NY Gov Spitzer linked to prostitution

[Joe Wordsworth]

Then you need to pull the trigger. Because it's not only every reputable democratically-leaning source that agrees that what was done was both borderline treasonous and in retaliation for her husband publicly criticizing the President, it's every reputable source that has not clearly shown itself to be a shill for the NeoCons.

...and even they stammer and shuffle their feet and say things like, "well, she wasn't really involved in anything critical at that exact time..."

Take the blinders off. This administration has ruined our standing in the world, turned a surplus into a deficit with outrageous spending that has done nothing more than line the pockets of its friends and completely ignored the very real threat of the true terrorists who are still hiding in Afghanistan and Pakistan in favor of a disaster in Iraq.

Please, tell me... Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative and business-minded. What business would still be viable after spending three trillion dollars on a mistaken venture and continuing to pursue it with increased spending in search of an unachievable solution? And that is ignoring the worst and most horrible cost, the young Americans (and Iraqis) killed and wounded.

If Coca-Cola had done this with New Coke, we'd all be drinking Pepsi.

What would three trillion have done to overhaul health care? How far would it go in rebuilding New Orleans? How effective would it be if applied to education, or a cure for AIDS or Breast Cancer?

The betrayal of Valerie Plame is only one example of this utter incompetence and deception.

Interjects:

It was only a surplus on paper. We were still continuing our heavy deficit spending to do it. Otherwise, I agree with this.

 

[Belegon]

Interjects:

It was only a surplus on paper. We were still continuing our heavy deficit spending to do it. Otherwise, I agree with this.

Everyone please note: When Joe and I agree on something (besides the adorable nature of EL) we must be on to something. There are rarer things, like Haleys Comet, but not many...

(just kidding Joe. You know I'll still respect you in the morning...)

 

[sr71plt]

I don't mind being pointed in the direction of that post--which one was it?


That is me. And I've been accused of less accurate things than being open minded to a fault.

Read post 144 above. There are two references cited in it. When you've read them, you have grounding to discuss these issues. Until then/otherwise you're all smoke on your denial debate technique.

I'd tell you I have copies at my house you can come read, but I've never been that forward before, so I won't make that offer now.

 

[sr71plt]

What would three trillion have done to overhaul health care? How far would it go in rebuilding New Orleans? How effective would it be if applied to education, or a cure for AIDS or Breast Cancer?

Ummm, Perhaps replace a few bridges before there's no way to travel east/west, north/south anymore(?)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Read post 144 above. There are two references cited in it. When you've read them, you have grounding to discuss these issues. Until then/otherwise you're all smoke on your denial debate technique.

Not at all... my point was that I hadn't seen something and wasn't certain of that something because I hadn't seen it. I think I even asked to be pointed in the direction of the something a couple posts back. Its neither a crime nor a sin to be less informed, certainly not if you're willing to improve that.

edited to add: The post was a combination of speculation, personal anecdote, and accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the Bush Administration by the CIA guy (I've heard him before). The speculation I can't count solidly, even if it makes sense, as certitude. The personal anecdote, respectfully, I just don't believe. The CIA book, that I can get behind--but if I recall what I know about it (which may be lacking, having never read it and only read about it), it accuses the administration--but not specifically Bush. That's sort of evidence to the effect that he may suck muchly, but doesn't nail that he's a criminal--as such, I still cannot be certain that he is, even if I believe that he is.

I'd tell you I have copies at my house you can come read, but I've never been that forward before, so I won't make that offer now.

I also cook well.

 

[sr71plt]

Not at all... my point was that I hadn't seen something and wasn't certain of that something because I hadn't seen it. I think I even asked to be pointed in the direction of the something a couple posts back. Its neither a crime nor a sin to be less informed, certainly not if you're willing to improve that.


I also cook well.

Great. Go read something--including the two I dangled under your nose, I would hope. Good thing you're willing to improve your absorption of information. because you've got a big meal ahead of you.

I have a cook. And for that matter I have as much of everything else I can handle too. So, I'll just repeat, cute Avatar.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

The WMD argument can go on forever and never be agreed upon. Why? Because we don't really remember the history of this mess. So, let's go back six months before all the pre-war saber rattling began. What happened?

Saddam kicked the UN weapons inspectors out of the country because he was fed up with them and with the U.S. inspired UN sanctions. This caused a big flap. How could he do such a thing in the face of (U.S.) public opinion? From the Bush administration's stand point Saddam's actions proved he was hiding WMD's.

In 1999 the CIA had made a guess that WMD's still existed inside Iraq, even though the UN weapons inspectors were unable to find them. By early 2002 the CIA had revised their assessment downward to indicate there may still be a possibility of WMDs in Iraq. By the end of 2002 the CIA had again down graded their assessment to say they doubted the existance of WMDs.

This is about the time that Congress passed both the Homeland Security Act and legislation allowing the Bush Administration to go to war. All of this was based on the faulty and "cherry pick" intellegence. Name me one single Congressman or Senator who looked closely at these bills to determine if they were appropriate, the intel was well documented and how these bills would be used, not only against Iraq, but against the citizens of this country too, before they voted and approved them.

How did the CIA, the Israelis and the British Intellegence networks all come to the same conclusions all at the same time? They were trading info back and forth between them. Gee, that nice. CIA tells something to the Brits. The Brits tell the Israelis. The Israelis tell us. Well, the Israelis just confirmed our suspicions. It must be true. Talk about a fucked up operation.

Along the way the CIA picked up on a guy named Shalabe. Remember him? The CIA paid him a couple hundred millions for information about WMDs that he just made up. The man had no network inside Iraq. He hadn't even been in Iraq for almost 20 years. After nearly two years the CIA finally figured out this guy was a con man who was well known and wanted throughout the middle east. Everything they got from him with our tax dollars was either wrong, simply made up or entirely useless. Much of the faulty intel came from him and was believed because that is what the Administration wanted to believe.

But in between we had "yellow cake" with Secretary of State Powell spouting off in front of the UN General Assembly. Chaney was already handing out contracts to KBR (Halaburton) and the Pentagon was under orders to actively prepare and persue a plan of attack. By then it was too late to stop.

Within a short time, Saddam invited the UN weapons inspectors back. They went. They were given free access. They found nothing. They left.

One thing led to another and look where we are now.

The fault for this falls on the shoulders of both the Bush Administration because of the frenzy to kick some raghead ass and the Intellegence services who were too stupid and/or lazy to dig deeper into their sources to find out who was really saying what.
There is no solution the the WMDs fiasco. All you can do is sit back and point fingers when in reality, there's enough blame to go around to nearly everyone in Washington.

 

[sr71plt]

There is no solution the the WMDs fiasco. All you can do is sit back and point fingers when in reality, there's enough blame to go around to nearly everyone in Washington.

Why limit it to Washington, Jenny? Washington, D.C., went Democratic in the last two elections. I'd say anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 shares in the stupidity. It's always just a bit too convenient to scapegoat those in Washington for the stupidity of uninformed, self-centered, short-sighted, "I'm planning to golf/get my hair fixed today so don't bother me with depressing problems" voters countrywide.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Why limit it to Washington, Jenny? Washington, D.C., went Democratic in the last two elections. I'd say anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 shares in the stupidity. It's always just a bit too convenient to scapegoat those in Washington for the stupidity of uninformed, self-centered, short-sighted, "I'm planning to golf/get my hair fixed today so don't bother me with depressing problems" voters countrywide.

SR, I was reminded the other day by my sister that in December, 2001, when the WMDs first appeard, I said, "Iraq pulled off the World Trade Center bombing? That's nuts. They have been the most spied upon, scrutenized country in the world for 12 years. How could they have done if? And how could they possibly be hiding WMDs after UN weapons inspectors crawled all over their country for amost 10 years?" In 2004 I voted Kerry. so doen't blame me.

 

[R. Richard]

To return to the original topic, Spitzer has just resigned, effective Monday.

 

[3113]

Beat me to it, R.R. Spitzer's out.

I have to say, isn't it about time our politicians (if not our country) stopped tying morality and virtue to sexual practices between consenting adults? That way, politicians could fuck up their marriages without fucking up their political careers on both sides of the fence.

Edited to add: Of course, if they're fucking around with a lobbyist or journalist that's something different. Said politician can still be in the news for that, especially if they're likely to give that person political favors as well as sexual favors. I mean, hey, it goes for hunting with them, it ought to go for sleeping with them.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Media the pimp, Spitzer the whore, rule-of-law got fucked

Spitzer's Media Enablers
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

WSJ March 12, 2008

The fall of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer holds many lessons, and the press will surely be examining them in coming months. But don't expect the press corps to delve into the biggest lesson of all -- its own role as his enabler.

Journalists have spent the past two days asking how a man of Mr. Spitzer's stature would allow himself to get involved in a prostitution ring. The answer, in my mind, is clear. The former New York attorney general never believed normal rules applied to him, and his view was validated time and again by an adoring press. "You play hard, you play rough, and hopefully you don't get caught," said Mr. Spitzer two years ago. He never did get caught, because most reporters were his accomplices.

Journalism has many functions, but perhaps the most important is keeping tabs on public officials. That duty is even more vital concerning government positions that are subject to few other checks and balances. Chief among those is the prosecutor, who can use his awesome state power to punish, even destroy, private citizens.

Yet from the start, the press corps acted as an adjunct of Spitzer power, rather than a skeptic of it. Many journalists get into this business because they want to see wrongs righted. Mr. Spitzer portrayed himself as the moral avenger. He was the slayer of the big guy, the fat cat, the Wall Street titan -- all allegedly on behalf of the little guy. The press ate it up, and came back for more.

[Quotation of copyrighted material reduced per our forum guidelines.]

 

[3113]

The fall of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer holds many lessons, and the press will surely be examining them in coming months. But don't expect the press corps to delve into the biggest lesson of all -- its own role as his enabler.

:Yawn: There've been people pointing this out for eight years now. This woman is way late for the party--so why post her article in particular? I mean, you really need to pick better and more timely articles, Rox, this one's so "election 2000!"

 

[sr71plt]

Beat me to it, R.R. Spitzer's out.

I have to say, isn't it about time our politicians (if not our country) stopped tying morality and virtue to sexual practices between consenting adults? That way, politicians could fuck up their marriages without fucking up their political careers on both sides of the fence.

Edited to add: Of course, if they're fucking around with a lobbyist or journalist that's something different. Said politician can still be in the news for that, especially if they're likely to give that person political favors as well as sexual favors. I mean, hey, it goes for hunting with them, it ought to go for sleeping with them.

Once again, the Feds didn't get into this simply because he was having sex outside his marriage--they got into it because of possibly illegal financial practices. It's premature to say how bad those are in this case--but they must be bad enough legally for Spitzer to resign two days after it came to light--and apparently not having been able to strike a legal deal yet, if at all, with the Feds on whatever they have (or is there to gather) him on. If it turns out that the people of New York paid for his sex, I would assume you'd think there was something wrong with that (or perhaps not).

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Bottom line, he fucked up big time.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Once again, the Feds didn't get into this simply because he was having sex outside his marriage--they got into it because of possibly illegal financial practices. It's premature to say how bad those are in this case--but they must be bad enough legally for Spitzer to resign two days after it came to light--and apparently not having been able to strike a legal deal yet, if at all, with the Feds on whatever they have (or is there to gather) him on. If it turns out that the people of New York paid for his sex, I would assume you'd think there was something wrong with that (or perhaps not).

OH, yes, the comment I've heard all over the 'net is;

"Better not be taxpayer's money!"

But, just as so many people continue to say that Clinton got busted for a blowjob, people will go to their graves believing that the particular sin that Spitzer has been caught out in is sexual. Stealing money is less reprehensible.

 

[sr71plt]

OH, yes, the comment I've heard all over the 'net is;

"Better not be taxpayer's money!"

But, just as so many people continue to say that Clinton got busted for a blowjob, people will go to their graves believing that the particular sin that Spitzer has been caught out in is sexual. Stealing money is less reprehensible.

Yes, for a big glop of people it will be connected solely/mostly to sex (and probably with a little sense of jealousy that they don't have the power/money to do it to). For the thinking third of that glop, though, I think it will be the hypocrisy involved--of what he claimed he stood for in the face of what he was caught doing. It's been much the same for the recent Republicans caught with their pants down. And it was at least partially this for Clinton. Not as much for doing it, but for the hypocrisy of the denial and cover up (and, in many cases, including Clinton's, the use of power to get it from those in subordinate positions--which probably is more intolerable than paying a hooker for it).

What might be the real pity of this particular case is that Spitzer didn't cover up at the point of impending public revelation. He stole a march, admitted to it, didn't defend the action. But yet, the reaction seems to be the same as to those who tried to cover it up. So, those down the road think (and there are ones down the road, of course), why not try the cover up first? It just might work. If I were a Fed prosecutor on this, I think I'd try to show some leniency to him on something connected to his fast admission to save myself some investigative work down the road on new cases.

 

[R. Richard]

The real crimes that Spitzer committed were neither sexual or financial. Spitzer's main crimes were abuse of power. He use his political power to abuse people. He extorted settlements out of people, because trying to defend against his charges was so difficult that it was easier to settle and let Spitzer have have little victory. Each victory made Spitzer more powerful. The more power he had, the more victories he wanted.

 

[cloudy]

The real crimes that Spitzer committed were neither sexual or financial. Spitzer's main crimes were abuse of power. He use his political power to abuse people. He extorted settlements out of people, because trying to defend against his charges was so difficult that it was easier to settle and let Spitzer have have little victory. Each victory made Spitzer more powerful. The more power he had, the more victories he wanted.

If he could be busted for that, you'd have to bust every D.A. in the entire country for the same crime.

 

[3113]

Once again, the Feds didn't get into this simply because he was having sex outside his marriage--they got into it because of possibly illegal financial practices. It's premature to say how bad those are in this case--but they must be bad enough legally for Spitzer to resign two days after it came to light--and apparently not having been able to strike a legal deal yet, if at all, with the Feds on whatever they have (or is there to gather) him on. If it turns out that the people of New York paid for his sex, I would assume you'd think there was something wrong with that (or perhaps not).

Oh, I get that and I *DO* think there's something wrong with that--I'm just saying (not to beat a dead horse here) that if prostitution were legal, which it would be if our country didn't have this connection between morality and sex, and if politicians would just stop with the moral hobby horses against such sexual practices, we'd all be saved from these heavy-handed ironies.

I mean, come on! All the ways he could have been involved in illegal financial activities and he goes for a prostitution ring?

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, I get that and I *DO* think there's something wrong with that--I'm just saying (not to beat a dead horse here) that if prostitution were legal, which it would be if our country didn't have this connection between morality and sex, and if politicians would just stop with the moral hobby horses against such sexual practices, we'd all be saved from these heavy-handed ironies.

I mean, come on! All the ways he could have been involved in illegal financial activities and he goes for a prostitution ring?

Well, yes. And if oranges grew on dandelions, we wouldn't have to go to Florida to get them. What you are advocating exists in other countries--and works just fine there. That we don't have this in the United States is more due to two-faced politicians like Spitzer who block what they practice than it is to anything you or I can do on an Internet chat board. So, why again, shouldn't Spitzer have his face pushed into the mud over this?

 

[3113]

Well, yes. And if oranges grew on dandelions, we wouldn't have to go to Florida to get them. What you are advocating exists in other countries--and works just fine there. That we don't have this in the United States is more due to two-faced politicians like Spitzer who block what they practice than it is to anything you or I can do on an Internet chat board. So, why again, shouldn't Spitzer have his face pushed into the mud over this?

But of course.

Did you think I was arguing otherwise?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

:Yawn: There've been people pointing this out for eight years now. This woman is way late for the party--so why post her article in particular? I mean, you really need to pick better and more timely articles, Rox, this one's so "election 2000!"

"Instead, remarkably, they continue to defend him. Ms. Masters, his biographer, was on CNN the day Mr. Spitzer's prostitution news broke, reassuring viewers that the governor really was a "lovely" guy. Other news reporters were reporting what a "tragedy" it was that such a leading light in the Democratic Party could come to such an ignoble end."

 

[shereads]

Nice article in today's Miami Herald about our city's upscale call-girl industry. The publicity has been good, but comes a bit late in the season to boost tourism significantly.

Local law enforcement officers, quoted off the record, admit they only take an interest in the "escort services" when there is "a complaint" (poor service?!) and that the feds get involved only when money laundering is an issue.

(Fort Lauderdale, unlike Miami, is not escort-friendly. Those Broward County folk have had no sense of fun since they cracked down on spring-break balcony-leaping and beach vomiting.)

The author of today's article reminded us of an iconic figure in local prostitution history: Kathy Willets, who along with her husband was convicted of running a brothel in their suburban home. Mrs. Willets' defense was that Prozac had turned her into a nymphomaniac.

Mr. Willets just couldn't keep up with his wife's medication-induced carnal frenzy, which is why she'd been entertaining eight to ten gentlemen per day. What's a husband to do? Set up a toll gate, that's what!

 

[jomar]

Fort Lauderdale, unlike Miami, is not escort-friendly. Those Broward County folk have no sense of fun.

It's why I stopped booking the company team building exercises there.

The author of today's article reminded us of an iconic figure in local prostitution history: Kathy Willets, who along with her husband was convicted of running a brothel in their suburban home. Mrs. Willets' defense was that Prozac had turned her into a nymphomaniac...she'd been entertaining eight to ten gentlemen per day.

She wasn't making as much money on Effexor.