Weiner has made it harder for the left to be credible attack dogs

The New Neo Posted on by

I wrote earlier today that many people are angry at Weiner because they look like fools for having defended him.

In the comments section at Salon, I found a perfect example of the sort of rage I’m talking about. The anger it expresses is based not just on personal embarrassment at having been duped and betrayed by Weiner’s lies, but on the idea that the whole thing undermines future attacks on the nefarious likes of Breitbart, et al:

the little prick [Weiner] :

made brietbart look good

made all the people who defended this pig look bad

and anyone who defends him can no longer speak about the lies bush jr told

all to save his ass from being humiliated by what he had done.

[NOTE: The comment was made in response to this article by Steve Kornacki, which dug up an incident from the beginning of Weiner’s political career, in which he won his first Democratic primary with a campaign against his opponents that Kornacki says appealed to racism. It’s an interesting “now it can be told” story, since Weiner has become damaged goods. It also reminds me—not in the charges of racism, but in the fact that Weiner may have been a ruthless bastard from the start—of another story you don’t hear much about, involving Obama’s political beginnings: his knocking previous mentor Alice Palmer and the other candidates off the ballot in his first Democratic primary.]

[ADDENDUM: And this, of course, was inevitable: the naked truth is out. Personally, I decided not to click on the photolinks there (which I haven’t posted here; my link is to an article about the photos rather than the photos themselves). I like to retain a little mystery; I’ve already had WAY too much information about Weiner². I’ve decide to call it that rather than Weinergate because, let’s face it, it’s about Weiner’s weiner.]

Here’s a little something for all you guys

The New Neo Posted on by

Don’t say I never do anything for you.

It’s the 2011 “20 hottest conservative women in the new media” contest winners.

I’m busy contemplating why I didn’t make the cut. Could it be that the judges consider apples in front of the face to be some sort of drawback? How small-minded of them! Or is the entire enterprise a heinously ageist and discriminatory plot?

Weiner learns that few people know you when you’re down and out

The New Neo Posted on by

Have you noticed how few Democrats are standing by their man Anthony Weiner? The NY Times has noticed.

Weiner may have calculated, from observing the loyalty most Democrats showed Bill Clinton during his impeachment crisis, that he would likewise retain allies. But in this regard—as in so many others—Weiner may have miscalculated. Being a New York Congressman from the 9th District is not quite the same as being president.

And then there’s the little matter of personal popularity. Weiner may have overestimated his:

Expressions of support from Democrats, many of whom have long grumbled about Mr. Weiner’s chest-thumping, go-it-alone style, were conspicuously scant.

Making others look like fools and dupes for defending you doesn’t usually enhance your standing in their eyes, either. It’s not just Weiner’s wife whom he betrayed; it’s everyone else whom he allowed to stick up for him while he lied through his teeth.

In a delicate irony, some of the angriest may be those who’ve already been there—on the perp side:

One of Mr. Weiner’s most emotional apologies was delivered to former President Bill Clinton, who officiated at his wedding in July and is extremely close with the congressman’s wife, Huma Abedin, an aide to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The Clintons are deeply unhappy about the situation and with Mr. Weiner, people who had been told of their thinking said. Mr. Clinton declined to comment.

And then there’s this video, where Joan Walsh probably speaks for many when she says that in defending Weiner she looks “kind of stupid,” as well as Harry Reid’s tight-lipped refusal to help Weiner.

Weiner might start singing this song sometime soon:

Romney ties Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

For the moment, anyway.

What’s more:

Among all Americans, Obama and Romney are knotted at 47 percent each, and among registered voters, the former governor is numerically ahead, 49 percent to 46 percent.

Unlike Romney, the other official Republican candidates trail Obama. It’s early, of course; the campaign is barely out of the starting gate.

But the news from the poll was especially bad for Palin:

Almost two-thirds of all Americans say they “definitely would not” vote for Palin for president. She is predictably unpopular with Democrats and most independents, but the new survey underscores the hurdles she would face if she became a candidate: 42 percent of Republicans say they’ve ruled out supporting her candidacy…In head-to-head matchups with Obama, Palin trails by 17 percentage points, the worst of the six possible candidates tested.

Romney, on the other hand, does pretty well with independents—50 percent to Obama’s 43 percent.

Breitbart keeps a little something behind, just in case: sex scandals then and now

The New Neo Posted on by

Apparently, Andrew Breitbart held a little something in abeyance in Weinergate, just in case he might need it. I watched Breitbart on the Hannity show last night, and he made it fairly clear what that “something else” is: a nude photo of Weiner at the ready, as it were. Breitbart also made it clear that he doesn’t intend to release the picture unless Weiner and his forces try to smear any of the women involved, or Breitbart itself.

It occurs to me that this may mark the first time that a salacious photo has been used to blackmail a public figure into not blackmailing others. It also occurs to me that Weiner’s behavior makes Bill Clinton’s look sedate, and makes Mark Sanford seem like a real family guy.

The fact that the Weiner crotch photos, sent to strangers, could have been used in any number of ways to blackmail him never seems to have occurred to the sender. Or perhaps he thought there was no jam he couldn’t wriggle out of. It puzzles me that he thought this behavior would never come back to bite him, even if it had never done so before.

When adolescent girls send nude photos to the boys in their cohort, they may not think of the consequences. But they are practically kids. What’s Weiner’s excuse? His failure is not only of morality and prudence, it’s of intelligence.

The whole thing makes me nostalgic for the days of the old-fashioned sex scandal. Wilbur Mills and Fanne Foxe come to mind, a story in which the motivations of the main players are at least comprehensible. We had a very powerful older guy and a sexy young Argentinian stripper (what’s up with these Argentinians? I guess I need to ask Sanford). The older guy was an alcoholic, and he ultimately dried out and spent the rest of his days speaking up about alcoholism and its consequences.

To refresh your memory:

Mills [Arkansas Democrat and long-time House Ways and Means Committee chairman] was involved in a traffic incident in Washington, DC at 2 a.m. on October 9, 1974. His car was stopped by U.S. Park Police late at night because the driver had not turned on the lights. Mills was intoxicated, and his face was injured from a scuffle with Annabelle Battistella, better known as Fanne Foxe, a stripper from Argentina. When police approached the car, Foxe leapt from the car and jumped into the nearby Tidal Basin in an attempt to escape…

Despite the scandal, Mills was re-elected to Congress in November 1974 in a heavily Democratic year with nearly 60% of the vote…On November 30, 1974, Mills, seemingly drunk, was accompanied by Fanne Foxe’s husband onstage at The Pilgrim Theatre in Boston, a burlesque house where Foxe was performing. He held a press conference from Foxe’s dressing room. Soon after this second public incident, Mills stepped down from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged his alcoholism, joined Alcoholics Anonymous, and checked himself into Palm Beach Institute at West Palm Beach. He did not seek re-election in 1976, devoted his time to counseling individual alcoholics, and raising funds for alcoholic treatment centers, including one founded in his honor at Searcy, Arkansas, the Wilbur D. Mills Treatment Center for Alcohol and Drugs.

Note that Mills—like Weiner so far—did not resign. I guess resigning is just for Republicans.

[NOTE: It also occurs to me that Weinergate is the very model of a modern sex scandal in being primarily computer-driven.

The sex involved was cybersex. The offenses were publicized online, rather than by any news agency. And the story would have gotten lost but for the blogosphere’s pushing it.]

Weiner: Yep, I did it

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, I guess Weiner’s confession calls for some commentary on my part. So let me just say that:

—I still think the original offense[s] itself, although exceedingly smarmy, is a matter between Weiner and his wife (that is, assuming all of the women involved were consenting adults).

—Weiner’s denial was worse than his original offense[s]. As usual, it’s the coverup, stupid. And Weiner was very stupid indeed to not think this was going to come out eventually.

I feel bad for his wife, not even married a year! However, I have a feeling that Weiner may not even lose his seat, if no crimes are found to have been committed.

I also think that if, when this first hit the news, Weiner had confessed immediately, he would have defused much of the ruckus. Some statement to the tune of, “Yes, it was me, I was drunk when I sent it, I’m a sex addict, I’m going into treatment, I apologize to my wife and family whom I’ve hurt so badly, I will spend the rest of my life making this up to them, yada yada yada…” would have gone far. Yes, the right would have trashed him, but the whole thing would have remained in the realm of a guy thinking with the little head.

That is, unless there are worse acts in his past, things that would be even more important to cover up.

One thing that seems pretty clear is that it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. Here’s Weiner’s Wiki entry:

In July 2008, The New York Times printed a front page story on Weiner’s demanding treatment of his staffers. The piece reported that Weiner frequently resorted to verbally abusing his staffers when he believed they had failed to perform their duties adequately, in addition to physically abusing his office furniture when upset. As a result of Weiner’s demanding and intense nature, the Times reported that a “sizable number” of his staff members had resigned following “abbreviated stints.” According to Congressional data at the time, Weiner had “presided over more turnover than any other member of the New York House delegation in the last six years.” Additionally, at the time of the report, about half of Weiner’s staff had been his employee for less than a year and since early 2007, he had gone through three chiefs of staff.

Weiner was an accident waiting to happen. He’s been getting away with really lousy behavior for years, and not just in the sexual sphere. As I wrote about Strauss-Kahn before him, it seems as though the guy “has been spinning out of control for quite some time, and has only been emboldened (as perps often are) by the fact that he’s been getting away with it.”

[ADDENDUM: It occurs to me that, if Weiner had been a fat slob (not that there’s anything wrong with that), he might not be in this particular trouble today, because he wouldn’t have been quite as irresistibly tempted to send photos of his body to young women he barely knew. Pride goeth before a fall.

I didn’t watch the press conference, but Ed Driscoll points out a conspicuous absence: Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin. Perhaps her former boss Hillary Clinton, who sort of knows how it feels, is consoling her.]

[ADDENDUM II: Ann Althouse discovers that CNN is not the go-to station for this story.]

[ADDENDUM III: It will be an interesting parlor game to see how those who reviled Andrew Breitbart for leading this story (and even accused him of being the hacker) will deal with the revelation that he was right all along. Weiner himself offered Breitbart a tepid apology. But Charles Johnson isn’t eating any crow.]

The music you know

The New Neo Posted on by

Last night I was looking to order some music from iTunes to replace an old favorite in my archaic record library. Unfortunately, that particular recording was obscure enough that it hasn’t been reissued in an iTunes selection, or even on a regular CD or audiotape. It seems to have gone into the dustbin of history.

So now I have a choice. I can liberate my ancient records and dusty record player from storage, find a place to put them, and try to listen to them that way, scratches and all. I could even get one of those gizmos or software (for example, this) that converts records to MP3 player format and spend a ton of time driving my technically-challenged self nuts trying to do so.

Then there’s the most practical and sane approach: buy a new version of the same piece done by different artists, one that’s available in MP3 or CD format already. What stopped me? Listening to samples of those versions at the iTunes library and at YouTube.

It’s not that they were so bad. It’s just that they sounded terribly wrong to me, because my ear has become totally accustomed to the renditions I have already listened to so many times that I know every nuance, every pause, every inflection, every place the rhythm speeds up and every moment it slows down, every time the singer increases the volume to give emphasis or lowers it to a hush to convey solemnity.

Apparently that particular music in all its details has become embedded in my brain, so much so that, when I listen to previews of other versions, they almost always sound terrible to me. It might be the tempo, or the timbre of the voices, or the emotions conveyed, or any number of other things that keep shrieking “wrong, wrong, WRONG!” to me in a series of jarring surprises that register as shocks.

In the past, when I’ve ordered the new version anyway, I’ve sometimes gotten used to it over time. Once I even found I liked the new one better, after a suitable mourning period. But more often, absolutely not; I seem to lack an “override” button. I keep hearing the original in a ghostly accompaniment that follows along simultaneously with the new in my mind.

Here, by the way (and now you might think me completely mad), is the piece I was looking for last night, sung by people I’ve never heard of who do a credible job but are nothing whatsoever like my originals. I had originally bought my record—which featured the New York Pro Musica—in error, about forty years ago.

It was most decidedly not the sort of music I like. But the familiarity of repeated listenings bred not contempt, but something akin to love:

[NOTE: I did finally end up buying a new version at iTunes this morning. Aren’t I flexible?]

Historians: well, Palin was right but it was only an accident

The New Neo Posted on by

The right side of the blogosphere has been busy digging up evidence that Sarah Palin’s remarks on Paul Revere, for which her opponents had derided her in their usual manner, were actually correct (I did my little part here).

Now come the historians to say that yes, she was right (and not just as opposed to “left;” as opposed to “wrong”):

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ”˜Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing ”” she was right about that ”” and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.”

Patrick Leehey of the Paul Revere House said Revere was probably bluffing his British captors, but reluctantly conceded that it could be construed as Revere warning the British.

But all is not lost, at least as far as the left is concerned. Leehey added, “But I don’t know if that’s really what Mrs. Palin was referring to,” and McConville said that he would call her “lucky in her comments.”

In other words, her errors probably just happened by wild chance to reflect the details of the real Revere history.

It’s sort of the flip side of that old mantra of the left, where it doesn’t matter if someone they support happens to lie or be inaccurate, because it serves a greater truth. In this case, it doesn’t matter if Sarah is correct, because the greater truth is that she’s stupid. So, like a stopped clock that’s right twice a day, any sign of intelligence on her part must be a fluke.

And of course one can’t prove for sure that she knew what she was talking about. It’s certainly within the realm of possibility that she happened by chance to hit on a narrative (love that word!) of Revere that (a) runs counter to what most people believe to be the truth; and (b) is the truth. But how likely is that? Not very.

However, my prediction—and I think it’s a safe one—is that Sarah won’t be hearing any apologies from her mockers any time soon.

The case against John Edwards

The New Neo Posted on by

I never could see how anyone could support Edwards for president.

There was always something slick and smarmy about him, although I can’t say I had an inkling of just how slick and smarmy he really was. There was also nothing he offered politically that other candidates didn’t offer, and better. If I’d been a liberal Democrat I would never have voted for him in a primary.

When his private life was revealed as sleazy and dishonest, it seemed like the end of a sordid story. His career as a politician is effectively over. His mistress and the mother of his child has gone on Oprah to talk about their sex life and the videotape that documents one of their encounters.

So when Edwards was indicted by a grand jury for the felony of misusing campaign contributions to keep the mistress out of sight during the 2008 campaign, I didn’t pay much attention. And I probably won’t pay a whole lot of attention as the case goes forth.

But I noticed today that there’s a spate of articles about the weakness of the case against Edwards (see this and this). The consensus seems to be that yes, he’s a scumbag extraordinaire, but that it’s a stretch to define the monies used to deal with Rielle Hunter as campaign contributions. And that, after all, is what he’s accused of in the case, not of being a heel. There’s a difference.

Some details of the case:

Justice Department officials decided that the hundreds of thousands of dollars that two Edwards donors gave to help keep his mistress in hiding were contributions that should have been reported publicly by his campaign fund because they aided his bid for the Democratic White House nomination.

From the article, I gather that two wealthy donors gave Edwards money for the purpose of shutting Hunter up and shuttling her around. The monies may have been specifically targeted for that purpose, rather than as general campaign contributions. Now the prosecutors are claiming that, because they were designed to help Edwards’ presidential bid by protecting his reputation, they should be labeled as campaign donations for the purposes of the law.

That may indeed be too elastic a definition of campaign contributions. However, Edwards’ ex-aide Young has said that one of the donors was unaware of what the money (which was labeled a personal gift to Edwards) was being used for. This may indicate that perhaps it was a campaign contribution after all, just by another name. Another problem with the case is that this donor is now a hundred years old and cannot testify for health reasons, and the other donor is deceased.

How the sort-of-mighty have fallen.