There are four women it seems that Rep. Anthony Weiner sent sexual photos to…
- Lisa in Nevada, a 40 year old blackjack dealer (admitted)
- Meagan in Texas 26 year old single mom(admitted)
- Ginger Lee, sex worker & lupus blogger (presumed – because why not?)
- Gennete in Seattle 21 year old stuudent(who was sent a photo, at least)
Different ages, races, looks – seemingly all very different women at first glance.
So, what’s Weiner’s ‘type’? The connection between all of them is that they are all people who admire Weiner’s politics. He doesn’t want anonymous sex thrills – he gets off on just the opposite. He likes it when they know exactly who he is and have seen him on TV> It’s all about Weiner.
Of course he doesn’t want to resign – it’s his pickup line. Here’s an example…
Weiss sought Weiner out, messaging him, "You are the coolest dem on the planet!" She added, "Keep fighting for the sane people in this country!"
Weiner wrote back, "Thank you Lisa. Glad you have my back. You keeping an eye on the wackadoodle Angle for us." Sharron Angle is a guns rights advocate who ran for Congress in Nevada.
Weiss tells us she’s a liberal democrat who believes in Weiner’s policies and spent a lot of time messaging him about his views. She believes it’s unfair to target Weiner: "Bill Clilnton was the best President we ever had and look what he did. Kennedy banged everything in sight."
Let me remind you of what I said in my (prescient) article #Weinergate, Clinton & The Girl Under The Bus
There’s something about the musky combination of power, prestige and claims of doing good for all the people (but especially the poor and disenfranchised with voter registration cards) that is irresistible to certain women. It’s primal. And so they flock, and she’s thrilled to become a political insider by just allowing a politician to get inside her. But it’s a snare. As soon as the going gets tough and the spotlight becomes too hot, the woman usually learn they’ve been used like a tissue.
Modern history has taught that if you’ve going to fuck a powerful Democratic politician, keep some DNA as proof. A blue dress, a love child…something. Because he’s going to deny deny deny and make you out to be a crazed stalker, which you’ll have a tough time denying, really. Professional operatives will quietly regale reporters on background with stories of your wide eyed past and after all, you approached HIM. Benefit of the doubt will go to the man in the suit, especially when his slightly stiff (but brilliant!) wife stands by her candidate. But if you have some DNA that you’re willing to produce when it all gets too crazy, he’ll cop. He’ll have to. We’ve all seen too many episodes of CSI.
Okay, add to DNA – or pictures.
Weiner copped because HE HAD TO. It was Breitbart Photo Torture. No choice but the confess and then go Full Clinton. This was all predictable, which was how I predicted it.
Add this thought about Weiner’s types to Patterico’s recent checklist about the underage girls who were also big fans of Rep. Weiner. This story isn’t over.
Deviant Art
Facebook
Flickr
Google Reader
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Vimeo
YouTube
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey Lee. Just a little congrats. You were right. I was wrong. Still find it hard to believe. Not so much that a guy like Weiner was thinking with his little head. That has happened and will continue for as long as there are humans. Just surprised at the whole thing.
As for Breitbart. Maybe in his business model 1 out of 7 makes you money. Or at the least keeps the sugar daddies happy enough to keep sending the welfare checks.
Breitbart is still a racist vile piece of scum.
Oh, I forgot.
I also would like to acknowledge to those who I insulted because of their belief in Breitbart that I was clearly wrong and you dumbasses were right.
Good one. Blind squirrel finds nut. It happens. Congratulations.
jharp, yesterday Breitbart challenged a room full of A-list journalists to prove that he has lied even 1 time. So far, none have come forward with any proof. Don’t you find that odd considering that many of those on the A-list have been rabidly anti-Breitbart? Why do you think that might be?
I am unaware of any of the details of your claim. Link?
And I’ve seen both Sherrod vids. The full length unedited version. And the one Breitbart published that was edited to make it appear that the opposite of what happened happened.
Breitbart is a liar.. I saw it with my own eyes.
jharp, watch it for yourself. Strange that you followed this whole thing so closely yet somehow missed Breitbart at Weiner’s presser.
http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/andrew-breitbart-vindicated.html
The video is at the above link. Breitbart directly challenges the journalists to prove he has lied at 2:08 in the video.
Again, I ask, if A-list journalists can’t prove he has lied, perhaps you do not have any proof either?
No you didn’t jharp. I watched Breitbart’s version when it first came out and my first response was OMG I can’t believe she’s saying all this stuff. Then at the end video I said, “oh she kind of redeems herself there.” The video that was “edited” was by Glenn Beck. He left out the end where she acknowledges her shortsightedness and that white people can be poor too.
What’s disturbing about that video though is that the crowd was all for her hating on the white man. They in their full understanding of racial inequality and injustice found it OK and cheer worthy to hate the white man. That was the disturbing part and the part that no one on the left likes to talk about. For good reason though if we ever actually talked about the real issues we might get somewhere and you side would lose voters. Unfortunately though you’ve got dKos and MMfA running BS interference on every issue.
How is it you don’t know about Breitbart being a part of Weiner news conference. Did your News station cut away? FOX didn’t they showed Breitbart up on stage taking questions from all the reporters he answered questions for about 15 minutes.
He specifically asked every single reporter in the room to name one thing he’d lied about. You know what he heard CRICKETS. Not a single question about any of his “evil” “edited” “racist” reporting. NOT. A. ONE.
“Strange that you followed this whole thing so closely yet somehow missed Breitbart at Weiner’s presser.”
Can’t stomach watching the asshole Breitbart on T.V. Refuse to do it. Quit watching Bill Maher over it. And have not read the transcript yet.
I’ll say it again.
I’ve seen both Sherrod vids. The full length unedited version. And the one Breitbart published that was edited to make it appear that the opposite of what happened happened.
Breitbart is a liar.. I saw it with my own eyes.
@jharp there are more version than just the two go to Big Government find the video and watch it. It showed Sherrod admitting at the end that she was wrong to feel that way. That poverty wasn’t just a black issue that white people could be poor too. That was the crucial point. Are you suggesting that anything that isn’t shown in it’s entirety is edited and as such unbelievable. Every news outlet edits video in the by edit I mean editing for time and substance. Not this new terminology where edited means to lie. I’m willing to bet you didn’t actually watch the video at Breitbarts web site. I’m willing to bet a lot of money on that. You I’m sure saw the Glenn Beck version where he actually cut the video off before she admits she was wrong to feel that way. How could any of us know about the true nature of the video if Breitbart lied to us about it?
@ Lee along the lines of Weiner being in love with those that are in love with his political persuasion I’m going to put forth a theory.
Weiner was followed by a couple of underage girls who are new happy little progressives. I don’t know if this is true or not but Weiner said he offered to follow anyone that wanted him to follow them. Which I kind of think is part of his system of trolling for women but that’s not my point. My point is that he probably started having convo’s with the minors not realizing they were minors and then when Betty asked him to prom he realized he had stepped into it big time. Now from different fb convo’s I saw of his it didn’t take him very long to start flirting with the ladies that liked him or showed any extra interest in him.
I still think it was one of the minor who let the cat out of the bag to Mike and Dan about the questionable DM’s. One of the minors admitted that some of the DM’s were harmless but that others not so much. All I know is this story isn’t over and not by a long shot. What I’m waiting to have come out is that he was having a solo sexting orgy of sorts. Probably sexting multiple women at the same time. It was their focus on him that he loved if one’s good two has got to be better.
jharp, you are incorrect. The video Breitbart posted, which was technically an excerpt, was only edited into that text was placed into the video. And, in the video Breitbart posted, IT DOES contain Sherrod saying that she made a mistake. In fact, in the post Breitbart wrote that in the end, she was informed by her basic humanity, and helped the white farmer.
So, not only does the excerpt Breitbart posted show Sherrod’s transformation, but Breitbart’s own words describe it.
Simply put, you are incorrect jharp.
Johnny 5 is alive. The point of the video was that the audience approved of Sherrod’s initial racism against the white farmer. That was the story, not Sherrod. In fact, the NAACP came out and spoke against the video when they saw that it looked bad for them. Check the record. Read the initial statement by the NAACP. It wasn’t until a couple of day’s later that Sherrod and NAACP got back on the bandwagon and got their stories straight that it became about Breitbart. It was always about showing the NAACP to be racist.
Again jharp, you are technically and factually incorrect.
Meant to say that Johnny 5 is correct, not “Johnny 5 is alive.”
I liked Clinton’s women better. They all had big mouths and red, glossy lipstick. They were Fox Babes before Fox Babes were Fox Babes.
Wood June 7, 2024 at 10:47 pm
” jharp, you are incorrect. The video Breitbart posted, which was technically an excerpt, was only edited into that text was placed into the video.”
Please Wood. Your post is too stupidly written to get involved with.
For the third time.
I’ve seen both Sherrod vids. The full length unedited version. And the one Breitbart published that was edited to make it appear that the opposite of what happened happened.
Breitbart is a liar.. I saw it with my own eyes.
Get it? I watched it both of them with my own eyes.
@ Wood I know that why I said this.
What’s disturbing about that video though is that the crowd was all for her hating on the white man. They in their full understanding of racial inequality and injustice found it OK and cheer worthy to hate the white man. That was the disturbing part and the part that no one on the left likes to talk about.
I guess I didn’t provide the context that Breitbart was going after the NAACP because they came out calling the Tea Party racist.
I’m still blown away that so many people go on and on about Sherrod. What’s funny is how quickly everyone jumped away from Sherrod initially. She’s actually quite toxic upon closer examination. She knee deep in the Pigford scandal. That why I think everyone all the way up to the White House jumped away from her as quickly as possible. They know what’s beneath the surface of Sherrod if people actually dig and pay attention to what’s found. Kudos to Lee for digging. Hopefully people will pay attention to what’s been found.
Guest June 7, 2024 at 11:04 pm
“I liked Clinton’s women better. They all had big mouths and red, glossy lipstick. They were Fox Babes before Fox Babes were Fox Babes.”
Go get yourself a real girlfriend and quit jerking off to women who don’t even know or care that you exist.
Loser.
Johnny 5 is alive June 7, 2024 at 11:22 pm
“I’m still blown away that so many people go on and on about Sherrod.”
It might have to do with the fact that a civil lawsuit is in the courtroom as we speak and that so far Breitbart has lost every motion his lawyers have filed.
God you people are stupid.
jharp, you are a liar. Period. The fact that you can’t answer my post proves that you don’t even attempt to back up your assertions. You just stick to the same tired lie. Quit being so lazy. Liars are going to be challenged. Get used to it. Don’t want to prove yourself? Want to stay lazy? Quit lying.
@Johnny 5- did you hear the latest Sherrod tidbit? She is upset that the USDA leaked that they were in contract talks with her AND she is REALLY upset that the contract they offered was for only 35K.
jharp, perhaps before you lie again about Sherrod and Breitbart, you should listen to what Chris Matthews has to say about it.
“No it wasn’t deceptive, that’s what everybody’s saying about it. I saw the first version of it, and it told pretty much the whole story, of how that woman had gone through an epiphany of understanding how race works.”
http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/06/01/msnbcs-matthews-breitbart-didnt-smear-sherrod-video-wasnt-deceptively-edited/
Or perhaps you have it right and many journalists who would LOVE to destroy Breitbart have it all wrong. Had time yet to find the transcript where the A-list journalists go crickets when Breitbart asks them to prove even 1 lie?
Awesome jharps is counting his chickens before they hatch again. How could this possible go wrong? Oh yeah Weinergate! You haven’t forgotten already have you, I know you guys have short term memory problems but really this is ridiculous.
And back to the god we’re stupid. Hilarious you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. You’ve clearly learned nothing from this last episode so this Sherrod case will be an awesome second example to watch you be proven wrong yet again.
I forgot about Chris Matthews coming out and defending Breitbart on the Sherrod issue.
@ Wood no I hadn’t seen that LOL only 35K? Wow.
I believe there’s been one ruling so far in Sherrod v. Breitbart — it was change of venue to Federal court and Breitbart prevailed. Might be wrong, but that’s what I understand.
And if the prelims go to Breitbart, it’s over for Sherrod. Unlikely but it’s possible.
Gee, “Wood,” why the interest in my masturbatory fantasies? But seeing as how you’ve raised that topic (why, again?), I guess I ought to say that I didn’t share Billy Boy’s taste in women. Nor did I cyberstalk them.
The reason I’m aware of his lust for gals who vaguely resemble those porn store blow-up dolls (yeah, I’ve been in a porn store, the horror) is because some newspaper or magazine published all the photos together. It was remarkable how similar they were, especially the big mouths and shiny red lipstick. If variety is the spice of life, Billy was Mr. Bland.
By the way, I also remember Kenneth Starr having spent $60 million. If Congress would’ve directed that money toward a presidential hooker … er, courtesan … fund, it would’ve bought Billy about $20,000 a day worth of entertainment over eight years.
There’s something to be said for the idea. After all, the president has the power to end the world. That’s one man who probably ought to be kept from riding the knife edge of sexual frustration, even if the idea offends my Judeo-Christian moral sensibilities.
But Congress-critters? The least they can do is keep their Twitters to themselves, and their wide stances out of airport bathrooms. I know, I know. It’s not fair to have one rule for the president and another for members of Congress. But life isn’t fair, is it?
Oops, I complained to the wrong sign-on. jharp (not “Wood”), why the interest in what I think about when I masturbate? Are you angling for me to Twitter you some pictures?
One more thing. I, for one, will remain forever grateful to Kenneth Starr for introducing the term, “analingus” to the popular American lexicon. Too much information? Never!
jharp: “I’ve seen both Sherrod vids. The full length unedited version. And the one Breitbart published that was edited to make it appear that the opposite of what happened happened.”
I’ve seen them both, too, and that’s just not true. Either you didn’t watch the entire Breitbart video (which was selectively edited, true, but not to a polar opposite meaning, but not by Breitbart-and Breitbart later published the full video, but the idea that Shirley Sherrod soft pedaled her earlier institutional racism was, in and of itself, irrespective of any editing, deserving of at least a little scorn).
If that’s your proof that Breitbart is “vile, racist scum” (and I’m not a fan of Breitbart’s belligerence, to be clear, or his self-proclaimed mission to bring down progressives), then your standards of proof are both very low, and very fluid, allowing the facts of the matter to conform to what you expect them to be, not what they are, or what a reasonable consensus on them would conclude. What you’ve “seen with your own eyes” leads you to conclusions different than that of others who have seen the exact same thing with their own eyes.
Explain how the full video is the opposite of the edited video that Breitbart originally received. I’d be interested to know.
And has recently been said about Breitbart calling out PatriotUSA, could you imagine Woodward and Bernstein going public on Deep Throat, calling him out? “Who is this Deep Throat? Why want you present some evidence to us that you’re really who you say you are?”
In some ways, Breitbart adheres to a higher journalistic standard than some revered progressive journalists . . . even if his stated goal, of tearing down liberals, is not as admirable, it is at least more honest.
“And if the prelims go to Breitbart, it’s over for Sherrod. Unlikely but it’s possible.”
I’d prefer this whole issue to get a full, public airing. Liberals (certain liberals) are writing the narrative on this, and it doesn’t seem to reflect the observable truth. So (sorry for Breitbart, but he’s a big boy, he can take it) I hope this goes all the way. And then Sherrod loses.
“God you people are stupid.”
Yeah, unlike smart progressives, like Anthony Weiner. He knows how to use Teh Internetz and everything. LOLZ!!1!
@everyone trying to convince jharp:
Jharp has said previously that he doesn’t go to biggovernment (which would make any story about what was reported there “hearsay,” another word jharp doesn’t understand), so I sent him the link to the original article.
He wouldn’t read it. Here it is, the smoking gun, verifiable proof that breitbart is the evil racist liar jharp claims he is, and he won’t read it?
You’d think he’d be going through it word for word to find someway to make it racist. Or maybe he did, and couldn’t find anything. Jeez, look at me sitting here trying to attribute a logical thought process to jharp. This is the guy who asks for the link of breitbart at the press conference, then says, “Can’t stomach watching the asshole Breitbart on T.V. Refuse to do it. Quit watching Bill Maher over it. And have not read the transcript yet.”
You can lead jharp to the logic, but you can’t make him think. “Racist! Liar! Stupid stupid stupid!”
I’m actually going to give jharp the benefit of the doubt and guess he might be around 14, 15 years old, because I’ve never met anyone older than that who was this blatantly (it almost seems intentional, doesn’t it?) stupid.
And Lee, you’re dead on. Its not the looks, and its barely about the politics. Its about anthony loving anthony, and loving anyone who shares his love.
I’m actually going to give jharp the benefit of the doubt and guess he might be around 14, 15 years old
I don’t think so. I’ve run across too many insufferable baby boomers just like him.
Arrogant, condescending assholes who are constantly pissed at the world because Nixon didn’t go to jail, Reagan was re-elected in a landslide and George W. Bush wasn’t shot.
JHarp is exactly the type of punk who should’ve - and may have - gotten his skull cracked in the streets of Chicago in 1968.
Don’t waste your time trying to convince him of anything. He doesn’t care. He never will.
I wouldn’t say that Breitbart’s edited video makes the impression that Sherrod was saying something entirely against her actual lesson (not shown in that clip). After all, it does end with her talking about poverty being bigger than race, etc… It’s a pretty big omission, but maybe what Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey said was true — that the video Breitbart had been given was what he’d aired, and he’d never seen the pertinent part where she talks about the lesson she’s learned.
But even giving Breitbart the benefit of the doubt on that last part, something strikes me as strange: It being obvious that Sherrod was still talking, and not leaving the dais at the end of that clip, why would he not seek out a complete, unedited version of that speech? Clearly she was building toward something, as the conservative Anchoress intuited.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/125/655/Ron_Wilkins_Shirley_Sherrod:_Wilkins_Charges_Sherrods_with_Underpaying_and_Mistreating_Black_Farmers.html
http://www.talkgwinnett.net/main/section/6-guests/1592-the-other-side-of-shirley-sherrod
Yeah, and Breitbart’s the bad guy…
{ 1 trackback }