Spitzer linked to prostitution ring....

Post by **nerdanel** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:33 pm

This is someone I seriously considered to be an ethical, upright politician whose career I'd followed and admired. Seriously in shock right now.

Details to come.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/nyreg ... itzer.html

Post by **Holbytla** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:49 pm

There is a small city not far from here that has its share of issues with prostitution and things of that nature. Well the chief of police of that small city, took it upon himself to broadcast via cable tv public access, the names and stories of all the johns that tried to solicit prostitutes.

This went on for a few years until guess who got arrested for you know what.

I can't say I am totally surprised about this. I've seen too many people fall from grace.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:23 pm

Oh, man.

I confess that the first thing that crosses my mind when I hear about cases like this is, how stupid are these people who think they're never going to get caught? Is it (sex, money, gambling, drugs) really that important, important enough to risk blowing up your life and career?

Particularly when you're doing something you've publicly fought against and reviled.

And yet they often seem to be people who are otherwise capable, even brilliant (Bill Clinton, for example).

Maybe it's ego: "I'm too smart to be caught."

Post by **axordil** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:29 pm

It's a combination of "I'm too smart" and "everyone does it" I believe.

That said, the NYT headline is misleading. I went in thinking he had been OPERATING one, not that he had been a client of one.

Post by **solicitr** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:38 pm

That said, the NYT headline is misleading. I went in thinking he had been OPERATING one,

Now THAT would lend a whole new meaning to "public service".....

Post by **ToshoftheWuffingas** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:15 pm

This is election year. Brace yourselves for a lot of these stories.

Post by **Faramond** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:30 pm

Spitzer statement:

"Good afternoon.

"For the past nine years, eight years as attorney general, and one as governor, I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York and that will continue.

"Today I want to briefly address a private matter. I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong. I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better.

"I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good, and doing what is best for the state of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.

"I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much."

Permission to act in a hostile manner toward the witness? Here is what I think he's really saying here.

1. I admit to doing something without specifying what it is. I won't specify what it is because it's a purely private matter, even though the thing I'm presumably admitting I did without naming it is also technically a criminal, public matter.

2. This is really just a family issue. Sure I also apologize to the public, but not as much, and I make no mention of needing to regain the trust of the public. The press and public have no right to any answers right now because I have to dedicate time for my family right away. I am hiding behind my family right now.

3. Only my political views matter. My conduct doesn't matter, even if it was illegal, even if I did in the past prosecute this very thing that I haven't actually admitted to even while apologizing for it. Please let me keep job as governor because my views and intentions are so very pure.

Post by **nerdanel** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:53 pm

Faramond,

I agree fully with your translation. It was an incredibly weak, unsatisfying, and insulting apology from someone who had held himself out as a defender of ethical values and morality (as attorney general) and pledged to stay true to that ethic as governor.

If he has merely seen a prostitute on a single occasion (notwithstanding the criminal violation), I think his statement is minimally sufficient for a first crack (though he still better give a more thorough apology later.)

However, if he was involved in OPERATING a prostitution ring, or was a regular patron of one, or actually committed the federal crime of transporting people between states for the purpose of prostitution? Then thoroughly insufficient, all the more disgusting, and blatantly dishonest.

Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:57 pm

I have always gotten a false note from Spitzer's sanctimonious (and self-serving) campaign to clean up the corporate world, even while largely applauding his efforts. This news surprises me very little. It is often the most sanctimonious that have the most to hide. I seriously doubt this is a case of seeing a prostitute on a single occasion. I can't imagine that such a big deal would be made of it. I see a resignation in the near future.

Post by **Faramond** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:11 pm

I asked myself after making my response if I was a bit unfair. One of the things I come back to is that his many mentions of his family are clearly gratuitious. They aren't on point. You don't apologize to your family at a press conference! You do it in private. His family has nothing to do with the parts of this I care about. If it was just a matter of him having an affair I wouldn't care. That would be a purely family matter. It's the involvment in a criminal organization that is important.

I know from a criminal justice standpoint he shouldn't admit to anything, but man it sure sounds like they have him dead to rights anyway. From a political career standpoint he should have said more. If this was just a one or two time thing then maybe he could continue to serve --- I don't know. Any involvement in a criminal organization is very troubling to me, because you may only be giving them money to have sex but what they end up doing with that money to keep their organization going and out of trouble may be far worse than the initial crime.

If he cares anything about the progressive movement and the state of New York he really should resign.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:16 pm

It is often the most sanctimonious that have the most to hide.

I'll never forget that astonishing streak of virulently anti-gay politicians and pastors who, it turns out, were actually gay themselves, despite their strings of cute moppets and their steadfastly adoring wives. (I am not talking about the one who was sexually harassing teenage pages—that's not funny on any level.)

I see a resignation in the near future.

Like, 7 PM Eastern (so says one New York network station).

Post by **Holbytla** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:16 pm

My translation=

I screwed up and I owe an apology to my family for that. The righteousness of my public crusade doesn't change, nor is it blemished because I committed an indiscretion. Forget what I did because this fight isn't about any one person, and let us continue the fight for justice because my ideas are good ones.

Post by **Faramond** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:23 pm

despite their strings of cute moppets

What do Kermit the Frog and Fozzy the Bear and Animal have to do with anything?

Post by **nerdanel** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:27 pm

Prim - but as outrageous as the gay, yet anti-gay politicians were, and as karmically gratifying as their political demises have been to watch, I can make some allowance for their often-lifelong struggles with feelings and attraction that the world condemns. Many of them married women because their backgrounds didn't even let them contemplate the possibility of a male life partner/husband.

For a (presumably) heterosexual man, married with kids, who hasn't confronted those struggles or demons but HAS happily prosecuted criminals involved with prostitution rings, to get his kicks with a prostitute? Not so much. And yes, I'm even more outraged because he has done to the Left what the closet gays did to the Right.

Right now? I mainly feel sorry for his three teenage daughters. If one of my parents chose to be involved in public office and THEN to act in such a disgusting manner, shaming the entire family, I think I would want to react with some good old fashioned violence.

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:28 pm

Faramond wrote:
despite their strings of cute moppets
What do Kermit the Frog and Fozzy the Bear and Animal have to do with anything?

I wish they were Muppets; actual kids get hurt when things like this happen.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:30 pm

You know, I've been tempted by a lot of things over the years. And I've succumbed to most of them.

But I've just never, ever, EVER had a desire to hook up with, well, a hooker. I don't get it. Am I just CHEAP?

Post by **Primula Baggins** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:34 pm

nerdanel wrote:Prim - but as outrageous as the gay, yet anti-gay politicians were, and as karmically gratifying as their political demises have been to watch, I can make some allowance for their often-lifelong struggles with feelings and attraction that the world condemns. Many of them married women because their backgrounds didn't even let them contemplate the possibility of a male life partner/husband.

An excellent point, Nel, and on that level I do sympathize with people in that situation—although I do think people owe their families honesty, once they understand themselves and realize that they're not going to magically change.

However, these particular men found it necessary to strenuously condemn homosexuality, while they were carrying on extramarital relationships with men. That's hypocrisy on a scale I find hard to imagine. I cannot worry about the messes they found themselves in (though I sympathize with their families).

Edit: Cross-posted with Ax. Yes.

Post by **axordil** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:38 pm

Oh well, that's OK then.

Post by **Cerin** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:39 pm

Faramond wrote:You don't apologize to your family at a press conference!

But they always do. I can see why they do. I don't think it's meant to take the place of private apologies.

Post by **Faramond** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:48 pm

Cerin wrote:
Faramond wrote:You don't apologize to your family at a press conference!
But they always do. I can see why they do. I don't think it's meant to take the place of private apologies.

Well, I think I can see why they always do as well. They want people to think about sympathizing with their families instead of focusing on whatever is really important. It's misdirection.