Oh, the New York Times is so very offended by Anthony Weiner, who (I might point out) did not help fabricate the reasons to bomb and invade a country where countless innocents died as a result.
All he did was show his penis to some twinkies and lie about it. People lie about sex, it’s a given.
While certainly a matter between him and his wife, that’s really their business. We don’t actually vote for moral leaders — as we are frequently reminded by scandals like this.
We vote for politicians, people who can hopefully get things done for us.
4 thoughts on “Sniff, sniff”
it’s “anthony” not “andrew” weiner
The NYT editorial board is what it is — a handful of smug ivory tower types insulated from the real world by the NYT. Like all newspaper editorial writers, this crew makes the sort of lame pronouncements, including hypocritical “moral” judgments, that they think will most likely appeal to most of their readers. But this doesn’t change the fact that Weiner (OMG, that name!) was a total shithead for falling into a sex text trap. Worse, he was one of only a few Dems with the balls (sorry!) to speak out in a smart and spirited way against Republican lies, and now he just looks like a fool. Stick a fork in him, he’s done, at least through 2012. This is REALLY bad… There will be no news of Obama sexting, but there will be no news of him suddenly shifting course and fighting for the jobless and poor, either. We are all fucked.
Oops. Still thinking about Andrew Gold, I guess.
Suzy…yes and exactly. Meanwhile, many progressives are all too anxious to show how moral they are by condemning one of the few representatives in DC who is willing to fight like a dog to get universal single payer health care. He didn’t kill anyone. He didn’t even commit a crime.
Comments are closed.