I’ve been gathering materials for a quick turnaround Weinergate Documentary…and if I can raise the funds needed in the next 10 days, I’ll be able to get it out by July. (I have two other docs I’m finishing, so I need to knock this one out quickly)
The focus is Weinergate as seen as a media event – the triumph of the right-wing bloggers and the total crash and burn of the left wing. I’m calling it Weinergate: The Impotence of Liberal Journalism.
Click here for more info and please consider donating. There are some cool rewards, including credits, special edition DVDs. It’s on Kickstarter, a service for funding project – if I don’t get the total funding I need to do the project, you don’t pay.
Email me – Lee@Stranahan.com - if you have any questions, too.
Deviant Art
Facebook
Flickr
Google Reader
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Vimeo
YouTube
{ 47 comments… read them below or add one }
What will you call your investigation into David Vitter, Larry Craig, Aaron Schrock, Bob Livingston, and Newt Gingrich?
@guest
First, its a documentary, not an investigation.
Second, none of those scandals involved major media outlets covering for a politician.
third, Lee’s a liberal. I know it might seem shocking to you, but some liberals actually care about the truth more than they care about politics. Why? Because he actually believes in what he says and doesn’t need propaganda to further his beliefs.
Which should really say something about dkos. If you really believed in your cause, why would you need to lie to convince people?
Um, you must be mistaking me for someone else. I’m not part of Daily Kos, and I think Weiner is one more in a long line of fools who manage to find their way into the Best Congress Money Can Buy. I’m following any of this because I follow politics like other people follow sports. Back and forth, back and forth.
You take it much more seriously than I do. About all I’d say on “behalf” of Weiner is that horny politicians really don’t know any partisan boundaries. Any fair reading of the various scandales over the years would confirm this.
p.s.: If I really offended the gods and was sentenced to serve in Congress, I think I’d use Twitter to send big c*** photos like this one.
hmmmm…I’ll have to think about it. OK I’ve thought about it..No money from me.
@guest
I wasn’t insinuating that you were part of dkos, just throwing in my two cents on them. The “you” I was referring to was the collective “you,” not you personally. Sorry for the confusion.
As for republican vs democrat, its not about “who does it more,” its about who tolerates it while damning it from the other party. When Christopher Lee was caught, damn near every republican said he had to go. And EVERY democrat said it. So far, we’ve heard the same democrats saying, “so what? Its his personal life. Who cares?”
The point is, if ones bad, they’re all bad. We can’t spend a month talking about a shirtless congressman who no one outside his district had ever heard of before and then not talk about this. That would be a hypocrisy. And when our news is filled with hypocrisy, its not news anymore. Its propaganda.
@guest
P.s. that’s a pretty big cock you have there. I actually wouldn’t mind having that in my mouth. (Hopefully, that makes someone click that link who otherwise wouldn’t. Thanks for the laugh.)
Why is a Rep Weiner important enough to donate money?
He is just one of many members of Congress that have lied.
MSM ignores far more important lies that influence people to often vote against their own best interest.
Andrew Breitbart is not a hero. His mission was to take down a member of Congress because he did not like Weiner’s political positions.
I would like to see a consequence for liars, but the consequences should be equally applied.
Come on Julie, Anthony Weiner took Anthony Weiner down. What does Breitbart have to do with it?
To be fair, as soon as gawker broke the news about Christopher Lee, Breitbart reported it. He reported the facts of the weiner debacle as they happened. His personal mission may be to destroy progressivism, but it wasn’t his mission to take down a congressman because of his policies.
Jesus Christ, Weiner admits to everything, and its still breitbart’s fault. He just wanted to take down a congressman, and that’s why he got weiner to e-cheat.
Breitbart isn’t a hero. He’s a reporter. Someones gotta do it, since no one else was.
I recommend watching the Colbert Report on Comedy Central for a take on Breitbart. Stephen nailed it.
The reason I’m doing the doc is because of the misconceptions people like Julie have.
As for republican vs democrat, its not about “who does it more,” its about who tolerates it while damning it from the other party.
If there was ever a Rorschach test, this is it. Fact is, both parties tolerate it in their own (Bill Clinton, David Vitter, Barney Frank, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, Gerry Studds, Bob Packwood) and excoriate it in the other.
The Republicans are slightly more vulnerable because, unlike the Democrats, they are forever bleating about family values. But the Democrats are forever bleating about sexual harassment, while chasing secretaries and interns with gusto.
Face it, politicians are horny goats. It goes hand in hand with psychopathy, which is especially rampant in ego driven environments. To say that one party is guiltier than the other is to admit that your own preferences have trumped your powers of reason and observation.
Oh, and Breitbart? He’s a circus freak, but even circus freaks win the prize every now and then.
The reason I’m doing the doc is because of the misconceptions people like Julie have.
The reason you’re doing the documentary is because you’re chasing your 15 minutes of fame. Period.
“The Republicans are slightly more vulnerable because, unlike the Democrats, they are forever bleating about family values.”
This reasoning is bullshit. Democrats preach family values, too. Or did I miss the speech that Clinton gave during his candidacy where he talked about the benefits of an open relationship?
This weiner scandal brought forth all those arguments and you were able to see, in real time, the lengths that the leftist media will go to to save one of their own.
when I said “who tolerates it more,” I wasn’t talking about washington, I’m talking about the rest of us. And speaking of “reasoning and observation,” it would be counter-observant to exclude the reaction of partisans when noticing that two people who do the exact same thing are treated markedly different.
How long did the media run block for John Edwards?
One more thing I promise you: if a republican man used a mentoring program to have sex with underage girls, the media wouldn’t giive him a pass, especially if he was in the middle of an election. And even if he somehow got elected, he wouldn’t get standing ovations wherever he went. He definitely wouldn’t be allowed to speak in schools. Yet, change that R to a D, those young girls into boys, and you’ve got Portland Oregon’s mayor, Sam Adams. It was uncovered during the election, that sam adams used a mentoring program, run through his govt office, to court a 17 year old boy (age of consent here is 18). The media blocked it. Its all lies, they said, started by the homophobic republicans! Suddenly, in Portland, it became acceptable to be a predatory pedophile who actively pursues high school age boys (he’s about 50 or so), as long as you were gay.
Maybe you can help me out, guest, but when was the last republican scandal to be actively stifled by the media? You want to pretend that everything is fair and equal when it comes to things like this. Mark Sanford didn’t have a gaggle of conservative websites explaining how his email was hacked and the love letters to his soul mate were really written by a liberal blogger. The only defense of sanford that I saw was “if the dems don’t care, why should we?” Unfortunately for your premise to be true, and everything is equal, you would have to ignore reality.
“Oh, and Breitbart is a circus freak.” There’s your rorschach.
“If there was ever a Rorschach test, this is it. Fact is, both parties tolerate it in their own (Bill Clinton, David Vitter, Barney Frank, John Ensign, Newt Gingrich, Gerry Studds, Bob Packwood) and excoriate it in the other.”
Bill Clinton (D) - retained job
Barney Frank (D) - retained job
Gerry Studds (D) - retained job
Anthony Weiner (D) - retained job (so far)
Bob Packwood (R) - resigned
Newt Gingrich (R) - resigned
John Ensign (R) - resigned
David Vitter (R) - retained job
Your examples, not mine. Notice a trend?
“What will you call your investigation into David Vitter, Larry Craig, Aaron Schrock, Bob Livingston, and Newt Gingrich?”
Let’s play the same game with the other guys you mentioned, eh?
Larry Craig (R) - resigned (stayed for term)
Bob Livingston (R) - resigned
Aaron Schock - couldn’t find any scandal, unless potentially being in the closet is a scandal. As long as he isn’t married or soliciting sex in a public bathroom, is being gay a scandal?
Is it not clear that the democrats “tolerate it in their own” while the republicans do not. Remember, these are all your examples. If we want to keep going, we can use mark’s example of Sam Adams (D) - retained job and most recent scandal of Christopher Lee (R) - resigned.
Mark Sanford (R) — retained job.
That senator from San Bernardino who got caught cruising gay bars (R) — retained job.
That politician in wisconsin who got caught cheating on his wife and note even living in his own district (R) — retained job.
Yoyo
Were they reelected?
I don’t get the comment “triumph of the right-wing bloggers and the total crash and burn of the left wing”. It’s a triumph of the truth, a rare enough event. Unless you’re saying that right-wing blog sites is where you get the truth (no argument from me) and the left wing is where you… don’t.
Another site (Insty? Ed Driscoll? I forget) pointed out that Barbara Walters came to Weiner’s defense (before his confession) saying that she KNOWS Weiner, and his wife, and therein lies the problem. If you’re friends with the politicos, you’re not going to be reporting on them. Thank heaven for the Internet.
“David Vitter (R) – retained job”
He was also outed a decade after the fact (his rambunctious youth) and had a compelling story of confession and forgiveness, had apparently told his wife and asked for forgiveness years before . . . it becomes a different thing for the public, and the party, when the philanderer had already taken the steps in his private life to repent and clean up the mess. If those calls to a DC Madam had been ongoing, for years, up until a few months previous, Vitter would have lost the gig, too.
What better place to get your news is there than Comedy Central?
“Mark Sanford (R) — retained job.”
After two attempts to impeach him were blocked by Democrats. A third impeachment resolution passed but then went to an ad hoc committee where it was voted down. When Sanford came up for reelection the voters gave him the boot and replaced him with Nikki Haley. So much for retaining his job.
Mark Sanford did not retain his job. He resigned as Chariman of the Republican Governors Association, and the Republicans in the legislature attempted to impeach him. He didn’t end up being impeached (the Democrats in the state legislature weren’t that hot to do it, either), but he was censured. He also planned to run for president in 2012, and that obviously ain’t happenin’.
Roy Ashburn, the San Bernardino Republic caught cruising gay bars: scandal was April 2010, last day in office was December 2010. How is that retaining his job?
They’re trying to recall Randy Hopper. I don’t think he’ll be holding on to his job.
Democrats preach family values, too. Or did I miss the speech that Clinton gave during his candidacy where he talked about the benefits of an open relationship?
The Democrats aren’t generally doing the evangelical moralizing thing like the Republicans are.
How long did the media run block for John Edwards?
First off, we don’t know how much “the media” knew all along. Secondly, “the media” did no more or less for Edwards than they did for Sarah Palin, whose marriage is a mess. That’s if you believe the National Enquirer, and I do. They’re the ones who first broke the Edwards story, too.
S. Adam, I see you didn’t include Newt Gingrich on the Republican list. He’s a serial philanderer, and never lost any job over it. And you never mentioned Eliot Spitzer, the Democrat who lost his job. And seeing as how you’ve mentioned Edwards, I’d say he’s paying quite the price here. Nor did you mention the people who ran Ensign’s coverup, who are still in office.
You’re being foolish and partisan. There is little, if any, difference between the two parties in the frequency of philandering. Whether it gets publicly discussed, and whether the philanderer pays any price for it, is pretty random. Calling this kind of stuff Democrat or Republican is foolish.
But I would say the Republicans are somewhat more vulnerable when their team gets busted, because they’re the ones who far more often do the bleating about the sanctity of marriage, blah blah blah. Hypocrisy is always a story. Of course, Democrats can be vulnerable there too, the prime example being Bill Clinton.
p.s.: The problem for Republicans on Clinton was that Clinton never committed an impeachable offense. They overreached. Similarly, Weiner didn’t commit any crime. The Republicans will make lots of noise, but soon enough one of them will get arrested on his knees in a rest stop. This is a like a tennis game. Back and forth, back and forth.
@guest: “The Democrats aren’t generally doing the evangelical moralizing thing like the Republicans are.”
Irrespective, this remains a cop-out. It’s a lame justification for politically convenient, partisan hypocrisy-which many Democrats and liberals don’t take place in, either giving a pass to philandering politicians, or condemning them, in equal measure.
That being said, the Clinton impeachment was *way* crazy. In fact, there never should have been an independent counsel, and how the independent counsel could broaden his research into a 20 year old land deal to include whatever consensual sex Clinton might be having with interns . . .
“The Republicans will make lots of noise, but soon enough one of them will get arrested on his knees in a rest stop.”
Or, one of the Democrats defending Weiner. Or even on the one’s attacking him. Any three of those outcomes is equally likely, given that all politicians, left or right, are also fallible human beings.
I love how Guest comes on here and talks of being nonpartisan and fairs fair and then with every other sentence revels his/her partisanship. This leads me to one conclusion only a progressive could make such easily refuted statements. Progressives seem to live in an echo chamber so they begin to believe all the bad logic that the other one spouts.
“Breitbarts a circus clown and I get my new from Stephen Colbert.”
Are there any real liberal left? Are intellectually capable democrats a thing of that past?
Side note this is the best Progtard take down ever.
It’s really long but it goes to show just how much superior they think they are when they know absolutely nothing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CcTYjh2EjnU
Towards the end of this interview the progressive goes to show his thinking capabilities in a confusing expression of uber stupid. Jaw dropping dumb that only an echo chamber could produce.
“And seeing as how you’ve mentioned Edwards, I’d say he’s paying quite the price here”
Edwards went too far in his defense. If he had just confessed, to it all, at the outset, and done a mea culpa, instead of pressuring a campaign aid to take the rap for him (always a bad idea) . . . Edwards took it too far, as I think Weiner, in the end, will have taken his defense too far.
Newt had the advantage of not trying to hide his incredible creepiness. “Yeah, I’m divorcing my wife to marry my mistress. My wife has cancer! What do you expect?”
“I see you didn’t include Newt Gingrich on the Republican list.”
Look again. I did.
“you never mentioned Eliot Spitzer, the Democrat who lost his job.
I only mentioned the examples you, yourself, brought up.
“And seeing as how you’ve mentioned Edwards”
I didn’t mention Edwards.
“There is little, if any, difference between the two parties in the frequency of philandering.”
I never said there was.
“Whether it gets publicly discussed, and whether the philanderer pays any price for it, is pretty random.”
Nope. This is where you’re wrong. And this is why I used your own examples to show precisely how you were wrong. Let’s say we were having an argument about who plays basketball better, blacks or whites, and I said “white players are better, just look at Michael Jordan and Kareem and Larry Bird and Magic Johnson.” You’d look at me and say “you idiot, most of those players are black.” I’d look pretty stupid, wouldn’t I?
“Calling this kind of stuff Democrat or Republican is foolish.”
Certainly the act itself isn’t R or D, but the strained defense of the actor almost always comes from the left and the holding accountable almost always comes from the right. That is the trend I was showing by using the examples that you raised.
I don’t get my new, or my news, from Steven Colbert. In fact, I haven’t watched that show for at least a year. Which is about as long as I haven’t watched O’Reilly on Fox. I decided a while back that all of those shows were a waste of time.
I’d give Colbert this much, though: He says he’s a comedian. Breitbart and O’Reilly present themselves as something else, even though in reality they are circus clowns. I was never all that much on clowns to begin with, but given my choice of clowns I’d pick the happy ones over the snarling ones. And I do want my clowns to be clowns.
True about Edwards going too far. They pretty much all do. The whole climate encourages it. The go farther and farther, and eventually the limb breaks. As for Gingrich, he’s been coddled and protected by the media all the way along. He’s living proof that one you make the guest list in Washington, you’ll be there forever. Well, David Broder was proof too, and so is George Will.
There is no “strained defense of the actor” from me. I think all of the politicians mentioned so far in this thread are or were psychopaths. We have the Best Congress Money Can Buy. It’s always been something of a freak show. That characteristic ebbs and flows, and these days it seems to be in fuller flow. Or maybe we just notice more of it.
p.s.: What you are doing is trying to maximize Democratic sins and minimize Republican ones. That is the epitome of “strained defense of the actor.”
I’m still going to have to go back to Sam Adams. He had an inappropriate sexual relationship with an underage boy he was supposed to be mentoring. The story broke during the election, and the left-wing media ran block. “Its because he’s gay!” “Its the right-wing smear machine!” “Look how homophobic they are!” After the election, it comes out, and the new defense? “Sure, the kid was 17 at the time, but 17 year old boys know what they want.” I shit you not.
The point about “not pushing family values as much as republicans,” I still call bullshit. They don’t talk about the sanctity of marriage, but they do talk about marriage and its importance. They don’t use the term “sanctity” because that’s too religious, and too closely associated with people opposed to gay marriage.
Spitzer broke the law, he had to resign. And Pelosi (to her credit) is asking for an investigation to determine if Weiner also broke the law.
And Clinton faced impeachment for lying under oath, not for diddling interns with cigars.
And Weiner wouldn’t be asked to resign if he had just admitted it in the first place. He’s lost credibility by lying for 10 days straight.
You can’t deny the difference between the reactions of left and right. Well, I guess you can, but not honestly. When Larry Craig was caught, the worst the right said was, “well, he might be innocent, but if not, he’s gotta go.” There was no, “its his personal life! Leave him alone! What he does in a bathroom stall is between him and his anonymous partner!” See what I mean?
By the way, I’d put Weiner in the same category as Larry Craig. One’s a dick. The other liked dick. One Tweeted. The other had a wide stance. They both became national jokes. We seem to need these every two or three years.
Ps
The only defense I’ve ever heard for gingrich was for his policies, not his marriages. At least Gingrich left her in the hospital, and not unconscious in the back of his car, watching from the shore as it sank into a river.
“The other liked dick.”
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
The majority of the comments are focused on whether the Republicans or Democrats are worse in relation to sex scandals, which is missing the stated purpose for the documentary:
“Weinergate: The Impotence of Liberal Journalism shows how this amazing story developed after being ignored and even dismissed as ‘fake’ by the press — and how it’s a triumph for the responsible journalism of the right wing blogosphere.
…
Central to the story is the controversial conservative Andrew Breitbart, who broke the story and practiced careful journalism right up to the slow release of photos that resulted in Weiner’s press conference.”
“‘fake’ by the press” - do not know the specific press. I did many searches from May 27th until yesterday. Daily Kos, cannonfire, and a couple other never heard of before sites were the only sites I found that were covering any detail about the possible hack or saying there was definitely a hack. I saw considerable coverage on CNN, MSNBC, Fox, etc that seriously questioned whether Weiner was being truthful.
Reasons for liberal sites did not believe Breitbart:
1. Breitbart’s past history of selective video editing
2. inability to fathom that Weiner could be that stupid
DailyKos is no more Liberal “Journalism” than Breitbart is Conservative “Journalism.”
“Real” journalism is rare because it does not sell well.
Your right Guest I forgot to put Julie’s name in there. I was quoting both of you. I think both of you are progressives. For the exact same reasons.
i believe the reason “conservatives” “won” is simply because weiner did it. did dailykos win because mark sanford lied? no. In all these scandals, its atrocious how biased bloggers are. you were one of the few who tried hard not to be biased, which is why I followed you, even when you were being maligned for floating questions.
but if you make this documentary, you have to include the “are you fully erect?” guy.
“and not unconscious in the back of his car, watching from the shore as it sank into a river.”
That’s a case of a Kennedy. It’s not about Democrats and Republicans, it’s about judges and police chiefs and folks in congress not wanting to have the scions of Joe Kennedy help them take a long walk off a short pier. Not a legitimate comparison.
“Breitbart’s past history of selective video editing”
Breitbart doesn’t edit video. He has passed along selectively edited video from James O’Keefe, while also (as I understand it) insisting on the disclosure of the unedited video as well. He has also received video from sources, such as he did with Shirley Sherod, that were edited (how selectively is a matter of debate; I think that’s way overblown), but the full video was available, and Breitbart later made it available, while maintaing that it was illustrative of the mentality of a certain group of people who embrace reverse racism and get-even-with-em-ism, and I haven’t really seen that sufficiently discounted.
But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been forwarded quotes from various Big Government or Big Hollywood writers that have been attributed to Breitbart (without attribution to the actual writer) because of the controversy. When I note that it wasn’t actually Bretibart who said it, and saying it’s Breitbart is like saying anything Lee Stranahan wrote while with HuffPo was written by Arianna Huffington, the reaction is that it’s the kind of thing Breitbart would say.
They just don’t like Breitbart.
“i believe the reason “conservatives” “won” is simply because weiner did it. did dailykos win because mark sanford lied? no.”
The reason conservatives “won” was because liberals so vehemently defended and covered for Weiner. The reason Kos didn’t “win” is because conservatives said “well, if this guy is soliciting sex in a public bathroom, he shouldn’t keep his job.” Or was Sanford the guy hiking in the Appalachians? In either case, conservatives don’t want scumbags making decisions for them, whether D or R. They want them out of office. Liberals don’t mind scumbags making decisions for them, so long as they’re making the “right” decisions.
In this arena, character matters more to conservatives than it does to liberals. Maybe that’s wrong. Maybe it’s right. How many times have you heard liberals defend these politicians by saying “it should stay in the bedroom” or that “it is a personal matter”? I’m not sure that’s necessarily the wrong position but it sure doesn’t feel right to me.
Kevin
I understand where you’re coming from with Kennedy, but it should be comparable.
If we were still a nation of laws, it would be.
S. Adam
And if it should stay in the bedroom for one, it should stay in the bedroom for all. Either they’re all scumbags (my vote) or none of them are.
For a second there, I thought Hillary was going to sue dkos for copyright infringement. That “vast right-wing conspiracy” is hers.
If you wanted to make a useful documentary, it would be about political sex scandals in general. It would cover the established media’s treatment of them, and the tendency of partisans to minimize their own and maximize the other side’s. You’d compare The National Enquirer with the Internet, and point out how it’s much tougher to cover ‘em up these days.
If you wanted a really good pairing, you’d contrast and compare “Weinergate” with the delicious scandale involving Jeff Gannon, the male prostitute who got special access to Bush Jr.’s White House. They were both equally salacious and entertaining, but Weinergate unfolded one hell of a lot faster.
Calling Weinergate a triumph for circus freaks like Breitbart, etc., really misses the point, and to me comes across as grinding a partisan axe.
mark:
My point is, Anthony Weiner wouldn’t get away with what Ted Kennedy got away with. Although in this day and age, the investigatory follow-up to Chappaquiddick would probably have revealed so much else that it would have even been difficult for Ted Kennedy to hold on.
Still, politicians sometimes get away with more than you think they ought to, of either party. A young lady shows up dead in Joe Scarborough’s office, he decided to get out of politics, and it’s barely discussed. And Scarborough was a Republican.