Skeeziness

Hot Air finds cause to wonder, are lefty pundits turning on Anthoney Weiner?  Allahpundit links to this Jonathan Chait article, which in turn looks back to a 2001 Vanity Fair piece.

The best starting point for understanding the bizarre controversy surrounding Anthony Weiner is this great 2001 Vanity Fair story about the culture of interns and exploitative sex on Capitol Hill:

The women are heckled as they enter. “Tell us your name and where you are from,” says one of the men. As if on a game show the women comply, one by one. When Caroline says she is an intern, the largest of the group, a white-haired man with a big belly and big laugh, roars, “We’re afraid of interns.” He throws his knife at a lean man named Mike, at the other end of the table. Mike is unamused. He threatens to throw it back. Another guy, rotund and jolly-faced, stands up and does an impression of Marlon Brando doing Don Corleone. The others think it’s hysterical.

Diana whispers that there is no way they can be congressmen. She figures they are businessmen. She wonders how she is going to get out.

They are congressmen—although at first they pretend not to be. One, the youngest, with a tiny goatee, introduces himself as Anthony, an auto-parts salesman. The others call him “the Jewish kid” and make fun of his beard. Their real names and states are as follows: the auto-parts salesman is Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.); the lean Mike is Michael Capuano (D-Mass.); the jolly guy who imitated Brando is John Larson (D-Conn.); the man who was worried about interns is Robert Brady (D-Pa.). ...

The next day, New York’s Anthony Weiner finds the time to hunt down Diana’s E-mail address. He writes that he hopes they might meet again.

Where's Mr. Chait's dedication to that higher truth?  You know, Democrat=good, Republican=bad? This should have been reported as good clean fun, or not reported at all.  Yet here is Jonathan Chait, disapproving.

Now here is the tricky part. Understanding Weiner's character makes it very easy to believe that he would tweet a lewd photo to a young woman. On the other hand, it also makes it easy to believe he didn't tweet the photo but is refusing to explain himself because he did some other embarrassing or unethical act. The upshot is that the allegation against him seems a little sketchy, but it's hard to generate much sympathy for the man.

Perhaps it is slowly dawning on our lefty friends that dishonesty is a universal thing.  Once the lie is exposed they can no longer determine with a certainty when to trust and when not.  They used to think they knew when the rhetoric was just for winning over the rubes.  Now they can't be sure when it's smoke and when it's real.  Is the congressman standing up for the greater good, or is he looking out for himself?  Silly lefties.  He's always looking out for himself.  Always.

Comments

[car finance]

"Is the congressman standing up for the greater good, or is he looking out for himself?"

I love this line. The lefties are definitely only looking out for themselves.