Spitzer Political Implications

Will Eliot Spitzer resign? I think he will tomorrow.

Should he?

Survey USA just did a poll and finds 58% of New Yorkers say yes.

Here's a thread to discuss the political aspects of today's Spitzer revelations.

And, will he keep his superdelegate status at the Democratic convention?

Earlier threads are here and here.

< CNN: Spitzer Under Criminal Investigation | "Ex Ante Fairness" >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Posted this in the last thread at the end (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:20:00 PM EST
    SUSA says New Yorkers, including most Democrats think that Spitzer should resign.

    thanks I just added it (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    to this post above.

    Gold standard and all that, but (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:23:14 PM EST
    aren't you and J stealing BTD's reserved thunder here?

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    that was quick.

    I don't see how he can be effective now, (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Angel on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    regardless of whether or not he is charged with a crime.  

    He could be effective..... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:32:33 PM EST
    with a new governing strategy.  

    If he got to work with the state senate to repeal/revise our prostitution, gambling, drug, and other vice laws, open up some casinos and with new windfall in vice taxes invest in the infrastructure and cut income taxes...he'd win re-election in a landslide, guaranteed.


    Yeah, I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by lilburro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:15:10 PM EST

    Fat Chance, but..... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:53:19 PM EST
    He does that and I don't care if Clinton or Obama wins, I'd start raising money for a primary challenge in 2012.

    All he has to do is go (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:26:35 PM EST
    inpatient rehab for alcohol and/or drugs and all will be fine.  May have to change his party registration to Republican though to pull it off.

    Rehab unnecessary if you find Jesus (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:19 PM EST
    See, e.g., David Vitter, George W. Bush.

    However, I don't think Elliot Spitzer is going to be inclined to take that tack!


    What, you've never heard of (none / 0) (#65)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:11:54 PM EST
    Jews for Jesus?

    I've heard of them (none / 0) (#73)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:21:34 PM EST
    But I still don't think Spitzer would go that route.

    New York is probably the one place where finding Jesus -- especially if the finder is Jewish -- would be considered a negative political development!


    58% (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by wiredick on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:28:47 PM EST
    of nyorkers say resign. 60%of cajuns voted to return vitter to office.  whats that say about the bible banging south

    Go (none / 0) (#54)
    by Athena on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:50:10 PM EST
    I think Emperor Eliot should resign.  Take his hypocrisy and live off his father's money.  

    Good employment ? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Coral Gables on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    As the saying goes...in this case there is neither a dead girl or a live boy.

    I want to know if the $5000 an hour hooker has a good health care plan and a dollar for dollar matching 401k provided by her employer. A good benefits package could sway my future employment.

    Probably independent contractors. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:03:02 PM EST
    Epitome of hypocrisy is why (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Saul on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:59:24 PM EST
    Spitzer needs to resign. While AG he went after wall street criminals, mafia, and prostitution crime.  How many went to jail because of his investigation of prostitution? Probably plenty.  Can not have it both ways. It really is a shame cause I liked him a lot.

    No Quick Action (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:01:34 PM EST
    Spitzer should not immediately resign unless he knows he's going to be charged with a crime (then he should resign because he can't effectively lead NY and deal with criminal charges) or has other information beyond what we know suggesting this is going to get worse for him (and I mean beyond simply embarrassing disclosures).

    Otherwise, he should wait awhile and see how it plays out.  Everyone said Larry Craig and David Vitter were toast, but they're still around.  Bill Clinton survived Monica because he hung around past the initial call for his resignation and fought.  There's no need for Spitzer to rush and I don't think a poll on the day the news breaks is necessarily the last word on what his constituents will ultimately think.

    Now, maybe this is going to get a lot worse and Spitzer will ultimately need to resign, but rushing to surrender seems premature, especially given the history of politicized investigations and prosecutions in this Administration.    

    I told you it was a political hit job (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:13:12 PM EST
    Per ABC and Brian Ross, DoJ and IRS were monitoring Spitzer's financial transactions and that's what led them to the prostitution ring.  It wasn't the other way - that they were looking at the hookers and just happened to catch him.  From the article:

    The federal investigation of a New York prostitution ring was triggered by Gov. Eliot Spitzer's suspicious money transfers, initially leading agents to believe Spitzer was hiding bribes, according to federal officials.

    It was only months later that the IRS and the FBI determined that Spitzer wasn't hiding bribes but payments to a company called QAT, what prosecutors say is a prostitution operation operating under the name of the Emperors Club.

    * * *
    The suspicious financial activity was initially reported by a bank to the IRS which, under direction from the Justice Department, brought kin the FBI's Public Corruption Squad.

    "We had no interest at all in the prostitution ring until the thing with Spitzer led us to learn about it," said one Justice Department official.

    Now, we've all heard the song about self-financing candidates and rich candidates - that they can't be bought because they don't need the money.  Spitzer is rich.  He doesn't need the money and his taking bribes would be implausible at best.

    Like I said earlier:  johns don't get prosecuted in NYC and the only reason they might is (1) the activity is too flagrant, (2) there's another message being sent, or (3) the neighbors are complaining, a lot, about the noise.

    Looks like we got DoJ going after a Dem - on an implausible basis - for being a Dem.  Reason #2.

    And, no, I do not see a structuring violation - if he kept his charges per visit under $5k, there shouldn't be an issue.

    Siegelman redux (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Jim J on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:19:17 PM EST
    The fruits of rolling over on wiretapping, etc. The direct result of Bush's assaults on civil liberties. I've said for years it was all about spying on Dems, not terrorists.

    Agree, Jim. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:39:43 PM EST
    The  very moment  we found out  Dubya  started  the  warrantless  wiretapping   6  months  BEFORE  9-ll,    I  knew  it  was   political.  

    Terrorism  is  just the  excuse  these  creeps  used   to  justify  &   continue.  


    It doesn't sound like they got on to Spitzer (none / 0) (#61)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:04:49 PM EST
    because of warrantless wiretapping.

    It does, however, sound like they may have decided to follow the money even after it was clear that there were no bribes involved.

    We'll see. Spitzer is not denying the use of prostitutes.  Siegelman went to trial protesting his innocence.


    Fair enough. (none / 0) (#84)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:27:41 PM EST
    I'm  no  lawyer.

    But  I  did  read  that  after  the  bank  reported  the  suspicious  transaction,   they   did   wiretap  him,   and  have   him  on  tape   talking  to  the  organization.  

    Warrantless,   I'm  not   sure.  

    But  I've  always  believed  Dubya's   program   for  warrantless  wiretapping,  since  it  started  long  before  9-11,   wasn't  about  terrorists.  


    Regardless (none / 0) (#43)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:25:18 PM EST
    of how they exposed him, does it excuse any wrongdoing on Spitzer's part?  I am 100% behind fighting the politicization of the justice system but that does not make what Spitzer did any less wrong.  

    I think there are two issues here (none / 0) (#44)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    the fact that he broke the law and the possibility that the justice department was used as a tool by the republicans to take out a very influential dem.

    Am I right that governors have to take an oath to uphold the laws of their state?  


    Two very separate issues (none / 0) (#52)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:44:57 PM EST
    at work here.  If this is another case where we have federal agencies being abused to pursue a political investigation and prosecution, that is wrong. Second, a governor, attorney and all citizens are expected to uphold state and federal laws.  

    Wow (none / 0) (#49)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:41:25 PM EST
    Just wow. Doesn't surprise me, but it does change the whole thing for me.

    So, this was first of all a public corruption case (none / 0) (#53)
    by jawbone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:45:47 PM EST
    aimed at Spitzer?

    And the nice little call girl ring got roped in on the wiretaps?

    Huh? Wow.


    Yes (none / 0) (#85)
    by auntmo on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 10:28:57 PM EST
    They  said  they  didn't  even  know  about  the   prostitution  ring  until  they   heard   the  Spitzer  wiretaps.

    Well, he has apparently prosecuted (none / 0) (#63)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:10:40 PM EST
    prostitution rings, so it's going to be hard for him to have any credibility on that. However, that said, I think Spitzer has done a lot of good, keeping the corporations and Wall Street on the straight and narrow.   The hypocrisy is the worst of it, but people have so many problems with sex.  If we fired all the men in the country who use prostitutes or sleep with women other than their wives, we wouldn't have much of a work force.

    Let's face it, Franklin Roosevelt died in the company of his mistress of 30-40 years, Eisenhower was accused of a dalliance in WWII, John Kennedy we know more than we want to about his affairs, Johnnson was a known womanizer, Bush Sr. supposedly had a mistress (news supposedly suppressed by the MSM).  Then there was Clinton. What an irony -- the only Presidents in the last 60 some odd years who didn't fool around were Truman, Nixon (who would want to fool around with him?), Reagan and Bush Jr. (at least as far as we know).  Now which of those would you most prefer to resign?


    I think he probably will resign ... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:21:35 PM EST
    but I'm going to hold off judgment till I know more of the facts.

    I can wait or a day or two before I personally declare the career of a promising Democrat over.

    A lot of the problems in this country come from knee-jerk reactions to things.  Though a day or so may reveal nothing new, I see no reason to call for someone's head a mere hours after a story breaks.

    But that may just be me.

    Reasons not to resign (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Iphie on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:37:27 PM EST
    One, this is huge news right now, and probably for a while but I don't know that there is enough there to hold the public's attention. He admitted to hiring prostitutes. The affidavit is extremely detailed, so it seems as though all the damaging stuff is already out there (although, I suppose there could be more, and that would definitely change things). I think this will blow over, especially as it is likely that he won't be charged with anything. There isn't enough there to maintain daily attention to this scandal. I have NY1 on here as I'm writing this (24 hr. cable news network devoted to all things NY) and while they are devoting time to it, it is not wall-to-wall coverage. They're still giving lots of attention to all of the other things currently going on in NY -- including other political news. They're just now talking about the budget and Spitzer's affordable housing agenda, a bill requiring NY sales tax be collected for online sales, a tax hike on millionaires, etc. They don't seem to be waiting for a resignation. Not to mention a presidential campaign just waiting to return to the focus of our attention.

    Two, if he resigns, David Patterson, our Leiutenant Governor will assume the office through the end of Spitzer's term (2010). Were that to happen, there will be no replacement for the Lt. Governor. The person second in line, is the Senate Majority Leader, Joe Bruno. As I mentioned in a previous thread, Joe Bruno (winger) is facing his own legal problems -- he's being investigated by the FBI for what amounts to a pretty extensive pay-for-play scheme. I won't go into the details, you can google them if you are interested. I will say though, that if he is guilty of the crimes for which he is being investigated -- I consider those to be much more damaging to our government and to the public good. He also has numerous other ethical black marks next to his name.

    So, with a Governor Patterson in place and no Lt. Governor in place -- if for any reason Patterson is unable to perform the duties of the governor (either temporarily or permanently), then those duties would become the responsibility of Joe Bruno. And I think that would be a terrible, terrible idea. We just had 12 years of Republican leadership in this state, and the result has been that funding for mass transit has been gutted, tenant protection laws have been weakened to the point of being almost useless, the city of NY, where the vast majority of New Yorkers live, has been denied the funding and attention it needs for a whole host of other issues -- I could go on, but needless to say we need someone in office who can repair some of the damage done by George Pataki, not someone to build on it.

    Three, I wonder if a chastised Gov. Spitzer would not return to the job a better governor -- one who would desperately need to repair his reputation and would therefore work even harder on the issues he championed in his gubernatorial race. If he had to prove himself all over again to New Yorkers, it might make him work that much harder.

    You make an important point (none / 0) (#62)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:09:34 PM EST
    David Paterson is an attractive candidate to move into the governorship, but the lack of a process for appointing a new Lt. Governor is a problem.  Bruno would actually become "acting" Governor whenever Paterson left the state, not just if he became ill or died.

    NJ doesn't even have a Lt. Governor position.  When McGreevey resigned, and Corzine was seriously injured, the president of the state senate, Richard (?) Cody, became acting Governor. He turned out to be okay (he's a Democrat) but I don't know why states take these risks.


    Fall Elections (none / 0) (#4)
    by RustedView on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:24:11 PM EST
    All State Senate seats are up for election this November.  What is the view on how this will impact the chance to end the Republican hold on the NYS Senate, especially considering Spitzer brought a number of upstate Republicans over to vote democratic in his own campaign.

    My view (none / 0) (#23)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:56:47 PM EST
    is it will not help.

    I think the party would be better off without him. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:22:32 PM EST
    If he was otherwise doing better at the actual governing, it might be different. But I think he's now a liability both professionally and personally.

    Yes and No (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by BDB on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:50:56 PM EST
    Certainly in the immediate future, the Democrats will be better off without him.  However, I'm not sure it's helpful to Democrats in the long run for Democratic leaders to give up their office the moment a "scandal" - which so far involves no criminal charges - hits them.  This is especially true if it turns out Spitzer was the entire point of this sting - if a Republican U.S. Attorney prosecuted a case that normally wouldn't be prosecuted, just to drive a Democrat out of office.

    Now, of course, none of that excuses what Spitzer may have done or the problems it may cause him with the electorate and it may yet turn out that resignation is the right thing for Spitzer to do.  But I'm tired of Democrats immediately calling on other Democrats to resign at the first sign of trouble.  It only encourages Republicans to investigate Democrats every which way they can.  


    I can see some merit to that. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:59:29 PM EST
    However, I also think Spitzer has been nothing but a political millstone from the moment he was elected. I don't think the party or the state will be well served by having to mount a Bill Clinton-style defense on his behalf.

    Not to mention the fact the either defending or not defending Spitzer is kryptonite for Hillary, of course.


    I am not sure it will make that much difference (none / 0) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:10:46 PM EST
    It certainly won't help, but I can't see it having much negative impact unless Spitzer hangs around and there are more revelations.

    Heh (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:30:47 PM EST
    That was a quick poll!

    JMM was the first to note the silver lining: that Spitzer's resignation would take the driver's license issue off the table for November.  Cute!

    I saw a note at MyDD earlier stating: "Clinton surrogates waste no time in tarring Barack Obama with the Spitzer scandal."  I was mystified: Spitzer is a Clinton supporter, not that it matters, but how could anyone possibly pin the thing on Obama?

    There was a link to this post, which begins:

    Hillary Clinton's unofficial surrogates in New York City have wasted no time trying to smear Barack Obama with the alleged involvement of Eliot Spitzer with a prostitution ring.

    But what was it about?  An email the blogger got from one pro-Hillary crank arguing "this proves that scandal can strike even the purest politician out of the blue."  Okay, whatever.  Damn those Clinton surrogates.

    That's funny that they would spin it that way (none / 0) (#45)
    by Shawn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:35:46 PM EST
    I've mostly seen pro-Obama bloggers trying to link this to the Clintons in some fashion. On TNR, the very first post on this was titled "Clinton Loses A Superdelegate?" written by ex-Bush hater/current Clinton hater Jonathan Chait, the substance of which was him, in his words, "going there" and noting that Spitzer endorsed Clinton. And about 75% of the comments on MyDD were Clinton/Spitzer/interns yada yada.

    NYT blog on candidates' comments: (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:54:39 PM EST

    Can almost hear McCain breathing a deep sigh of relief.


    Jeralyn/BTD (none / 0) (#12)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:33:13 PM EST
    on this subject, will you tell me why my dialogue with BTD was removed/hidden from the previous diary?

    Seem to me it was at least as germane as the OT discussion of Law and Order/CI...

    I am puzzled as to my offense.

    it was off topic (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:36:47 PM EST
    and I repeatedly limited that thread. Please use email rather than comments to inquire about deleted comments. thanks.

    I think he should go ahead and resign (none / 0) (#15)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    I say that being a big fan of Spitzer for several years.  I am not a purist and don't believe that we should be digging into the private matters of every politician but now that the cat is out of the bag, he will be too occupied with the scandal and investigation to be an effective governor.  

    I feel for his family and what they are going to endure because of this.  But why should the citizens of New York have to suffer while this is resolved?

    No, do not resign (none / 0) (#16)
    by catfish on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    unless he committed a crime.

    He did commit a crime (none / 0) (#28)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    solicitation of prostitution is illegal in the state of New York.

    He wasn't in NY (none / 0) (#68)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    He was in DC.  The serious charge against him that he arranged to have one of the prostitutes come to DC from NYC (and paid for her Amtrak ticket), which could violate the Mann Act, which makes transporting a prostitute across state lines for immoral purposes a federal crime.

    he was in new york (none / 0) (#77)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:53:15 PM EST
    when he arranged the meeting.  apparently he is being investigated for the wire transfers as well -- tax-evasion type charges.

    It sounds like he was trying to avoid (none / 0) (#80)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:34 PM EST
    wire transfers -- the constant calls to see if "the package" (an envelope full of cash) had arrived at the agency.  The arrangement to pay the escort additional cash so that she could take it back to NY to set up a "credit," so that future appointments wouldn't require mailing cash.

    for those of you who think the girls (none / 0) (#81)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:51:34 PM EST
    are raking in tons of dough--ask yourself, why wasn't Spitzer paying them directly for their services?  To whom was he mailing the payment for these women to have sex with him?

    This is a sophisticated, structured business.  I guarantee you those women saw very little of that money.  


    I don't doubt that the "escorts" (none / 0) (#86)
    by litigatormom on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 10:42:08 AM EST
    were not receiving most of the money. But I still don't understand how trying to avoid creating a paper record of his payments to the escort service constitutes "structuring."

    I thought he was doing it in DC. (none / 0) (#72)
    by derridog on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:19:22 PM EST
    Are Democrats going to stand and fight (none / 0) (#17)
    by scribe on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    or fold up and quiver like spineless Jello Jay?

    That's the overriding question here.

     Spitzer has not been charged.
     Spitzer likely (according to TL) will not be charged (despite what Fox says).
     This case could easily have been brought without ever mentioning Spitzer - this indicates its a political hit job.
     The US Attorney was the Bushco INS head prior to this job - do you think his personal political reliability for Bushco (and, for that matter, Mukasey and Giuliani - at the time, a likely candidate) might have been a major consideration in appointing him to the job in the first place?
     The Repugs have been working to hobble Spitzer since he came into office - do we want to force him to give them what they want?
     The Repugs have been using DoJ to take out Democratic officeholders and supporters one after another - do we want to ratify that strategy?
     This is an opportunity to show the two-facedness of the Republicans - when David Vitter got caught using a prostitute, he was forgiven, cuddled, and welcomed back to the Republican fold. He is still in office.  The alleged madam is still waiting trial.
     When Ted Haggard hired a male prostitute, he went through de-gaying, but he was still respected.
     When Jeff Guckert Gannon advertised his services on the internet, made a bunch of overnights at the WH, and then got a journalism career out of it - he got a journalism career.
     When the head of the WH Secret Service covered for Gannon's visits - he got promoted to head ATF.
     When Scooter Libby took a conviction for lying to protect Bush - he got a commutation.
     When Bush demanded immunity for his crimes - he bludgeoned the Democrats to within an inch of giving it to them - without ever telling them or us what, exactly, it was he and his administration did.

    That last example is almost solely the result of Jello Jay Rockefeller's spineless approach to Big Scary Dick Cheney, and some half-worth Blue Dogs who'd rather be scared, than stand and fight.

    So, which way do you want to go into an election campaign - with the specter that, at any time, the Republicans can unveil a new, more or less bogus indictment (ask Governor Seligman about that) to affect the election?

    Or do you want to go into it with the knowledge that the party will stand up for its members against Republican thuggery?

    True Spitzer has not been charged (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by standingup on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:04:08 PM EST
    but he has held a press conference where he apologized to his family and the public for violating his "obligations to my family and that violates my or any sense of right and wrong."  He might be calling it a private matter but he isn't denying anything either.  

    I don't particularly care if others have gotten away with similar indiscretions.  Spitzer has built his political career on cleaning up corruption and ethical scandals.  He has prosecuted others for prostitution.  I think Spitzer raised the bar for himself and if he has fallen this short, he needs to suffer the consequences.  I don't think pointing to the hypocrisy of others, even if on the other side of the aisle, should be reason for us to not hold or expect Democrats to be better.  


    Sorry Scribe (none / 0) (#31)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:04:30 PM EST
    Spitzer has admitted he did these things.

    Spitzer prosecuted Prostitution Rings.

    What are we Democrats supposed to stand up for?

    I hope you are kidding btw.....


    that's my question also. i am (none / 0) (#79)
    by hellothere on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 08:05:05 PM EST
    so tired of seeing the piling on our our politicans all the while giving the republicans a pass (congress). and what have they done? destroyed this country for starters, stolen billions, ruined the environment, lied,  and untold other criminal acts. and here we are in an uproar because a man saw a prostitute.

    the democrats have roled over so long, we will be paying and paying over again at cute little stories like this coming out.


    I agree- I am sick of the bush (none / 0) (#83)
    by kenosharick on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:47:03 PM EST
    justice dept. being used to attack Dems. What about Senator "family values" Vitter who has been portrayed as a "stud" for the same crime?

    To tie this in (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    to the other ongoing discussion...

    Can anyone think of a sex scandal in this country involving a female politician?  I cannot.  Equality has some work to do.

    Chenowith (sp) (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:55:09 PM EST
    The chief female moralizer on the House GOP impeachment crew, got caught stepping out.

    True, she was an Idaho Repub (none / 0) (#25)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:59:01 PM EST
    lican Congresswoman

    no rumor mongering here (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:27:06 PM EST
    I was speaking only of (none / 0) (#78)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:53:58 PM EST
    historical events.  No intent to get into rumors whatsoever.  I just couldn't think of a female pol who ever had to call a press conference like this one.

    why wouldn't he keep his SuperD status? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Josey on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:52:09 PM EST

    Are some of the superdelgate slots ex officio (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:06:14 PM EST
    i.e. you are a super based on the office you hold.  If you lose the office the person who takes over gets your status.  I don't know, just asking.  I assume David Patterson (Lt. Gov) is also a super so I don't know how that would work either.

    I believe his SuperD status comes with his office (none / 0) (#37)
    by JoeA on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:17:04 PM EST
    so he loses it if he steps down.

    Paterson would gain SuperD status, however as he is already a Superdelegate by virtue of being a member of the DNC then the total number of superdelegates decreases by 1,  and Hillary's total would also decrease by 1.


    From reviewing the DNC rules (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    which are pretty complicated, I think you are right about what would happen.  Assuming Spitzer resigns and Paterson replaces him.

    Spitzer should resign (none / 0) (#20)
    by Kate Stone on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:52:34 PM EST
    He has misstepped since he took office. Well intentioned, zealous, liberal.  Doesn't matter when you consistently screw up, as it were.   This -- getting sex from prostitutes -- undermines what he had left of his reputation.  I write today about Mike Bloomberg moving into the Governorship.  

    BHuffalo, NY here & (none / 0) (#24)
    by dem08 on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 05:57:21 PM EST
    this is tragic. New York State has a very corrupt and ineffective Government.

    I am not a great believer in Evil (even though I am a at least once a week Mass RC), and I feel terrible that Spitzer Prosecuted people for a weakness he shares with them.

    This is devastating and a devastating Fall from Grace.

    Spitzer's superdelegate vote (none / 0) (#33)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:06:16 PM EST
    would presumably go to the new governor of New York, David Patterson.

    My mistake (none / 0) (#34)
    by AF on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    Looks like he's already a superdelegate.

    Well, the 7pm resignation didn't happen (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:20:28 PM EST

    Who was saying he'd resign at 7pm? n/t (none / 0) (#71)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:19:13 PM EST
    Interesting. JFK's philandering (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:43:13 PM EST
    ways, including with prostitutes, was quite well known to the press, but never exposed while he was alive.  I read a book about his trip to Havana while a Senator.  The mob arranged for multiple simultaneous female sex partners for JFK and watched behind a one-way mirror while he cavorted.  

    The Good Times apparently don't roll in NY (none / 0) (#59)
    by goldberry on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:33 PM EST
    Heck, Louisianans barely blinked an eye when Vitter did it.  But then, they don't call it the Big Easy for nothing.  
    I just hope we don't have to hear about diapers.  OTOH, it looks like he prefers "dangerous" activities.  Hmmmm, I wonder what that means?  

    Oh, cripes... (none / 0) (#67)
    by oldpro on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:13:45 PM EST
    it means everyone he's had sexual congress with had better get tested.

    The slimemags will have a heydey and make a fortune...


    Activities that weren't "safe." (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:16:30 PM EST
    Sounds like he didn't want to use a condom, to me.

    if the man is paying enough money (none / 0) (#74)
    by Kathy on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:23:25 PM EST
    then he can make those sorts of demands.

    I'm sure those well-educated, privileged and articulate call-girls had absolutely no problem with that.


    and she did not acquiesce to his "unsafe" demands.

    There was a picture of his wife (none / 0) (#66)
    by litigatormom on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 07:13:31 PM EST
    on the home page of the NYT site that was the very embodiment of suffering.  It was really heartbreaking.

    He also has teenage and college age daughters. One is my older daughter's age. I really feel for them.

    3 points (none / 0) (#82)
    by sef on Mon Mar 10, 2008 at 09:00:10 PM EST
    Three quick points:

    1.  Odd isn't that the DoJ never seems to be going after the Rs of late?  Where is the FBI investigation in to Vitter or the Scarboro man?  This could lead to blowback, but unluckily if a Dem doesn't win in Nov.

    2.  Spitzer needs to resign and get the hell out of town.  This type of scandal isn't good in an election year & the timing smells funny.

    3.  Which brings me to point 3. The big loser here may be Hillary as it may well remind people that do you really want bill roaming around the West Wing alone at 3 a.m.?  I think her websites scrubbing of his endorsement today suggests they are worried about the scandal. The Rs fear Hillary and this may have well been timed to damage her chances in the D primaries.

    The one thing about the current administration, there is no such thing as coincidence or too much paranoia.