I was waiting for a video to appear on YouTube that included the question and answer period that followed the weeping mea culpa. It’s his shifty answers that tell you what you need to know , not his pitiful blubbering over the fact that his lies are no longer credible so now he has to face the music:
I live blogged the presser, here.
Michelle Malkin’s take, here.
Earlier, Andrew Breitbart had boldly crashed the press conference:
Did anyone else notice the deafening silence when Breitbart challenged the media to come up with one example of when he had lied?
Will the “Reality-Based” bloggers who had accused Breitbart of being behind the Weinergate “hacking” , apologize, now that Breitbart has been fully vindicated?
Not a chance: Charles Johnson: I Won’t Apologize to Breitbart.
This one here just keeps on digging.
This Kos Kiddie is swearing up a storm because reporters asked if Weiner would apologize to Breibart. How dare they! He then desperately tries to change the subject by mentioning Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin in totally unrelated updates.
Just for lulz, via Ace:
A hoaxster hacked into Daily Kos and did a perfect, spot-on impersonation of a Kos Kiddie covering the Weiner press conference: NEW DETAILS: Weiner’s Press Conference was FAKE!!
So how do I know today’s press conference was a hoax? There are ten reasons:
1) Today’s press conference was supposedly held at a Sheraton hotel in New York City. Well, I went to websites various New York area Sheratons this morning. Not one of them indicated that Rep. Weiner was going to give a press conference there this afternoon. Not a ONE.
2) Anthony Weiner does not look like that. Go to his website – he has more hair and his complexion is not that dark. Also, having heard him speak many times, I know he does not talk like the guy in the press conference. He’s a lot more combative, louder, and funnier.
4) Last week, Anthony Weiner said he could not say with “certaintude” that the photo was his. Many people here rightly assumed that he knew the photo was not his, but couldn’t say so, because the FBI was involved. Because as you know, if you’ve asked the police to investigate something, that last thing you would want to do is proclaim your innocence. They hate that. Anyhow, the Feds surely would have known that Weiner making a statement would have compromised their whole investigation. And Andrew Breitbart, knowing this, had a press conference with a fake Weiner – so as to keep the FBI off his scent.
5) Who does this help? Clarence Thomas, Dana Loesch, Dana Bash, and some guy named Wolfe. Think about it. Add it up.
6) Normally, during press conferences of this nature, the spouse of the so-called apologetic Congressman is in attendance. But not this time. Why not? Obviously they couldn’t find a lookalike for her.
7) Don’t you think he would have apologized using Tweet Deck?
8) During the press conference, the shadow behind him didn’t always match the image of the person pretending to be Congressman Weiner.
9) I’ve created better fake press conferences using only iMovie, a couple of Apps on my EVO, and a cardboard cutout.
10) Anthony Weiner would never do anything like this.
An excellent essay from Zombie on the the liberal use of the hypocrisy defense: Why the Hypocrisy Defense is political suicide for liberalism
Consider these two statements from two different potential husbands:
“I know I promised to stop drinking forever, honey, but I fell off the wagon again; please forgive me, and I’ll really really try to stay sober from now on, but no guarantees.”
“I’m a tertiary alcoholic, a stone-cold drunk; always have been, always will be. You’re not likely to ever see me sober. Take it or leave it.”
If you had to choose, which would you marry?
Obviously, neither is very appealing, but the liberal stance is that the second potential husband is preferable, because at least he’s honest. The conservative stance is: The first potential husband is preferable, because at least he’s trying.
Within the parameters of this “Hypocrisy Defense”…Which do you think the general public prefers: An ideology that at least tries to champion a moral code, but whose adherents sometimes fail to live up to it; or an ideology that by its own definition is inherently immoral and whose adherents don’t even have a moral code to violate?
Read it all at Pajamas Media.
Linked by Michelle Malkin in Buzzworthy, thanks!