“Considering his sexting scandals, they might have wanted to re-word this.”
I’m sure they worked very hard to come up with that wording.
I think you’re missing the whole point of the article.
If you continue reading you’ll see other efforts pointing in the same general direction.
“The Daily Caller joins many across the city of New York in kneeling to endorse Mr. Weiner”
“Mr. Weiner is not without stiff competition.”
“Only Mr. Weiner’s tech-savvy campaign throbs through its veins with populist sentiment. The former congressman lasted even when his competitors told him to finish early. His moderate leadership will offer the city protection. Unlike past mayors, he will reach around the table to deal with both parties, rather than passing reforms through the back door. This man is firm in his beliefs, and he is not afraid to sweat. When he unloads his policy ideas, people swallow. The voters of New York are swallowing his message whole.”
I’ll stop there.... I think you probably get it now.
You're right, I do. I previously stopped reading after the part about his opponents beating off. I should have read further, but I'm really over Anthony and his Weiner.
Thanks for setting me straight.