"Gov. Eliot Spitzer, the crusading politician who built his career on rooting out corruption, has told senior advisers he was involved in a prostitution ring, The New York Times reported Monday. In a public statement, Spitzer apologized to his family and the public but did not elaborate on the reported links to a prostitution ring."
AP story Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Oh my. That's not good.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Paterson would be the first African-American governor in NY State.
He would be the first blind governor in the United States.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Interestinger and interestinger.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Previous post was eaten by the internet monster so I'll say this shortly:
I've always liked Spitzer, and I thought he was an amazing Attorney General who ended a long line of AGs who didn't give a crap. He was considered a champion of the peope for awhile in his quest to root out crime and corruption, and based on his previous service, and the fact that I like him, I'm going to withhold judgement until we get more facts in.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Lyrhawn,
Spitzer's performance as governor has been less than stellar when it comes to ethics.
Last year, Spitzer faced a lot of fire over his own "troopergate" in which some of his aides were found to have ordered State Troopers to help dig up dirt on a Republican leader in the legislature.
To be honest I haven't really paid much attention to him since he got to the governor's mansion. My opinion of him his based on his AG service. But I figured there had to be a reason for going from winning the election by like 50 points to have an approval rating in the 40's. The troopergate thing doesn't look like that big a deal. I don't live in New York so I don't know how they feel about it, but, I'm going to assume that isn't the only thing he's done to piss people off.
He has to get at least SOME credit from his AG days though doesn't he?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I wonder, Lyrhawn, would you be outraged if this was a Republican governor?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Haha, so true DK.
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
On a kind of side note. I think it's pretty cool that if Spitzer does resign they would have American's first blind governor. I think that's an awesome achievement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I wonder, Lyrhawn, would you be outraged if this was a Republican governor?
Well since we don't even know what happened yet, it's hard to be outraged. I've said thus far that I'm giving the benefit of the doubt until we know what actually happened, at which point, if he really did something horribly wrong, then yeah, I imagine I'll be pretty angry and very disappointed.
If it were a Republican and we didn't have any idea what happened, I'd wait before saying anything negative about them. The only real thing that'd change is my personal feelings about how much I wish it weren't true.
How about you?
Edit to add: Actually, now that I think about it, if you want to take it down a notch, I'm pissed beyond believe at Detroit's democratic mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. I want him out of office, I'd like him to be in jail, and hell, nowhere near southeast Michigan would be nice too. He's corrupt, he's a liar, and I don't believe a thing he says.
But I'm guessing you'll come up with a reason for why that doesn't count.
[ March 10, 2008, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Well, I am not sure what to think of this. It is not like he went to a massage parlor where many girls are trafficked or held against their will.
I see this (the prostitution part) as purely between him and his family. Now if public funds were used or he lied to investigators, that is something else.
I guess the libertarian in me says, "So what? Make it legal. It's two consenting adults."
If it was legal it would take out much of the demand for trafficking and other heinous sex crimes where a "ring" seems more mafiaish and scary.
On the other hand he made his career breaking up prostitution rings so there is a sort of cosmic justice in his fall. Juicy for the public and unfortunate for his family.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I see this (the prostitution part) as purely between him and his family. Now if public funds were used or he lied to investigators, that is something else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this illegal in NY? Whatever your stance happens to be on the current state of these laws, I would say that it is definitely a public matter when the governor of a state commits a felony.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: I wonder, Lyrhawn, would you be outraged if this was a Republican governor?
When I read this news story, the very first thought I had was "how long will it take DK/BC/RL to start with the 'omg we should be making a bigger deal about this but no one will cuz its teh democrats' commentary?"
quote:Originally posted by lem: I guess the libertarian in me says, "So what? Make it legal. It's two consenting adults."
While I wholeheartedly agree that prostitution should be legalized, until it is, Spitzer is still a politician breaking the law, and should be punished accordingly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:While I wholeheartedly agree that prostitution should be legalized, until it is, Spitzer is still a politician breaking the law, and should be punished accordingly.
If it's proven that Spitzer broke the law, this is precisely how I will feel about the situation. How are first time offenders for hiring a prostitute generally punished? I think locally it's a three strike rule for Johns. I don't know New York's rule, or I guess if he broke the law in DC, I don't know their law either.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
She crossed state lines to meet him, making this a federal crime, a little worse than picking her up off a street corner.
The outrage comes from who he is: not just the NY governor, but a man who ran on his ethics who has publicly attacked prostitution. Hypocrisy makes the papers, whatever your political party.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How are first time offenders for hiring a prostitute generally punished?
I don't at all buy into the notion that he should be punished (legally, I mean-not just politically) as a normal first-time offender.
He's not a normal first-time offender. Whatever his level of crime, they should throw the book at him.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: It is not like he went to a massage parlor where many girls are trafficked or held against their will.
As someone who managed a massage therapy practice for 11 years, I'd like to ask educated people not to conflate it with worse than prostitution. I guess that's why so many people assumed Heath Ledger was up to something immoral when he died.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pooka, there a significant number of entities calling themselves "massage parlors" where trafficked women are forced to work as prostitutes. lem qualified that he wasn't speaking of all massage businesses, but only "massage parlor where many girls are trafficked or held against their will." Such places exist.
quote:If it was legal it would take out much of the demand for trafficking and other heinous sex crimes where a "ring" seems more mafiaish and scary.
I'm not sure it would. It's legal to hire domestic servants, and people are still trafficked for that.
quote:The outrage comes from who he is: not just the NY governor, but a man who ran on his ethics who has publicly attacked prostitution. Hypocrisy makes the papers, whatever your political party.
This is a key point. His efforts against prostitution rings are a big part of what got him elected - less so than his Wall Street suits, probably, but it was still a significant factor.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It's hard to believe a sitting NY governor could be convicted of the Mann Act. It's like a 30s screwball comedy or film noir (it was referenced occasionally in 30s and 40s films, which is the only way I've heard of it.)
According to one article, he could also be indicted for structuring, using transactions less than $10,000 to avoid IRS scrutiny of illegal acts.
I share Lyrhawn's admiration of Spitzer's record as NY AG. Wall Street cheered, literally, at this news, because he'd come down so hard on some crooks in finance and insurance. Too bad he couldn't do as well as governor.
[ March 11, 2008, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by JMDrocks (Member # 10633) on :
Didn't Spitzer prosecute a couple high profile prostitution rings while AG? One has to wonder if he was just clearing out the competition for his "hook-up" buddies.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this illegal in NY? Whatever your stance happens to be on the current state of these laws, I would say that it is definitely a public matter when the governor of a state commits a felony.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think he should be punished for breaking the law. Personally I am not *gasp shock awe.* He was not a regular John and his political and social punishment will most likely be more extensive.
I just think he should of used his influence before this happened to legalize it. Perhaps the public would never accept that tho.
Regarding massage parlors....I am not talking about the rank and file of licensed parlors. I am talking about Asian ones where the girls live there and greet you in skimpy clothing and take you to back rooms for services.
I saw a special on MSNBC on how the girls live and where they get them from and it was very sad. I was shocked that sex slavery existed so extensively in America.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: The outrage comes from who he is: not just the NY governor, but a man who ran on his ethics who has publicly attacked prostitution. Hypocrisy makes the papers, whatever your political party.
Yep. It should be investigated to the fullest extent. If the charges are true, it's terrible.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I like the idea of a law saying that it is illegal to hire a prostitute but not illegal to be one.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I guess that's why so many people assumed Heath Ledger was up to something immoral when he died.
That, and the movie about gay cowboys.
Personally, I find it a bit refreshing to see some corruption from a Democrat. Helps shore up my long held belief that most politicians are corrupt, and not just most conservative politicians.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, at least he wasn't wearing 2 wetsuits.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:How about you?
I think he is human, with human failings, just like the rest of us. As unfair as it is, people in high government offices do need to 'punished' more than an ordinary citizen. Punishment doesn't necessarily mean jail time but they should resign, or be asked to resign.
quote: Edit to add: Actually, now that I think about it, if you want to take it down a notch, I'm pissed beyond believe at Detroit's democratic mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. I want him out of office, I'd like him to be in jail, and hell, nowhere near southeast Michigan would be nice too. He's corrupt, he's a liar, and I don't believe a thing he says.
But I'm guessing you'll come up with a reason for why that doesn't count
That does absolutely count.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't think it's unfair at all for people in high government office to be punished more harshly than an ordinary citizen.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
At least he's not saying that the FBI got it wrong, that he is the victim of a police conspiracy, or that its his opponents out to get him, and he won't be using an airport bathroom ever again.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm not sure this has been brought up, but another reason for Spitzer to step down is to avoid inevitable questions about the role of taxpayer dollars and public servants in his recreational activities.
He has a security detail. Where were they? Did they aid and abet the activity?
Was any of his travel and lodging paid with taxpayer funds?
Etc. etc. etc.
Just in case there's any confusion on my attitude, I was a fan of most of Spitzer's work going after Wall Street in the Enron era.
According to news reports, some of the Democrats in NY have already called for Spitzer's resignation. I'm guessing that the holdouts are just giving him a grace period before they join in.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Governor Spitzer is hunkering down - or hiding - in his home today. Lots of speculation, but no word from the Gov about his intentions.
quote:GOP to Push for NY Gov Impeachment By MICHAEL GORMLEY – 18 minutes ago
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Pressure mounted Tuesday on Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign because of a prostitution scandal, with a top state Republican threatening to push for impeachment proceedings if the governor doesn't step down in 48 hours.
The state "cannot have this hanging over their heads," said Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco.
The scandal erupted Monday, when allegations surfaced that Spitzer, who built his political reputation on rooting out corruption, spent thousands of dollars for a night with a call girl named Kristen at a glitzy Washington hotel.
Spitzer, a first-term Democrat, remained hidden from public view Tuesday, and his plans regarding his political future weren't known. Three New York newspapers called for his resignation, and the New York Post called him "NY's naked emperor."
Spitzer hadn't yet decided whether to resign and hadn't set a timetable for a decision, according to two Democratic officials close to Spitzer and the state's lieutenant governor, David Paterson. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions.
To get articles of impeachment to the floor, Tedisco would need support from the Democratic majority in the Assembly. If the measure passed there, it would still need at least two-thirds approval of the combined vote of the Republican-controlled Senate and the nine-member Court of Appeals to proceed to trial.
It's hard to see how Spitzer can govern with this hanging over his head. He can't make public appearances or face the press.
According to a couple of news outlets, it looks like a majority of New Yorkers think he should resign.
What good does he accomplish for the citizens of NY by staying on?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
One possibility is that he is withholding his resignation until a plea is worked out with federal and state prosecutors. Many pleas by government officials include a requirement that the official resign. If Spitzer resigns without a plea deal, he has less to bargain with and might face stiffer punishment.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think that the majority of people just see this as an unsavory scandal, but when it comes right down to it, prostitution is a form of organized crime.
Maybe the organizers of The Emporers Club pay their taxes, but given how this situation was discovered (FBI analysis if peculiar transaction activity), it would seem not.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He has to get at least SOME credit from his AG days though doesn't he?
Actually, his AG days are the reason why he's toast.
I don't consider it any of my business whether somebody sees a prostitute, and I don't think it ought to be the government's business either. Mr. Spitzer notoriously felt otherwise, and I confess that I am filled with glee to see that he's effectively being brought down specifically because he's held to a black-and-white moral code in general, and even more specifically because he targeted prostitution in years past. Serves him right.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Interesting Harper's article on the subject.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I listened to NPR talk about this for most of the day and I keep going back and forth on what I think should happen to Spitzer as punishment for this.
And I think after having a day to compose my thoughts, I'm down to this: It appears from the information at hand that he very likely is the "Client 9" being discussed. I give him credit for coming right out and admitting he was wrong and he didn't try to stonewall, he didn't try to blame, he fessed up (though not explicitly, which is probably a smart move from a personal stand point). Beyond my feelings of punishment, I'm pretty pissed at him personally. While it's my opinion that prostitution should be legal, it currently isn't and he broke that law, pretty hypocritically given his history. I'm incredibly disappointed in him too. I always viewed him as a sort of People's Pitbull. He was relentless in going after corporate corruption and crime, and regardless of whether or not I like the law, or he likes it, he violated it. That might not mean as much because I'm not even from New York, but that doesn't change the fact that I held him in high regard and feel a bit burned by it.
As for how I think things should proceed from here...that's tougher. I don't think he should go to jail. It's a victimless crime (that ought to spark off an argument there, which I'd rather avoid in this thread, but in THIS case, it's how I feel), it's a crime that is very rarely prosecuted, and for that matter that never gets the kind of attention that his is getting (I mean beyond the obvious fact that he's a major political figure, I mean in even starting the investigation). Assuming there are no charges against him, I think him resigning is his choice and his family's. I don't really have a feeling one way or the other on that one, though I think I lead towards resigning. He made a mistake, it's unfortunate that what could have been a fantastic career, maybe even a shot at the presidency someday has been taken down, but he's the one who did it, beyond whatever politically motivated sources that are behind all this, it doesn't absolve him of guilt.
Having said all that, I'm very, very curious as to how this whole thing got started. I want to know what the bank was doing looking into his personal finances, how the FBI investigation got started, how the wiretaps were approved and why, etc. It looks very suspicious and there seems to be some ambiguity, and I want to know what happened. I don't think, no matter how tainted this investigation may end up being, that Spitzer gets a pass because of it, but I'd still like to know. Him being wrong doesn't necessarily make they way they did it right.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Pooka, there a significant number of entities calling themselves "massage parlors" where trafficked women are forced to work as prostitutes. lem qualified that he wasn't speaking of all massage businesses, but only "massage parlor where many girls are trafficked or held against their will." Such places exist.
While this is absolutely true, hoi polloi has a fair bit of difficulty making the distinction. Clarification -- even apparently excessive clarification -- is a good and necessary thing.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think it's fairly disturbing that any particular woman should be considered worth $1,000.00 an hour. And as long as he pays it, does she really have any choice about who she sees? How is this, then, consent? A woman who is being paid for sex is not a woman giving consent, by my definition.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:A woman who is being paid for sex is not a woman giving consent, by my definition.
Why not? By that logic, Burger King employees don't consent to make burgers.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Nope, they are being compelled by circumstance. How many of them would choose to spend 8 hours standing on their feet, leaning over boiling oil, and listening to people's thoughtful ruminations on what combo meal they want?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For the kind of high priced call girls we're referring to here, I don't see the argument pooka. We're talking about women who make six figures for having stellar figures. Models aren't victims of circumstance. Neither are these women. Both of them could choose to work at that Burger King if they wanted to, but they want to make more money, so they choose to be extremely high priced prostitutes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bearing in mind that I am writing from a place of perhaps unreasonable frustration...
What the heck is it about men and sex!?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Erm, presumably they like it? (You might want to be more specific)
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I think it's fairly disturbing that any particular woman should be considered worth $1,000.00 an hour. ...
In these cases, I suspect that much of the premium is paid for anonymity. (To put it bluntly and in economic terms, a woman with a significantly lower rate may find it more rewardable blackmailing an AG rather than continue with their profession)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That could be taken a lot of ways kmb. But if you mean it the way I think you mean it then my response is:
What, you think only men cheat?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Naw. And any of you who "know" me, know that I am a big fan of sex. But, good heavens don't there seem to a lot of stories about really promising men who defeat a lot of that promise by doing something stupid? Seriously, is one's promising career, reputation, legacy as, say, president, possibility of becoming president and so forth worth what often seems to be pretty tawdry sex? I'm sure women do plenty of cheating, the ones in the public eye seem to be smarter about it, though.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it has more to do with there being far fewer women in public office and far more attention on the men's sex lives.
There've been sex scandals for both genders going back thousands of years, literally. The only things that have changes are our sensibilities towards sex.
I'm not sure how many of the men that have had sex scandals in the last decade that you could really descibe as promising though.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bearing in mind that I am writing from a place of perhaps unreasonable frustration...
What the heck is it about men and sex!?
Evolutionary imperative.
If men didn't want to constantly have sex, the species would have died off years ago.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Having said all that, I'm very, very curious as to how this whole thing got started. I want to know what the bank was doing looking into his personal finances, how the FBI investigation got started, how the wiretaps were approved and why, etc. It looks very suspicious and there seems to be some ambiguity, and I want to know what happened. I don't think, no matter how tainted this investigation may end up being, that Spitzer gets a pass because of it, but I'd still like to know. Him being wrong doesn't necessarily make they way they did it right.
quote: The case started when banks noticed the frequent transfers from several accounts and filed suspicious activity reports with the Internal Revenue Service, the official said. The accounts were traced back to Spitzer, prompting public corruption investigators to open an inquiry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There was a good NPR interview on how banks rank the suspiciousness of particular transactions. Politicians automatically receive extra scrutiny.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sounds fishy to me. I still want to see more details, and I imagine they'll come out over the upcoming weeks and months.
Edit to add: Dag, when was that interview? I was listening to NPR today on the way home from work. I think Talk of the Nation was on, and they were discussing a variety of things related to the case, but one of the guest speakers was talking about how, first of all, it was incredibly unusual that there'd be wiretaps involved with a prostitution case. I guess the banking question would clear that part up, but what's involved with suspicions being raised in that regard?
I'd love to hear that interview.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: Eliot Spitzer's role in a prostitution scandal grew out of a public corruption inquiry triggered by his movement of large amounts of cash from several bank accounts to one that operated by a call-girl ring, a law enforcement official said Tuesday.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
So I've seen.
I'd still like to see more details on what triggered the investigation, or I guess to be more specific, what are the rules or guidelines for what constitutes a suspicious transfer? And how did it get from that to uncovering the links in the prostitution ring?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given all the details that have dropped, it is pretty easy to make a solid guess. Multiple, near-in-time funds transfers from accounts controlled by the same account holder in amounts individually below the required transaction reporting amount, but in total above it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was this morning, probably on Morning Edition. It was between 8 and 8:30.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Man, it really reads like you're looking for a way for Gov. Spitzer to be to some extent a victim here, Lyrhawn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I only heard the last half or so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think it is because politics as a career attracts risk takers and thrill seekers. I'm not surprised that in addition to the "clean" thrills and risks of competing for a high-profile job that doesn't come with tenure, that kind of personality also seeks the risks and thrills of throwing it all away in pursuit of pleasure.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:What the heck is it about men and sex!?
Well, this is only a couple that have posted in this thread, but to them, sex is no more (or less!) important than making hamburgers. So there you have it. P.S. It just so happens that I have a husband with very complex and personal hamburger needs because of his fear of mad cow disease.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Just watched his Spitzer's statement moments ago.
No excuses, many apologies.
He resigned, effective Monday (per request of Lieutenant Governor, who wants the additional time for an orderly transition)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:“I am deeply sorry that I did not live up to what was expected of me,” he said. “To every New Yorker, and to all those who believed in what I tried to stand for, I sincerely apologize.”
“Over the course of my public life, I have insisted — I believe correctly — that people regardless of their position or power take responsibility for their conduct,” he added. “I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor.”
quote: “As I leave public life, I will first do what I need to do to help and heal myself and my family,” he said. “Then I will try once again, outside of politics, to serve the common good and to move toward the ideals and solutions which I believe can build a future of hope and opportunity for us and for our children.”
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Man, it really reads like you're looking for a way for Gov. Spitzer to be to some extent a victim here, Lyrhawn.
As I've said, I'm certainly not looking for a way to absolve him of his guilt. He's resigned, his career is likely over, and he'll have to cut some type of bargin to avoid serious charges. That's a done deal.
But none of that doesn't mean that something wasn't done improperly. The more I read the more it looks like that in fact is not the case, and it's very likely that it's all on the up and up, but there's no harm in looking into to it to make sure.
Edit to add: Dag - Thanks for the link! I'm rarely up that early to listen to NPR.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
And the evil part of me celebrates Clinton losing a superdelegate.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Are you sure? The Lt. Governor is blind, he may not know he's black.
What, it's a Dave Chappelle joke, relax.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
This may become the first sex scandal with it's own soundtrack-- ladies and gentlemen, give it up for Kristen! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:As I've said, I'm certainly not looking for a way to absolve him of his guilt.
I know you did, and I believe you. Even with those two things, though, I'm just saying that's how it comes off, to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I heard on the radio that no deal has been reached with Spitzer regarding possible charges against him.
I agree with having some initial skepticism with regards to prosecutions of politicians, especially when it's cross party.
Most such investigations are on the up-and-up. There are special safeguards in place and everyone is pretty sensitive to the possible problems. However, the bare fact that an elected official is being charged with something that will likely cause him to resign is enough to call for some thought and investigation into whether the investigation was appropriate.
In this case, the things that sparked Lyrhawn's skepticism are common everyday occurrences, but they're not well known outside the law enforcement, banking, and legal communities. I'm glad NPR did that story.
I think resignation is especially appropriate because Spitzer worked a lot to enforce safeguards such as the banking transaction one. Many of the things he got settlements for were not so much per se wrongdoing but skirting the rules that allow potential wrongdoing to be monitored.
These rules are burdensome, costly, and sometimes difficult to understand. Spitzer's philosophy has been to enforce them vigorously. If we are going to have such rules, and take people's jobs or send them to prison when they violate them, the people who enforce them must be held just as accountable.
I'm not sure jail time is warranted here - it depends on a lot of details I just don't have. But he should be prosecuted if what we've heard is true.
***
On a side note, a lot of commentators are giving him grief for not being specific in his apologies. I think that's unfair. Just because I think he should be prosecuted doesn't mean he needs to compromise his defense with public admissions.
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
quote:And when asked whether he, like Mr. Spitzer, had ever patronized a prostitute, Mr. Paterson could not suppress his trademark dagger wit.
He paused, gave a sly smile, and answered, “Only the lobbyists.”
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I'm not so sure the damage to his marriage and the pain and anguish he has caused his wife and family would really put this in the classification "victimless".
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Well, Kristen is no victim-- she just made $1.4 million in 2 days in song downloads. Apparently I wasn't the only one to link to her Arnie St. website.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Geez, well played Miss Dupre.
(I take back my comment about the economics of attempting blackmail vs. continuing prostitution (even at rates of $4300/hour))
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
This was something the press was apparently trying to sniff out. It's in the past and didn't involve prostitutes.
It's something that should have been allowed to remain private.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think it should have been allowed to remain private as well, but, I think he handled it with more grace than a lot of people are able to pull off. I'm a little surprised he answered directly questions on it, and his wife as well, rather than just giving a statement and then telling everyone to drop it.
He seems different than your average high level official, but it's something I can't really describe yet.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Well, this is a good start:
quote:"I think we have a marriage like many Americans, maybe even like many of you," the governor told reporters. "Elected officials are really just reflections of the people we represent."
I mean, I guess I could take issue with him standing up and saying it's normal to have affairs. But they stayed together, which I think is very important. I have more respect for that than if someone falls in love with another person besides their spouse and divorces the spouse and marries their new love -- even if they never had extramarital sex in that process. But I think there are people who don't do either of these, who simply are faithful to one spouse throughout their life.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I have more respect for that than if someone falls in love with another person besides their spouse and divorces the spouse and marries their new love
Yikes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's a shame that that sentiment generates a "Yikes."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
An open question to everyone, as it's something I'm trying to form my own answer to:
Who do you think you'd trust more, a politician who says he has no flaws, or the politician who openly admits his mistakes and problems?
I guess personally it'd matter what those specific flaws were, but I think my gut instinct is that, all people are flawed in some way and no one is perfect, so I'm probably more willing to trust someone like Paterson, who artfully divulges his flaws and offers no excuse other what really amounts to 'we're all human, and you didn't election a demi-god.' Much more so than I would be to elect someone who pretends to be perfect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that that sentiment generates a "Yikes."
I agree, though I'm not surprised that someone would respond with a yikes. Actually I'd say it really depends on the situation. If you're in a loveless marriage and fall for someone else, I don't think I'd lose respect for someone who got a divorce and remarried. It happens. But I think what pooka meant was that she has more respect for someone who works through their issues and tries to make their marriage work, rather than just giving up when things get rough to run off to something easier. And that's where I agree. But not every situation involving marriage and infidelity is identical.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It's a shame that that sentiment generates a "Yikes."
It's a shame that that sentiment doesn't generate a "yikes" from everyone.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
You first.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Because I think that the opinion expressed by pooka that you quoted is one that even people who don't share it ought to be able to respect and understand more than is indicated by your "Yikes."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
And I find the idea that a title is more sacred than fidelity terrifying.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I can see that. What does that have to do with the sentiment "I have more respect for that than if someone falls in love with another person besides their spouse and divorces the spouse and marries their new love."
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
(edited for clarity):How much fidelity to the marriage vow is involved in "falling in love with someone else, leaving your spouse, and marrying them"?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I can see that. What does that have to do with the sentiment "I have more respect for that than if someone falls in love with another person besides their spouse and divorces the spouse and marries their new love."
What doesn't it have to do with that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It has nothing to do with it, unless you're reading far more into her statement than was actually there.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
There is more to marriage than monogamy.
Let's say Fred and Ethel were married for 50 years, had children and raised them joyfully together, always did their best to love each other and create an environment of love. But Fred was in the military and while he was on an extended deployment at one point, got lonely and frequented a prostitute.
He confessed this indiscretion to his wife and they worked through it. They decided to stay together, not just for the children's sakes, but because they felt that they were too good together to give up over a few nights with a woman on the other side of the world.
Meanwhile, Ricky and Lucy were married for 3 years, and as often happens about 3 years in, the early wonder wears off and the little personal flaws become more pronounced. Ricky begins to feel the marriage is too much work for too little reward. He and Lucy begin to spend less time and energuy building a loving relationship and more time and energy either avoiding each other or arguing. Lucy grows distant and sex becomes more something they do to each other than time that they share. Meanwhile, Ricky's co-worker, Darlene genuinely admires him and, while they have certainly never been sexual, he spends more and more time with Darlene and less time and energy on Lucy because he feels appreciated and desired around Darlene. Lucy, feeling neglected, withdraws further. Ricky begins to have feelings for Darlene and she for him. Ricky eventually leaves Lucy for Darlene.
I submit that Fred and Ethel actually exhibited more fidelity to the marriage than Ricky and Lucy did, even if Ricky never sleeps with Darlene till they are married.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreed.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yeah, that whole thing about fishy bank transactions-> IRS -> FBI etc. ?
There's a very good chance that's all crap. Infamous GOP hatchet man Roger Stone tipped off the FBI last year about Spitzer's possible use of callgirls. Apparently Stone went to the same strip-club the prostitutes were referred from, and picked it up via gossip.
We may have another Don Siegelman-like persecution here.
[ March 24, 2008, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Are you saying Spitzer was "smeared" in this case?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
No, I'm saying he was targeted by Dubya'sGang of Thieves beholden to the WallStreet "haves and have mores" displeased with Spitzer's prosecution of their own.
And that the intent was to smear through use of an extraordinary investigation of a man from a VERY wealthy family for transfering pocket change. Note that the clients in HookerGate, the WashintonMadame, HeidiFleis, the MayflowerMadam, etc ad nauseum were shielded not only from prosecution but from having the merest hint of their identities released to the public. Despite the fact that the investigators and prosecutors in those cases had the defendents' client lists. That the "Patriot"Act-abusing scumbags eventurally found "something, anything" does nothing to mitigate that intent to smear.
[ March 25, 2008, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah, so you're ranting and I should ignore you as usual.
Unless you want to provide some proof.
Nah, you'd never do something like that. It upsets your fairy tales.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
"It upsets your fairy tales."
*struggles valiantly to remain silent*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What are you being silent about? Why everyone hates lawyers, or how you're just trying to give me a chance to talk about it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Jim-Me has what my intent was. I notice the remark that was "yikesed" was a truncation of my original statement anyway. My point was that that fidelity can be broken without "technicalities." It also may or may not have described John McCain's second marriage, which is not enough for me to denounce him, but made me a little sad to learn of. What little I know, it was a very difficult time for all involved, so I make an effort not to judge.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)