Well, at least we never need worry that there are any shots of him from the gym. Marty eyes mayor run www.nypost.com
Room Eight is closed to new posts. The existing archive will remain up for the immediate future.
If you were a Room Eight writer and would like access to an export of your content, please contact the editor.
This site is not affiliated with or collaborating with any other news or opinion site.
Well, at least we never need worry that there are any shots of him from the gym. Marty eyes mayor run www.nypost.com
Pelosi and Wasserman Schultz said Saturday Weiner should resign, calling his sending explicit photos and raunchy emails to women all over the country "indefensible" and a distraction.
There is no truth to the rumor that because of my unhealthily obsessive blogging activities, I am taking a leave of absence and checking into rehab.
Charlie Rangel, who still has a rotary dial on his cell phone, may not be hi-tech, but he has a keen grasp of the Down Low:
McCartney: Well, she was just 17,
You know what I mean?
It’s getting worse:
From the Politicker: "'I don’t know where those numbers come from,' said Bloomberg, speaking on WOR 710 this morning. 'There’s no rational independent group that would say it.'…Deputy Comptroller Alan van Capelle fires back. 'Dollars to doughnuts this out of touch Mayor has not even read our report.”
That's probably true. But I have read the report. Among the many infuriating things in it, Table 2 on page 9 states in big type that the "normal" rates for contributions to (for example) the current NYC teacher's pension plan is 6.4% to 6.8%. That isn't so bad is it? On page 10 "if no further adjustments to pension benefits are made, other assumptions are accurate, and investment returns are equal to the assumed rate (in Chart 4, 8.0 percent), the gap between contributions as a percentage of salary and the entry-age normal rate will narrow." Well guess what. Presumably based on those same assumptions, in tiny print in a table on page 40 (but without a spreadsheet with all the parameters showing how this is calculated) we find that the total contribution would still be about 20% of salary in 2040. And 14.6% of salary — double Liu's boldfaced rate — in 2060.
The Daily News: "Never in the 222 years since the House of Representatives achieved a quorum in 1789 has a seat holder inflicted such an indignity on the institution of American government that most closely represents the people."
I will be the first to admit that my position on the matter of Anthony Weiner is utterly bereft of moral considerations.
It is entirely a political calculus
Weiner is no longer of any use in the role he had staked out for himself; in fact, he is a detriment.
Weiner’s supposed role was as a spokesman and attack dog.
But what can this man, nationally exposed as a liar, sell to anyone any more?
This will not be a lengthy column. It will be relatively straightforward. I dislike hypocrites. It is that simple. I come close to hating them; but since I try not to hate anyone or anything, I don’t quite get there. As long as Anthony Weiner hasn’t broken any criminal laws then he shouldn’t succumb to the pressures being mounted on him to resign right now. The overwhelming majority of people calling for his resignation are hypocrites. And I am talking about both Republicans and Democrats (especially the spineless Democrats).
I have just read three news accounts of Governor Cuomo’s pension proposals. Cuomo does not propose any sacrifices at all for current workers and retirees. None of the news accounts said any of the following.
1) That current employees approaching retirement and current retirees received drastically more generous and costly pensions than they had been promised when they were hired. The unions claimed it would cost nothing, but they lied.
2) That future public employees would not only receive less in pension benefits than current workers and retirees are getting, but also less than they had been promised when they were hired.
3) That future public workers would earn drastically less in overall compensation than current workers and retirees. In the article, the differences is expressed as a “savings” for the government. The comparison between current and future workers is not mentioned, or justified, or questioned. And it’s connection to broader social trends and values across all areas of public policy is unexplored.