If there were an award for writing the nastiest column of the year, I think Andrea Peyser would walk away with the 2013 version. It’s well-written, almost epic in its brutality, but one wonders what the point is. Why so much venom?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
31 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Someone needs a holiday hug.
Besides “Paul Randing” my title, Elliot is supposed to be the lowest of low because he has PAID for IT while married! It sounds like one of those “Priestly” “Do as I SAY BOYS, not what I DO in the back room”, statements.
According to this “logic”, Newt is a SAINT because he never paid for IT while cheating on the wives he eventually divorced after discovering NEW,Pussy he could get for FREE, and eventually marry!
Happy Festivus!
Because she is a scorpion, and it’s in her nature.
Concur. That and the fact that the NY Post hires for those characteristics. She reflects the nature of the management of that institution, something obvious even from here in Texas.
As a native New Yorker, I give my best yawn to the author.
“You should know the score by now – You’re a native New Yorker” Sorry, couldn’t resist, too much cheap champagne at dinner.
Hasn’t Peyser written some other brutal columns this year? And she works for the MurdochPost after all.
Why so much venom?
Because she works for the NY Post. And perhaps this Murdoch minion is just lashing out because of pieces like this in Gawker: Did Rebekah Brooks Fuck Rupert Murdoch and His Son Lachlan?
You can bet that left a mark too, albeit one I think more richly deserved.
Are you certain you linked to the article you intended? The one I read was a perfectly bland snippet of gossip.
Thanks for the lovely holiday reminder of why I never read the New York Post. I prefer to have a cheerier view of humanity than one which takes into account the apparently bottomless market for shit like that.
Jealousy?
Sure sounds like it. Now, exactly which randy, poonhound/cougar is she jealous OF?
Jealousy is a small part of it. The broadest cause of this venom projection is that the New York Post is ANGRYANGRYANGRY that de Blasio was elected Mayor, desperately wants to destroy his effectiveness and degrade his popularity, and they want to take away from de Blasio his very effective communications pro.
I agree with others in this thread, though; Peyser’s column shrinks in its effectiveness by being so small and personal. It also fails on the basis of the Post’s odd “investigatory reporting” here. Why is it in the public interest to report what a communications director and person who holds no public office are doing in their private lives? That the Mayor and the former Governor are allied politically makes this even more of an extreme nothingburger.
Gotta admire the courage to claim that this episode “…has cemented New York’s image as a sexual mosh pit…”. Wow, clutch those pearls, Andrea- people are still having sex IN NEW YORK CITY!!! Giuliani’s years of good work to take the Big Apple back from its “degenerates”, all ruined.
your explanation of the politics makes good sense, but it’s the over the top nastiness that makes this one notable.
For me, unfamiliar with the New York Post, I didn’t think there was a newspaper in America that would print something like that.
Reading one issue of the New York Post on one of their bad days allows us to understand that this column’s nastiness is completely within their nature. They appear to me to be the National Enquirer with a right-wing political agenda.
The Wall Street Journal is descending to this level, also.
The anger – it burns!
And the fear that generates it is gaining strength in part because the conservatives lost the election.
Picking on de Blasio? Quel surprise!!! Every right wing, corporate-leaning outlet in NYC is on his ass any way they can get there. Same same with David Dinkins, the last so-called “liberal” to hold the NYC mayoralty. (1990-1993) They hounded him as being a tool for “special interests”…of the black, brown and beige variety, of course…and eventually they squeaked out a narrow victory for Rudolph Giuliani. The rest is “Wall Street-ization” history. After 20 years of Wall Street rule, almost all of Manhattan and most of Brooklyn has been sold lock, stock and barrel to the money boys. They have their eyes on Queens next and then da Bronx, and they are not about to let another do-gooder interfere with their massive profit plans. The day the nastiness stops is the day that you will know de Blasio has sold out. Until then? It’s all hands on deck and “What can you dig up or manufacture to make him a one-term mayor?” Bet on it.
NYC’s always been rotten. Glitz vs. people. Right now? Glitz is winning. Big time. If Bloomberg hadn’t come off as being such a rich, supercilious little prick, de Blasio wouldn’t have had a chance. But he did. Now they fight their ever-familiar media game to take him down. Gotta keep that building happening!!! Growth growth growth growth growth growth!!!
Sick shit.
Really.
AG
Did someone make war on Andrea Peyser’s Christmas spirit?
“Why so much venom?”
C’mon, Booman. It’s the Post!!! De Blasio is going to be attacked from any direction possible by the right. And by the neo-libs too, if he actually starts to be more than a figurehead neo-lib himself. The Post get the “scandalous” parts. Even when they’re not.
Lemme see…his wife is an ex-lesbian.
His daughter had substance abuse problems.
He himself is guilty of miscegenation.
One of his top lieutenants is living with Eliot Spitzer, who himself was taken down on sexual grounds solely because he stepped over the “Do Not Touch!!!” boundary lines regarding Wall Street criminals. Was he “wrong” to pay for sex? I dunno. Arguments can be made both ways. But why him? Are there not likely hundreds of NYS pols who are far dirtier on any level…including sexually…than was Spitzer? I’d bet on it, myself. I’d love to see Giuliani’s little dossier, for example. And his boy Bernie Spitzer? Imagine what unpublicized dirt lies under his grimy little fingernails.
Why so nasty?
Because she is paid to be nasty to the targets of the right.
Duh.
De Blasio better get used to it.
Or surrender. Surreptitiously, of course.
This is just the beginning.
Watch.
AG
One correction, there is no such thing as an ex-lesbian. There certainly are celibate lesbians, but as k.d. lang sang, “constant craving has always been”. Behaviors can be modified, but not orientation – it’s in our genes.
I disagree. I think human sexuality is fluid. I still wouldn’t call her an “ex-lesbian” tho.
Say “bisexual” rather than “ex-lesbian” and there’s nothing odd about it. Human sexuality is a continuum, not a set of little bins.
I’ll go along with that.
See my comment below.
AG
That is what she has implicated, if only by not challenging the media. I dunno about any of that. Are there “ex-heterosexuals?” I think probably.
Media coverage is all.
ABC News:
Out.com:
NY Post (EWWWWWwwwwww!!!)
“…was once a lesbian.”
“…identified as a lesbian before meeting her lawmaker husband…”
“In the 1970s, I identified as a lesbian and wrote about it…in 1991, I met the love of my life, married him and together we’ve raised two amazing kids. I am reminded every day how lucky I am to have met my soul mate.”
She hasn’t challenged these or any other stories that imply her ex-lesbianism. Sure sounds like “ex” to me.
AG
God! Next you’ll be telling me she was “cured”.
No. I don’t think that she was “sick,” so why would I think she was cured? I don’t give a rat’s ass what combination of the 7 sexes gets together or for what purposes, really. As long as everybody is consenting, of an age to consent and no one gets hurt in any serious way, it means nothing to me. I said “ex-lesbian” because that is the way that she has allowed herself…for whatever reasons, including quite possibly the simple truth and equally possibly normal political practicality…to be presented.
No big thing as far as I can see. It seems to rub you the wrong way, though.
So it goes.
Political correctness be damned. I just don’t give a shit. I was at a party the other night and at the party was a man in his 50s. Tall, gaunt, rather severely dressed, he introduced himself as a “part-time Talmudic scholar.” Now that’s interesting. After the party several of us were walking back to my car and someone said something about “that strange gay guy.” Everyone but me knew who she meant. I didn’t have a clue. Sexual orientation just doesn’t enter my field of vision unless it is really over-the-top overt. Sorry to disappoint.
AG
Perhaps I was to aggressive in pressing my point. Your arguments reminded me of the Bob Jones U people trying to “pray away the gay”. I know you didn’t mean that.
Was he wrong to pay for sex? No, not if you are that ugly and have a ton of money.
Interestingly, have you seen that a Toronto court has declared Canada’s prohibitions on commercial sex to be unconstitutional?
On a related note – saw [Enquirer?] articles are starting about Michelle Obama is going to divorce Barack . guess now that the website is working they’ll looking for new ways to attack Barack
Meh. The supermarket tabloids were claiming Hill was going to divorce Bill way back when Clinton was President, and they keep trotting that out to this day, every time they can find an angry-Hillary photo and need a news slot to fill. Now they’ve got the Obama/Danish PM selfie hook to hang the template on.
it was the same dynamic with Hillary; a way to attack Clinton. Just saying, it has nothing to do with Barack and Michelle’s marriage, it’s all about attacking Barack. there are paragraphs and paragraphs about how Michelle “lived separately” from Barack in IL [that she lived with the children near their school is not mentioned]