The Blago impeachment panel continues, with Roland Burris the witness today.

The Chicago Way in Action--in Illinois, and D.C.

UPDATE: Burris Needs GOP Votes in Illinois. Chicago Tribune editorial, "Profiles in Cowardice".

Added: Impeachment draft released. It could still be amended after Burris appears before them at 3 pm today.

And Dana Milbank, WaPo, Blagojevich outwits Dem leaders. In case you missed it, Burris is already fundraising and the SEIU plot thickens, An effin' gold mine. Plus, the debut of the Bleeping Blagojevich Burger.

We just had East St. Louis, now Pittsburgh, the ACORN issue is not going away:

A group of dissident members is seeking a federal investigation of ACORN for alleged criminal violations stemming from an embezzlement scandal that rocked the organization last year.

The splinter group, ACORN 8, released a 24-page document Wednesday that asks federal investigators to consider fraud, embezzlement and conspiracy charges, and criminal civil rights violations relating to the embezzlement of nearly $1 million from the nonprofit's accounts and an alleged cover-up of the theft for almost a decade.

"Moreover, due to the admission that a felony has been committed, other federal offenses may have also been committed ... ," states the document signed by 14 members of ACORN 8, including recently expelled members of ACORN's national board of directors.

The embezzlement and accusations of voter registration fraud in at least eight states, including Pennsylvania, have cost ACORN -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- the support of a benefactor that gave the activist group $7 million in the past decade.

Presumably these dissidents are Dems who have enough clout to keep these investigations going in an Obama Justice Dept. It wasn't close this time.

P.S. One of the dissidents apparently was a naive idealist--and is especially tenacious now:

Inman, a retired school teacher who lives in St. Paul, Minn., became a dues-paying ACORN member about four years ago when an ACORN worker knocked on her door and sang the praises of the group's work.

When the owner of a "Clean Flicks" franchise in Utah was arrested for sexual acts with underaged girls (I thought they were eighteen...), it was international news. After all, a guy who edits swearing and nudity out of Hollywood movies getting oral sex from a fourteen year old is big news right?

Of course if your the mayor of Portland, and you engaged in sexual relationship with a young, male intern named--I kid you not--Beau Breedlove, its a case of "move on people, there's nothing to see here.

Former community organizer and current mayor of Hartford, Connecticut is submitting himself for arrest today on charges of bribery, fabrication of evidence and conspiracy. Party affiliation isn't explicitly mentioned in the Hartford Courant, but there is a picture with the following caption.

Hartford Mayor Eddie Perez addressed the crowd and led a cheer for Democratic winners at an Election Night victory party at Union Station in Hartford last Nov. 4

Frankly, that's pretty brave of the Courant in this political environment. They might want to keep a watch out for Dodd's goon squad.

Perez apologized to voters for his "lapse of judgment". Jammie Wearing Fool notes that this is becoming a popular excuse for Democrats caught red-handed doing things that would get a Republican the death penalty.

A lapse in judgment?

Hmm. That sounds familiar.

Politics, of course, involves compromise—and by sticking with Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary, Obama has signaled his willingness to overlook an earlier lapse in judgment by his nominee in order to get the most competent person for the job.

There must be an "oh crap" hotline for Democrats for public relations advice since they all seem to be using the same "words that work". "Lapse in judgment" sound so much better than "cheating", "stealing" or graft.

Barack and Blago's money buddy Tony Rezko is movin' up, out of the hole. Sun Times:

The convicted businessman -- poised to become a crucial witness in the massive corruption case against ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich -- was quietly moved out of a downtown jail and into another facility in mid-December.

Authorities seeking Rezko's cooperation pushed for the move after Rezko complained about being held in the tough confines of solitary imprisonment, known as "the hole," even as he was providing information to prosecutors. [snip]

Rezko's relocation is a sign that, even with thousands of taped conversations of the governor, investigators still highly value Rezko's potential as a witness.

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

Andrew Stuttaford, on Michael Phelps's recent scandal:

In the meantime, I merely note that this broken wreck of a man's failure to win any more than a pathetic fourteen Olympic gold medals (so far) is a terrifying warning of the horrific damage that cannabis can do to someone's health—and a powerful reminder of just how sensible the drug laws really are.

Legalize it. Regulate it. Then tax the everloving hell out of it. There's your stimulus money!

via Samizdata

Now that my favorite congresscrook is in the news, it's time to resurrect and update an old post:

Congressman John Murtha’s mystery earmark sounds familiar. He sent one my way when I worked for the Defense Logistics Agency.

I was overseeing several R&D projects for improving distribution when my boss handed me a single sheet of paper with a short paragraph stating I had a million dollars to determine if using third party logistics providers for DLA was feasable. The kicker was the study had to go to a “not-for-profit trucking research institute engaged exclusively in motor-carrier R&D”. Apparently the one-legged, left-handed, harpsichordist was other-wise engaged.

We didn't need a study since DLA was already making extensive use of third party logistics. We already knew it was feasable.

I checked with the legislative liason officer. He told me the requirement came from John Murtha of the House Appropriations committee (see conference report 104-863). I was not to question the requirement, but to dutifully spend the money.

Dems hit ethics pothole--even the AP has noticed so it must really be obvious. And they haven't even picked up on the Rahmbo scandals--but then he doesn't have to be confirmed by the Dem Congress.

Then there's the latest mini-Madoff--we are still talking billions, but only $8 billion, chump change these days. R. Allen Stanford is also a big Dem donor, who is not only accused of fraud but drug money laundering, etc., and helping pay for a party hosted by Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton at the Dem convention. ABC has unearthed a photo with their story. Stanford is also suspected of bribing foreign officials. Wonder if any of them donated to Bill's presidential library. Hillary's off schmoozing more foreign officials.

AP says the pattern has developed so quickly since the election. Really?

Meanwhile the number 2 Dem leader in the Senate, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois Machine) is angry in Greece. No doubt on an urgent foreign fact-finding mission. At our expense. After just railing at corporate greed and passing a porkulus bill.

P.S. Once again, Mick and I emerge from the blog fog on the same page:)

Rahmbo's questionable housing deal and its tax treatment gets an airing in the Tribune today:

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel's Washington lodging arrangements, a rent-free basement room in a Capitol Hill home owned by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) and her pollster husband, have inspired debate among tax experts and in Republican-leaning parts of the blogosphere.

One issue is whether Emanuel, who served in the House with DeLauro until early January, should have listed the room either as a gift or as income on his congressional financial disclosure forms. Emanuel's disclosure filings contain no mention of his use of the room.

A murkier question is whether Emanuel has a tax liability for the arrangement. The matter may have particular sensitivity in the early days of an Obama administration in which at least four picks for high posts have had confirmations delayed or derailed by tax irregularities.

--crossposted at BackyardConservative

I didn't comment on Eric Massa and his allegations that he was being bounced from the Congress because he wouldn't vote 'the right way' on healthcare.

All that red meat, just dangling out there for the taking. It was all a little too contrived.

Massa represents a long-time Republican district out of upstate New York. He was part of the 2008 tide of allegedly blue-dog Democrats that captured Republicans seats.

Its hard to see how the Democrats benefit from forcing him out, since his district will almost certainly go back to the Republicans, but being rid of a problem like Massa may be its own reward.

Certainly it sends a message to the largely centrist freshman class of Congress persons that they are expendable if they don't create some value for the party.

After 40 years of marriage, Al and Tipper Gore are divorcing.

According to an e-mailed statement obtained by The Associated Press on Tuesday, the Gores said it was "a mutual and mutually supportive decision that we have made together following a process of long and careful consideration."

Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider confirmed the statement came from the Gores, but declined to comment further.

As someone who has been married a long time, I found myself surprised by this news, since for all of Al's other flaws, his virtues as a husband and father were never really in doubt. They had all the earmarks of a healthy relationship--successful adult children, independent success and interests, no money or substance abuse problems. Add to this the benefit of a very long relationship, where you can literally read each other's minds and accommodate each other's likes and dislikes automatically. I just did not see this coming. Its ironic that Bill and Hillary Clinton are still married, but the Gores are divorcing.

There is only a couple of reasons people married this long get divorced--they've been waiting for the opportunity for a long time, or one has betrayed the other.

I suspect the later, especially considering Al Gore's celebrity, wealth and power. I think the John Edwards scenario is in play.

The left loves its mythology, and never seems to know when to let it go, holding candlelight vigils for the Rosenbergs well after Soviet records confirmed that yes, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were indeed spies. I bet you can still find a lefty abruti who will still insist that they were innocent victims of the 'red scare'.

Joining the long list of lost causes was the most blatant exercise of politically-motivated racism since the Democrat's Jim Crow hijinx --the high tech lynching of Justice Clarence Thomas. Always quick to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of racism and not above planting agitators at Tea Party gatherings to flesh out their slanders, Anita Hill was a cut-out, an unconscionable slander whose claims could easily have been checked, but were not.

The time is long overdue to take a hard look at hard facts, so that we can put those accusations in the garbage can, where they belong.

The first of these hard facts is that, contrary to what has been repeated so often in the media, it was not just a question of what “he said” versus what “she said.”

A whole phalanx of female witnesses who had worked with both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill came out in support of him at his confirmation hearings.

One of those witnesses went out of her way to point out that the image that Anita Hill projected on television bore no resemblance to the behavior and attitudes of either Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas that she had seen with her own eyes.

On the other side, one witness backed up Anita Hill’s story by saying that she had been told the same things by Anita Hill when they both lived in Washington.

But then the fact came out that this star witness had left Washington before Anita Hill went to work for Clarence Thomas, so there was no way that her corroboration could be true.

There were ways in which different versions of events by Hill and Thomas were quite capable of being checked — but were not checked.

That failure to check the facts was very strange in a situation where so much depended on the credibility of the two people. Here are the two versions.

According to Clarence Thomas, he hired Anita Hill at the urging of a friend because an official of the law firm at which she worked had advised her to leave.

According to Ms. Hill — both then and now — she was not “asked to leave” the law firm but was “in good standing” at the time.

This too was not just a question of “he said” and “she said.” An affidavit sworn by a former partner in that law firm supported Clarence Thomas’ version. That was ignored by most of the media.

Since the Senate has the power of subpoena, it was suggested that they issue a subpoena to get the law firm’s records, since that could provide a clue as to the credibility of the two people.

Senators opposed to the nomination of Judge Thomas voted down that request for the issuance of a subpoena.

After Anita Hill’s accusations, a group of female members of Congress staged a melodramatic march up the Capitol steps, with the TV cameras rolling, demanding that the Senate “get to the bottom of this.”

But “getting to the bottom of this” apparently did not include issuing a subpoena that could have shown conclusively who was truthful and who was not.

In another instance, there was already hard evidence but it too was ignored. Clarence Thomas said that Anita Hill had initiated a number of phone calls to him, over the years, after she had left the agency where they both worked. She said otherwise. But a phone log from the agency showed that he was right.

The really fatal fact about Anita Hill’s accusations was that they were first made to the Senate Judiciary Committee in confidence, and she asked that her name not be mentioned when the accusations were presented to Judge Thomas by those trying to pressure him to withdraw his nomination to the Supreme Court.

Think about it: The accusations referred to things that were supposed to have happened when only two people were present.

If the accusations were true, Clarence Thomas would automatically know who originated them. Anita Hill’s request for anonymity made sense only if the charges were false.

The lies were thick on the floor, as Hill, a standard liberal Democrat, was characterized as a Reagan conservative. ironically to provide her with credibility that her true political leanings could never endow.

Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune reflected the incredulity of the time.

". . . to believe Hill, we have to believe that someone who had been the soul of probity suddenly, on her arrival, became a sexual thug -- and then, the moment she left, wholly reverted to his saintly self, never to transgress again."

A New York Times poll at the time revealed that 58% of the public sided with Thomas, with only 24% credulous of Hill's claims. That pretty much corresponds with the far-left demographic, which suggests that the only people who believed Hill, did so for partisan reasons.

One of the most interesting and complimentary observations made of Clarence Thomas' conduct during his Senate confirmation was made by Camille Paglia.

Make no mistake: it was not a White House conspiracy that saved this nomination. It was Clarence Thomas himself. After eight hours of Hill’s testimony, he was driven as low as any man could be. But step by step, with sober, measured phrases, he regained his position and turned the momentum against his accusers. It was one of the most powerful moments I have ever witnessed on television. Giving birth to himself, Thomas reenacted his own credo of self-made man.

Its ironic that this issue would come up now, as we find ourselves in full battle with the forces of Progressive totalitarianism. Anita Hill was an is nothing more than a collaborator, while Clarence Thomas exemplifies the character required of true Americans to defeat the efforts to render them slaves in their own country.

I know conservatives who say they don't care whether Obama is a natural-born citizen, but I differ. It does matter whether he became President by fraud. If that part of the Constitution doesn't matter, then what parts do matter and why? The convenient bits?

I don't know if Obama was born in Hawaii. Riddle me this: why won't he produce a birth certificate unless he has something to hide? If that makes me a 'birther', fine.

This situation is ludicrous. As things stand the top executive in Hawaii, who is on a personal mission to vindicate Obama, is reduced to waffle. Obama has been protected by a bodyguard of lies about his whole career. Nearly 6 months ago only 42% of Americans were sure that Obama is a natural-born citizen (CNN poll!). It looks like the guy is illegitimate. He can change that but doesn't and won't say why not. What does that do for his signature on Obamacare? What does that do for his authority as commander in chief?

UPDATE:

I'm lifting this from the comments below to show that for an issue with "no traction" this one sure provokes debate -

Dave:
I'm conservative, hold to the rule of law, and don't have more reason to believe Obama was not born in Hawaii than for me to believe G.W. Bush wasn't born in Connecticut. For those interested, James Taranto wrote a piece on this topic in 2009.

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2011 6:40 AM

Posted on January 22, 2011 06:40

mark:
That's true if Bush has refused to show his birth certificate and spent a fortune in legal fees to fight that and sealed his college records and many other documents. Dave, the guy's an obvious fraud. It couldn't be more blatant if he wore a t-shirt with 'Con-man' on it. If he produces the original certificate, then that's the evidence, not a 2007 computer print-out with no detail and a statement by a parti-pris government official. It would take Obama what, 10 seconds maybe, to get it done? This 'birther' would then say "Ok, I asked for proof he's qualified, he's finally supplied it, end of story, why'd it take so long?" I'm in mixed company of course with Limbaugh, Matthews and the Governor of Hawaii, who can't even say "I've seen it, but won't show it because Obama won't let me." I guess that means he can't find it.

It's an obvious, blatant con which relies on the good nature of people like you. Talk about walk like a duck, squawk like a duck, maybe it is a duck.

As for Taranto's piece, it boils down to:

1. Yes, the law is that he needs to show he was born in Hawaii.
2. We should accept the 2007 print-out produced for a political campaign by a civil servant dismissive of the public interest even tho Obama refuses to supply his original birth certificate for no reason at all except some imputed Jedi head-fake against his opponents.

Posted by mark | January 22, 2011 7:11 AM

Posted on January 22, 2011 07:11

Dave:
"It would take Obama what, 10 seconds maybe, to get it done? This 'birther' would then say "Ok".

And that is why I suspect he won't. The birther controversy only works to Obama's advantage by marginalizing those who advocate it. On this issue, I wouldn't do any thing different if I was Obama. I'd even smirk.

Whether 'birthers' are right or wrong (and I think they are wrong), there is no traction for them on this issue. That should be remarkable considering Obama's recent low polling. I figure the reason for the apathy is the perception by many Americans that the Constitution is as flexible as a rubber-band. If the commerce clause can be used to invalidate the rest of the document, they aren't going to be worked up that Obama's 18 year old mother could have missed the residency requirements of 1961 America by one year - especially when that requirement is not valid for those born after 1986.

If Americans and the judicial system regarded the constitution to mean what it says, then the birthers probably would have had their day in court. So would've the folks who complained G.W. Bush and Dick Cheney were residents of the same state - a constitutional violation for a President and VP.

There is a rising tide of conservatism in the country now. I say concentrate our efforts on the commerce clause and the health care mandate. That is where the momentum is to restore the constitution to mean what it says. If we can't roll the misuse of the commerce clause back, worrying about 50 year old residency requirements aren't going to matter.

Posted by Dave | January 22, 2011 9:45 AM

Posted on January 22, 2011 09:45

mark:
"I figure the reason for the apathy is the perception by many Americans that the Constitution is as flexible as a rubber-band."

Isn't it that perception that's at the root of the counter-revolution called The Tea Party and the reading of the Constitution at the start of the new Congress? Doesn't look like apathy to me.

"Whether 'birthers' are right or wrong (and I think they are wrong), there is no traction for them on this issue."

Actually you're 180 degrees wrong on that. Limbaugh, Matthews, Abercrombie, Andrew MacCarthy and many others across the spectrum say Obama should produce his birth certificate. That's traction. Between 40% and 60% of Americans have doubts that their President is a natural-born citizen. That's traction. Faced with those doubts, what would a man with nothing to hide do? Smirk, as you suggest? The idea that Americans don't care because of a technicality of Hawaiian law that says "Obama might have been 'natural born American', but just misses" is preposterous. No-one's ever heard of it, it doesn't change the substance and I query whether it's even valid in that sense, but I don't want to distract from the central argument by debating arcana like that or whether Bush and Cheney were disqualified as residents of the same state.

Here is a liberal view which is compelling if you think that Presidential authority matters:

From David Hahn, "Publisher, StatePaper.com " August 5, 2009.

Publisher: Obama Should Produce Original Birth Certificate

"At StatePaper.com, we know by making this statement we will be instantly tagged as "racist," "birther," or other pejorative terms by those who defend the President of the United States. We often defend the President and the job he is doing and are regularly lambasted for being "too liberal" or an "Obama lover" by some of our most prolific critics.

But, here is the issue:

The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of our country. Article II of the Constitution requires the President to be a natural born citizen. Without reciting them here, there appears to be some serious questions raised about whether President Obama was born in the United States or Kenya. We have not checked sources, but there are reports that some witnessed his birth in Kenya.

The President's campaign staff and then his administration have released and placed on the internet a "Certificate of Live Birth." We do not dispute the validity or correctness of that document as others have tried to do, suggesting the use of computers to alter seals and names. By releasing this document the President agrees that the claims about his status as a natural born citizen is an open, important, public issue.

But, this "Certificate of Live Birth" is simply not the best evidence that the President and his administration could offer to lay to rest any doubt about his status as a natural born citizen.

Barack Obama is a lawyer and a graduate of Harvard Law School. All law students study the body of law we call "Evidence." One of the core tenets of American law is the "best evidence rule" which requires the production of original, or certified copies, of original document to prove a fact. Abstracts and summaries are not original documents.

The President has offered an abstract (Certificate) of his birth, but not an original birth certificate which would be the best evidence of his birth. We need the best evidence so that it can do what the best evidence is meant to do; dispel the doubts about a fact. We need to see the Birth Certificate. That's the one that is often handwritten and signed by the doctor.

Lawyers and legal thinkers will, obviously, argue the finer points of the "Best Evidence Rule" and its applicability to this matter. But, that misses the point. The notion of "Best Evidence" is solidly-grounded in law. This is an important public matter and it seems now that the President has started down the path of offering some evidence (Certificate of Live Birth), he should offer the "best evidence" (Original Birth Certificate) which is the source document for his birth. The document behind the document which has been released. This is what is needed now in the court of public knowledge.

The fact in question here is the constitutional qualification of the President of the United States to hold office. With a simple nod, the President could offer the American people the best evidence, the source document(s), as he learned about at Harvard, and dispel those who question his birth as a natural born citizen. His failure to provide this best evidence, when it could be so easily done, raises only more questions, which fuels an ugly public debate."

http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2009/08/05/4a79c4716da39

As part of my mission to persuade Dave that the issue has traction note this:

My wife is starting a new job, we will be getting new insurance because of it. We are REQUIRED to provide not only our marriage certificate but the long form copies of the birth certificates of both of our children.

Having to produce a birth certificate is not an irregular occurrence for the average person so when Trump says this to the general public, they understand it.
......
On Morning Joe just now Joe Scarborough nailed it pointing out that the liberal audience of the View applauded when Trump said this. If the White House doesn’t see that this is trouble then they ought to. And the attempt to describe Trump as “going birther”, Mika’s disgust and the exiling of the segment to the “News you can’t use” segment doesn’t change the fact that an awful lot of people saw him say it and heard that applause.

While on we're on the subject of toupees, here's a ditty I composed 20 years ago to annoy a friend:

TOUPEE OR NOT TOUPEE

Toupee or not toupee: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobblier on the mind to coiffure
One's bonce with curls of an outrageous rug
Or to take ointments 'gainst the curse of slaphead
And by anointing end it ? To shine: to gleam;
No more; and with a mop to strike a pose
Against the moulting of a thousand natural locks
Which make a hairdo, 'tis a flocculation
Devoutly to be swished. To dye, to streak:
To streak: perchance brylcreem: ay, there's the rub.

Shakespeare of course understood the problem, but flaunted his disability:

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub.

Dear Congressman Weiner,

I loved the photo you sent... "Large. Cape. Tights." Phew! I loved the other photos too. Quite the acrobat. I'm so aroused right now that I want to confess. I am not in fact a mere nubile female. Get this: I'm a hairy-arsed, amply tattooed, amply endowed, amply qualified agent of The Axis of Evil. Iran, North Korea, Belgium…specifics don't matter.

Please explain to me how stupid I am because I don't understand why Americans worry that your interwebthing could be hacked and get you blackmailed. What is this 'hacking' hocuspocus ? I just enrolled on Twitter with a picture of Princess Carrie Fisher and fished for you. Capiche? No hacking, just fishing. So easy. My colleagues do the same with all your politicians. Some lasting friendships have occurred.

Anyhoot here's the thing. I need some information….

John Podhoretz thinks Twitter makes sex scandals unsurvivable.

No politician is going to survive a sex scandal any longer. No one. Not after Eliot Spitzer's 2008 humiliation was followed by South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford's extramarital "walk along the Appalachian Trail" in 2009, which was followed this year by the revelation of Arnold Schwarzenegger's love child, which was followed in turn by the indictment of 2004 vice-presidential candidate John Edwards.

Consider this: Weiner is the third married member of Congress to resign his seat this year due to behavior resulting from sexual peccadillo. He follows Rep. Chris Lee (who went trolling for exotic partners on Craigslist) and Sen. John Ensign of Nevada (who resigned before the Senate Ethics Committee could bring him up on charges of having bought the silence of the husband of a staffer with whom he'd had an affair).

Podhoretz gives his reasons:

Twitter is the reason. The citizenry's disgust with political misbehavior has an entirely new kind of populist outlet, one that is uniquely resistant to mainstream-media efforts to choke off the oxygen of a story.

We all know Weiner was undone by Twitter, the same social-media system he misused when he mistakenly exposed a soft-core-porn photo of himself intended for a college kid in Washington state to the entire Twitterverse.

But Twitter didn't destroy Weiner just because he'd done his dirty work on the site. It destroyed him because of what Twitter has become -- a kind of national town hall of a sort and on a scale we've never seen before

Podhoretz is just the latest in a long line of pundits to attribute a new communications technology with transformative powers, but this change has been with us since the internet became a public utility. I was participating in email forums as far back as 1993 and while the scale of modern 'connectedness' is orders of magnitude greater, Twitter still only reaches about 13% of U.S. adults, with no expectation that all of them will be sharing the same bit of news.

"If there have been more sex scandals lately, I think we have to look no further than the current state of political polarization and the industry it's created. We have millionaires and billionaires funding amenable communities of Progressives and Conservatives, each only too happy to receive and run with a 'tip' on some elected official's sexual peccadilloes. Wienergate wasn't a Twitter phenomenon, but rather the predictable result of a new media dynamic. It has now become common knowledge that the original source of the story first contacted MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and Andrew Breitbart only secondarily. While there is no proof that Maddow deep-sixed the story, Breitbart's availability was the key factor in eventually bringing down the Congressman. Whether it's Breitbart of Mediamatters.org, there exists a willing media entity to exploit virtually any tip from any source.

Whether an elected official survives a sex scandal or not depends on the circumstances and the way things are handled, but the gaping maw of partisan media is going to insure that if anything is out there, it will in fact be exploited to the fullest extent. While it's tempting to invoke the technologies as a new paradigm, it's still the same old Homo Sapiens running afoul of their social conventions and relationships. Wiener tweeted, but ultimately it was people he couldn't and shouldn't have trusted to be discreet, that brought him down.