The Good Governor.....

[Bowcephalus]

It'll be interesting to see who comes to his defense......And if this is an impeachable offense....Dejavu all over again....Should get empathy from at least one N.Y. senator.....

[Bowcephalus]

So much for campaign finance reform...Money's old school.....All ya need these days is a whore and a bit of blackmail to get 'em on your side....

[redbike]

Patronizing a prostitute was fine with the good Republicans of Louisiana who re-elected Senator Vitter after he admitted he was a client. Hopefully NY Dems feel the same way.

[Bowcephalus]

Think this goes a bit deeper than simple patronizing.....Time will tell......FBI and all.....

[liege]

I've heard the Mann Act mentioned. Something about crossing state lines and all that. And just because someone else did it(Vitter) doesn't mean it's okay. Wasn't he the prosecutor who would leak information on people he was investigating to the press in order to pressure them?

[TstebinsB]

He blasted a huge prostitution ring in Staten Island. He was especially critical about the muck that previous governors have allowed to fester. Welcome to the Club..

[Bowcephalus]

You have to understand Liege, the lowest rottenest republican is the new high standard of the democrat...
Patronizing a prostitute was fine with the good Republicans of Louisiana who re-elected Senator Vitter after he admitted he was a client. Hopefully NY Dems feel the same way.
..They seek to meet it....


"Structuring" led the FBI in his direction investigating possible payoffs.....

[Bowcephalus]

I suspect he will resign soon to attempt to keep his ass out of the ringer.....He'll probably cite his devotion to his wife and kids....

[liege]

I really feel for his wife and kids right now. They have to be hurting and a little in shock. I hope they are more important to him than his stinking career.

[Bowcephalus]

Nope, 'fraid not.......Just once I'd like to see one of the women slap the dogs..t out of one of these assholes on national TV right in the middle of the press conference then take 'em for everything they have......republican or democrat

[redbike]

You have to understand, the lowest rottenest republican is the new high standard of the democrat.....They seek to meet it...."Structuring" led the FBI in his direction investigating possible payoffs.....

Dream on.

[Bowcephalus]

About which part?.....The "structuring" is confirmed by the FBI....The "standard" is confirmed by your own post..........

[arcman]

Haha, prostitution, whoop-dee-doo. He's got nothing on Detroit's mayor.

[Bowcephalus]

I think that is the part that set me off most, was seeing his wife standing behind him.....Wish she'd have cold-cocked him....

[analog_kid]

Someone got caught with their hands in the cookie jar...

[Bowcephalus]

He's got nothing on Detroit's mayor......and yet another advocate of the higher standard.....

[redbike]

About which part?.....

That the lowest, rottenest Republican is the high standard for Democrats. What's your proof for this claim?

[jazzman]

It's a good thing Republicans never do anything like that.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[Bowcephalus]

....PROOF?...Your own "hopefullness"...."Patronizing a prostitute was fine with the good Republicans of Louisiana who re-elected Senator Vitter after he admitted he was a client. Hopefully NY Dems feel the same way."

[arcman]

.....and yet another advocate of the higher standard.....Heh heh. Just jaded is all.
Just like, multiply what Spitzer is implicated in by about 5x, then imagine he gets re-elected to a second term, and THEN blows millions more of the taxpayers dollars in defense costs for yet more scandals.

Because that's what we're accustomed to over here. http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6285/emotpatriothg8.gif

[Bowcephalus]

It's a good thing Republicans never do anything like that.
....If that was what your kid told ya when caught doing wrong would you buy it from him?

[Bowcephalus]

Heh heh. Just jaded is all.
Just like, multiply what Spitzer is implicated in by about 5x, then imagine he gets re-elected to a second term, and THEN blows millions more of the taxpayers dollars in defense costs for yet more scandals.
......Can't argue with a bunch of that.........

[redbike]

....PROOF?...Your own "hopefullness"...."Patronizing a prostitute was fine with the good Republicans of Louisiana who re-elected Senator Vitter after he admitted he was a client. Hopefully NY Dems feel the same way."

Yeah, and I'm also hoping the Democrat have the cajones to pull off what Tom Delay did in the Texas redistricting case too.

[Bowcephalus]

Red you really have a problem with staying on topic...."Johnny, Sue, and Spot too"....I gotta tend some bread dough and a cigar....Y'all have fun now Ya hear....

[gugi]

I live in NY and personally consider people's choices of sexual behavior (including politicians) their private matter.

On a moral plane I am usually more amazed when it's a religious figure who gets caught "with their 'hand' in the 'cookie jar'", since their whole career is based on morality etc. But politicians? - I thought Spitzer did a good job as a prosecutor, he hasn't been too long a governor and I'm not sure if he's better or worse than Pataki.

[Bowcephalus]

Structuring involves creating a series of financial movements designed to obscure the true purpose of the payments.

Prosecutors reportedly have a series of e-mails and wiretapped phone conversations of Spitzer.

In a interview two years ago, Spitzer, then-attorney general, told ABC News he had some advice for people who break the law. "Never talk when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink, and never write an e-mail because it's death. You're giving prosecutors all the evidence we need," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1

[jazzman]

....If that was what your kid told ya when caught doing wrong would you buy it from him?

I guess the problem is the quantity of your glee. Remind me: what did you post when the Good Republican Senator got caught wearing diapers with prostitutes? I was actually planning to start a thread on this because hypocrisy is funny whenever either party enters the party, but for goodness sake....

[gugi]

And if this is an impeachable offense....Dejavu all over again....Should get empathy from at least one N.Y. senator.....


You have to understand, the lowest rottenest republican is the new high standard of the democrat.....

As I said I don't follow much sex scandals, but 'recent prominent political sex scandals' (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Blotter/popup?id=2841254) from the ABC page you linked to would suggest your statement about parties is false. From my simple count the republican politicians in recent sex scandals outnumber the democratic ones by 7:3 or 6:2, depending if you go to back to the Bill Clinton years, or not.

Looks like if Spitzer would be getting any empathy it'll probably be from across the party line. Or should we blame the numbers on the 'liberal media' (ABC), if so please provide numbers from a less biased source.

[Must Dash]

$5,500 ah hour! Papasmurf would sell him 10 Fat Boys for that, and throw in a decent After Sex, um, Shave Balm.

Cheers

Jeremy

[TstebinsB]

$5,500 ah hour! Papasmurf would sell him 10 Fat Boys for that, and throw in a decent After Sex, um, Shave Balm.

Cheers

Jeremy

Hey, NYC is an expensive town.

[Aevum]

personaly, i dont give a rats behind who politicians sleep with aslong as its human and not underage, actually, people do less dumb stuff when they are sexual satisfied, but prostitution is a crime in the state of new york, and if the goverment cant uphold its own laws, no point having them

[kwk285]

politicians have the ethics and morals of a banana slug. Why are people at all suprised about this.:confused:

[masonjarjar]

It's just sad that more good poeple don't go into politics..

[Rolo]

politicians have the ethics and morals of a banana slug. Why are people at all suprised about this.:confused:
As a former banana slug I find your post offensive:mad:
http://ucsc.edu/oncampus/currents/97-98/art/bssf.art.98-03-30.gif
:smile:

[TacoBell]

First comment on the NYTime's blog about this scandal:

Wow.... Elliot Ness to Elliot Mess

[brooklynlou]

Patronizing a prostitute was fine with the good Republicans of Louisiana who re-elected Senator Vitter after he admitted he was a client. Hopefully NY Dems feel the same way.

Redbike, no body cares if he visited a prostitute. The problem is where did he get the MONEY to pay for said prostitute when the girls of the Emperors Club go for $2,000-$5,000 an hour and $50,000 for a weekend.

If the girls were a 'gift', it means he was bought out by someone. And if he was bought out by someone over prostitutes, he was probably a blackmail target as well.

[Bowcephalus]

I'm not suprised, gleeful, or keeping score at all....The original post was a reflection on how much the public, family, and wives are willing to accept as excusable personal behavior, and an observation of how willingly the women "stand by their man". Whatever happened to the progressive, independent females who at the very least demanded fidelity from their husbands if not in private secrecy, AT THE VERY LEAST in the public domain.
The whole "standards" posting was a reply to the "well they do it too" crap,not a point in fact(Go back and read through the whole thing). I never got a pass from my parents with that one,and am suprised so many seemingly responsible adults here pull that one out of a hat all the time....If someone here is keeping score I'd say they're a bit more into this stuff than I am. Since Jr.'s last seven years, I've pretty much come to lump them all together anyway on many issues.Hell, I cheered when Trent left.
I was struck by the aggressive history of the prosecutor juxtaposed against his own behavior when he ascended to the "highest office in the state".This seems to be a bit more involved than a simple "indiscretion"....

[Bowcephalus]

$50,000 a weekend?!!!......That's not prostitution man,that's highway robbery.....I can't imagine having enough sap to get my money's worth in a month much less a weekend.....

[c2rex]

He'll quit, if not he should be made to. Not about adultry, thats between he and his wife, but about the hipocracy.

Perhaps I've misunderstood the statements regarding it being the highest standard of the lowest in the other party...or whatever the hell was said...but with a young male page chaser and two soliciting men in restrooms, you might not want to throw stones.

[jat9096]

i'd like to see a picture of this "7 diamond" lady of the night.

[Bowcephalus]

but with a young male page chaser and two soliciting men in restrooms, you might not want to throw stones.
....What are you accusing me of doing with male pages and men in restrooms?.......;)......(See what I mean about folk's not reading things through carefully)

[c2rex]

....What are you accusing me of doing with male pages and men in restrooms?.......;)......(See what I mean about folk's not reading things through carefully)

Never accused you of anything. I'm not defending him. If you'll look I prefaced with "Perhaps I've misunderstood the statements..." I read it again, still looks as though your statement implies the best Dem is less than the worst Repub.

[Dr. Mike]

Wow, I don't think it would take a genius to see that this thread would spin out of control immediately. I don't really see this as a partisan issue. Basically you have a guy that was caught in hypocrisy, and in all reality, his little fling has probably cost him his career. Even if he isn't forced to resign, this is the end of the road for him. He won't dare run for anything else, and he will be a pariah to his party. If the little "macaca" comment could derail Allen, you know that soliciting dangerous sex with a prostitute is going to kill Spitzer.

At the very least, I don't think anybody is going to have to pay his plans for driver's licenses to illegals any more obeisance. It isn't so much that he solicited a prostitute that is his downfall, so much as the guy who made the central issue of his campaign and his career that he was going to clean up things, both legally and ethically. He is guilty of the greatest of all sins . . . hypocrisy.

[cl00bie]

I live in NY and personally consider people's choices of sexual behavior (including politicians) their private matter.

What about criminal behavior?


On a moral plane I am usually more amazed when it's a religious figure who gets caught "with their 'hand' in the 'cookie jar'", since their whole career is based on morality etc. But politicians? - I thought Spitzer did a good job as a prosecutor, he hasn't been too long a governor and I'm not sure if he's better or worse than Pataki.

You must have missed him prosecuting two prostitution rings with mob connections.

"I'm Elliot Spitzer, I'm not only a prostitution ring prosecutor... I'm a client!"

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[c2rex]

I agree with the Dr.

[cl00bie]

I guess the problem is the quantity of your glee.

This is a sad day for New York :frown:

snicker...

chortle....

Yup... Sad.... Guffaw...

BUAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA HAH!!!!!!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[cl00bie]

First comment on the NYTime's blog about this scandal:

Wow.... Elliot Ness to Elliot Mess

My favorite headline was:

Troopergate to Schtup-her-gate :)

[gugi]

What about criminal behavior?

What about it? It should be prosecuted as any other criminal behavior should - why are you asking - are you of the opposite opinion, or you think that I may be?



"I'm Elliot Spitzer, I'm not only a prostitution ring prosecutor... I'm a client!"

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
Imho, this says more about you than about him.

[tim8557]

Someone got caught with their hands in the cookie jar...
I don't think that he was trying to put his hands in her "cookie jar" :biggrin:

[ouch]

All in all, not as embarrassing for his wife as it was for Jim McGreevey's.

Whenever I see one of these poor women in front of the camera, "standing by her man", I can't help but think that she's going to soak him, big time.:lol:

[Dr. Mike]

All in all, not as embarrassing for his wife as it was for Jim McGreevey's.

Whenever I see one of these poor women in front of the camera, "standing by her man", I can't help but think that she's going to soak him, big time.:lol:

And I think she should soak him. I don't think these women should show up at these press conferences. It is just more evidence of the selfishness of these men. If she were to soak him, and I were asked to decide, I'd help her take him to the cleaners.

One of the biggest issues that is not being considered here, though, is this: this guy prosecuted prostitution rings, and has now been caught soliciting business from one. Can anybody with certainty say that he passed over this particular ring to protect himself? Or if the opportunity presented itself to act against this ring, would he act? And if he utilized this service, how do we know that this was the first and only time? And would any other hypothetical prostitution rings have benefited by having him as their client?

I don't pity the man one bit. I pity his wife and children. They deserved better. I would like to think that the electorate deserved better, but in light of the fact that lately such offenses don't seem to necessarily disqualify one from public service, I think most of the time the electorate gets exactly what they want, if not what they deserve.

The problem here is this. Whatever your feelings on the situation, the sexual activities of President Clinton and the attempt to excuse them has made it so that such activities are almost acceptable anymore in our elected officials. After all, how can you expect a Senator or a Congressman or a Governor to step down under these circumstances when the President did not.

Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. - Chinese proverb

[jazzman]

And I think she should soak him. I don't think these women should show up at these press conferences. It is just more evidence of the selfishness of these men. If she were to soak him, and I were asked to decide, I'd help her take him to the cleaners.

One of the biggest issues that is not being considered here, though, is this: this guy prosecuted prostitution rings, and has now been caught soliciting business from one. Can anybody with certainty say that he passed over this particular ring to protect himself? Or if the opportunity presented itself to act against this ring, would he act? And if he utilized this service, how do we know that this was the first and only time? And would any other hypothetical prostitution rings have benefited by having him as their client?

I don't pity the man one bit. I pity his wife and children. They deserved better. I would like to think that the electorate deserved better, but in light of the fact that lately such offenses don't seem to necessarily disqualify one from public service, I think most of the time the electorate gets exactly what they want, if not what they deserve.

The problem here is this. Whatever your feelings on the situation, the sexual activities of President Clinton and the attempt to excuse them has made it so that such activities are almost acceptable anymore in our elected officials. After all, how can you expect a Senator or a Congressman or a Governor to step down under these circumstances when the President did not.

Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. - Chinese proverb

I couldn't disagree with you more about the Clinton situation, but I think the nation has had a chance to discuss that one a little bit.:wink:

As for the former prosecutor who became a governor, I couldn't agree with you more. There are many reasons why prosecutors (and all members of the bar) are expected to obey all of the laws: they can't be relied on to do their jobs if they are criminals. If one prostituion ring is exempt from prosecution because the prosecutor is a customer, prosecution of the other prostitution rings is unfair and arbitrary. It's really no different from taking a bribe from one prostitution ring.

The more interesting question for me is why men who have reached the highest levels of their careers risk everything in such stupid ways. Here, the Clinton situation fits perfectly, as do the Vitters and Craig matters. It had to be perfectly obvious to all of these guys that the worst thing that could happen to them and their families would be to get caught doing what they got caught doing. Each of them could have cheated on their spouses in relatively safe ways (and I have strong feelings against that, too), but by patronizing prostitutes, seducing young interns, and soliciting strangers in bathrooms, they were setting themselves up for the biggest possible falls. Any psychiatrists out there have an opinion?

[pga1118]

The more interesting question for me is why men who have reached the highest levels of their careers risk everything in such stupid ways.

Arrogance.

They don't realize it, but they all could use some of the Nature Calls product highlighted on B&B's home page. :biggrin:

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39872

And Dr. Mike, once again, I agree with you. Good posts.


Pete

[SmoovD]

I don't believe one needs to be a psychiatrist to assert that it may be simply that it is difficult to be a "good" person. There are many influences in one's life that can lead to less than stellar conduct. A moment of weakness can be all that is needed to precipitate a downfall. It is just these cases that get such scrutiny but is there really any difference between the harm done to Spitzer's family and Joe Sixpack's family when such transgressions appear.

My .02, this is not a partisan issue but it is political. When people choose to pursue politics they need to be more trustworthy. Their private lives do come under scrutiny and they do matter when public trust is at stake.

[_JP_]

Oh, that Governor!

I thought that this was going to be about the Good Governor electrical metering device.

[Dr. Mike]

I don't believe one needs to be a psychiatrist to assert that it may be simply that it is difficult to be a "good" person. There are many influences in one's life that can lead to less than stellar conduct. A moment of weakness can be all that is needed to precipitate a downfall. It is just these cases that get such scrutiny but is there really any difference between the harm done to Spitzer's family and Joe Sixpack's family when such transgressions appear.

My .02, this is not a partisan issue but it is political. When people choose to pursue politics they need to be more trustworthy. Their private lives do come under scrutiny and they do matter when public trust is at stake.

While such a situation is bad for the family regardless, I do think there is a major difference between the harm done to Spitzer's family and Joe Sixpack's. Spitzer is going to be in the news for a long time for this one. His wife is going to have that humiliation replayed on TV for quite some time. While I have heard that she is a successful woman in her own right, she has no doubt sacrificed for this man - bearing his children, making her career to whatever extent subservient to his political ambitions. To now humiliate her in really the greatest way possible to humiliate a wife, and make her come in front of the cameras with you is ridiculously selfish. His career is finished. There is no salvaging it. Why force her in front of the cameras, to "stand by" her man?

I think in all such situations, these "men" should at least have the balls to go stand out there in front of the cameras alone and own up.

For me, adultery is a deal breaker in a politician, whether it was legal or otherwise. If the man cannot be trusted to keep his marital oath, I have no confidence that I can trust him with anything else, certainly not with judgments that affect my family and I.

[Mejnoon]

Right or wrong, fair or not, he's going down. The guy has too many enemies, he's gone after too many people...the vultures are circling.

[SmoovD]

While such a situation is bad for the family regardless, I do think there is a major difference between the harm done to Spitzer's family and Joe Sixpack's. Spitzer is going to be in the news for a long time for this one. His wife is going to have that humiliation replayed on TV for quite some time. While I have heard that she is a successful woman in her own right, she has no doubt sacrificed for this man - bearing his children, making her career to whatever extent subservient to his political ambitions. To now humiliate her in really the greatest way possible to humiliate a wife, and make her come in front of the cameras with you is ridiculously selfish. His career is finished. There is no salvaging it. Why force her in front of the cameras, to "stand by" her man?

I think in all such situations, these "men" should at least have the balls to go stand out there in front of the cameras alone and own up.

For me, adultery is a deal breaker in a politician, whether it was legal or otherwise. If the man cannot be trusted to keep his marital oath, I have no confidence that I can trust him with anything else, certainly not with judgments that affect my family and I.

I generally concur. But we are just talking about degrees of humiliation, are we not? A spouse who has been burned by the actions of the partner is afflicted with the same feelings of humiliation and remorse whether televised or not. Word can travel just as quickly through a neighborhood as it can through a news cycle. Unfortunately, the news cycle can has a much shorter duration.

/off soapbox.

[Dr. Mike]

I generally concur. But we are just talking about degrees of humiliation, are we not? A spouse who has been burned by the actions of the partner is afflicted with the same feelings of humiliation and remorse whether televised or not. Word can travel just as quickly through a neighborhood as it can through a news cycle. Unfortunately, the news cycle can has a much shorter duration.

/off soapbox.

Yes, it is a matter of degrees, but it is so much more than that. I really do view it as worse. Consider this: were it to be a private individual, and not an elected official, that did this, and the exposure only extended to his neighbors, the family could move, and then bring it back to just between the husband and wife. In this case, it is national news. There is nowhere she can go to escape the public aspect of this humiliation.

The impact of a scandal is directly proportional to the power and authority the offender wields. For example, on the issue of child abuse, the act, alone by itself, is devastating to the child. However, the situation and the greater impact is so much worse when the person who has committed the act is in a position of public trust - such as a school teacher or a priest. The crime is the same, but the impact is greater. Consider also that there is much more public outcry from a shooting or killing when the person responsible is a police officer as opposed to an ordinary criminal - that person had greater power and authority bestowed upon them, so more was expected.

[Bradford]

Would have been the most expensive minute of my life.

[Dr. Mike]

Okay, not that I felt all that sorry for him, rather I felt sorry for his wife and 3 daughters. But after reading a bit about this guy, it really feels like kharma caught up with him.

While probing Jack Grubman, an analyst with Salomon Smith Barney, over highly questionable actions in the securities industry, Spitzer's office leaked sexually-explicit emails that Grubman had exchanged with a female client that were not relevant to the investigation.

Many of his investigations never made it to court, as he counted more on merely pressuring his targets with plummeting stock prices that the threat of an investigation from his office would bring. Legality was not the concern.

Shortly after becoming governor, he yelled to a Republican critic, "I'm a f***ing steamroller, and I'll roll over you and anybody else."

Shortly thereafter, the new Democratic Attorney General of New York, Andrew Cuomo, reprimanded him for using state police to dig up dirt on the New York Republican Senate Majority Leader.

And finally, it appears that this tryst was not a one time affair. If the information coming out is accurate, it appears that this man, who in 2004 indicted 18 people linked to a high-end escort service, was a regular customer of this other high-priced hooker service.

Pride truly does come before the fall.

[ouch]

Arrogance.

They don't realize it, but they all could use some of the Nature Calls product highlighted on B&B's home page. :biggrin:

http://badgerandblade.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39872

And Dr. Mike, once again, I agree with you. Good posts.


Pete

Badger and Blade to the rescue once again! :lol:

[Bowcephalus]

So if the guy skates on all/any of the charges will all others he prosecuted while he was doing the same things be made whole?.............Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Who will be demanding justice.....I wonder........Will the state of NY step up?

[cr8n]

This is why we have elections and not coronations. Human nature is flawed. :rolleyes:

Next.

Let him resign, find him guilty of the felony, if he is, and move on, for the sake of his family.

[gugi]

So if the guy skates on all/any of the charges will all others he prosecuted while he was doing the same things be made whole?.............Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Who will be demanding justice.....I wonder........Will the state of NY step up?
I have no idea what is your point here. You are proposing a hypothetical scenario. Then what's his prosecution have to do with other prosecutions? I hope you are not suggesting that the justice system ought to pardon everybody found guilty of something whenever somebody else gets away with the same crime. Welcome to the real world - I've got big news for you - it is not perfect.

Who would be demanding justice? Isn't that obvious? Whoever has a standing. You realize that he has made plenty of enemies and there will probably not be a shortage of 'demands for justice'.

Of course, there is always the chance that if found guilty he will be pardoned by the President of the United States of America. Here's a hypothesis to ponder, not because it is likely to happen in this case, but because it has happened in other cases in the past.

[redbike]

So if the guy skates on all/any of the charges will all others he prosecuted while he was doing the same things be made whole?.............Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....Who will be demanding justice.....I wonder........Will the state of NY step up?

Isn't it a federal case? If so, I think DOJ gets first crack. I'm interested in what kind of case they'll try to make. Mann Act prosecutions are pretty rare, and this Justice Department probably wants a win on something, rather than an overstretch that seems politically motivated. Spitzer is lawyered up big time, so a very likely way out is a resignation, and maybe a plea to a minor offense.

[Bowcephalus]

CYA mode............full throttle............Me first.....Family and state can wait........Possibly a whole history of tainted prosecutions as well.....

[Bowcephalus]

Another thought......Who is paying the bill for the Governor to get "Lawyered up"?.......

[redbike]

Possibly a whole history of tainted prosecutions as well.....

If you're talking about Spitzer that's actually very doubtful. The Republican oppo research in the NY gubernatorial election would have found it and used it.

But if you're talking about DOJ under this administration, there are certainly serious questions about tainted prosecutions. It's pretty clear that the fired USA's weren't "loyal Bushies" and were fired for not bringing them.

[jazzman]

Possibly a whole history of tainted prosecutions as well.....

What's this based on? Isn't the real story bad enough?

[Bowcephalus]

That's kinda what I thought placed this situation well beyond the same old partisan political pandering and noise....FBI and long history of being mixed up with a shady bunch....If you think about it, what better insurance for organized crime or others.....If he falls, no loss to them, if he's squeezable, helluvan asset....

[Bowcephalus]

Actually Jazz it probably is bad enough, but we'll just have to see what comes up........The potential for much greater damage is certainly there in this particular case, in view of the negotiations going on right now and FBI wiretaps.....Keep in mind I have been steeped in the Tennessee Waltz federal stuff for quite a while now.....Even now the prosecutions and guilty pleas are rolling in.....all the way from the state house to the county commission folks are going to the pen....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tennessee_Waltz
Actually this site is running behind, more names are being added to that one as we speak...going on three years now....And this is a piss-ant river town...Not New York.


The fact that so many of his friends and enemies are tight lipped is a bit curious(beyond the state folks calling for impeachment)....

[jazzman]

That's kinda what I thought placed this situation well beyond the same old partisan political pandering and noise....FBI and long history of being mixed up with a shady bunch....If you think about it, what better insurance for organized crime or others.....If he falls, no loss to them, if he's squeezable, helluvan asset....

Well, if we're just going to make things up as we go along: Larry Craig is an old pal of Osama Bin Laden, and he was really doing surveillance on the airport so he could blow it up.:eek:

[Bowcephalus]

LMAO.............I'll leave it to you to present your best case......I'm just a curious observer......This is just a place to chat.....Didn't mean to so offend your sensibilities.....Sorry.....

[redbike]

Well, if we're just going to make things up as we go along: Larry Craig is an old pal of Osama Bin Laden, and he was really doing surveillance on the airport so he could blow it up.:eek:

Now it clicks - that's why Craig could never get his story straight. Thanks for making it clear. :wink:

[Bowcephalus]

...."Johnny did it".....Time will tell.........

[jazzman]

LMAO.............I'll leave it to you to present your best case......I'm just a curious observer......This is just a place to chat.....Didn't mean to so offend your sensibilities.....Sorry.....

I already presented my best case:

"As for the former prosecutor who became a governor, I couldn't agree with you more. There are many reasons why prosecutors (and all members of the bar) are expected to obey all of the laws: they can't be relied on to do their jobs if they are criminals. If one prostitution ring is exempt from prosecution because the prosecutor is a customer, prosecution of the other prostitution rings is unfair and arbitrary. It's really no different from taking a bribe from one prostitution ring."

But I tried to keep it real.

[Bflobill 1125]

I live in NY and personally consider people's choices of sexual behavior (including politicians) their private matter.

On a moral plane I am usually more amazed when it's a religious figure who gets caught "with their 'hand' in the 'cookie jar'", since their whole career is based on morality etc. But politicians? - I thought Spitzer did a good job as a prosecutor, he hasn't been too long a governor and I'm not sure if he's better or worse than Pataki.
I live in New York also................A persons sex life is his personal matter but this isn't about sex its about breaking the law possibly with public funds

[gugi]

I live in New York also................A persons sex life is his personal matter but this isn't about sex its about breaking the law possibly with public funds

I agree - I think jazzman's post is how I feel about it. It'd have been perfectly alright if he had gone to Vegas or some other place and legally purchased sexual services. But since he clearly abstained from prosecuting that ring as his job would've required (since he prosecuted other rings it means prostitution was high enough on the priorities) he failed to do his job. I don't know if he used public funds for that, but no matter whether he did, there are a lot more public funds spent in the investigation and no doubt even more to be spent in the future. Nothing surprising about this - unfortunately in NY politics it's just business as usual, as you probably know well.

On the psychology side that somebody mentioned earlier - there are already these analyses too - of course would somebody miss to present us with that aspect. Some psychologists argue that the nature of politics just attracts this type of individuals, so even though they are expected to be stable, and reliable, they are just the wrong type of people. I don't know - I am content with just paying my taxes and for now I don't have any desire to become a politician.

[Bflobill 1125]

What really bothers me is that we have so many economic problems in NY state,especially in Buffalo where I am from.This kind of diversion just makes this state even more ineffectual in solving those problems.

[gugi]

I know, but the problems in NY are really chronic. Attorney General and Government are probably the most powerful positions, but they alone can't solve the problems of the state. Of course, in his little time as a governor his crusades against whoever he decided were not of much help either, but if I look honestly I can't really blame it on or credit any single person.

A scandal like this is certainly making things worse, though. Even if I don't agree with his policies I don't think this mess is any good.

[scoopster]

Anybody see the Daily Show's take on this story?

It was the funniest piece I've ever seen on the Daily Show ever -I literally laughed so hard I cried. The sun will come up tomorrow..... FEEEEEED ME SPITZER!!!!!!

[marquinho]

I was reading about the investigation and some of the girls that "worked" with him; called him "difficult". I do not care what anybody does after hours, but at least we have to treat everybody nice !!!!:biggrin:Marco

[analog_kid]

I love on the MSN homepage it says he was a "repeat customer"! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That line cracks me up!

[Dr. Mike]

What really bothers me is that we have so many economic problems in NY state,especially in Buffalo where I am from.This kind of diversion just makes this state even more ineffectual in solving those problems.

Based on the type of agenda that Spitzer was pushing, though, you could argue that this might end up helping the state by grinding his programs to a screeching halt.

So much for the guy who was going to end corruption and restore ethics to the state.

In all reality, the Democrats should be the ones screaming the loudest for this guy to get out of the way. In an election year where Republicans are so heavily handicapped, you really don't want this guy out in the spotlight, basically a huge asterisk next to any comment the Democrats will make about Republicans being corrupt and whatever else their talking points say.

[jazzman]

In all reality, the Democrats should be the ones screaming the loudest for this guy to get out of the way. In an election year where Republicans are so heavily handicapped, you really don't want this guy out in the spotlight, basically a huge asterisk next to any comment the Democrats will make about Republicans being corrupt and whatever else their talking points say.

From your lips to Dr. Dean's ears.

At least the Republicans tried to get rid of Larry Craig, and succeeded with Foley.

[Roman414]

The one bright light that shines forth from this sorry incident...it is wonderful that we have so nearly eliminated all violent crime that the prosecutors and police have the spare resources to go after consenting adults for what they do behind closed doors. We must truly be the envy of the rest of the world for our crime-free, safe society. Kudos to all the judges, prosecutors, cops and informers who work so hard to keep us all safe.

[jazzman]

The one bright light that shines forth from this sorry incident...it is wonderful that we have so nearly eliminated all violent crime that the prosecutors and police have the spare resources to go after consenting adults for what they do behind closed doors. We must truly be the envy of the rest of the world for our crime-free, safe society. Kudos to all the judges, prosecutors, cops and informers who work so hard to keep us all safe.

I sympathize with your point, but according to NPR this morning, he got caught due to post-9/11 bank reporting requirements on suspicious transfers of money. So, it looks like the feds were looking for something more dangerous, but couldn't ignore a politician with such expensive tastes in an area that is, for better or worse, illegal.

[TstebinsB]

For all the people up in arms, calling for his resignation, Gov. Spitzer is no more. He resigned. I don't know too many conservative Republicans caught with their pants down who resigned so swiftly.

[JBHoren]

For all the people up in arms, calling for his resignation, Gov. Spitzer is no more. He resigned. I don't know too many conservative Republicans caught with their pants down who resigned so swiftly.

Hillary Rodham Clinton for Governor of New York (and save the Presidency for someone with lots of successful experience in public service)

[redbike]

For all the people up in arms, calling for his resignation, Gov. Spitzer is no more. He resigned. I don't know too many conservative Republicans caught with their pants down who resigned so swiftly.


Not Larry Craig, not David Vitter, not Newt Gingrich, not Rudy Guiliani. John McCain's affair with the woman who financed his political ambitions came before his election to Congress. That's all I can think of right now.

[SmoovD]

A: Spitzer didn't resign because he wanted to.
B: Attempts to make this a partisan issue, by either side, are downright ridiculous.

[scoopster]

A: Spitzer didn't resign because he wanted to.
B: Attempts to make this a partisan issue, by either side, are downright ridiculous.
+++++1

Both these these statements are absolutely true but that still doesn't mean people won't be working very hard to make this a partisan issue. I may be too cynical, but it's in a politican's genetic code to do such a thing.

[Dr. Mike]

For all the people up in arms, calling for his resignation, Gov. Spitzer is no more. He resigned. I don't know too many conservative Republicans caught with their pants down who resigned so swiftly.


Not Larry Craig, not David Vitter, not Newt Gingrich, not Rudy Guiliani. John McCain's affair with the woman who financed his political ambitions came before his election to Congress. That's all I can think of right now.

I don't think the swiftness of a resignation is in any way correlated to the virtue of the individual. In this case, I think the swiftness was more of a reflection of how low his approval ratings were going into this scandal, how quickly the rats jumped ship on him, and how many enemies he had amassed being a sanctimonious jerk who made it his life's goal to drag people through hell to serve his goals. True, some of the people he prosecuted were more than deserving, but a great many were mercilessly dealt with. I think it is also, as I mentioned in my last post, influenced by the fact that the Democrats are already in a political mess with their nomination process and all the bad feelings and bad press, and they don't want any other problems being associated with the party right now. It is in their best interest for this to go away as quickly as possible.

Craig and Vitter should be gone. I fully agree. Newt and Rudi are slightly different, in that their actions did not approach criminal behavior - although, as I posted earlier, marital infidelity is, for me, a serious consideration in my decision of who is worthy of my trust to govern.

If we would truly like to make this a partisan issue, as opposed to merely the downfall of a sanctimonious jerk, then I might ask what Barney Frank is still doing in office? It is not partisan. How quickly a person resigns under such conditions has multiple factors, only one of which is how much (if any) decency the person has left.

[TstebinsB]

A: Spitzer didn't resign because he wanted to.
B: Attempts to make this a partisan issue, by either side, are downright ridiculous.

A. Politicians never resign because they want to. However, not every politician gives in and resigns.
B. I'm actually independent and didn't intend to make it partisan. However, the vitriol by an obvious registered Republican in this thread made me want to go to the other side.

[htownmmm]

Nope, 'fraid not.......Just once I'd like to see one of the women slap the dogs..t out of one of these assholes on national TV right in the middle of the press conference then take 'em for everything they have......republican or democrat

me too


Structuring involves creating a series of financial movements designed to obscure the true purpose of the payments.

Prosecutors reportedly have a series of e-mails and wiretapped phone conversations of Spitzer.

In a interview two years ago, Spitzer, then-attorney general, told ABC News he had some advice for people who break the law. "Never talk when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink, and never write an e-mail because it's death. You're giving prosecutors all the evidence we need," he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1


Isn't it great when someone gets hoisted on their own petard?


I guess the problem is the quantity of your glee. Remind me: what did you post when the Good Republican Senator got caught wearing diapers with prostitutes? I was actually planning to start a thread on this because hypocrisy is funny whenever either party enters the party, but for goodness sake....

and there has been enough stupidity to go around for yeasrs on both sides of the aisle


i'd like to see a picture of this "7 diamond" lady of the night.

me and you both!


What about criminal behavior?



You must have missed him prosecuting two prostitution rings with mob connections.

"I'm Elliot Spitzer, I'm not only a prostitution ring prosecutor... I'm a client!"

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


now that's funny!


And I think she should soak him. I don't think these women should show up at these press conferences. It is just more evidence of the selfishness of these men. If she were to soak him, and I were asked to decide, I'd help her take him to the cleaners.

One of the biggest issues that is not being considered here, though, is this: this guy prosecuted prostitution rings, and has now been caught soliciting business from one. Can anybody with certainty say that he passed over this particular ring to protect himself? Or if the opportunity presented itself to act against this ring, would he act? And if he utilized this service, how do we know that this was the first and only time? And would any other hypothetical prostitution rings have benefited by having him as their client?

I don't pity the man one bit. I pity his wife and children. They deserved better. I would like to think that the electorate deserved better, but in light of the fact that lately such offenses don't seem to necessarily disqualify one from public service, I think most of the time the electorate gets exactly what they want, if not what they deserve.

The problem here is this. Whatever your feelings on the situation, the sexual activities of President Clinton and the attempt to excuse them has made it so that such activities are almost acceptable anymore in our elected officials. After all, how can you expect a Senator or a Congressman or a Governor to step down under these circumstances when the President did not.

Laws control the lesser man. Right conduct controls the greater one. - Chinese proverb

+1000!


A: Spitzer didn't resign because he wanted to.
B: Attempts to make this a partisan issue, by either side, are downright ridiculous.

So let it go or it gets shut down!


Marty

[knlgskr]

I had a Top Secret clearance for 35+ years and was subject to higher standards than those who did not and never experienced any problem(s).

You either play by the rules or you will deal with the consequences of your actions/behavior.

It would not surprise me if eliot spitzer's only regret is that he was caught and that would probably apply to most/all so-called public figures. When clinton was impeached I said not one dumocrat in the senate would vote for conviction whilst some reflublicans would vote to acquit. Can anyone say partisan politics? Can anyone spell blackmail? Is anyone "holier than thou"?

Chalk up a lot of "names" problems to arrogance induced stupidity. After all, when you are involved in making/enforcing laws; why should they apply to you since by virtue of position you should be exempt.

P.S. Proper Nouns I do not respect are not capitalized.

[Dr. Mike]

As more information comes out, I think it becomes more apparent why his departure was so quick. While we were initially told this centered around a specific appointment with a prostitute for $4300, it now looks like he may have used this particular service multiple times, to the tune of more than $15,000. In addition, this was just the tip of an iceberg that looks to be around $80,000 over several years before and after he took office. Presumably that would include his time as AG for New York, possibly even while prosecuting other prostitution rings.

I think that we are going to see some kind of indictment in the works, not merely the death of his political career. I don't think it is entirely off the wall to even predict being charged for violating the Mann Act.

And the sleazy icing on the cake is that he used as an alias the name of a friend and contributor for all of this. Maybe they should also add identity theft to the list of charges.

I know that some people will argue that this is a private matter, but obviously while AG he thought that prostitution amounted to a big enough crime that it deserved prosecution. In light of the news of the larger pattern, you now really have to wonder whether certain rings were "overlooked" by the good governor.

[perry]

I was listening to the local news talk radio station on the way home a few minutes ago. They had a lady call in and ask why no one is blaming the real cause of his problem. They ask her what she means.. She says, "that ice princess of a wife he has." They're kinda flabergasted and she says, "Yea, if she'd had better cooking, he wouldn't have had to order take out," and goes on saying they should done some role playing or something to spice things out.

She goes on saying that the woman should be pleasing the man, and it turns out she's been married 5 times, with a kid from each marriage -- she likes a keepsake :lol: She brings her daughter on the phone, the girl sounds like she's about 10, and says, "You cook good oats for your man or he'll eat from someone else's bowl".

Lots of little examples like that and the DJ's just don't quite know how to respond to a woman saying stuff like that. Was pretty entertaining, and a real caller as far as I could tell :tongue_sm

[gugi]

She brings her daughter on the phone, the girl sounds like she's about 10, and says, "You cook good oats for your man or he'll eat from someone else's bowl".

The kids need to learn the important life lessons young :lol:
I haven't heard the radio program but as far as a 'real caller' goes, I dunno - sounds like something I might enjoy doing :)

The whole thing is turning into one big joke. Don't get me wrong - I am as bad as everybody else - the fact that I keep coming to this threads confirms it. I just wish we weren't as obsessed with circus as we are.

[TstebinsB]

As a New Yorker, I don't care about the fiasco. The conversation here was somewhat interesting so I responded. All I care about, as far NY is concerned, are lower rates on my student loans, a good job after I graduate from law school, and the housing prices going back up. I already get my gas for cheap in NJ. After that, everything else is inconsequential. :smile:

[redbike]

Newt and Rudi are slightly different, in that their actions did not approach criminal behavior

True, but Newt was having an affair at the same time he was pushing for Clinton's impeachment. I really hoped he'd run for the Republican presidential nomination. He would have been a magnet for oppo research and negative ads, reaping what he sowed as Speaker.

As for Guiliani, the Republican electorate certainly let him know how Presidential he isn't. Now he can go back to making millions pushing Oxycontin.

[cvixx]

Couple of thoughts here...Bubba seems to have been grabbing everything in skirts, even if they did not want to have anything to do with him. Think that comes under the heading of sexual assault.

Second...Monica (AKA Cigar Lady) was his intern. If the Feds caught anyone else doing to an intern, or subordinate employee, there would have been a federal trial, or the CEO would have had to resign pronto.

But I guess as long as Hillary does not mind, there is no concern.

[ScottS]

I suspect that much of the criminal charges will be conveniently dropped in exchange for his going down without a fight. There are already some pretty good questions floating around about the process by which a routine report IRS became an FBI investigation. It will be interesting to see what surfaces.

[c2rex]

Couple of thoughts here...Bubba seems to have been grabbing everything in skirts, even if they did not want to have anything to do with him. Think that comes under the heading of sexual assault.

Second...Monica (AKA Cigar Lady) was his intern. If the Feds caught anyone else doing to an intern, or subordinate employee, there would have been a federal trial, or the CEO would have had to resign pronto.

But I guess as long as Hillary does not mind, there is no concern.

If its a Republican the 1st thing that happens is Fox News label them as a member of the opposition party:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/3594/foleydemaz0.th.jpg (http://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foleydemaz0.jpg)

Then deny it was even a problem:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4901/foxsex1el7.th.jpg (http://img142.imageshack.us/my.php?image=foxsex1el7.jpg)

How's his trial going?

[Bowcephalus]

I really hoped he'd run for the Republican presidential nomination. He would have been a magnet for oppo research and negative ads, reaping what he sowed as Speaker.
.....That single statement explains a lot.....Thanks for the insight.......

[Aevum]

the differance between the monica ordeal and this is that last time i checked, unless the intern was sexual harrased, adultry isnt a crime, they cornered bubba about it, he lied, and they tried to catch him for the lie, personaly, i would like the person who makes economical and political decisions on the level of the US presidency to be well laid when he does so, look at bush, he looks like he hasnt had sex for a decade or two, and look where it got us, anyways, the only thing the clintion lewinski affair showed us is that all you need to slime someone is to tell a story, who gives a rats behind if its true or not, you know your political system is dead when you have to critizice the president on who he sleeps with insted of his governing policies,

but last time i checked, soliciting sex in a public or soliciting prostitution is a crime in the US, therefore these people have a legal responsability for their actions, and once admited their responsability, being public figures in a public post their responsability is to set a public example and stand trial,

[VR6ofpain]

the differance between the monica ordeal and this is that last time i checked, unless the intern was sexual harrased, adultry isnt a crime, they cornered bubba about it, he lied, and they tried to catch him for the lie, personaly, i would like the person who makes economical and political decisions on the level of the US presidency to be well laid when he does so, look at bush, he looks like he hasnt had sex for a decade or two, and look where it got us, anyways, the only thing the clintion lewinski affair showed us is that all you need to slime someone is to tell a story, who gives a rats behind if its true or not, you know your political system is dead when you have to critizice the president on who he sleeps with insted of his governing policies,

but last time i checked, soliciting sex in a public or soliciting prostitution is a crime in the US, therefore these people have a legal responsability for their actions, and once admited their responsability, being public figures in a public post their responsability is to set a public example and stand trial,

Sure we all love a president who can be quoted as saying:

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Aevum]

the guy was a smooth talker, it might have made him look like scum, but it probobly solved alot of problems and resolved alot of conflicts,

he was the presidential equivalent of a used car salesman, but atleast the car didnt broke and he didnt cheat you too bad,

sometimes the best presidents are also the worst,
nixon managed to get the US out of vietnam, had the largest school integration against segregation and in the words of spock, only nixon can go to china,
but he was also a liar, a cheat and his reelection was fradulant,

[ouch]

nixon..........was also a liar, a cheat and his reelection was fradulant,

You mean 1972? Where he won every state except Mass? :lol:

[TimmyBoston]

I love how these threads invetibly degenerate into Republicans vs. Dems....:rolleyes:

[ulven22]

OKAY so the man got laid:lol:

Poletitians and prostitutes seems to be the same, regardless of party:cool:

I bet that if the man had shot and killed someone it would hardly get on the front page.:001_smile:001_smile:001_smile

[Aevum]

it did hit the newspapers when dick cheney shot someone in the face,

[c2rex]

Couple of thoughts here...Bubba seems to have been grabbing everything in skirts, even if they did not want to have anything to do with him. Think that comes under the heading of sexual assault.

Second...Monica (AKA Cigar Lady) was his intern. If the Feds caught anyone else doing to an intern, or subordinate employee, there would have been a federal trial, or the CEO would have had to resign pronto.

But I guess as long as Hillary does not mind, there is no concern.


The 1st paragraph is purely your opinion, and while it is a bit incoherent, you are intitled to it.

As for the 2nd, you DO realize there was an impeachment where he was found NOT GUILTY by a vote of 55 to 45...don't you?

[Isaias]

the horror! the horror! A man had sex with a prostitute... :eek:
And he was a democrat... ALL democrats must be the same... and not only the polititians, but the voters too. And his wife! all NY polititians wive's must be the same!
But republicans did it too! :eek: they are all guilty too.

ah sex scandals... It is like a Soap Opera + hipocritical puritanism + politics + passionate crimes. That is like crack for the media.

[Dr. Mike]

I'll say it again. This is not a partisan issue. It just happens to be bad for the Democrats because this was one of their own, and he has garnered a lot of national attention as of late.

No, this is more about a guy who enjoyed using his power to crush the reputations and careers of anybody who got in his way. Anybody who has followed this guy knows of what I speak. The leaked emails of a sexual content from a person his office was investigating. His warning that he was coming for someone who dared to challenge his actions in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. His comment about being a f***ing steamroller. This was a man drunk with power, and extremely sanctimonious, who made it a point to destroy a persons reputation and career if he couldn't actually charge him with a crime.

Ultimately he thought he was above the law that he claimed to be defending. Who cares how it came to be that he got caught. He was doing something illegal. As a lawyer, an attorney general, and particularly as an attorney general who had prosecuted other prostitution rings, he knew better than anybody else the consequences of his actions. That he would risk so much for so little is reason enough to have him gone. This man was born into wealth, is worth millions, and has had a stellar rise to power in one of the largest and most important states of this nation. There is absolutely nobody else to blame in any of this other than himself. He deserves whatever is coming to him.

[cl00bie]

Here's an interesting article about some of the former Governor's hijinx (http://www.redstate.com/stories/law/spitzenfreude). The source is a bit biased, but all the facts can be easily checked. Enjoy.

[liege]

In my five decades plus five time here on earth, and while observing human beings during my stint here on this globe, I've noticed one thing. People, especially those in power, who really vociferously attack a certain kind of crime/sin behavior are the ones who practice that behavior themselves.

[redbike]

This was a man drunk with power, and extremely sanctimonious, who made it a point to destroy a persons reputation and career if he couldn't actually charge him with a crime.



Sounds like a description of Ken Starr.

[Dr. Mike]

Sounds like a description of Ken Starr.

Really? Because I don't see that at all. As I recall, Starr was appointed to investigate misconduct in the Clinton White House and the Whitewater investigation. He was not a grandstander like Spitzer.

The issue of the Lewinsky affair came up as a result of Linda Tripp learning that Lewinsky had testified in the Paula Jones case that she had not had a sexual relationship with Clinton - critical testimony that Tripp knew to be a lie.

Democrats demonized Starr.

Honestly, though, is your knee-jerk reaction to rationalize every misconduct by a Democrat by comparing them to a Republican? I thought Democrats were supposed to be so much more ethical than Republicans. In each instance, though, even when you seek to evade by comparing the Democrat to a Republican, the actions of the Democrat seem far worse.

Spitzer had shelled out $80,000 over several years for prostitutes? Well, Newt and Rudi cheated on their wives. Spitzer was a heartless bastard who ruined the lives of people even when no crime had been committed? Well, Ken Starr!!!!!!

Honestly, if you want to continually beat the partisan drum on this issue, which I don't believe is even an issue here, at least come up with something better than "I know you are, but what am I."

[Roman414]

One issue I haven't seen anyone address: Should someone who lays out $5,000 for a roll in the hay be trusted with the taxpayers' money? That much would have kept the entire crew of my last ship smiling for weeks. No wonder those politicians can't balance a budget; they have no money sense.

[cl00bie]

Sounds like a description of Ken Starr.

So you approve of this kind of behavior if it's "your guy" doing it?

[papasmurf]

I have not been following this thread simply because I dont care about it but since I saw how many posts it had I felt the need to find out what you guys thought about it and then I see this.................................










$5,500 ah hour! Papasmurf would sell him 10 Fat Boys for that, and throw in a decent After Sex, um, Shave Balm.

Cheers

Jeremy


How the heck did I get brought into this conversation :lol::lol:





Nick

[TstebinsB]

All in all, not as embarrassing for his wife as it was for Jim McGreevey's.

Whenever I see one of these poor women in front of the camera, "standing by her man", I can't help but think that she's going to soak him, big time.:lol:

Here's (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/031208_stand_by_your_man/) a link from the Boston Globe showing women standing by their men.

[Dr. Mike]

Here's (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/gallery/031208_stand_by_your_man/) a link from the Boston Globe showing women standing by their men.

This from an article by Mark Hemingway yesterday in National Review Online about McGreevey's wife.


Just ask Dina McGreevey, née Matos, how well the loyal-but-long-suffering act has worked out for her. She stood by her man, New Jersey Gov. Jim McGreevey, in 2004 when he famously announced: “My truth is that I am a gay American.” Unfortunately for Dina and the citizens of New Jersey, “the” truth was that he was a serial adulterer who had put his manifestly unqualified boyfriend on the public payroll to the tune of six figures a year.

However, as Dina found out later, standing up publicly for her husband was just the beginning of her humiliation. In a book she wrote about surviving her marriage, she explained in extensive detail how the humiliations went far beyond anything related to their public life. She later found out that her husband had been engaging in anonymous trysts in parks, seedy bookstores, and Turnpike rest stops — and that he began an affair while she was in the hospital giving birth to their child. Matos’s husband rewarded her loyalty by insisting that she move out of the governor’s mansion before his official resignation, saying that if she remained, it would make her “look like white trash.”

[jazzman]

I know some women who went through the same thing as Dina McGreevey, but not nearly so publicly. My contempt for the men involved is extremely stong (even if that means agreeing with the National Review).

[Dr. Mike]

I know some women who went through the same thing as Dina McGreevey, but not nearly so publicly. My contempt for the men involved is extremely stong (even if that means agreeing with the National Review).

Kind of how I felt, as well, about Giuliani, and announcing to his last (I think, I can't keep track of them) wife, who found out he was leaving her by seeing him announce it in a press conference. I never quite understood how he generated so much buzz early on in the GOP primaries.

[redbike]

This article is a good read about some of what Spitzer was able to accomplish as NY AG. It's really too bad - that kind of success in prosecuting financial corruption is always needed.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock12mar12,0,4459914.column

[Dr. Mike]

This article is a good read about some of what Spitzer was able to accomplish as NY AG. It's really too bad - that kind of success in prosecuting financial corruption is always needed.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock12mar12,0,4459914.column

That is the problem, though. He didn't have that much success in prosecuting financial corruption. Sure, he had a few very visible cases that he actually took to court. But the reason people were so glad to see him fall was his more common tactic of smearing without a case. All too often he would merely throw out allegations that did not have the merit to actually warrant an indictment - but knowing full well that merely damaging a person's name would ruin them. People would be fired, not for wrong doing, but to limit the PR damage that Spitzer would cause. They mention Grubman in the article - as I mentioned earlier, Spitzer's office not only went after his financial dealings, but also leaked sexually explicit emails Grubman had sent to a female - which had absolutely nothing to do with the case. In addition, he threatened an individual who dared to write an op-ed piece critical of his actions - clearly an abuse of authority from the top prosecutor in the state.

So because some incidental good was brought about by this guy's prosecutorial zealotry, we should lament his downfall? Why? Ultimately, this wasn't a good man who did some bad things. This was a bad man who did some good things. The ends do not justify the means. Shall we also mourn the loss of Lenin, because, after all, he was instrumental in overthrowing the corrupt and oppressive regime of the czars?

[ScottS]

This was a bad man who did some good things.

Just because a man doesn't live up to your ethical standards, that doesn't make him a bad man. He used the services of a prostitute, as do an estimated 1 in 6 men in Great Britain.

I do understand where you're coming from though, as I did a little dance when ethicist Bill Bennet's gambling habit came out.

[gugi]

But the reason people were so glad to see him fall was his more common tactic of smearing without a case. All too often he would merely throw out allegations that did not have the merit to actually warrant an indictment - but knowing full well that merely damaging a person's name would ruin them. People would be fired, not for wrong doing, but to limit the PR damage that Spitzer would cause. They mention Grubman in the article - as I mentioned earlier, Spitzer's office not only went after his financial dealings, but also leaked sexually explicit emails Grubman had sent to a female - which had absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Since you've been arguing a moral point of view I can't help but notice some sort of a double standard here. Or do you think a person with immoral behavior for your standards is unacceptable for public office, while perfectly fine for private? Or are you suggesting the smeared people were not guilty? They could've taken him to court for libel as they clearly suffered damages if they had been fired only to limit PR damage. Note I am not saying that this is a good thing of him to do.



In addition, he threatened an individual who dared to write an op-ed piece critical of his actions - clearly an abuse of authority from the top prosecutor in the state.

So you are noticing abuse of power in US politics? I wonder is this some sort of an exception, or a particularly outrageous case?

[Dr. Mike]

Just because a man doesn't live up to your ethical standards, that doesn't make him a bad man. He used the services of a prostitute, as do an estimated 1 in 6 men in Great Britain.

I do understand where you're coming from though, as I did a little dance when ethicist Bill Bennet's gambling habit came out.

If you will re-read the post of mine you are citing, you will notice that my characterization of the man was regarding his actions as attorney general. I can also cite his problems as governor, abusing his power to have the state police dig up dirt on his political adversaries. The soliciting a prostitute was merely the one that brought him down.

I make a distinction between a bad man and a man that has done bad things. If all we are talking about is a single visit to a prostitute, then I would not call him a bad man. In calling him a bad man, I refer to his entire record, where the bad things certainly seem to outweigh any positives. That is who I measure.

I didn't simplify it down to a single charge. You did that.

[ScottS]

I make a distinction between a bad man and a man that has done bad things. If all we are talking about is a single visit to a prostitute, then I would not call him a bad man. In calling him a bad man, I refer to his entire record, where the bad things certainly seem to outweigh any positives. That is who I measure.


And that's a judgment call. I hold that the good outweigh the bad. The fact that he probably did more to keep Wall Street in line and protect the small investor (who probably has better protection in Vegas than on Wall Street) than anything the Feds have done in decades really tips the scales for me. He has an adversarial personality, and doesn't always fight fair, but a fair fight in those circles is one you can walk away from. I'm glad he was on my side (as a consumer, not a liberal), and I'm sorry to see him go. Is it a tragedy? Not really. His best role was probably as a prosecutor, and he was bringing the state Assembly to a deadlock.

[Dr. Mike]

Since you've been arguing a moral point of view I can't help but notice some sort of a double standard here. Or do you think a person with immoral behavior for your standards is unacceptable for public office, while perfectly fine for private? Or are you suggesting the smeared people were not guilty? They could've taken him to court for libel as they clearly suffered damages if they had been fired only to limit PR damage. Note I am not saying that this is a good thing of him to do.


So you are noticing abuse of power in US politics? I wonder is this some sort of an exception, or a particularly outrageous case?

A private office is just that. How can I tell someone what is and is not acceptable in their private office? If they break the law, they are affecting the public welfare. If Spitzer were to have merely been a private individual, then, while I would find him morally repugnant, I wouldn't call for his firing.

Your argument makes no sense. I'm not saying he should be gone simply because of a lapse in moral judgment. It was a pattern from a man in considerable power to affect the lives of others from a public position of trust.

He was the head law enforcement official in the state. He had prosecuted another prostitute ring. He did not prosecute this particular one, despite his obvious knowledge of it. In a sense, his official position offered the Emperor's Club protection, because he wouldn't prosecute it as long as his name was on the client list.

I am absolutely suggesting the smeared, unindicted individuals are not guilty, because in this country we have the presumption of innocence. The fact that for some of these individuals, Spitzer never even indicted them means that, legally, we have to assume they are innocent. And there is a major distinction between an attorney general and governor who solicits prostitutes and a private businessman who sends sexually explicit emails. The emails have absolutely nothing to do with the businessman's financial dealing. I can find his action unacceptable, but it is a private matter.

Additionally, the businessman was not elected to his position by the public, paid with public funds, and was not put in charge of fighting crimes such as prostitution.

Personal choices that reflect on a person's character and integrity can be taken into consideration when choosing our public officials, and certainly we will all hold different attitudes regarding what is acceptable, what we can live with, and what we won't tolerate in our elected officials. But I would think that abuses of power on the level of what Spitzer perpetrated - committing the crime of soliciting a prostitute, committing a federal crime of wiring funds for that crime, as well as arranging for and facilitating the transfer of that prostitute across state lines, indirectly, if not directly, supporting and protecting the prostitution ring by choosing to not go after it as he did other prostitution rings, threatening people with the authority of his office when they exercised their right to free speech in criticizing him, publicly making allegations against individuals in an effort to destroy them without having any evidence with which to indict them - I would think would be a no-brainer in terms of being immediate disqualifiers for public office.

I'd hate to have a government of elected officials that you would find acceptable.

[Dr. Mike]

And that's a judgment call. I hold that the good outweigh the bad. The fact that he probably did more to keep Wall Street in line and protect the small investor (who probably has better protection in Vegas than on Wall Street) than anything the Feds have done in decades really tips the scales for me. He has an adversarial personality, and doesn't always fight fair, but a fair fight in those circles is one you can walk away from. I'm glad he was on my side (as a consumer, not a liberal), and I'm sorry to see him go. Is it a tragedy? Not really. His best role was probably as a prosecutor, and he was bringing the state Assembly to a deadlock.

I will accept your calling it a judgment call on my part. Just don't misrepresent my judgment of him as resting on a single action. I have known people who have had marital infidelity, some I have even called my friends, that I would not call bad people.

But come on. This particular night in question was the night before Valentine's Day. How low can you get, except for McGreevey's having one of his trysts while his wife was in the hospital giving birth to their child? So his political rise to power accomplished some good along the way. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[ScottS]

But come on. This particular night in question was the night before Valentine's Day. How low can you get, except for McGreevey's having one of his trysts while his wife was in the hospital giving birth to their child? So his political rise to power accomplished some good along the way. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Well, there's Dole's divorce of the therapist that nursed him back to health after his serious injury.

In fact, the night before Valentines Day is an unofficial Mistress Day. Valentines Day must be spent with the wife, and if you wait till after Valentines Day, your mistress might take offense. Heard this on the radio, haven't tried it firsthand!

[gugi]

A private office is just that. How can I tell someone what is and is not acceptable in their private office?

Yes, you cannot, here's your statement again


People would be fired, not for wrong doing, but to limit the PR damage that Spitzer would cause.

So, yes people got fired not because they committed a crime and not because the AG made stuff up, but because they did something unethical which was unacceptable for their employer and was made publicly known. Whether it was Spitzer, or NYT, or FoxNews that reported on that behavior it's not the reporting, but the behavior that got them fired.
But yes, the decisions of the private firms do not need be discussed here, except that you brought that up as something that he's guilty of. He may be guilty of leaking information that he does not have an authority to disclose (for reference how big of a crime this is you can refer to the opinion of the president of the United States of what is an appropriate punishment for such crimes).



Your argument makes no sense. I'm not saying he should be gone simply because of a lapse in moral judgment. It was a pattern from a man in considerable power to affect the lives of others from a public position of trust.

Please note, I am not arguing that he should remain in office or that he didn't commit crimes. I am just noting that this is a fairly common practice of people with power.



And there is a major distinction between an attorney general and governor who solicits prostitutes and a private businessman who sends sexually explicit emails. The emails have absolutely nothing to do with the businessman's financial dealing.

Yet they both loose their jobs. Apparently the businessman's company is bothered by these emails. It is a private matter, indeed, but the businessman is loosing his job because of the public opinion. Just as the governor. Had the public opinion on prostitution been different and the laws that prohibit it repealed the whole thing may look differently. Some states have standing laws against homosexuality, so if a gay prosecutor goes on enforcing them, while engaging in the same behavior that will be a problem. If the prosecutor would be straight he would just be doing his job, even if he goes after 10% of the activity and leaves the other 90% untouched.
Justice is an interesting thing in this way. I would hate to be the first to tell you that this thing happens with any kind of crimes.



I'd hate to have a government of elected officials that you would find acceptable.
Now, this is just the example of smearing that you so fervently denounced a paragraph earlier. I'm glad that, to my knowledge, you are not running for public office, as under your standards you will probably not qualify.

And since we are on the topic of passing judgments

Ultimately, this wasn't a good man who did some bad things. This was a bad man who did some good things.
Are you saying you keep tabs on the good and the bad a person does and whichever is over 50% determines the person being good or bad (or do you use some other formula than simple majority)? Of course I understand that this is your purely subjective opinion, but I assume you consider yourself good person. Could we perhaps have a list of the major public officials (at the very least the top level of the three branches the federal government, plus the three presidential hopefuls) with your ranking of their moral qualification, so that we can use it as a reference?

[redbike]

That is the problem, though. He didn't have that much success in prosecuting financial corruption. Sure, he had a few very visible cases that he actually took to court. But the reason people were so glad to see him fall was his more common tactic of smearing without a case. All too often he would merely throw out allegations that did not have the merit to actually warrant an indictment - but knowing full well that merely damaging a person's name would ruin them. People would be fired, not for wrong doing, but to limit the PR damage that Spitzer would cause. They mention Grubman in the article - as I mentioned earlier, Spitzer's office not only went after his financial dealings, but also leaked sexually explicit emails Grubman had sent to a female - which had absolutely nothing to do with the case. In addition, he threatened an individual who dared to write an op-ed piece critical of his actions - clearly an abuse of authority from the top prosecutor in the state.

So because some incidental good was brought about by this guy's prosecutorial zealotry, we should lament his downfall? Why? Ultimately, this wasn't a good man who did some bad things. This was a bad man who did some good things. The ends do not justify the means. Shall we also mourn the loss of Lenin, because, after all, he was instrumental in overthrowing the corrupt and oppressive regime of the czars?

I posted a link to an article by a business writer describing significant legal accomplishments by Spitzer which resulted in the establishment of business practices benefitting millions of investors. You posted a whining rant which is contradicted by the article, that minimizes his legal accomplishments and characterizes him as a "bad" man.

I’m not wasting any more of my time debating someone who won’t face facts. Your determination to characterize Spitzer as a “bad” man says much more about you than him.

[Mejnoon]

The new Governor...sex...woman who was not his wife...too hilarious, laughing too hard, can't breathe...

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2008/03/17/2008-03-17_gov_paterson_admits_to_sex_with_other_wo.html

[prewt]

They are sticking it to us enough, do they really need the services of a prostitute ?

If they have to have one, isn't a $500 one good enough?

If it isn't, we are paying these clowns way too much, Republican or Democrat.

[gugi]

Now that he's sworn as a governor we can leave Spitzer and move to him :lol::lol::lol:

Now the question is, did he pay her as that will make it illegal. At least he was smart enough to stay within state limits.

I'd be curious to find what does Dr. Mike think of our new governor. Technically he was elected for the public office, although not for the one he currently occupies. But of course, what is unacceptable for the electorate in Ohio or Utah, could be perfectly fine in NY. At the end of the day you have to accept that NY voters were perfectly happy with Spitzer's abuses of power while AG, the bullying variety that is, as he got elected to become a Governor with 69% of the vote. They would probably have tolerated his extramarital affairs, as long as he hasn't gone prosecuting prostitution, while exempting the Emperor's Club from it.

I guess there won't be a new lieutenant governor till 2010, so this one better watch out.

[gugi]

If they have to have one, isn't a $500 one good enough?

I think there was a special thread on whether it was worth it or not. If it was his own money what do you care if it's $50 or $50,000. When he goes out his dinner probably also costs 10x-100x more than what you pay for yours, but I'd take a wild guess and say that he or the state rarely have to pick that bill. If a $5000 lay will make somebody of such importance do his job 1% better you should consider it an extremely wise investment from purely economical point of view.

[TstebinsB]

Well, McGreevey's driver said he, McGreevey, and his wife used to have raunchy threesomes and she is not a victim. According to him, they were doing this before McGreevey became governor and that she'd watch them. Thereby showing she knew McGreevey was gay. In a statement, McGreevey agrees with the revelation and the driver has given his sworn deposition to these facts but the wife vehemantly denies it.

Now, we just need something to come out of Connecticut and the tri-state trifecta of sexual promiscuity will be complete.

[Dr. Mike]

Now that he's sworn as a governor we can leave Spitzer and move to him :lol::lol::lol:

Now the question is, did he pay her as that will make it illegal. At least he was smart enough to stay within state limits.

I'd be curious to find what does Dr. Mike think of our new governor. Technically he was elected for the public office, although not for the one he currently occupies. But of course, what is unacceptable for the electorate in Ohio or Utah, could be perfectly fine in NY. At the end of the day you have to accept that NY voters were perfectly happy with Spitzer's abuses of power while AG, the bullying variety that is, as he got elected to become a Governor with 69% of the vote. They would probably have tolerated his extramarital affairs, as long as he hasn't gone prosecuting prostitution, while exempting the Emperor's Club from it.

I guess there won't be a new lieutenant governor till 2010, so this one better watch out.

If you have to ask what I think of the new governor, you obviously haven't read my previous posts.

If he had an extramarital affair, I think that is wrong. I would not call for his resignation for it. The issue with Spitzer was not the sex, but the crime. By the way, I am from neither Ohio nor Utah. I currently live in Ohio. I am from California. But nice stereotype there.

I see Redbike has also decided that it has become necessary to call into question my own personal life. I made the comment that I would not want a government of his choosing. I stand by that. He obviously has political views that are drastically different than my own. I think it is safe to say that I would not want a government chosen by any of the people that I have been debating here - just as you would not want a government of my choosing. How that triggered his righteous indignation, I have no idea.

I make no bones about the fact that I consider the sum total of a candidate's choices in my vote. Would marital infidelity influence my decision? Possibly. Given the choice between two equally competent candidates, I would most likely choose the one who seemed more trustworthy, and breaking the marriage vow would certainly influence that choice. That is not to say that I would condemn the person, but I also don't have to give them my vote.

However, having committed a crime, particularly while one was an elected official, especially as the chief law enforcement agent of the state, would be an automatic disqualifier. Now, apparently as gugi sees it, New Yorkers feel differently about the criminal background of their elected officials. Unless I understand his second to last sentence wrong, he thinks that Spitzer would have been okay if he just hadn't prosecuted prostitutes. Honestly, am I all alone on this? So you are saying that you would have been okay with Sptizer staying in office, after soliciting prostitutes to the tune of ~$80,000 as long as he had ignored prostitution rings altogether in his capacity as attorney general? Would you have been okay with him murdering someone as well, so long as he didn't prosecute any murder cases to avoid looking the hypocrite? Could he also have safely profited from shady dealing on Wall Street so long as he did not prosecute others for such charges?

Alright, I will leave this thread. Clearly there are some fundamental differences we have. I think that our elected officials should be held to higher standards, at the very least they should have a clean criminal record. And yes, I do consider a person bad who breaks the rules with his special prosecutorial power, destroys others regardless of evidence by the virtue of the power that he sought out, derides the morals and ethics of others, all the while being the hypocrite. The man violated campaign financing laws to get elected. He overstepped his bounds as attorney general. He abused his power as governor to attack political rivals. And all the time he set himself up as the champion of morals and the person who would bring ethics reform to the state. And all the while, he was breaking the law, hiring prostitutes, directly supporting the type of crime he was supposed to fight. You all can defend him if you want.

[redbike]

I see Redbike has also decided that it has become necessary to call into question my own personal life. I made the comment that I would not want a government of his choosing. I stand by that. He obviously has political views that are drastically different than my own. I think it is safe to say that I would not want a government chosen by any of the people that I have been debating here - just as you would not want a government of my choosing. How that triggered his righteous indignation, I have no idea.


Mike,

It was not my intention to call into question your personal life. I am very wary of making personal issues into public, political ones, which may be part of the debate here. My comment was meant to point out something about your politics which is troublesome to me, and apparently to others. I don't want to say more about that because it will resurrect this debate. I apologize if I offended you.

jim

[Mr. Gillette]

I'm from Illinois. I would GLADLY trade our Gov. for BOTH NY's current and most recently former Governors. If we could spring our former Governor, Gov. Ryan out of his place in federal prison, I'd happily send him along too as part of the bargain.

[TstebinsB]

However, having committed a crime, particularly while one was an elected official, especially as the chief law enforcement agent of the state, would be an automatic disqualifier. Now, apparently as gugi sees it, New Yorkers feel differently about the criminal background of their elected officials. Unless I understand his second to last sentence wrong, he thinks that Spitzer would have been okay if he just hadn't prosecuted prostitutes. Honestly, am I all alone on this? So you are saying that you would have been okay with Sptizer staying in office, after soliciting prostitutes to the tune of ~$80,000 as long as he had ignored prostitution rings altogether in his capacity as attorney general? Would you have been okay with him murdering someone as well, so long as he didn't prosecute any murder cases to avoid looking the hypocrite? Could he also have safely profited from shady dealing on Wall Street so long as he did not prosecute others for such charges?


As a New Yorker, we absolutely, positively care about the criminal or unethical behavior of our politicians. However, NY is a very eclectic state. The variety is hard to manage. There are no perfect candidates. It's about choosing the lesser of two evils. Politically, Spitzer was doing many positive things. Ethically, he was obviously barren. Do I think he needed to resign purely because of infidelity? Absolutely not. Since he was with a prostitute and was probably misappropriating gov't funds for this purpose then absolutely.

I know his family is more important than public office but to me, Mr. Voter, his job as governor is more important than his role of father and husband. He's not my father or my partner. I will not play the role of his wife and children and become indignant about his infidelity. To his wife and and children, it's obviously important. That's fine. However, he was doing the job he was elected to do. Everything else is a misguided pretense of sanctity or just none of my business. He's not my pastor; just my governor.

[gugi]

If you have to ask what I think of the new governor, you obviously haven't read my previous posts.

If he had an extramarital affair, I think that is wrong. I would not call for his resignation for it. The issue with Spitzer was not the sex, but the crime.
[QUOTE=Dr. Mike;509124]
By the way, I am from neither Ohio nor Utah. I currently live in Ohio. I am from California. But nice stereotype there.

I wasn't stereotyping at all - since you live in Ohio and went to BYU you probably voted in those states more often than you voted in CA. And NY is more diverse and more 'liberal' than both of these states.



I see Redbike has also decided that it has become necessary to call into question my own personal life. I made the comment that I would not want a government of his choosing.

I believe your comment was directed at me (post #134) and I responded to it. Not because I think we'll choose the same government, but because in the context of the post the implication of that statement is that I endorse criminal behavior.



Now, apparently as gugi sees it, New Yorkers feel differently about the criminal background of their elected officials. Unless I understand his second to last sentence wrong, he thinks that Spitzer would have been okay if he just hadn't prosecuted prostitutes. Honestly, am I all alone on this? So you are saying that you would have been okay with Sptizer staying in office, after soliciting prostitutes to the tune of ~$80,000 as long as he had ignored prostitution rings altogether in his capacity as attorney general? Would you have been okay with him murdering someone as well, so long as he didn't prosecute any murder cases to avoid looking the hypocrite? Could he also have safely profited from shady dealing on Wall Street so long as he did not prosecute others for such charges?


Mike, prostitution is one of these things that is borderline on the legality. Just as homosexuality. Yes it is illegal in NY, just as homosexuality is ilelgal in few other states. As far as I know in certain counties in NV prostitution is perfectly legal. The society is changing, like it or not, and sooner or later the laws reflect that. I did not say it was legal for Spitzer to break the law either way. What I said was that I would not have been surprised if he would still be elected as a Governor even if he had broken it, had he not been prosecuting prostitution and moralizing on the subject. The amount he paid is irrelevant unless he stole it. I believe that Jesus says in the Bible that a lustful thought is the same thing as committing adultery, which is as bad of a sin (not crime) as murder. However that's not how our current society works. As I said in the beginning of the paragraph not all crimes are equal (otherwise you'd just have equal punishment for all and vastly simplify the justice system). Prostitution ranks at the very bottom on the scale of importance, as far as american society is concerned. I don't know if adultery is criminalized, but in some societies it is worse than murder. This is not what NY is though.

To make my point even clearer note that driving 1 mph over the speed limit is illegal as well even though most people drive 5-10mph over it and get away with that all the time. Even elected politicians, who are held to higher standards do it. So yes, you will probably not vote for a public official who you are aware that has been engaging in extramarital sex, but most americans would.

Let me ask you a question - do you think Winston Churchill was a good or bad politician and good or bad person? Would you have voted for him?
What about some of the current politicians in office - is Vice President Cheney a good or a bad man, what about Justice Thomas? Or the Clintons?

And again I am not defending anybody, I'm just trying to illustrate that things are not as black and white as you seem to see them.

[Dr. Mike]

Mike, prostitution is one of these things that is borderline on the legality. Not sure what this really means. Is it, or is it not, a crime in Washington, D.C., and in New York State? That is all that is relevant here. Maybe it is legal in some parts of Nevada. He wasn't there. Clearly, though, this argument is irrelevant in this case, as he clearly showed that he found it illegal enough that it was deserving of the actions of his office to prosecute other rings.


To make my point even clearer note that driving 1 mph over the speed limit is illegal as well even though most people drive 5-10mph over it and get away with that all the time. Even elected politicians, who are held to higher standards do it. So yes, you will probably not vote for a public official who you are aware that has been engaging in extramarital sex, but most americans would.

As to the speeding analogy, I think most people would be irate with a politician speeding had that politician made it their slogan that they would combat speeding, and had also been instrumental in prosecuting people who drove 5-10 mph over the speed limit.


Let me ask you a question - do you think Winston Churchill was a good or bad politician and good or bad person? Would you have voted for him?
What about some of the current politicians in office - is Vice President Cheney a good or a bad man, what about Justice Thomas? Or the Clintons?

And again I am not defending anybody, I'm just trying to illustrate that things are not as black and white as you seem to see them.

This seems entirely pointless. You obviously do not understand the distinctions that I am making, and even were you to, you would still argue with them, so why should I bother here? Were I to give you my feelings on these individuals, I'm sure you would then attempt to find some way of making my opinions of them seem hypocritical. I know how I feel about the various individuals that you have mentioned. I'm not going to go through a questionnaire for you. I realize that you have already said that I could not live up to the standards that I set for my politicians. Since you have no idea who I am and what I have and haven't done, I find that quite an amazing statement. My comment to you was that I would not want a government selected by you, because you do not seem to rank certain values in a politician as high as I do - this has nothing whatsoever to do with you personally. There are other people on this forum that I regularly disagree with on politics, and would not like a government of their choosing, and yet we seem to get along fine. I would not want a government of my wife's choosing, as she has different political ideas than my own. She would keep abortion legal - I would like to see Roe overturned. And yet, at our individual level, we both are in agreement on abortion being wrong.

I am allowed to make values judgments about people. I do it only rarely, and mainly only for people that are asking for me to give them power over me and my life. I'm sure that, were I to care to, there would be others that I might not like, but I have no need to even bother considering them. No, I am not a citizen of New York, but his actions on Wall Street had national implications, and seeing as how New York is one of the largest states in the country, what happens there is relevant to the rest of the country. If you think that my opinions are wrong, oh well. If you haven't realized by now, you should have noticed that I don't particularly care what you think of my opinions.

[ScottS]

Since he was with a prostitute and was probably misappropriating gov't funds for this purpose


Boy, there's a claim that I haven't heard yet. Where in the world did that come from?

[TstebinsB]

Boy, there's a claim that I haven't heard yet. Where in the world did that come from?

Which one?

EDIT: I'm guessing you mean the part about misappropriation of funds.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/14/did-spitzer-use-campaign-funds-to-finance-prostitute-visits/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/nyregion/16spitzer.html

[gugi]

As to the speeding analogy, I think most people would be irate with a politician speeding had that politician made it their slogan that they would combat speeding, and had also been instrumental in prosecuting people who drove 5-10 mph over the speed limit.

And that is exactly what I said - had he been not prosecuting prostitution rings or moralizing a lot of people would've not cared that he was with a prostitute, despite it being a crime. As you know when you have a limited resources you prioritize. Most people have prostitution quite low on the list.




You obviously do not understand the distinctions that I am making, and even were you to, you would still argue with them, so why should I bother here?

You don't need to bother with anything. I don't understand your distinctions, because I don't see what do you distinguish between. You are clumping together relevant and irrelevant things, that's why I keep challenging you. Had it been somebody else I wouldn't even bother, but from your posts I've concluded that you ought to know better.
If you read again my posts you will realize that I agree with you on a lot of it, but not on everything. Yes prostitution is illegal in NY and in DC and it's a federal offense to transport money across state lines for purpose of prostitution. He is obviously being investigated for this.
However it is irrelevant how much money he spent on it (as long as he didn't steal that money, or it was an addiction that can interfere with his job as a governor, but 80/5=16times is not an addiction) or whether it was Valentine's day or not. Likewise leaking information that he shouldn't or harassing opponents could be illegal and if it is he could be prosecuted for that. As far as I know there have been no charges on these counts. And the people that he was intimidating aren't exactly powerless or shy or lacking financial and legal support.

As a matter of fact I am arguing that his bullying behavior as GA didn't disqualify him at all for the Governor's job. Why? Because while widely known he was not charged for it and he was elected in a landslide.

The only new information from the last week is that he was a hypocrite and engaged in prostitution and that's why he has resigned and may be prosecuted. I had argued that had he not been prosecuted prostitution, despite this being illegal he may still have not been investigated for engaging in it and could've still become a Governor. This certainly is a pure speculation on my part, which I'm basing on what I know about NY voters. I'm only pointing out what I think are the actual reasons for disqualification, out of the whole litany that you like to list.

Anyways, you are certainly entitled to your judgments of people. And you are also entitled to make public only the ones you decide to make public.

And since you don't really care about my opinion let me then say that to me you sound a little bit like Spitzer before he was caught. See, if you cared I'd probably worry you may find such a comparison offensive, however now you are emotionally predisposed to discard it immediately.

What I care about is rational discussion. What you think of me or my moral values doesn't bother me at all, as I have given you virtually no information for you to be able to make any reasonable judgment. What interests me is whether you find my arguments irrational or logically flawed. And that is because I appreciate the logical arguments you can make.

And finally I have got to address one more thing:

My comment to you was that I would not want a government selected by you, because you do not seem to rank certain values in a politician as high as I do - this has nothing whatsoever to do with you personally.

As I said I may have misunderstood your original comment, but in the context of the whole post it is quite a loaded sentence especially the way you choose to phrase it. Certainly my ranking of values is very closely related to my personality, but you have very little idea about these. In anyways in light of your clarification I retract my statement that you cannot live up to the standards you set for politicians. Obviously that is a false statement after your elaboration on what you meant.

[prewt]

When he goes out his dinner probably also costs 10x-100x more than what you pay for yours, but I'd take a wild guess and say that he or the state rarely have to pick that bill. If a $5000 lay will make somebody of such importance do his job 1% better you should consider it an extremely wise investment from purely economical point of view.

On the point of the meal.... Someone is paying for it.. Him, his guest, the state ( tax payers ), or even the $5,000 bimbo, someone is paying. The way the system is set up, he can take his friends out for golf, fly them somewhere for dinner and provide " entertainment " and claim it as an expense for business. If you think that is B.S., I advise you call my boss.


On the $5,000 carnal session... if that is your way of thinking, if it helps him do his job 1 % better, it should be no problem for athletes to dope themselves up with steroids and or any other thing that could enhance their performance regardless of all rules and laws. $5K on a little horizontal dance isn't investing if you ask me but I am not a pimp.

[gugi]

On the point of the meal.... Someone is paying for it.. Him, his guest, the state ( tax payers ), or even the $5,000 bimbo, someone is paying. The way the system is set up, he can take his friends out for golf, fly them somewhere for dinner and provide " entertainment " and claim it as an expense for business. If you think that is B.S., I advise you call my boss.

No, I don't call this B.S., I call it business as usual. Would you like to suggest any way it may change?



On the $5,000 carnal session... if that is your way of thinking
Reread my statement and you won't have to wonder. If you are not convinced I'll back my statement with numbers. Challenge it with a rational argument first, though.

[prewt]

please show us the numbers where paying 5K will help this person do his job better. I will retract my statement but please..... show us those numbers as you call it.
I try and change the way things work in our government at every election, if that isn't good enough, I am sorry. I didn't slam him for his political beliefs, gender, race or anything like that. I don't like the fact that he went to a prostitute AND paid 5K for it. If he was looking out for the tax payers, he would have found a crack ho. It seems like you are very confrontational or upset about something. If you think she is worth 5,000, that is fine, I just don't agree is all.

[Bowcephalus]

I am amazed by the lengths to which the defensive defend the indefensible...........

[gugi]

First, I was confrontational because you misinterpreted what I said, I did not say that's how I think things should be done. I said it makes economic sense. So to back it up - the gross product of NY state was $1020000000000 in 2006 (that's 1.02 trillion). The bills that the Governor gets to veto or not are worth millions and approaching billions.
I didn't say getting laid will make him do his job better, but as much I've learned from psychological studies is that when people are sexually content they are more likely to make rational decisions, which I believe are ultimately better. So I don't believe my speculation that he may act more rationally when he's gotten laid compared to when he is sexually frustrated, is out of line.
If 5000USD is what makes the difference between a 50000000 bill being vetoed or not, then I don't think you'd argue it's a bad return on investment.
Of course the proposition that he'll veto or pass a bill just based on his testosterone level is ludicrous, but said hormone does influence how aggressive is ones behavior. The point is that whatever he does or doesn't has direct effect on a trillion dollar economy. That is a lot of money and we know for sure that his favor is worth 5k because any lobbyist is prepared to pay a lot more for access to such powerful figure.

Of course, there are other reasons against this, but I don't think economics is one of them.

It's good that you are voting for politicians who are going to change these rules. The problem we have in NY is that we don't seem to have that kind, I guess OK is different.
At least it seems the only congressman to oppose Title2 of H.Res.6 was Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN], so you couldn't have voted for or against him anyways.

Lastly whether she's worth 5k is purely subjective (for example housing in US varies from say 50000 to 100000000) and it was discussed at length in the other thread. I'm of the opinion expressed by the character of Chef from South Park - the full text is in that other thread, but the essence of it is "the money isn't for the sex, but for leaving afterwards and keeping her mouth shut".

[Bowcephalus]

I didn't say getting laid will make him do his job better, but as much I've learned from psychological studies is that when people are sexually content they are more likely to make rational decisions, which I believe are ultimately better. So I don't believe my speculation that he may act more rationally when he's gotten laid compared to when he is sexually frustrated, is out of line.
That is absurdly narrow in this context....The damage done to the human condition by this "validation" of infidelity to one's own wife and daughters by frequenting whores is hardly justified by a temporary redirection of bloodflow to one's brain.......

[prewt]

FYI OK sucks. We have the highest paid jerks that do almost nothing IMHO but one vote doesn't do much. We are more concerned about educating non English speaking people in their native language, and dropping bombs in Tulsa via the military. Stay in NY, its safer.

[Dr. Mike]

I think we are also being extremely naive in looking at this prostitution scandal as being only one of a minor crime and flagrant hypocrisy.

What if the prostitution ring decided they wanted a few extra perks, and had some nice leverage with the governor of the state? What if somebody else obtained the information that the AG/governor of New York was visiting high class hookers, and used that information to get a particular piece of legislation passed or vetoed? The man put the integrity of the office at risk. This thing is wrong on so many levels.

[gugi]

Now we're talking. In my mind the possibility for blackmail is the main problem. In a society tolerant of promiscuity or prostitution this is not an issue and there are countries that illustrate that.
At the same time, I don't think he is a particular exception. Realizing that I'm probably quite a bit more cynical than the average person I'd say that the way I see things, in NY we've just learned to accept the fact that all of our politicians are corrupt (perhaps to somewhat different degree). So we just don't have too high of an expectation, no matter what they say. It goes without saying that there are no saints among the people, but whenever I've thought about this that's not the problem. It seems the way a political system works - power means money and vice versa. So there is built in bias toward corruption and if we would refer to history no mechanism in place to prevent this is very effective.

[cl00bie]

This article is a good read about some of what Spitzer was able to accomplish as NY AG. It's really too bad - that kind of success in prosecuting financial corruption is always needed.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.hancock12mar12,0,4459914.column


You misspelled "persecuting financial success".

[TstebinsB]

You misspelled "persecuting financial success".

Are you saying that there wasn't any corruption to prosecute and rather, this was persecution of the haves? If you are saying that, please provide evidence and examples. I have neither seen nor heard anything that supports that premise.

[redbike]

You misspelled "persecuting financial success".

Since you're in favor of letting criminals go free, I'll assume you think Spitzer shouldn't be prosecuted either.

[cl00bie]

Since you're in favor of letting criminals go free, I'll assume you think Spitzer shouldn't be prosecuted either.

I think he ought to be given the same mercy he showed Martha Stewart. A true dangerous criminal if I ever saw one.

[redbike]

I think he ought to be given the same mercy he showed Martha Stewart. A true dangerous criminal if I ever saw one.

I agree that his prosecution of Stewart was overkill. But she didn't rip off investors by lying to them about what they were buying.

[cl00bie]

I agree that his prosecution of Stewart was overkill. But she didn't rip off investors by lying to them about what they were buying.

Spitzer did stop some abuses. He cracked down on some illegal trading and helped regular investors. I believe the fact that some actual criminals were caught was pretty much accidental. When you drop a wide net, you figure you'll get an actual game fish or two.

For the most part, he was a headline grabbing bully, coming down on people with the flimsiest of evidence, going for fishing expeditions and ruining innocent people's lives by threatening to bring the might of NY state to bear on them.

Most of the time he targeted people simply because they were rich, and played into his Democrat constituency.

I noticed that during his gubernatorial campaign, he got a lot of campaign money from wall street firms. I wonder if he was targeting those businesses who didn't donate. He seems to have had a history of not prosecuting prostitution rings who were servicing him, while grabbing headlines for bringing down others who weren't.

C'mon, just admit that Spitzer is a scuzz who got what he deserved without using the word "Republican" in the statement. I bet you can't.

Now he's a joke on the late night comedy shows. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

[redbike]

Spitzer did stop some abuses. He cracked down on some illegal trading and helped regular investors. I believe the fact that some actual criminals were caught was pretty much accidental. When you drop a wide net, you figure you'll get an actual game fish or two.

For the most part, he was a headline grabbing bully, coming down on people with the flimsiest of evidence, going for fishing expeditions and ruining innocent people's lives by threatening to bring the might of NY state to bear on them.

Most of the time he targeted people simply because they were rich, and played into his Democrat constituency.

I noticed that during his gubernatorial campaign, he got a lot of campaign money from wall street firms. I wonder if he was targeting those businesses who didn't donate. He seems to have had a history of not prosecuting prostitution rings who were servicing him, while grabbing headlines for bringing down others who weren't.

C'mon, just admit that Spitzer is a scuzz who got what he deserved without using the word "Republican" in the statement. I bet you can't.

Now he's a joke on the late night comedy shows. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

You can believe what you want. If you have facts to support your claims, link to them as I have.

[cl00bie]

You can believe what you want. If you have facts to support your claims, link to them as I have.

Sure. Be happy to.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2YxNjZhZTIwOGMyMGUxNDJlYmUwM2FmOTczYTIxMzk=

This outlines how Spitzer used the Martin act to step on people's constitutional rights. Which makes the Patriot Act pale by comparison.

Enjoy.

[redbike]

Sure. Be happy to.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2YxNjZhZTIwOGMyMGUxNDJlYmUwM2FmOTczYTIxMzk=

This outlines how Spitzer used the Martin act to step on people's constitutional rights. Which makes the Patriot Act pale by comparison.

Enjoy.

The article you linked to says nothing about Spitzer violating anyone's constitutional rights; sounds like your interpretation only. Are you a lawyer? It also uses the qualifiers "reportedly" and "allegedly" when referencing Spitzer's actions in two cases, so his exact personal involvement is unclear.

I won't defend Spitzer's personal failings as an elected public official, father and husband, but his record as NY AG is what earned him the governorship. Or do you feel that the 69% of NYS voters who voted for him just don't get it?

[cl00bie]

Or do you feel that the 69% of NYS voters who voted for him just don't get it?

I think it's about time to "Godwin" this thread (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-fuehrer.htm).


On August 19, about 95 percent of registered voters in Germany went to the polls and gave Hitler 38 million "Ja" votes (90 percent of the vote). Thus Hitler could now claim he was Führer of the German nation with the overwhelming approval of the people.

Do you feel 95% of Germans who voted for him just didn't get it?

[redbike]

I think it's about time to "Godwin" this thread (http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-fuehrer.htm).



Do you feel 95% of Germans who voted for him just didn't get it?

So you utilize that approach since you have no better response answer. Thanks for your honesty.

[cl00bie]

So you utilize that approach since you have no better response answer. Thanks for your honesty.

You were the one who implied might (high vote counts) make right.

[redbike]

You were the one who implied might (high vote counts) make right.

And you are comparing NYS voters who voted for Spitzer to German voters who voted for Hitler. You must be a real popular guy in your state.

[cl00bie]

And you are comparing NYS voters who voted for Spitzer to German voters who voted for Hitler. You must be a real popular guy in your state.

Ahhh... There is it. The out of context quote. Now you think I'm going to be wasting my time trying to explain that that wasn't what I was driving at, so you can start jousting a straw man of your own design instead of my arguments.

Well, I'm not.

The point that is very clear is that the majority of votes is not any indicator of a candidate's suitability to office. And it reinforces my belief that the electorate, as a whole, gets the political leadership they deserve.

And BTW, don't blame me. I voted for the other John. :001_smile

[redbike]

Ahhh... There is it. The out of context quote. Now you think I'm going to be wasting my time trying to explain that that wasn't what I was driving at, so you can start jousting a straw man of your own design instead of my arguments.

Well, I'm not.

The point that is very clear is that the majority of votes is not any indicator of a candidate's suitability to office. And it reinforces my belief that the electorate, as a whole, gets the political leadership they deserve.

And BTW, don't blame me. I voted for the other John. :001_smile

You can't have it both ways: you made the comparison, now you're trying to back away from it. I'm not wasting any more time on this.