Tag Archives: New York Times

Pulling It Off for Weiner

970949_10151496605212336_1276412894_n-300x179Originally posted at The Blacksphere

The New York Times “inadvertently” posted an “article on the women involved in Anthony Weiner’s sexting scandal — and then deleted it.”

In other words, the New York Times pulled Weiner’s … never mind.

In June of 2011, Lil’ Anthony Weiner claimed he had been hacked and was subsequently forced to resign from Congress when it was revealed that for three years he had been tweeting pictures of his underwear-clad crotch and other more sexually explicit photos in online exchanges with a bevy of women.

With Weiner in a quest for mayoral-ship, gassing up his Weiner mobile and venturing forth on the streets of the Big Apple, Michael Barbaro of the New York Times  must have thought it might be in the public’s best interest to find out that “For Women in Weiner Scandal, Indignity Lingers.”

Lisa Weiss is a Las Vegas blackjack dealer, one of six women over three years (that we know of) involved in Weiner’s 2011 weiner-tweeting scandal.  Lisa claims she’s still taunted by customers who say things to her like “Talk dirty to me…We know you like it.”

In September 2012, Ms. Weiss posted an apology on Weiner’s Facebook page that said “Please let me apologize again for any pain I caused your [sic] or the beautiful Huma. It was unintentional … I still think you are our liberal hero and we need you back in politics!!”

Apparently, although he’s not sending pictures of his erection to Lisa anymore, Mr. Weiner did respect Ms. Weiss enough to take her political advice.

As a result, Mr. Barbaro wanted to alert the voting public in New York that although Lil’ Weiner considers his lewd behavior a thing of the past, there are women whose lives are still being impacted by his tasteless behavior.

In the meantime, while Huma dreams of life in Gracie Mansion, Barbaro wrote: “For those on the other end of Anthony D. Weiner’s sexually explicit conversations, the episode damaged careers, disrupted educations.”

Barbaro’s story was posted on the web and then suddenly the article was scrubbed from the Times website.  New York Times director of communications Danielle Rhoades Ha explained the article’s sudden disappearance this way: “This story was published inadvertently, before it was ready. As a general rule, we do not discuss stories in advance.”  Ahem, yeah right.

Margaret Sullivan, Times public editor, who called a New York Times Magazine story entitled “Huma and Anthony: The Private Life of a Former Power Couple” a “sweet stop on Mr. Weiner’s redemption tour,” wrote that “from what I’ve been able to piece together, there was a miscommunication among Times editors.”

Yeah, sort of like Weiner’s miscommunication when he tweeted the following message over the Internet to a willing female participant:  “ridiculous bulge in my shorts now. wanna see?” – to which the woman responded, “Yea! can u send a pic?”  Weiner shot back: “jeez, im rushing. let me take a quick pic.”

Now, two years later and despite his photographic improprieties, Weiner has left his pussy cat and Weinergate humiliation behind him to compete in a multi-candidate Democratic mayoral candidate field in which, in liberal New York City, he is in second place.

In their ongoing effort to prop up the Weiner, the New York Times has once again proved their affection for the aspiring mayor by pulling it off for Weiner.

‘Gun Against the Head’ Civil Discourse

Originally posted at BIG Government

In 2008, long before a shooting in Tucson where six people died and 19 were injured, candidate Barack Obama did not shy away from violent imagery when explaining how he would counter Republican attacks during the 2008 presidential campaign. Chicago-style Obama warned: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.”

After Tucson, when it came time to assign blame for what amounted to an attempted political assassination, liberals did not squander the opportunity to blame the Sarah Palin PAC website’s depiction of cross-hairs for inciting the type of uncivil discourse that led to the  murders, and Obama didn’t stop them. In fact, the media all but laid the responsibility for Jared Lee Loughner shooting Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ)  in the head at Palin’s feet.

Liberal commentator Keith Olbermann even went so far as to say: “If Sarah Palin … does not repudiate her own part, however tangential, in amplifying violence and violent imagery in American politics, she must be dismissed from politics, she must be repudiated by the members of her party.”

Four short days after the shooting, Barack Obama used the opportunity to sell T-shirts, rebuke the gun lobby, and use the tragedy to partner with the media and call for “civility in public discourse.”  In other words, the memorial in Tucson became a platform for Obama to reprimand his critics and harness the First Amendment by condemning “point scoring and pettiness.”

Barack recited Scripture, offered condolences, and eulogized all the victims before segueing into rhetoric that heaped guilt upon anyone on the right who might employ hyperbole in political discussion. Citing the gallant actions of those who saved lives in a Safeway parking lot, the President said heroism posed a “challenge to each of us,” and raised the question “going forward” of what “beyond the prayers and expressions of concern,” was  required of all Americans, including himself, to “honor the fallen” and “be true to their memory?”

Politicizing an act that had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with insanity, the President brought up “national conversation” as an “essential ingredient in our exercise of self-government.” Obama also used the occasion to mention the debate over the “motivations behind these killings…the merits of gun safety laws,” and “the adequacy of our mental health systems.”

President “Bring a Knife and We’ll Bring a Gun” Obama chided the nation by saying, “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”

It was touching sentiments such as those that inspired the New York Times to praise Barack Obama for ushering in a New Era of Civility.  Six months later, amidst talk of economic “Armageddon,” as the debate over raising the debt ceiling continues to heat up, Barack Obama is the one who  dropped the ‘civility’ ball.

If it is true that mentally ill individuals can be goaded toward violence by cartoon depictions of cross-hairs, then Obama, who exhorted the nation by saying “rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together,” may have unintentionally provided the impetus for a future tragedy.

At  a Twitter town hall in Washington DC, the man who, when in Tucson, demanded from political adversaries “more civility in our public discourse,” tweeted out to millions that Republicans are using the debt ceiling debate as a “gun against the heads” of the American people.  He even made reference to how Republicans disagree with what they call “job-killing tax increases.” If President Obama wants to set the courtesy bar, maybe he should stick to his own stringent, legalistic language standard and when speaking censor the word “killing.”

Barack Obama’s own words at the Tucson Memorial denounced ‘gun against the head’ imagery, which everyone knows is simply hyperbolic analogy.  However, unless this is another in a long list of examples of Barack Obama exempting himself from the edicts he places upon everyone else, the President either owes an apology to the nation for exhibiting the lack of “decency and goodness” he called for in Tucson, or he should quit looking for any excuse to control speech and politicize misfortune.

Green Maureen the Queen of Mean

In Maureen Dowd’s latest Sunday Times op-ed piece entitled “Playing all the Angles,” the snippy columnist identified conservative women as “mean girls.” As the lovely and gracious Dana Perino said in response, Maureen Bridgid Dowd may “have a way with words” but the New York Times diva of editorial opinion is a perfect example of why the words “mean girls” always come packaged with a large dose of liberal estrogen.

The vermillion haired maven of maliciousness recounted sitting in the sun at the dedication of a bridge linking Arizona and Nevada.  Pint-sized Arizona Governor Jan Brewer spoke as Dowd claimed that her “Irish skin turned toasty brown.”  Egocentric Maureen, who likely burns not tans, shared concern that Brewer would notice the brownish hue and perform a citizen’s arrest on the spot.

Word of advice for Maureen before heading into the wilderness to escape incarceration: check that cracked compact mirror of yours because brown is not your color.  Rising to the surface of your epidermis is a lovely shade of envy-induced shamrock green.

Dowd’s interpretation that the Arizona governor’s struggle against a border invasion of gun runners, drug cartels and gangs is “open season on anyone with suspicious skin tone” proves that people at bridge dedications should always wear sun protection because it appears a New York Times columnist came away from one event with a serious case of heat stroke.

Dowd’s article called the time we live in “the era of Republican Mean Girls.”  The piece accused Republican women of being “grown-up versions of teenage tormentors” who steal boyfriends, spray-paint lockers, and “spread rumors that you were pregnant.”  All three scenarios are highly unlikely because the crowd Maureen runs with despises men, and if pregnant have an abortion before anyone gets the chance to spread the news.

Menopausal Maureen sounds like an envious schoolgirl trapped in a middle-aged body.  Miss Dowd may not paint lockers with spray paint, but rest assured she couldn’t steal a boyfriend from anyone even if she tried, which is likely the reason for the bitter vitriol.

In Maureen’s trivial world, “Jan, Meg, Carly, Sharron, Linda, Michele, Queen Bee Sarah and sweet wannabe Christine” are accused of “co-opt[ing] and ratchet[ing] up the disgust with the status quo that originally buoyed Barack Obama.”  Perhaps the most insulting portion of Dowd’s tirade was mentioning Barry’s name in the same sentence with women who have more smarts in one pinky finger than the entire Obama body politic.

Each woman on Dowd’s laundry list speaks the truth, stands for liberty, represents America, and has captured the interest of the nation. The op-ed column is in itself a spray-painting maneuver because green with envy girls seek attention even if it’s negative.

Maureen accuses conservative women of  “mistreating the help…belittling the president’s manhood…making snide comments about a rival’s hair or spending money on a men’s fashion show.”

Obama should feel belittled around women like Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, because the President couldn’t even figure out how to order a U.S. Presidents for Dummies on Amazon let alone run eBay. Moreover, about the hair, when did Republican ladies ever make mention of Maureen Dowd’s artificially obtained pumpkin-colored tresses?

Nevertheless, Dowd claims Republican women have managed to change the “Hope and Change” mantra. Good for them – it’s about time someone revamped the rallying cry for those who follow the narcissistic neophyte to a more appropriately descriptive “Cope with the Deranged.”

Dowd defended Harry Reid by describing “the Boxer” as “slight…mild mannered and 70-years old.”  Maureen might as well have called the Senate majority leader Casper Milquetoast. The op-ed columnist described Reid finding himself in a race with Angle as Harry having “wandered into the surprise fight of his career – a race where the fur is flying.” Judging from Maureen Dowd’s description, the Senator from Nevada entered the race like an overconfident lightweight boxer who found himself in the ring being crushed by Juan Diaz.

Dowd’s article was somewhat “man”-obsessed. Barack Obama’s “manhood” came up, as did Angle’s “Man up,” debate suggestion, which is odd because Dowd also pointed out that a bespectacled Harry is “slight…mild mannered [and] easily taunted.”  If Dowd thinks Reid is so easily “taunted,” maybe Sharron is spot on and vapid Harry should just bite the bullet and “man up.”

Speaking of bullets, Maureen also referred to Sharron’s .44 Magnum revolver and GMC pickup truck. Apparently, Dowd considers Sharron’s right to protect her personhood from lax Democrat immigration policies as “mean.”

According to Maureen, during the Angle/Reid debate, “With casino red suit and lipstick, Angle played the Red Queen of the Mad Hatter tea party, denouncing career politicians and ordering “Off with their heads!” Maureen Dowd should avoid calling attention to odd shades of  “red” in the same sentence as “head,” attached or unattached, and let’s just leave it at that.

Dowd’s column indicates that the Irish Catholic columnist prefers “soft-spoken Mormon[s],” unless their name is Glenn Beck, and dislikes “outspoken Christian[s],” unless their name is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Disregarding Muslim high school football teams practicing at 3:00 am in Dearborn Michigan during Ramadan, Maureen called Angle’s Sharia law in Dearborn, Michigan debate assertion “nutty,” and the religiously tolerant Maureen should know.

In dowdy Dowd’s liberal world, if a conservative woman trounces a “master of back-room deals,” it is only because she “hates the press,” spouts “weird stuff,” and challenges Barack Obama.

In the Sunday “Playing all the Angles” invective, Dowd cited Harry “Milquetoast” reminiscing about his mother taking in wash from brothels during the debate. Angle all but responded, “Oh, cut the crap Harry, who are you kidding with that liberal, violin playing sob story stuff? ‘I live in a middle-class neighborhood …[and you] live in the Ritz Carlton in Washington, D.C.’” The op-editrix attempted to draw a comparison between Angle unmasking political claptrap and “hurling cafeteria insults,” which just doesn’t fly, in or out of the cafeteria.

Reid challenged Angle on health care and how important it is to have mammograms and colonoscopies saying, “If you do colonoscopies…colon cancer does not come ’cause you snip off the things they find when they go up and — no more.”  What both Harry Reid and the colonoscopy-conscious columnist failed to mention is that after Obamacare kicks in, the going up and snipping off will be done at a local 7-11.

Dowd was especially irritated by Angle’s questioning of Number Three in the Barry, Nancy and Harry “socialist triumvirate,” specifically the pointed questions about verifiable rags to riches truths, one of which Harry described as a “really low blow.” In defense of “mousy” Harry and inspired by Sharron Angle, post-debate, Maureen in fluffy pink bunny slippers promptly “scurried” over to her laptop to administer a liberal low blow to the GOP “mean girls” whose guns and gumption make Democrat Dowd very “jittery.”

News flash to Maureen: Republican women wouldn’t waste their precious time spray-painting your rusty old locker. GOP grizzly girls are doing the hard work of saving liberal women like yourself from Obama bad boys who, if given the chance, would graffiti the whole damn country and cancel every American’s health insurance, which should be making you “jittery,” not Republican women.

%d bloggers like this: