Never mind on that Part 2 of the Weinergate endgame that I promised quite yet: via Ace comes this report from Big Journalism on Rep. Anthony Weiner that “suggests that the Brooklyn- and Queens-based representative and the young woman in question were involved in an online, consensual relationship involving the mutual exchange of intimate photographs.” They’ll be dribbling out their evidence for this suggestion over the day, and any hope by the Left that this will not be covered by the media will probably be neatly scuppered by this promise: “we will not be releasing all of the material because some of it is of an extreme, graphic nature.” Yup. Statements like that are catnip for journalists – and, admittedly, for bloggers. But is it true? I don’t know: I haven’t seen the evidence yet. But I would remind folks that Breitbart’s been sufficiently good at this sort of thing that the Left hates him with the passion of a billion burning suns. Which is one reason why they were so desperate to find a connection between Andrew and the guy who alerted people to the original tweeted picture, and why liberal pundits and bloggers have screeched ‘Shirley Sherrod’ for the last week like it was an apotropaic charm. They’ll probably try that again, here… but if the pictures and emails check out then it won’t do them a lick of good. Also: if the pictures and emails check out the question will quickly become how much damage Weiner will do to his fellow-Democrats. Explicitly including DNC Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who picked the wrong moment to forget that she’s said some things about family values in the past that contradict her current (and, frankly Stepford Wife-like in their delivery) ‘personal matter’ talking points assigned to her by the real leaders of the Democratic party. Should be a fun day. Moe Lane ( crosspost )
Go here to read the rest:
#Weinergate, Part 2? New Anthony Weiner pictures, emails allegedly surfacing.
I came across this piece in The Washington Post by Dan Balz contrasting the remarks made yesterday by President Obama and Sarah Palin with respect to the shootings in Tucson. The article could be summed up in six words: President Obama good, Sarah Palin bad. But there’s one passage from Balz’s article which demands commentary: Perhaps by an accident of timing, Palin put herself into the same news cycle as the president. After several days of silence, she offered her first extended commentary on the shootings. On what planet does Balz reside? Sarah Palin didn’t put herself into the news cycle. She was thrust into it by Paul Krugman and stood accused of being complicit in mass murder. Those leveling these accusations assured Palin remained
If you ever want to see how liberal pundits try to gin up division within conservative ranks, look no further than this bit of beclowning. Sean Hannity did not talk about Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on Sean Hannity’s show. Really. Apparently, because other Fox hosts did, Sean Hannity is supposed to do it too. I didn’t realize that Glenn and Sean had editorial control over each other’s shows. Sean Hannity is no more required to cover the Restoring Honor event than Glenn Beck is required to cover Hannity’s Freedom Concerts. This is ludicrous and trying to start controversy where there isn’t any. But ginning up an “internal rival” will do nothing but help ratings over at Fox.
Read the original:
Now This Is Just Dumb
