Dems *still* defending Weiner
Amazing: Weiner initially denied everything, and Leftists and Dems supported his denial--even devising the most outlandish, ridiculous stories to purportedly explain away the evidence known to that point.
And then 5 days later--as everyone now knows--he admitted it was all true.
You'd think that after having their support so casually betrayed like that, Leftists and Dems would be pretty mad at the guy, wouldn't you?
Shows how little you understand Leftists, sparky. With only a couple of exceptions Dems are *flocking* to Weiner's defense even after he admitted he lied.
No better example than Joan Walsh (apparently works at leftist blog Salon), appearing on leftist/wacko Ed Schultz's cable show. According to Walsh the important thing is "the motivations of the people who were bringing this to light--they wanted to destroy him." [1:05 in vid] Walsh apparently things the problem isn't his sending crotch pics to girls he'd never met, but that the icky Andrew Breitbart had the rudeness to point it out.
Walsh continues: "This is private business....You can't accuse him of hypocrisy--he's not a family-values moralizer." Which echoes what conservatives have been saying all along: Democrats get away with every possible ethical violation because they make no claim to be ethical--in any way, shape or form.
No claims to be ethical=no problems when you're discovered to be doing unethical things, eh?
"At this time I'm not going to join a call for him to resign because we don't have all the facts." What she doesn't add is that no conceivable admission of fact by Weiner would ever cause her to call for him to resign, any more than she was disturbed by Clinton's commission of perjury while president.
For liberals/Democrats/"progressives" morals and ethics are for fools and conservatives; for Dems it's about staying in office, regardless of offense. Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, lie, lie, lie--whatever it takes to add one more vote to the D side of the ledger.
And then 5 days later--as everyone now knows--he admitted it was all true.
You'd think that after having their support so casually betrayed like that, Leftists and Dems would be pretty mad at the guy, wouldn't you?
Shows how little you understand Leftists, sparky. With only a couple of exceptions Dems are *flocking* to Weiner's defense even after he admitted he lied.
No better example than Joan Walsh (apparently works at leftist blog Salon), appearing on leftist/wacko Ed Schultz's cable show. According to Walsh the important thing is "the motivations of the people who were bringing this to light--they wanted to destroy him." [1:05 in vid] Walsh apparently things the problem isn't his sending crotch pics to girls he'd never met, but that the icky Andrew Breitbart had the rudeness to point it out.
Walsh continues: "This is private business....You can't accuse him of hypocrisy--he's not a family-values moralizer." Which echoes what conservatives have been saying all along: Democrats get away with every possible ethical violation because they make no claim to be ethical--in any way, shape or form.
No claims to be ethical=no problems when you're discovered to be doing unethical things, eh?
"At this time I'm not going to join a call for him to resign because we don't have all the facts." What she doesn't add is that no conceivable admission of fact by Weiner would ever cause her to call for him to resign, any more than she was disturbed by Clinton's commission of perjury while president.
For liberals/Democrats/"progressives" morals and ethics are for fools and conservatives; for Dems it's about staying in office, regardless of offense. Rationalize, rationalize, rationalize, lie, lie, lie--whatever it takes to add one more vote to the D side of the ledger.
posted by SF at
5:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home