He’s teasing the story, so I imagine he’s got something. At this point, it wouldn’t surprise me. Enoch had anticipated such a revolting development. I think Sextmistress #6 may turn out to be Dan Wolfe, but don’t quote me on it.
I’ll admit, I was surprised to find out that he’d called Bill Clinton to apologize, because the context is just so grotesque. And as I stated in comments, I can’t imagine Clinton counseling Weiner without the risible image of Foghorn Leghorn and Henery Hawk invading my brain.
Ace reported reporting yesterday night that Huma wants Anthony to stay on in Congress, despite the “mounting pressure” to resign. That also doesn’t surprise me. She hitched her wagon to his star, and Hillary’s advising her how to handle this. Even Joan Walsh has dumped Weiner, in consideration of his wife’s pregnancy . . . she says. But if Weiner actually sexted underaged girls, there’s no hope for him, none at all.
That’s partly because he sponsored the ‘Keeping Online Predators Off the Internet’ legislation back in 2007. If you’re looking for a reason that Congressional Democrats haven’t been lining up to defend him, you really don’t have to look any further than that. As absurd as the story has been, the longer it stays on the front pages, the likelier it is that the MSM will begin to focus on the egregious HYPOCRISY!!!
Did I mention Joan Walsh? I think I did.
Even so, and I noted this in passing, yesterday, Da Techguy makes an excellent point:
So my question to Kristin Powers and every other democrat calling on him to resign is this:
How come a congressman who never even had physical contact with these woman MUST resign but a President of the United states with a longer history, and actual oral sex with a woman in the White House not only didn’t have to resign but was defended by many of the same democrats expressing outrage now?
I think the question should be asked of every democrat who releases a statement on this case.
It’s an awesome question from an ethical point of view, but one that’s fairly easily answered with regards to liberal tactics. Letting Clinton be removed from office would have left a Watergate-sized stain on the Democrat legacy; they weren’t about to let that happen. In the present case, they are counting on the public’s reacting to anything Clinton-related as ancient history, whereas the downside if people start talking about Weiner’s legislation is much more immediate.
With ethics investigations of Rangel and Waters pending, it makes it easier for the Democrats to say, no, we don’t protect members who misbehave seriously; just look at what happened to Weiner. This is especially important given Obama’s vulnerability on a host of issues, but most importantly the economy, and because people are beginning to package up accounts of the legislative cronyism and crooked dealing which led to the financial collapse. I pointed and hooted about the MSM’s unwillingness to point to Congress when assigning blame for the economy’s collapse. Now that it’s clear that Obamaist Keynesianism is an utter failure, the last thing the Democrats want people doing is reconsidering the narrative of what brought us here.
Undoubtedly, Hillary is advising Huma that they can survive this, politically. Forgive me for believing that she may have humane considerations regarding her right-hand woman in mind, but it’s possible. It’s inevitable that that’s going to cause animus in the ranks of those who think that the issue here is to make sure that the Democrat brand isn’t too badly damaged. It’s very inconvenient for them, though, because they’ve been rehabbing Bill as a lovable elder statesman.
Then there are the Howard Kurtzes and other folks within the Democrat establishment and the media who will say that they can’t afford to let the bloggers drive Weiner from power, because it will embolden them. With network and print news outlets failing left and right, though, they’re going to have finally to opt for saving their own skin.