Leftists circle the wagons around Eliot Spitzer
Posted by BrianMore fun with Alabama’s leftists as they discuss the plight of disgraced New York governor Eliot Spitzer.
I was surprised and disappointed by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s brief press conference yesterday, …
Me too. I hate to see a man (allegedly) do something like that to destroy his family. But wait, that isn’t the end of the sentence…
… in which he failed to deny reports that he was involved (as a client) in a prostitution ring.
Hold on now. So the leftists aren’t upset that he was (allegedly) engaging in illegal actions with a prostitute, but rather that he didn’t deny it! Forget that media reports indicate that there is damning evidence against him - deny it anyway.
But there’s more!
How could he do something so stupid?
Who knows? But I will say that sex seems to come naturally to a lot of people — maybe that’s why the human race has survived so long…
“Maybe” sex is why the human race has survived so long?! Just maybe!
What is interesting is that the leftist is professing the belief that Spitzer did, in fact, seek the pleasure of a hooker, something that is still officially an allegation. So despite freely admitting that they believe the allegations they still think he should have denied it!
Head over to The Daily Gotham if you want to read what Gov. Spitzer’s peeps, New York bloggers, think about this mess. It’s outside the mainstream, …
You’ll see why it’s outside the mainstream in a minute.
… but I think Liza Sabater’s post makes an interesting point: part of the problem is Spitzer hadn’t built, hadn’t needed to build, a grassroots network that would defend and support him through a scandal like this.
So his problem isn’t that he was (allegedly) cheating on his wife with a high paid prostitute, no sir, his problem is that he didn’t develop a network of loyal robots to defend him in the face of evidence so compelling that even those politically allied individuals presume guilt. Maybe, and I’m just shooting from the hip here, if politicians didn’t engage in illegal activities they wouldn’t need the network of sheep with megaphones. But I could be wrong.
Here is an excerpt from the New York blog quoted in the Left in Alabama post:
Yet if I it said once in my Op/Ed, I am going to say it again : The Bushites knew they could bag themselves a big game like Spitzer because he has nowhere to turn to but the other people who share his social and political bubble.
Again, more indignation that he got caught, not that he (allegedly) sullied his name, disgraced his family, and broke the law. They actually think Bush targeted Spitzer because he is some kind of foundation-less politico and just happened to catch him (allegedly) messing around with a hooker!
You wouldn’t believe who one of the sheep with megaphones might be (actually it isn’t at all surprising) - none other than Scott Horton! Like some kind of political Whack-A-Mole, if a Democrat is alleged to be corrupt by the U.S. Department of Justice Horton pops up to reflexively defend the person. Horton is rolling out his same, tired argument that Spitzer was the target of a politically motivated investigation. Just like the Siegelman case! And just like in the Siegelman case, Horton does not even bother to argue that the (allegedly) corrupt Democrat is innocent - he’s just upset that the (alleged) corruption was identified! He even argues that when Republicans are prosecuted it is actually “part of a broader pattern of going after Democrats.” My head is spinning.
Back to the local leftist’s post.
This reminds me of Don Siegelman’s predicament.
Somewhere Scott Horton is gently rocking a pocket watch to and fro.
He was vulnerable to allegations of corruption in part because he didn’t have a large, vocal group of people willing to stand up and defend him at the first sign of trouble.
Another way to look at it is that he was vulnerable to allegations of corruption because he was actually corrupt! And he wasn’t (and still isn’t) lacking in supporters.
The argument offered by the leftists is uncompelling and borders on rank depravity. By their own admission, they believe that Spitzer engaged in an illegal action. However, they think he should deny it and be defended simply because of his political affiliation. Amazing.
The leftists then asked, ridiculously, why Spitzer’s (alleged) indiscretions were leaked to the media, presumably by the Bush Justice Department, while “Dave Vitter and Larry Craig get away with this for months and years.” I’ll type slowly so they can comprehend. Vitter was outed not as a part of a federal investigation, but because a smut magazine peddled the numbers of the “D.C. Madam.” Craig was able to keep his attempted gay escapade quite because it happened in an airport bathroom under the jurisdiction of local police. Like Vitter, he was not involved in a federal investigation so there was no way the Bush Justice Department could have leaked their stories.
Other scandals are beside the point, of course. The leftists are just trotting Vitter and Craig out as a means of deflecting just criticism at a man who, until yesterday, was one of their rising stars.
Related content:
March 12th, 2008 at 6:32 am
“The argument offered by the leftists is uncompelling and borders on rank depravity. By their own admission, they believe that Spitzer engaged in an illegal action. However, they think he should deny it and be defended simply because of his political affiliation. Amazing.”
So let me get this straight- just because ONE blogger made a poor choice of words, all of a sudden all leftists are calling for him to deny it in a grand blogospiracy of depravity and should be defended? Give me an effin break. You’re really grasping for straws now, brian.
Spitzer was unpopular to BOTH sides, and NO ONE is rushing to defend the crime he has committed, OR calling for him to deny it, regardless of what you read into a blog post.
There is, though, a lot of dubious speculation flying around on the Dem side. The really sad thing that this case highlights is that the blindfold has forever been ripped off the face of justice by this corrupt administration, and the stench of the Siegelman case has taken on the quality of the Seinfeld valet BO. Government will never get rid of it, as long as there is warring between the two sides, and the Rovian legacy of “party before country” and “win at all costs”.
March 12th, 2008 at 11:42 am
What Jack said.
I’d add that that’s the first time I’ve bumped into Daily Gotham and that post has one–dissenting–comment and no rating and it’s hardly representative of discussions of Spitzer I’ve seen elsewhere. I can’t think of one Dem official who encouraged Spitzer to tough it out or who suggested that Spitzer was framed or whatever. It might have happened but I missed it.
…Like Vitter, he was not involved in a federal investigation…
Um, Deborah Jeane Palfrey was the target of an extensive federal investigation. The Feds had her records of contact with Vitter, IIRC. Yes, Ms. Palfrey leaked the Vitter info, not the Feds. And that’s point. Spitzer, like Vitter, was a John caught up in a Federal investigation and his name _did_ leak from the Feds.
It’s worth noting that much of the, shall we say, dubious speculation was because the Spitzer story has been leaking out in bits and pieces and it’s now clear that some of the first articles were wrong/misleading about where and how the investigation started. The first leaks out of the DoJ suggested that the investigation started with the prostitution ring and just happened to stumble into Spitzer. Now, it looks like the investigation started with Spitzer and the focus on prostitution came later.
It’s sad. I liked what Spitzer was up to in Albany and had he been successful in his reforms, we might have ended up with a more functional state government. Spitzer was picking the right enemies, in both parties, IMO. And, sad to say, but even if everything this investigation suggests is true, Spitzer’s still a lot cleaner than, say, Joseph Bruno.
March 12th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Good job working in a Seinfeld reference Jack. You get three points for that one.
The post wasn’t meant to imply that all left leaning blogs are defending Spitzer or wishing that he offered a denial of the allegations. Quite honestly, I get a kick out of the “Left in Alabama” blog and I wrote the post to highlight the nuttiness one finds over there, as I have done before. Horton’s reflexive, predictable piece also brought a smile to my lips.
March 13th, 2008 at 7:02 am
I’ll take those three points to go off topic a bit: I came across this article on the problem with the progressive democratic message and it’s failure to strike a chord with middle america. I thought it was a well considered, refreshingly unbiased look at how the two sides operate, IMO:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/lazarus/20060202.html
March 13th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I scanned the link (I will read it closely when I have time). FWIW I do not support retroactive immunity for telecom companies. The ones that complied with the government’s requests did so with the legal eyes open. They should have known better.
Here’s the Democrats quandary: how to argue for civil liberties without appearing to be protecting or sticking up for terrorists. They have a perception problem with how they go about it. I’ve got a broad libertarian streak, so I’m receptive to their underlying points; they just do a poor job of making their case and fighting off rhetorical attacks from the other side.