one involving both (some questions answer themselves).

If you lost a bet that required you to gouge your eyes out I could understand viewing it for motivation. Other than that…
Steve57 (a65996) — 8/5/2013 @ 7:48 pm

8/2/2013

Huma Puff Piece in New York Post Actually Very Damning

105 Responses to “Huma Puff Piece in New York Post Actually Very Damning”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out