The New York Observer is reporting that Anthony Weiner had a “previously undisclosed” relationship with a congressional aide before he married his wife. During a phone call with the paper's editor, Barbara Morgan, Weiner's top-notch spokeswoman, inadvertently confirmed Weiner's “personal relationship” with the woman.
A clandestine 'personal' relationship. With a co-worker/staffer. Before he was married. With a woman younger than him.
Because that's never happened before.
Even given his acknowledged crappy behaviour, can someone explain to me just why we should get our knickers in a twist over this 'revelation'?
That was my initial reaction too. But there's this from the Observer article:
While relationships between staffers and their bosses–especially in the incestuous world of politics–are not unheard of, this pairing nonetheless suggests that Mr. Weiner was not completely honest when he insisted his personal proclivities were completely constrained to his private life.
And the overreaction from the woman, whose lawyer sent a cease and desist letter to the Observer. And this:
Many found it curious, however, that Ms. Azaria stayed on Mr. Weiner’s congressional campaign payroll after a sexting scandal forced his resignation in June, 2011; Federal Election Commission filings show that Ms. Azaria continued being paid for three months. And as Ron Brynaert, the former executive editor at The Raw Story, extensively documented on his blog last year, Ms. Azaria received an increase in pay from $6,318 to $8,500 for those three post-resignation months–a raise of nearly 35 percent, the records show.
Hmm. Yes, I read the article. Twice.
I guess I'm of the mind that, especially pre-marriage, his private life IS is his private life. And that encompasses any work-related hi-jinx of a sexual nature as well. So long as it doesn't impinge upon someone's ability to do good work, why — again — do we care? Unless what he was doing was illegal/with children/animals, how is it a thing? This is stuff that's going back years and delving into his past to this extent seems ... excessive.
I acknowledge your point re the overreaction though [dang self-serving lawyer types!] and yes, it does give me pause to read that Ms Azaria was given a bump in pay that was surely anomalous compared to her less-favoured colleagues ... but is it facile of me to also comment that when I read the phrase 'Many found it curious ...', it's right up there with 'sources close to the star confide ...' and as a consequence, I glaze over?
I'm still erring on the side of: storm in a teacup. But I do accept that those quote grabs are worthy of further consideration. ;)
Cheers.
