The Star Ledger Editorial Board says the blogger who published the nude photos that former Freeholder Louis Magazzu emailed to a mystery woman he never met is a cyber-bully.
Magazzu was a Cumberland County Freeholder, former Freeholder Director and former Chairman of the Cumberland County Democratic Party. He resigned under pressure from other Democratic party leaders when his Weineresque photos became public.
The blogger who took Magazzu down, Carl Johnson, admits his problem with the power broker was personal. Johnson says Magazzu used the power of his positions to attempt to silence his political criticism and make his life miserable including having him arrested for failing to pay child support.
Yet Magazzu’s demise was not a political assassination, as the SLedger states. It was a political suicide.
Magazzu’s photos weren’t taken by someone else in a setting where he might expect privacy. He took the photos himself, just as former Congressmen Christopher Lee and Anthony Weiner took photos of themselves. Like the congressmen, Magazzu voluntarily transmitted the photos to a stranger. That was stupid.
The SLedger laments the pre-Internet days when the media elite were the gatekeepers of what the public learned about its elected officials:
Photos and racy e-mails that Magazzu sent to a mysterious woman over the internet — a woman who has yet to appear, but who both sides believe exists — were refused by several local newspapers on the grounds they weren’t news. They were evidence of Magazzu’s private relationship. And deserved to be private.
If the photos weren’t news, i.e. of interest to the public, no one would have paid attention to them and Magazzu would still be in office. The photos were not of Magazzu gardening, fishing or playing golf. They were photos he took of himself, nude, in a bedroom and a bathroom. They weren’t evidence of a private relationship. He sent the photos himself to a stranger, a “mystery woman.” If the photos were evidence of a private relationship, Magazzu would have shared them with someone who would have kept them private.
With the possible exception of President Priss, the media elite are no longer the arbiters of what the public knows about it’s public figures. Long gone are the days when the electorate doesn’t know they have a president with polio or one that philanders with movie stars. Long gone are the days that an Assemblyman collecting a police disability pension can be physically fit and the public won’t know about it. Long gone are the days that any public figure can share nude photos of themselves with strangers and expect that the public won’t learn about.
The public rightfully doesn’t trust the media elite to decide what is relevant because the media elite is often driven by its own bias as to what is news and what isn’t news. My bias tells me that the Sledger editorial board would have a very different take on this story if a high ranking member of the Christie administration, a Republican Freeholder from any county or a Republican member of the legislature had been involved, rather than a Democratic power broker.
The Sledger contributes to the demise of its own influence by taking a hyperbolic leap in lamenting the power of the blogosphere:
We’ve created a whole new class of political assassins, and any target is now fair game — not just the biggest-name politicians anymore. Tabloid stalking has trickled down to the next-door neighbor level. Any small town sex scandal can be international news.
The hyperbole continues in the Sledger’s conclusion:
Political figure or not, blogging these photos amounts to cyber-bullying. Attacking your opponent on legitimate political or legal grounds is one thing. But publicizing his private life to destroy his reputation crosses the line into virtual stalking.
I don’t buy it. Magazzu wasn’t stalked, virtually or otherwise. He took the photos himself and pushed the send button himself. Cyber-bullying a Freeholder and former County Chairman? Please!
We’ll have to wait until the next time a Republican does something stupid in his/her “private” life to see if the Sledger really means what it says and lives up to its own standards.
In the meantime, public figures of both parties and from all walks of life should refrain from sending nude photos of themselves to anyone and should be careful about everything they do when cameras are present, which is pretty much anytime they are anywhere in public.
By Barbara Gonzalez, published in The Press (formerly The Asbury Park Press) on August 12, 2012
As the founder of The Bayshore Tea Party, I must take exception to the Press’ Aug. 7 editorial, “The deadly sins of the Tea Party.” It showed a lack of understanding about the Tea Party, our motives and objectives. But it did reveal a lot about the mindset of the editors.
The editorial states that refusal to raise the debt ceiling would constitute the “first default in American history.” In 1933, President Roosevelt confiscated privately held gold. In 1971, President Nixon took the U.S. off the gold standard.
We are upset, not “angry” as the editorial stated, that the actions of the federal government have put each and every American over $46,000 in debt to creditors.
We are upset Congress has “borrowed” $2.6 trillion of the assets in the Social Security Trust Fund, which they have no way to pay back. Borrowing of this nature in private enterprise is called embezzlement, but in the world of politics it is called an “investment.”
We believe the president and Congress engaged in “intellectual sloth” by passing the health care bill without reading it.
The editorial asserted that federal, state and local income taxes are at historical lows. It only mentioned federal, state and local income taxes. It failed to take into account payroll, sales and embedded taxes. When all taxes are factored in, the real total of taxes paid is more than 45 percent.
Many Press editorials and special investigative reports have highlighted government waste. Now, we are being taken to task for calling on the government to fix the very things the Press exposed.
The Press implies that the Tea Party shows too much “courage.” Did the Founding Fathers show too much courage by refusing to prostrate themselves to King George?
Courage is precisely what is needed today. The courage to speak out and tell self-serving politicians that they work for the people and not the other way around.
As for raising taxes on the “wealthiest Americans,” how about defining “wealthiest Americans?” The federal government could tax every person who earns $250,000 or more per year the entire amount and it wouldn’t raise nearly the amount needed to cover the increase in spending. The “wealthy” would simply park their money in the tax shelters their friends in Washington have created.
The editorial called the raising of the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion “routine,” leading one to conclude the Press has lost touch with reality. What is “prudent” about borrowing $2.1 trillion that you have no way to pay back, a fact that was evident to Standard & Poor’s and our nation’s creditors? Prudence is only borrowing what you can afford to pay back. Stupidity and greed is borrowing more than that amount.
In the week since Congress and the president raised the debt ceiling, the “prudent” course according to the Press, the Dow Jones Industrials have dropped more than 1,000 points. Do you still believe it was prudent to increase our debt?
In short, the markets do not believe the United States will be able to pay back the debt without government gimmicks such as inflating the money supply. In the minds of investors and foreign nations, we have defaulted, whether the government admits it or not.
Finally, the Press seems to be lacking the virtue of truth. The truth is the president and Congress keep increasing our debt to the point that future Americans will be living in financial servitude if something is not done to break this cycle. This is being borne out by China’s comments over the weekend that the United States has to get its financial house in order.
China became our biggest creditor thanks to the economic illiteracy that emanates in the White House and the halls of Congress, regardless of whether it is the Republicans or Democrats in charge.
It has been said that democracy operates much the same way as a circular raft, with all participants rowing in a different direction. Washington’s handling of the latest budget crisis is proof positive of this. The solution that was ultimately arrived at seeks to solve the crushing national debt by, paradoxically, increasing the national debt, with some vague, non-binding promise to study yet-to-be-identified cuts somewhere down the road. In other words, our “leaders” punted.
But because liberals did not get their way and failed to secure tax hikes and military cuts, the headlines that followed often bemoaned the supposed newfound lack of cooperation in Washington. “Congress’ Failure to Compromise Undermines Framers’ Design”, declared the Newark Star Ledger. The headline of a similar story warned “Political Dysfunction, Factionalization Threaten Our Republic.”
Of course, when Obamacare was rammed down the nation’s throat despite uniform opposition from the right, with all 178 House Republicans voting against it, and all 39 Senate Republicans voting against it, and the public opposing it by about 53 to 36%, nobody on the left complained about the Democrats’ lack of bi-partisanship. Nobody on the left called for liberals to compromise with Republicans. In fact, the only bi-partisanship was the bi-partisan effort to defeat the bill, as 34 Democrats joined with Republicans to vote against it.
But now that there is actually an opposition party in Washington — by which I mean the Tea Party, not the historically pusillanimous Republican Party — all of a sudden government doesn’t work, and our founders are rolling over in their graves, and the very foundation of our republic is being threatened.
Good grief.
The problem in America is not that the framers did not envision factionalism. The framers were acutely aware of factionalism, realizing as they did that America would be a geographically, demographically, and culturally diverse nation, which is precisely why they created a federalist system with a large degree of state autonomy. They understood that Americans could live best together if our legal systems were largely kept apart. What the framer’s did not envision was the loss of federalism, and the nearly outright eradication of state sovereignty in favor of a giant, overreaching federal government, collapsing under its own weight, that forces dissimilar people to find often non-existent middle ground on the issues that matter the most to them.
If anything is causing the founding fathers to roll over in their graves, it would be our President grumbling that he has not been endowed with the powers of an autocrat. In just the last few weeks, President Obama has lamented, with an arrogance unseen since Napoleon, that it “would be easier if [he] could do this on [his] own,” even though nobody contributed less in terms of ideas to the budget debate than did he. He has complained of having to deal with our “messy democracy.” He even admitted in a speech to La Raza, the taxpayer funded illegal alien anarchy group, that “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting,” and his effete press secretary whined that it’s “Unfortunate we don’t control all levers of government.”
Actually, what’s unfortunate is that for two years Obama did control all levers of government, and instead of creating jobs, or reducing the deficit, or, heaven forbid, reigning in spending, he focused on his vainglorious Obamacare, which will destroy jobs, raise the deficit, and is perhaps the greatest power-grab overreach since FDR’s “Pack the Court” plan.
Getting back, it’s true, of course, that if not for the Tea Party, the recent budget negotiations would have gone more smoothly. And so what? The negotiations would have gone smoothly because there would have been an obvious lack of responsible lawmakers demanding a government that operates within its means. It was the Tea Party Republicans — who, by the way, just won the most recent election with a landslide the magnitude of which had not been seen since before World War II — who demanded spending cuts and an end to irresponsible borrowing, even in the face of opposition from within the Republican Party. The Tea Party Republicans did precisely what they promised voters, and it was not to compromise, it was to stand their ground against an ever expanding, fiscally irresponsible, out-of-control government.
Yet, now that they’re doing exactly that, the left tells us that Americans want compromise. Nonsense. People want things their own way. The only time anyone wants to compromise is when they’re losing.
Besides, certain issues simply do not have a compromise position. There is no compromise position between larger and smaller government. There is no compromise between more and less spending. There is no compromise between higher and lower taxes. There is no compromise between war and peace. There is no compromise between legalized abortion and the outlawing of abortion.
Compromise is good for passing legislation, but that doesn’t mean the legislation passed is itself any good. In fact, it almost always means the legislation is less than ideal. Remember that by definition, to compromise something is, literally, to weaken it. If an army’s defenses are compromised, it means the soldiers are vulnerable. If a ship’s hull is compromised, that means it’s sinking. When a government compromises its laws, the result is no different.
Still, there has become a generally accepted narrative that our political spectrum has two crazy extremes, with sanity residing soundly in the middle. Moderation has become synonymous with virtue. While moderation undoubtedly has merit when it comes to, say, alcohol consumption, it does not always follow politically. Sometimes, indeed, oftentimes, the right idea is on one side of the spectrum, with the intermediate position simply being less wrong than one extreme, but also less than right when measured against the other. This is problematic not just because it creates a flawed law, but also an entropic, downward spiral of increasingly worse laws. Think about it. Take pure water and compromise it with unclean water. That water is less clean than before. Then take that new bowl of water, and compromise it again. Every time the water is compromised it becomes dirtier. It’s no different in the law. Take a good law and compromise it, it becomes flawed. Compromise it again and it becomes inadequate. Continue to compromise, and before you know it all you’ve done is spend a lot of money on ideas that did not work.
Make no mistake about it: our budget crisis is the result of generations of unchallenged compromises.
There is a time for compromise, yes, but for the most part, ours is not a system of compromise, but of majority rule. And that’s more the reason that the most important issues should not be the province of the federal government, but should be left to the states and local communities, where people have more direct access to their government, and cultural, demographic, and geographical differences are kept to a minimum. A one-size-fits-all government fits nobody.
When it comes to the pressing issues that are invariably national in scope, we need leaders who will take a principled stand against the left, who will resist at all costs bigger government and more spending, who will defend capitalism against the command economy, and who will draw a line in the sand and declare that government has come this far but it will come no farther. That is the only way America will remain solvent, to say nothing of prosperous. There simply is no middle road. To compromise with the left is simply to move slowly in their direction, down the path to insolvency and the destruction of capitalism.
And so it is that divided we will stand. United we’ll fall.
Jordan Rickards is a Middlesex County based attorney and the publisher of The Rickards Review, which he bills as “The Internet’s Preeminent Conservative Blog.” (MMM readers know better). Jordan is the Republican nominee for State Senate for New Jersey’s 17th Legislative District.
Since Governor Christie took office, The Star Ledger’s Editorial Page Editor Tom Moran has been constantly critical of Christie’s style. It was Moran’s question about the Governor’s “confrontational tone” at a May 2010 press conference that lead to a “honest and refreshing” Christie becoming a YouTube phenomena and now a national media star.
Michael Aron, the guy who made New Jersey Public Television interesting during his 29 year stint at NJN, has joined NJTV, the station’s successor.
Aron has been named Vice President of News and Public Affairs of the Foundation for New Jersey Public Broadcasting and Chief Political Correspondent of NJTV. His two highly esteemed weekly shows, On The Record and Reporters Roundtable will return soon. Aron will also contribute statehouse coverage to the stations “NJ Today” nightly broadcast when it premieres in the fall.
State owned TV is gone from New Jersey. From a philosophical point of view I think that is a good thing.
From a practical point of view, I think it is unfortunate that the NJN Foundation got used to surviving on the government tit instead of doing the fund raising necessary to sustain independent public television in New Jersey.
From a selfish point of view, I was hoping to make “Bloggers Roundtable” part of my annual Thanksgiving week routine.
Most of NJN’s programing came from PBS. For the most part New Jersey probably won’t notice the difference between NJN and the new NJTV run by Steve Abudato, JR and WNET-New York. For example, as I write this “The Cat in the Hat Knows a Lot” is playing on NJTV and “Seseme Street” is playing on WNET.
What will be missed is Michael Aron and his two weekly shows, “Reporters Roundtable” and “On the Record.”
“Reporters Roundtable” gave New Jersey insight into the people who deliver the news about their state government. While the reporters analysis of the various issues of the week was interesting, what I found most useful was learning about the capability and biases of those who deliver the news.
The enormously high standard that Michael Aron set for journalists with “On the Record” is a great loss to the State and to journalism. Aron’s knowledge of New Jersey history, government and politics probably more in depth than anyone in government and the media. While Aron knows more than everyone, he never lost his curiosity and was never a “know it all.” He didn’t suffer fools lightly, but he never embarrassed them. He is a generous gentleman.
That Aron has not already been hired by NJTV probably has more to do with politics and rivalries than it does with work product and service to New Jersey. That is the way things go in New Jersey, but it is too bad.
Yesterday there were four real Jersey guys on the radio from 5PM-6PM for what might have been the last LaRossa and Gallagher Radio Show on WIFIAM1460.
I’m not knocking THE Jersey Guys, Casey, Rossi and Bob Ingle on Fridays, formerly of 101.5 FM. I enjoyed their show and listened to it whenever I was on the road in the afternoon. My favorite all time show was Casey screaming, “YOU’RE LOSING VOTES RIGHT NOW” at gubernatorial candidate Chris Christie during the 2009 primary campaign while Christie was trying to finesse an answer to a particularly blunt question.
I think 101.5 was nuts to cancel the show that they themselves promoted as the most successful afternoon radio show in the country. I doubt the petition to get the show back on the air will make any difference, but if you want to be part of it, you can do so here.
As good as the show was, my friend Tommy DeSeno is right. As talented as they are, Casey, Rossi and Ingle are not really Jersey guys. Casey’s from California, Rossi from Brooklyn and Ingle from Georgia. They’re not Jersey guys like the four natives who were on the radio yesterday afternoon, my partner Senator Dick LaRossa born in Trenton on July 1 (Happy Birthday Dick!), Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, Fair Haven Mayor Mike Halfacre, and yours truly.
Straight Talk On The Pension and Health Care Reforms
While our show was not nearly as funny as THE Jersey Guys, it was the most informative and honest report of the pension and benefits reform package anywhere to date, if I do say so myself.
My hat is off to Declan O’Scanlon for coming back on the show for second week in a row knowing that I was not buying the hype of the “landmark” nature of the reforms and for answering our questions frankly.
O’Scanlon is high on the impact the reforms are making compared to what would have happened if the status quo continued. However, with only a little dancing, he did acknowledge that without significant economic growth, New Jersey will be in deep doo doo as the taxpayers increase their state pension contributions by $500 million each year over the next seven years. That doesn’t include the municipal pension contributions that come from property taxes.
Botton line…there is a very real possibility that the pension reforms in particular will lead to large tax increases on the state and local levels and/or draconian spending cuts. O’Scanlon did not dispute that. He argued things would be much worse had the administration and legislature done nothing.
During the second half hour Halfacre was upbeat about 1) the fact that the deal could have been done at all given the historical nature of things in Trenton, and 2) the savings Fair Haven taxpayers will realize from the health care end of the reforms.
The highlight of the show was Halfacre’s explanation of how he and the Fair Haven Council have been able to lower property taxes three years in a row and counting: 1) Saying no, 2) Pissing people off, 3) Standing firm when the pissed off people are yelling at you, 4) Doing all of that and getting reelected.
Why was Tuesday’s show perhaps the last LaRossa and Gallagher Show? Dick and I are thinking of changing the name of the show to The Jersey Guys or The Real Jersey Guys. We’re hoping Millennium Radio will issue and cease and desist letter or maybe even sue us so we can get lots of free publicity and beat out Deminski and Doyle on Tuesday afternoons.
I’m sure you remember the row that took place a few years back when it was revealed that “Jersey Guys” Craig Carton and Ray Rossi weren’t exactly Jersey Guys.
It all blew up when that shivering pantywaist Carton ran away from the studio in fear because the state police held a presser and pictured a copy of his license plate, showing he was a “Pennsylvania” guy. Carton actually claimed people would try to hurt him, and left the state. What a punk. It was his second time running like a rabbit. The first time fled the studio was when he thought Dick Codey was going to kick his ass for taking cheap shots at Mrs. Codey. I wish Codey had.
Rossi is a guy who spent most of his life not from here, but moved here to take the Jersey gig. Not exactly a Jersey Guy himself.
Carton left and was replaced by a new “Jersey Guy,” Californian Casey Bartholemew.
The only Jersey connection I could see to the show was frequent guest and Gannett writer Bob Ingle. However I can’t tell you how Bob did because I refused to listen after the hypocrisy of a station whose tag line is “Not New York…Not Philadelphia” was revealed to be “not New Jersey, either.”
Now the faux New Jersey station has fired the faux Jersey Guys and are bringing back the old team of Deminski and Doyle – who have been DJs in Michigan for the past 12 years.
Editors note: The following column by Dan Jacobson was originally published in the June 16, 2011 edition of the triCityNews. It was written before the recent agreement of pension and health care reform struck by Governor Christie, Senate President Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Oliver.
By Dan Jacobson
Any day now, you’ll see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce a deal to “reform” our state pension system.
Don’t believe it. This is a problem requiring 20 years of fiscal discipline. These people can’t see beyond the next election in 20 weeks.
Our state government is $121 billion short of what’s needed to pay projected pension and retiree health benefits. How bad is it? This year’s proposed state budget is only $29.4 billion.
In other words, we’re bankrupt.
Remember the rioting in Greece last year? You bet there could be tear gas over Trenton if this isn’t fixed. And I’m not optimistic.
Last week, I announced I’m running for the state Assembly as an Independent. So let me piss off everyone by outlining what needs to be done. And it’s ugly. No way around it.
First, this problem must be ripped away from the politicians. I’d propose a state constitutional amendment – requiring voter approval – to establish an independent Board of Trustees to administer the pension and retirement health benefits system.
Each year, these independent Trustees would recalculate the total projected shortfall the state faces. No fudging the numbers by politicians. And the Board of Trustees would develop and oversee a long-term plan to restore the system – and thus the state’s finances – to solvency.
In addition, the Board would determine the annual contribution to the system – and it would have to be paid by the state. The elected officials have underfunded it for 15 years. With a constitutional amendment, that would end. No more cheating. We’d pay what’s needed to fix the problem.
And the Board of Trustees would be empowered to do what the politicians can’t: Set up a plan of benefit cuts and tax increases to fix the system by spreading the pain as widely as possible. And the wider it’s spread, the less it hurts everyone individually. Everyone has got to take a hit. We’re all in this mess together.
By the way, those benefit cuts would affect current and future retires already in the system. There’s no other way to do it. Elected officials only talk about changing the benefits for new employees. That’s not enough. So I envision everyone equally screaming – taxpayers, retirees, future retirees – when the Trustees propose a plan to fix this mess. Ironically, that way you know it’s fair.
But this is not a dictatorship. The rescue plan from the Board of Trustees would be submitted for voter approval.
If voters reject it, the Pension Trustees would simply take what’s needed every year from the state Treasury to ensure the system’s solvency. In that scenario, the three-ring circus in the State House – the Governor, the Assembly and the Senate – would figure out how to pay that annual bill. Of course, that will be a mess. But the bill would be paid. No more underfunding the system. No more postponing Judgment Day. I’d rather face it on our terms.
There you have it. That’s the basic outlines of my proposal. Here’s some more details:
The Board of Pension Trustees would be non-political like Judges. They’d be appointed by the Governor with the consent of the state Senate. None would have business or financial connection to unions for at least a decade, if not more. They’d have long and staggered terms as Trustees to minimize political interference.
And in putting together a rescue plan, their directive in the constitutional amendment would be quite specific: To implement a mix of both benefit cuts and tax increases – and it would specifically require both – to spread the burden as equitably as possible across all the citizens of this state.
Sure, that would require subjective judgments. There’s no mathematical formula to achieve this. But at least a rescue plan by the Trustees would be made in good faith by non-political appointees – not politicians seeking reelection. And voters would have the final say.
In other words, we’d face this problem like adults. We’d empower an independent group of people to tell us the truth. And propose a solution for us to consider. We’d then make the final call in a statewide vote.
Sure sounds better than tear gas canisters fired at protestors when a bankrupt state can’t pay its bills – and people become more outraged than anything we’ve ever seen in New Jersey.
But maybe all is not lost. Take the sentiment of retired state worker Vincent Lobascio, 85. He’s ready to sacrifice some of his benefits. Let’s hope most other citizens share his views – or we’re done.
“I’m willing to make my contribution, and I’m a retired guy,” the World War II combat veteran told the Asbury Park Press in a story about the pension crisis. “But don’t kill me.”
I’m with Mr. Lobascio. This 49 year-old taxpayer would pay more to solve this mess – just don’t kill me either. We’re all adults. We all know something must be done. Just spread that burden around as widely as possible. In the end, the solution is likely reasonable.
But politicians can’t do that because they’re competing for the support of blocs of voters – whether liberal union members or anti-tax conservatives. It’s all about getting elected. In fact, both those voter blocs I just mentioned will be outraged at this column.
Oh well. So I’ll get to remain a private citizen. Wow, what a tragedy.
So when you see our Republican Governor and Democratic legislative leaders announce some deal to address this problem, remember this: It’s all about the election in five months when the Senate and Assembly are up for grabs. It’s not a permanent deal. It can always be reversed or changed later. And you bet that will happen when the economy starts to do better and no one is paying attention.
Sure, they’ll make some progress with their deal – just enough to con you to think something is getting done. But not on a scale that really solves this problem. There’s not enough political upside and way too much political downside. The state has never faced a challenge this big. Plus, I don’t believe any figures or estimates these clowns throw around. They’re all biased toward getting reelected.
But a constitutional amendment empowering an independent Board of Trustees goes a long way toward eliminating political mischief.
And in my proposal, we’d even get to vote on any rescue plans from the Trustees. If they want to modify a rescue plan later, we’d all vote on that too. If any plan is rejected, the state would still fully fund the retirement system every year and stop the cheating. Imagine how different everything would be if that was done for the past 15 years.
Hey, such a constitutional amendment sounds reasonable to me. That means it doesn’t have a chance in Trenton.
So in the most unlikely event I get elected to the Assembly – only one Independent has done so in 50 years – at least there’d be one person down there speaking the truth about the most dangerous problem this state has ever faced.
(The 11th District where I’m running includes: Asbury Park, Long Branch, Red Bank, Ocean Township, Neptune, Neptune City, Interlaken, Deal, Allenhurst, Loch Arbour, West Long Branch, Eatontown, Shrewsbury Borough, Shrewsbury Township, Tinton Falls, Colts Neck, Freehold Township and Freehold Borough.)
While Mulshine’s headline is clever and funny, the rest of his blog post is weird, sexist, and homophobic:
And another aspect of this that should tick off any red-blooded male out there. Note in the video below a photo of Weiner’s wife, Huma Abedin, from Vogue magazine back when she was an aide to Hillary Clinton.
Seriously, guys, answer this: Would a dweeb like Anthony Weiner have the slightest chance with a babe like that if he weren’t a congressman?
Just asking.
The video Mulshine posted is a three year old gossip piece from the controversial blog lukeford.net that implies that Weiner’s wife is in a lesbian relationship with Hillary Clinton.
Mulshine’s use of that video raises several questions besides the obvious one:
1) Should Mulshine and his “red blooded” male readers be jealous of Weiner or Clinton?
2) Would Hillary Clinton have a chance with a woman like Abedin if she was not Hillary Clinton?
3) Would the mainstream media (Mulshine) and the new media (Ford) be speculating over Huma Adedin and Hillary Clinton if Adedin didn’t look the way she does? Quick…name the assistant of another first lady or Secretary of State.
4) Did Mulshine view the entire video before he posted it on nj.com? Did he check the source?
5) How much longer will Mulshine have unedited access to post on nj.com?
In the meantime, public figures of both parties and from all walks of life should refrain from sending nude photos of themselves to anyone and should be careful about everything they do when cameras are present, which is pretty much anytime they are anywhere in public.