After Anthony Weiner claimed a hacker had stolen and posted a photo of his aroused privates clothed under grey underpants, the NY democratic congressman needed a stronger story to explain how more sexually-suggestive pics kept popping up.
This morning right-wing agitator Andrew Breitbart released a photo on his site, BigGovernment.com, that it claims Weiner used to cyber-seduce women. The photo depicts a smooth, chiseled chest with a familiar chin. (It would probably do pretty decent traffic on Adam4Adam.com.) Gawker pointed out that framed photos of Weiner with his wife and Bill Clinton can be spotted on the mantle behind the topless figure.
“The picture was of me, and I sent it,” Weiner said this afternoon as he apologized for originally lying about his accounts being hacked. But he did NOT have sex with that woman! “I have never met any of these women and have never had physical relations of any kind.”
Weiner said he cannot disqualify Breitbart’s claim that Breitbart has been enjoying, er, holding onto an an x-rated photo of Weiner, yet to be released.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Image via
Stupid
Eew. Lamely flexing and weird nipples. The pictures of his wife in the background are what kills me. What a maroon!
Tuck
To be fair, this isn’t a great picture. I’d definitely hit that though.
Weiner should have just come clean from the start. The media circus would have been smaller. Honestly though, Breitbart is so sleazy. If Weiner’s been cybersexing behind his wife’s back, that’s for them to work out. The rest of us don’t get a say because Weiner hasn’t been hypocritically harping on family values ala John Ensign.
Sean
My only problem with this whole thing was lying about it in the first place. He’s not actively trying to intrude in other people’s bedrooms (like many cheating Republicans were), so I see no reason to intrude into his (unless he invites me, and hey, a guy can dream). But at least man up when you mess up, dude! Don’t go with the Shaggy “It Wasn’t Me” defense that everyone saw through immediately.
If I’m ever a politician, and caught in a sex scandal, I promise to come clean immediately and not lie to the people who elected me.
I also promise to know the difference between sending an e-mail and sending a tweet.
Erich
@Stupid: His cheeks were definitely maroon when he had the press conference to apologize, but I would say his behavior was moronic.
Stupid
@Erich: Thank you so much! You are clearly so much smarter than I. Plus, I know it’s important for you very, very, very, very smart people to correct us idiots when we misspell things on the Internet. But in this case, “maroon” is a long-standing joke word: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Kh7nLplWo
Still, I WORSHIP YOU AND YOUR BRAINS! Lots of love.
dan4
This sure complicates matters. It appears this congressman was having phone sex on his government-owned congressional office phone (check out the Gawker story today), and he’s a bit of a sexual predator. No doubt other women will crawl out of the woodwork soon. (Those of you on the institutional left: it’s time for you to stop defending WEINER now.)
http://biggovernment.com/mbroussard/2011/06/06/my-story/
I’m not on a crusade to “take him down.” I just acted to protect myself and my family.
I have nothing against Rep. Weiner. I think he was intrigued by me because I am different than the people he normally meets. I don’t know why he opened up to me in certain ways, but that’s the best explanation I have.
He was trying to get me to talk about myself sexually, and I said, straight up, I’m not an open book. I was real blunt. He would ask me weird things, like “Did you miss me?” I didn’t understand that–how could I miss someone I hadn’t met and didn’t know? What is there to miss about me if you don’t even know me?
Erich
@Stupid: Not smarter buddy, I just have a better grasp of vocabulary. I like the snark though. That’s kind of cute.
FreddyMertz
Though I despise all politicians…I have to remember they are human too..with needs. This does not surprise..though I wish people would come clean first instead of trying to deny it. Heck, the pic of Chris Lee (R) was hot, I’d hit..both of them…I’m lonely..and need a lobbyist job. LOL
JR
@Stupid: Don’t worry, man. Some of us caught and appreciated the reference.
The Artist
Why is this news? America and it’s puedo-puritan ideology. Wiener is horny, run for the hills. Check out Janet’s song “State of the World” to focus on what is important! PEACELUVNBWILDYALL!
christopher di spirito
Congress is a sleaze hole in need of a wash with bleach and penicillin. We send these men and women to Washington to represent us, to fix the economy, create new jobs, secure our borders and interests, and what do they do instead?
Take naughty Blackberry pictures of their junk and email them to imaginary girlfriends in Seattle.
I love this exchange Weiner had with a Nevada woman on his Facebook:
Rep. Anthony Weiner: “You give good head?”
The Nevada woman responded: “I’ve been told really good and I love doing it.”
Weiner responded: “Wow a Jewish girl who sucks cock! This thing is ready to do damage.”
Dude, please. You’re a married man. If your wife, former Hillary Clinton aide, Huma Abed, isn’t making you happy, seek marriage counseling. On your own time.
B
No. 10 · The Artist “Why is this news?”
Alternate question: why is this news on a gay web site when it seems that this “scandal” is a purely heterosexual one! It’s not like Weiner was pretending to be gay to get elected in a predominantly gay district when he is actually straight, and he isn’t exactly a case of a “minister of morality” caught with his pants down.
It seems that Nancy Pelosi has announced that the ethics committee will investigate Wiener to see if he violated any House rules. He gave the expected mea culpa TV interview (thankfully, without his wife by his side as a prop), and will no doubt announce that he’s going to spend a few days in rehab. I think what he should be criticized for rather than this silly “virtual sex scandal” (no physical contact, if you believe him) is the way he treats his congressional staff, assuming the account in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Weiner is true. Other than that, I’d rather not see the press make such a big deal about this sort of thing – if only out of respect for innocent parties like his wife.
ewe
hottie. you mean he was horny and got online. Shocking!!! SO FUCKING WHAT. But he should never have lied. Yes, he should just say he was horny and most people would let it pass. Wow, what i think about and would like him and everyone to know is how gay people are demonized even more for doing the exact same thing. Consensual virtual online sex? OH MY. Lions and tigers and bears.
alan brickman
so much hate on this site1 no wonder equal rights are taking so long…
ILLEATHISASS
DAMN HE’S HOT
mikeandrewsdantescove
Knowing nothing about Mr. Weiner previously. Now I’m interested.
Mike
http://www.last.fm/user/allencommon
Dallas David
When it comes to sex, all men are dogs.
B
Re No. 3 Sean, “Don’t go with the Shaggy “It Wasn’t Me” defense that everyone saw through immediately.”
It’s not that unreasonable, although in his case it turns out not to be true. Cellphone (rather, “smartphone”) security is a major issue. Read http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/170092/android_security_chief_mobilephone_attacks_coming.html for a quick discussion, and also http://www.pcworld.com/article/229225/google_china_bicker_over_attempted_gmail_hack.html describing an attempt to break into U.S. government officials’ gmail accounts.
If a “smart phone” runs Microsoft Windows, you should assume it is as easy to break into as any PC running the same or similar OS. Wiener’s story was not obviously absurd as long as only one message was involved.
Also, the first picture I saw was of some gray underwear. There was an obvious bulge, but the picture was pretty fuzzy too. It could have been anyone. A third party could have downloaded that to a compromised smart phone and sent it – the problem is more people coming out of the woodwork with similar stories, now figuring that they wouldn’t be written off as kooks for talking about a congressman. Wiener should have realized that. Maybe he figured that most people really don’t care and wouldn’t bother after a somewhat reasonable sounding excuse.
Caliban
You know, if you think about it, sending pics of your junk over the internet is this generation’s version of smoking pot. The AFA is probably working on a film called Tweeter Madness right now, where a former good girl sends a pic of herself in a bra to a boy and then 30 minutes later she’s getting kicked off the set of a fetish-porn flick for being “too nasty.”
Joey Carson
Wait a minute, did he say he has “never had physical relations of any kind”?!?
Qweerty, we need to get the (congress)man LAID!!!
Raise your hand to volunteer!
*raises hand*
robert in NYC
This is probably tit-for-tat perpetrated by dirt digger Breitbart because of the stunning ouster of a republican seat in upstate New York as well as the recent demise of fellow republican Chris Lee. I wouldn’t mind betting there’s plenty of dirt on Breitbart. I wonder who he paid to get Weiner’s junk to go viral? My gaydar is red hot whenever Breitbart’s name is mentioned. Either way, Weiner’s behavior was nothing more than wreckless.
Enron
He’s hot, I want to see more! Just looking at that pic of him flexing those hard pecs, I just wanna squeeze them. Anybody who would pass up on that is INSANE! (I’m serious)
TommyOC
@dan4: The previous Weiner article where your seething hatred for something – I’ve yet to figure it out; perhaps everything – appears to have gone missing.
In any case, consider this a warning to fellow Queerty readers that biggovernment.com is, in the kindest of terms, extremely biased against progressives. Think FOX News… if FOX News had a coherent internet strategy. Nothing but bile and, in many cases, manufactured “facts.”
[And in recognition – and possibly to prevent dan’s mouth foam from getting on me – the Weiner story is legit. It’s the only nationally-recognized story coming from their site that, for once, is actually true.]
[And for the record, dan4, I don’t have a problem with conservatives. I just have a problem with a particular brand of modern “conservatism” – which unfortunately is the entire Republican Party platform. Used to be a time when conservatives were about good governance and local authority. Now they’re about segregation, manipulation and obfuscation. Your farce of a website represents that. No thanks.]
Jeffree
I think we can all agree that any legislator who uses the inter-cyber-net-web-tube to share nekkid pix of him/her -self cannot be trusted with things as important as policymaking, marriage,& the economy, and wine lists.
If only Weiner had followed the Bible, in which the J-man offered wise words to a special lady:
“Don’t be no ho!”
ZT
Thanks, Wiener, for backing up the stereotype of the hook-nosed hand-rubbing Yid pursuing gentile females for underhanded satisfaction.
JR
@ZT: “Underhanded satisfaction.” Could never get the hang of underhanded. It has to be overhanded for my satisfaction.
Matt_miami
@TommyOC: please provide some proof that conservatives are for segregation. so tell me something. which party wanted to spreed slavery west to the Pacific ocean. who passed the jim crow laws. What president segregated federal building and the military in 1912. Which two presidents used internment camps for U.S. citizens during WWI & WWII. who blocked the civil rights act of 1957. Yes there was a civil rights act before it was passed in 1963. Which party has elected active members of the KKK. here is a hint. they are all democrates.
And there is no party better at obfuscation than the democrate party. i’ll quote mrs. pelosi herself, “You need to pass the bill, so we can know what is in the bill” Say what. talk about being intentionally ambiguous,misleading and confusing.
Mike in Asheville
@Matt_miami: In 1957, Eisenhower, and Republican, was president. Also, it is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (not 1963), passionately and very aggressively with arm-twisting of many by Lyndon Johnson, Democrat. And, if you want to go the KKK route, then you cannot forget about Strum Thurmond, former Democrat turned Republican hero.
You can pick and choose way too many examples from both Democrats and Republicans to prove almost any point. Of course, that is why I vote for people, not parties. In the 9 presidential elections I have voted — geez I am getting old — and my tally is: 2 Reps (just couldn’t stomach Mondale and Dukakis) and 7 Dems (had to hold my nose voting for Kerry).
**********
Neither party is there to promote or lift the civil rights of anyone, alas, including LGBT civil rights — they are businesses in the business of securing their own political and career base. They only do good when that provides them with greater gains than not doing the right things. They are, afterall, all politicians.
If Shakespeare were alive today, I can’t imagine he would not alter one of his most famous lines to: “First thing we do is kill all the lawyers” and politicians. [Henry VI, Part 2]
Matt_miami
@Mike in Asheville: The civil rights act of 1964 was what the civil rights act of 1957 orginally was before it got watered down. Lyndon Johnson was the majority leader of the senate at the time. Senator Strom Thurmond conducted the longest filibuster ever by a lone senator, in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, at 24 hours and 18 minutes in length, nonstop. Johnson would have let the bill pass if they would have removed the enforcement of civil rights clause from the bill. But a civil rights bill with no enforcement is a useless bill and Johnson knew this. Johnson played both sides of the fence and took credit for both passing and defeating the civil rights act of 1957. Eisenhower signed the bill in 1957 which by then was a watered down voter registration law.
Five years later, JFK proposed basically the original 1957 civil rights bill. JFk died during the process and now Pres. Lyndon Johnson had little choice but to sign the bill that JFK wanted. Johnson was never a proponate of the civil rights act.
strom Thurmond change parties in 1964. He opposed the civil rights as a democrat. As a republican he was useless to anyone but himself and the state of South Carolina.
We agree that both parties are crap when it comes to equality or fixing an real problem. they are just there to stay in office and in power.
TommyOC
@Matt_miami: Prior to the Civil War, the party platforms of the Democrats and the Republicans were THE EXACT OPPOSITE of what they are today. So, it’s much more accurate to say that Republicans of today behaved like Democrats of yesteryear – and vice-versa.
But I’m going to keep this gem of a convo in the present, since I can’t affect yesterday’s policy – only today’s and tomorrow’s. If you’d like to live in the past and hold today’s children accountable for their predecessor’s sins, be my guest. But that’s not for me.
Conservatives of today want segregation. Period. I needn’t point far to show you an example. Conservatives of today want my rights as a gay man to be completely different from their own, all thanks to their religious beliefs.
Manipulation and Obfuscation: ALL politicians are guilty of this to some degree, but Conservatives take the cake. Why? Two words: FOX News. Is there anything on the progressive/liberal side that comes even close to comparing? The network that shouts “Fair and Balanced” while virtually creating the Tea Party, birthing the “birther” movement, and altering/omitting story facts to suit their own agenda… along with the network founder’s admitted aims of destroying the progressive cause… if that isn’t the epitome of manipulation and obfuscation, I don’t know what is.
Spit up all the historical nonsense you want. I’ll happily ignore it. But do feel free to come back at me with an example of progressivism/liberalism that is doing as much to polarize and cheapen the political debate among the American public as the conservative movement has done over the last 15 years. Sure, I could provide you with localized examples of progressives gone bad, but nothing – NOTHING – compares to the nationwide organized assault on intelligent democracy (where intelligence is a BAD thing) as the conservatives have undertaken.
Your turn.
robert in NYC
Tommy OC….when the Tea Partyers say…”we want out country back”. What they’re saying is, they want to go back to the pre FDR days, no social programs (no medicare, medicaid, social security, no health plans, homosexuality was illegal, ditto abortion, segregation, interracial marriage). If they hate government so much, especially when its under the Democrats, why aren’t the likes of Bachmann, Pawlenty, Santorum et al publicly declaring, in fact all of the GOP, that they are refusing their federally funded health insurance, pensions and health insurance for life once they retire? They should also decline their social security for the sake of consistency. I wonder how they’d get access to health care if they lost their jobs, their personal wealth, their homes, would they decline unemployment benefits too?