Can there be any doubt that Spitzer was targeted by a politically-motivated Justice Dept, and that his principal crime, for which he must exit from the public stage, is stupidity?
Why don't Democrats realize that they need to be absolutely squeaky-clean, and that ANY human failing or suspicious action will be seized upon and publicized, by the ruthless BushCo/Media Complex?
Does it all boil down to the fact that anyone with the personality that makes them want to be a Honcho is, by definition, an ego-driven, careless, arrogant Servant of Testosterone?
Evolution has given us our Leader class - 'twas ever thus. They will always be flawed, and the rest of us will always just shake our heads and think back on the people who ran for Student Council in high school. Where are they now? Many are probably CEOs, laughing at us.
Spitzer is tragic, but he should have known the rules and he should have kept his pants zipped. It's another sordid victory for Rovism.
Barack? Are you listening? Keep 'em zipped! They are watching your every move.
"The world would be a much better place if only everyone would simply do exactly as I say." -- Gore Vidal
Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(231)
-
▼
March
(17)
- the dream ticket for 2008
- what? again with the Spitzer?
- pretty good video
- coincidences are fun
- my left foot - end of month 1
- robert novak - spreading left-wing conspiracy theo...
- walk away from the book...
- sex/spitzer/sex/obama minister/sex/Britney
- hey, Tom, case not closed yet
- my Left Foot - 3 weeks down!
- i'm rambling again
- spitzer
- joke of the week
- my left foot - Just (Over)Do It!
- my Left Foot - 2 weeks! (UPDATED - 6 pm)
- no pain meds since Saturday!
- my left foot - a week and a half
-
▼
March
(17)
9 comments:
OK... gotta call BS on this one, Barry...
Spitzer wasn't "targeted" by anyone. He's a public official who allowed himself to become compromised by his actions. If there was a criminal investigation into this prostitution ring, and the ring leaders knew they had a major government official on the hook, what's to say there wouldn't be extortion or blackmail to have him slow the case down or stop it altogether. And if he had used these businesses before while he was still an AG, then can you be sure there *wasn't* some sort of extortion going on to keep things quiet?
I'm disgusted with the current administration too (bet you thought you'd never here THAT from Mr. Right Wing Anchor here!). But to blame this on partisan politics is stretching belief, Barry. Spitzer screwed up (literally), placed himself in a position where his judgment can be called into question, and needs to resign.
Do I think this is isolated? No. Does this play out over and over again in government? Yes. Does that make it any more "right"? No. Last I checked, nobody from *either* party was defending him or what he did. Nothing "Rovian" there.
And yes... You bet Barack will be under the microscope. I hope he's as clean as his current image portrays. But anyone is capable of anything at any time.
Duffbert wrote:
"If there was a criminal investigation into this prostitution ring...".
If you read the whole story, you'll see that this was NOT the outcome of a criminal investigation into the prostitution ring.
It started out when bankers noticed 'unusual' activity in Spitzer's account, and they notified the IRS about this. Think about it - Spitzer had made many enemies in the Banking industry, and someone happened to be scrutinizing his transactions (looking for something 'suspicious', perhaps?).
The investigation into his fund transfers (which, if they were investigating 'bribery', as they initially claimed, doesn't make sense, since his transactions were WITHDRAWALS - usually bribery recipients make DEPOSITS), led to uncovering the prostitution shell companies, and at that point, the Justice Department folks were off to the races.
See the first 2 paragraphs at:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1
I don't defend Spitzer's actions, but I don't believe that this would ever have become the sensational story it is, if he were a Republican buddy of the banking industry, instead of a prosecutor of their abuses.
Am I paranoid? Maybe? Am I justified in my suspicions, given the clear track record of Rovian prosecutions of Democrats by the US Dept. of Justice? Absolutely.
And even more food for thought:
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002589
Point taken about that slant, which I had not seen. On the other hand, I don't know that I trust *any* media outlet to have the real facts of any case. :)
On the other hand, reporting requirements on banks due to the "PATRIOT" act (what a misnomer!) could have triggered something like this had Spitzer been moving sizable chunks of money around. There still seems to be some confusion between "withdrawls" and "transfers". You're right in that "withdrawls" wouldn't necessarily be bribery. But "transfers" could be payoffs, attempts to hide money offshore, etc. Again, trying to get the facts of what triggered it via the media is a losing battle. We'll both be wrong. :)
I find Dershowitz's (is that the possessive of Dershowitz?) assertion that this is "private sexual misconduct" ludicrous (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/11/spitzer.analysis/index.html).
Private sexual misconduct would be having a mistress on the side (a la Clinton). Criminal sexual misconduct is paying call girls and hiring prostitutes. The core act of sex is still the same, but the first is a private matter and the second is illegal.
Men have been hiring prostitutes for 3000 years. This was a consensual, commercial deal.
If we exposed and tossed out every public figure who ever paid for sex, there'd be nobody left to run the government but you and me, and you can imagine how that would work out.
Men have been (insert action here) for 3000 years. If we exposed and tossed every public official who ever (insert action here)...
Using that logic, anything goes. "taking drugs", "accepting bribes", "rigging elections", "telling lies", etc. In which case, you have no case against Republicans who pander to big business. It's just a consensual, commercial deal between the two of them... Those who may be affected on the side (wife, children, public, illegal businesses, etc.) must not matter...
You are correct - my point was unconvincing.
How about considering the hierarchy of damage done by those different activities?
Would you be more alarmed by a public official who tried to hide his expenditures on prostitutes, or a public official who lied to a nation, resulting in an illegal war that squandered 3 trillion dollars and terminated hundreds of thousands of dollars?
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm
Yes, by all means, Impeach Eliot Spitzer, Republicans! We are a nation of laws, after all.
oops: 'hundreds of thousands of dollars' was obviously intended to be 'lives'.
Gotta proof-read those rants!
Yes... terminating hundreds of thousands of dollars is horrible. :)
Yes, the effects of the two are far different. No argument there. But both were wrong.
And I'm still not buying the conspiracy angle. :)
Post a Comment