Don't worry, I won't post any pictures for this entry.
I've been sucked into the vortex of these carnivalesque Weiner interviews. As Isabel pointed out, he's become a bit like a Capitol Hill Charlie Sheen--giving almost daily glimpses into a grotesque media.
But Isabel's comment struck a chord with a conspiracy theory I've been developing. Who knows how much of Charlie Sheen's madness has been the result of bipolar disorder, drugs, a combination of both or...possibly...a constructed self. Has Charlie Sheen really been having a breakdown, or has he just been acting as if he's having a breakdown as a publicity stunt.
So here's the conspiracy theory...
What if Weiner has been baiting the media for the last few days? What if he personally did not send the lewd photo to the college girl, but has been devilishly giving evasive answers to the media because he knows it means they will come back. If, at the end of this all, Weiner's innocence is vindicated, then he will have gained sympathy from constituents, massive national recognition, and a heapload of anecdotes to advance legislation to regulate the internet, media, and citizen journalism. People will forget that he was baiting the media and start blaming the conservative blogs who flagged the image in the firt place.
Weiner could have even had one of his own staffers post the image, thus allowing him to reasonably deny he sent it...and yet still claim that the whole thing was "a prank" that made him the butt of the joke. By refusing to deny the image is of him, he's keeping the media curious...his office has literally called the cops on journalists desparate for interviews at this point.
Is the media getting totally played by this guy?
It's pretty far fetched and about as complicated as the plot of the Star Wars prequels. It would require that his staff concocted the most perfect scheme to play on every possible media hot button -- sex scandal, infidelity, possible pedophilia, internet security, celebrity meltdowns -- to put this guy in the limelight. It's a gamble, but 1) Democrats have had no problem voting for perverts, so there is little harm there, and 2) he still retains plausible deniability because no one has actually proven he did it. In fact, he's in a kind of logical sweet spot since it is far easier to prove that he was hacked or that the picture is of someone else than to prove that he wasn't hacked or that the picture is of him. He can come out of this with a somewhat suspicious reputation, but not a demolished one. And what politician doesn't have a suspicious reputation?
I'm not saying I believe my own conspiracy theory that a Congressman would stage his own sex scandal...but I'm not sure how you prove that he didn't. (insert emoticon of your choice here to denote sarcasm)
UPDATE: So sometimes life really is as simple as it looks after all. Rep. Weiner isn't Palpatine; he turns out to have been Sen. Binks...
Comments