Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kepler]

"WASHINGTON � Publicly silent, fellow Democrats privately seethed Thursday over the distraction and furor surrounding the lewd photo sent from Rep. Anthony Weiner's Twitter account, even as he declared he was finished talking about it and wanted to move on.

"Weiner's one-day, pun-laden media blitz a day earlier had only raised more questions about the embarrassing flap when he conceded he wasn't sure whether the waist-down photo of a man's bulging underpants was of him or not....

"The House's top Democrat, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, earlier told ABC News that she was 'a late-comer to the issue' � one that cable TV and the Capitol press corps have been fixated on for most of the week.

" 'Still, Pelosi added, 'I have confidence in Anthony Weiner that if an investigation is in order that will take place.'....

"Republicans were content to highlight the incident's many unanswered questions. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor told Fox News that Weiner needed to 'come clean.' "
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110603/ap_on_go_co/us_congressman_twitter_photos

[Ya-ta Boy]

The OP is right. Dems have been quieter on this than the Republican/Conservative/Guardian of Public Morals wing of the political establishment. I thought about posting something yesterday, but in the end didn't because I wasn't clear on what the crime was supposed to have been. Obviously, if some guy is sending out lewd pix of himself to unsuspecting women, then he should be in big trouble, but when the woman in question didn't receive the picture (as far as I can tell), then was a crime committed�if a tree falls in the forest, etc?

Second, unlike the dude in New York-26 where the picture was unambiguously him, the picture in question here has not been shown to be Mr. Weiner. He doesn't deny that it could have been, which means that someone at some point took a picture of him in his undies�a former girlfriend, some drunk friend from the frat, his wife (he only got married last year). That itself is not a crime except maybe to the uptight evangelical anti-sex wing of the right who wants to declare an egg a human so they can outlaw the Pill and condoms and any other form of birth control. (This is the Big Government wing of the Right which wants to insert government control into people's bedrooms.) [Unlike conservatives, a liberal like me isn't interested in the SIZE of government as such, just its actions. Dr. Freud died way too early, in my opinion.]

Third, liberals are at a distinct disadvantage in recent years (decades?). Except for John Edwards, we haven't had a good front page sex scandal that holds a candle to the parade of conservative horn dogs who couldn't keep their pants zipped. It's my guess that liberals are having as much hanky panky, but are smarter at hiding it, which is not a very strong endorsement of conservatives if you think about it.

Fourth, when a public scandal starts out with the words 'Andrew Breitbart reports' my bs antenna go up. Sorry, can't help it.

In the end, I guess I have to say that if the Right wants to pillory someone on the strength of an accusation from a repeated liar about an event that someone else may had done, offering no evidence but their smutty opinions, well, I can't stop them. If I may say, faux outrage has become a specialty of the Right lately.

Anyway, what specifically should liberals be upset about before the facts of the case are known?