Spirit Airlines jumped on Weiner-gate faster than most, with their well-known marketing prowess. From the same company that targeted Arnold Schwarzenegger a couple of weeks ago, they promoted, this time around, a Weiner Sale that is “Too Hard to Resist,” with the text of the offer reading, “Hurry to book now, before this sale gets hacked.” Tasteless? Definitely, but somehow irresistible and in line for a company who’s president/CEO once shoved himself in an overhead bin to defend his company’s carry-on charges.

And then there was Jon Stewart, with his spoof on his purported “best friend” (college roommate). And then Letterman and Craig Ferguson took off, elongating the tale and at some point, after a few more comics took their turns, the laughs cooled off and the ridiculousness of it all set in.

Curiously enough, the media circus itself sobered up and some even took offense at the ongoing tasteless battering of Weiner.

Still, repercussions from the comic frenzy continued. For example, in the wake of the Weiner scandal, actor Alec Baldwin might now seriously consider running for mayor of New York City in 2013 when it was Congressman Weiner that had been considered as the Democrats’ frontrunner. And Eliot Spitzer, who embarrassingly enough always gets asked for commentary on political figures involved in shocking sex scandals for obvious reasons, said he sympathizes with Rep. Anthony Weiner — naturally.

Imagine – a simple matter of a miss-key on Twitter, results in laying bare (pardon the pun) of personal habits and preferences, exposing personal moral digressions to an unforgiving public.

Miss-key or not, it is a gross lapse in judgment to even consider the use of a medium that is meant for public consumption in the first place. Political figures, by the nature of their chosen paths, give up a certain right to behaviors that can be seen as inappropriate to the “political image” that got them elected in the first place. They are held up to a far greater public moral compass than the ordinary man in the street.

It doesn’t take a trained political PR guru to understand that the greatest sin from the perspective of the public was not the miss-keyed Twitter moment, but rather not being truthful at the moment of crisis. It is a flaw in judgment which should not have happened, given the PR training he must have received on the way to becoming an elected official. He could have joked about it, made some attempt at “Oops, I did not mean to put it out there” (another pun intended) or any other type of Mea Culpa. But to blatantly lie about “questionable certitude” is such a PR 101 lesson – that it becomes incredulous. Where were his advisors?

Message to remember – social media is very social indeed, as opposed to private media.

‘Tis the season to say thanks and, pat downs and virtual scanners notwithstanding, it would behoove all of us to include the TSA among the many things for which we are grateful.  TSA’s efforts at keeping us safe in the skies, deserve our thanks…

The public outcry is nonsense.  It is emotionally driven and without any rational thought behind it.  Just consider what any traveler would reply, when asked whether their own privacy issue would trump taking security risks. C’mon, would anyone want to chance having another Christmas bomber, or shoe bomber or some other murderous-thinking terrorist on board when flying?  Isn’t a pat down or a step into the virtual scanner worth taking, in order to fend off a risk?

And yet, the outcry has reached such proportions that it’s now got Washington involved, with both sides of the political aisle jumping on board saying the TSA has gone too far with their new airport security measures. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, when asked on Sunday’s CBS’ “Face the Nation” if she would submit to one of the new pat-downs gave a somewhat stammered answer,  “Not if I could avoid it. No. I mean, who would?” Even the Homeland Security chairman called for the TSA to ‘Reconsider’ pat downs…

The popular Drudge Report has been leading the charge in escalating the outcry with screaming headlines that have escalated the public’s ire.  First it was, “TSA Warns: Submit Or Pay.”  This was followed with “Former Gov. Ventura Will No Longer Fly Due to Abuse He’s Endured at Hands of TSA” and “Tears After Rough Skirt Search,” “Airports Consider Call To Ditch TSA,” and finally a bit of humor with, “Will Turkey Day Fliers Cry Foul?”

TSA deserves all this, for they anticipated none of it.

It is a classic case of naïveté that a program was rolled out without a carefully planned public information campaign behind it. For instance, as a first, a well-orchestrated PR plan could have informed the public, well in advance, of the radiation statistics of the virtual scanner — that it is ten times less than an ordinary lung X-ray.  That would have assuaged unwarranted fears and minimized the need for the alternative tactic of so-called “humiliating” pat downs. Second, pat downs could have been explained as necessary, citing that terrorists are getting more creative about what they do to hide explosives in crazy things — like underwear. There could have been videos planned, showing what to expect in pat downs, and that “groping” is not the intent. Third, the TSA airport staff should have received “pat down” sensitivity training to avoid the impression of “groping” and thus have better managed the patted-down public’s expectations of the experience.

The momentum is building for a “National Opt-Out day” — meaning passengers should refuse the new virtual body scanners in use at airports around the country and opt out of that procedure.  It is a shame that TSA did not get their act together in time for the biggest travel day of the year, the day before Thanksgiving.  All too late…  Damage done.

Happily TSA Administrator John Pistole said, “the ingenuity and determination of terrorists trying to bring down an airplane rules out changes in screening policies that have been assailed by some passengers as an invasion of privacy.”

Here’s my message: Get over it and get scanned or patted down, for I personally don’t want to have an opt-outer or non-patted down person get on my plane.  Would you?

And THANK YOU, John Pistole for not being dissuaded from keeping us safe….

It’s downright unthinkable and puzzling that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, of all people, wouldn’t think through potential consequences before taking action.  Unless, of course, he has a different agenda…

In the recent profile published by the magazine, titled “The Runaway General,” McChrystal disparaged administration officials, mocking Vice President Joseph Biden and criticizing special envoy for Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke and U.S. Ambassador to Kabul Karl Eikenberry, with whom McChrystal is supposed to carry out U.S. policy, potentially fracturing the unified front that Obama has sought to build for the war and the international coalition.

Oops…

Was this blatant naïveté on the part of McChrystal to simply speak off the cuff and blast the administration or just flawed judgment?  Apparently McChrystal, who spent much of his military career in the world of special operations, didn’t have as much experience dealing with the media, as did other top commanders, such as Gen. David H. Petraeus.  Still, he had “handlers” –civilian press aides assigned to him by the US military.

According to a report in The Washington Post, his now-resigned civilian press aide, Duncan Boothby said that, “he was heavily involved in arranging access for journalist Michael Hastings to McChrystal and his staff, so that Hastings could write the profile.”  Was Boothby aware of the bent that the story was to take?  Did he research the magazine and the reporter? Did he take steps to veer the story in such a way as to forestall any potential damaging results from the interview?  Was the reporter given too much access to McChrystal and his “anonymous” aides, with too little control? Did Boothby media train McChrystal at all?  Were McChrystal and his aides not aware of the administration’s policy that military officers must respect civilian leadership and keep their advice and views private?

Something doesn’t make sense…

It gets more dumbfounding.  Both Boothby and McChrystal fact-checked the story.  What did they read and approve? Did McChrystal intentionally speak out against the administration and choose a popular publication as a platform in which to vent?  If so, poor judgment, that triggered a public spectacle (or circus) with consequences that were easily predictable – a very public firing — reminiscent of the firing of General Douglas MacArthur, who played a prominent role in the Pacific theater during World War II and who was fired for insubordination by President Truman.

McChrystal issued an apology yesterday saying that,  “It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened.” How about that old adage, “think before you speak? “

Poor judgment, indeed.  Sometimes — “It is all a matter of judgment”