Tuesday, May 31, 2011
It's even better because of the obvious puns on Rep. Weiner's name.
Such a shame, especially because the guy is such a "prince".
OK, so the previous was written on Sunday. Now it's Wednesday and Weiner has not given a straight answer to any question about the incident. He bobs and weaves in a manner that would make Muhammad Ali jealous, and spins so fast he's probably generating his own personal electromagnetic field. Moreover, he claims that some unauthorized person accessed his Twitter and yfrog accounts, but has evidently made no move toward getting law enforcement, whether the Capitol Police or the FBI, involved in determining who the "hacker" might be. Having seen him on TV on several occasions, I think such an "oh, well" attitude is very out of character for Mr. Weiner, who usually comes on like an attack dog on speed.
Today he said two things that set my BS antenna aquiver:
First, he said he didn't send the photo via Twitter to the young lady who was the addressee on his tweet. Specifically, "I can definitively say that I did not send this." That might technically be correct, because he sent a link to the photo via Twitter, but if that's the way he meant to split semantic hairs, it's misleading. Suggests maybe he called up the guy who officiated at his wedding for some advice on how to deal with potentially embarrassing questions. It's right up there with "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Second, Weiner said he could not say "with certitude" whether he is the subject of the photo in question. That implies (a) he's taken at least one similar photo of himself; and (b) he wears underwear of the same style and color as the man in the picture. What that says about the guy is for each individual to decide for him- or herself.