Ten Days That Shook The Weiner

As we enter week two of The Mysterious Case of Anthony Weiner's Cock, the story has finally gotten interesting, mostly for revealing the existence of cretins even more cretinous than Andrew Breitbart and Ace O' Spades.

Take, for instance, Tom-Tom "Tommy" Christopher, a blogger at Dan Abrams' website, Mediocrity. Christopher has written a five-page post celebrating the fact that on one occasion Andrew Breitbart did not publish something false. His headline:

Andrew Breitbart Did Not Run "Weinergate" Evidence Which Turned Out To Be Fake.

Of course, many people don't publish (or repeat) lies all the time. But Tom-Tom thinks that Breitbart deserves a long-winded and poorly-written gold star about the one time Breitbart could have published a lie, but didn't.

According to Tom-Tom, Tom-Tom was contacted by an "under-aged" girl who was chatting with one of Represenative Weiner's online stalkers/accusers. The girl told Tom-Tom that she and her friend had previously communicated online with some other netcretin associated with the accuser, and the girl's friend told the netcretin that Rep. Weiner had communicated privately with her. (The friend later admitted she made this up.) Tom-Tom thinks that Breitbart's decision not to publish an undocumented, third-hand allegation makes him worthy of copious praise. Perhaps Breitbart can return the favor and heap praise on Tom-Tom for not sodomizing newborn kittens before their eyes have opened.

(The love-struck Tom-Tom even promises Breitbart, "For my part, I would testify in court that Andrew did not induce anyone to produce evidence against Anthony Weiner, fabricated or otherwise, and treated the documentation presented to him with circumspection." Of course, such testimony would never be permitted in court, based on such fundamental principles of evidence as compentency, the hearsay rule, etc. Tom-Tom would be more credible promising to catch a grenade for "Andrew," ala Bruno Mars.)

Of course, Tom-Tom's praise of Breitbart as ethical and concerned about protecting minors is based on false facts and premises, as demonstrated here and here. But we're more concerned with Christopher's scumbaggery, not Breitbart's. And Christopher's post is exceedingly creepy.

In the course of his story, Tom-Tom details parts of his lengthy communications over the internet with one of the two high school girls, and names the girls "Betty" and "Veronica" in his post. I'm not saying that Tom-Tom imagined his online chats in this matter, but the mere fact that he was communicating with "under-aged" girls about a sexual subject (the false allegation of inappropriate conduct by Weiner) is pretty sleazy in itself. Someone actually concerned with the privacy of minors might have spent less time (that is to say, no time) communicating with those minors and/or might not have featured them so prominently in a story the only point of which was that Andrew Breitbart did not publish one false allegation he received.

Diving even deeper into the sewer, presented, without comment, is the transcript of a 3.5 hour online sexychat between between some student filmmaker and "Dan Wolfe", in which Dan denies any desire to be the next Joe the Plumber. Like Tom-Tom Christopher, Dan is a concerned parent who spends quality time with his kids by ignoring them for hours while engaged in self-centered online wankery (figuratively) and trivia.

Who knew the internet was so jam-packed with losers?

Update: Tom-Tom gives Andrew some more love by crowing that Andrew removed a link to "underage" girls on the Big Government site after only four days. Whatta guy! At least Tom-Tom didn't get the chance to name those girls after Josie and the Pussycats or other characters in comic books for preteens.