Gov. Spitzer Linked to Prostitution Ring

[saden1]

If Spitzer violated the law and if he is found guilty he should be treated like everyone else. The guy betrayed a lot of people's trust and considering he ran on a strong moral platform he is as much of a hypocrite as any politicians regardless of party affliation. My advice to him, don't drop the soap!

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

Well he only spent, what, about a year in office. So that's really not enough time to actually judge his performance, but many of the people that voted him in felt he was failing miserably in a year's time. He also fumbled the ball on the idea of granting drivers licenses to illegal immigrants in New York, some 500,000 people, then backed away from it only two months later which also put Senator Clinton in a political tight spot and sparked a national debate about the issue.

But the outrage, particularly on Wall Street, over his actions and resignation had more to do with the moral high bar he supposedly lived by, yet used to punish and incarcerate others.

Like I said earlier, I'm no Eliot Spitzer fan and the media has only fanned the flames of his demise more, but Mr. Spitzer himself set in motion this moral code of right and wrong - justice and injustice. He sent one corporate schmuck to prison after another and seemed very self rightous while doing it. So while it may not be "right" for someone to lose their job just because of adultry or even a misdemeanor, as far Eliot as Spitzer was concerned, there was everything right about it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

Part of his job is to make sure laws are inforced. So he losses his job for not doing his job.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Ok, if a crime is a crime is a crime, and everyone should be prosecuted evenly, then they also must be punished evenly as well. If you or I were busted "paying for it" we'd get whatever level of crime this is (misdemeanor?) and pay the fine for a first offense. No one would be calling for our job... I'm not saying he shouldn't be held accountable for his actions, but I think him losing his job is a bit much. That said, how was his performance on the job?

1) It was a federal offense for being involved in a cross-state criminal conspiracy and money laundering. Not a simple "$50 to meet me out back" situation.

2) If you were a teacher, and had sex with a student, even she/he was of legal age, people would appropriately call for your job. If you were a pilot and convicted of DUI, you probably would be a) required to report it even if it occurred off hours; and b) subject to sanction or additional supervision. I could go on.

In terms of non-criminal penalties for criminal acts, it is absolutely appropriate to consider the type of job held and the actions charged. As I stated in my earlier post, Spitzler has been implicated in a criminal conspiracy of federal proportions. As such, it is appropriate to consider his unlawful conduct, it's nature and extent, in determining whether or not he should continue in his employment as New York's chief law enforcment officer.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

But again sex is not illegal. Clinton's blow job may have offended you, but the majority of this country saw it as nothing more than a political based attack.(thus his 90% plus approval rating)

And you can try to twist my words on what I said about morality, but I stand by the fact that the GOP plays the morality card to appeal to the Christan conservatives, but usually these "morals" are more about fear and hate. Bush basically won in 2004 on the "issue" of gay marriage.

Paying for sex and paying for the transportation of prostitutes across state lines IS a crime - what the hell part of that can't you grasp?

All this putting crime in quotes and differentiating between a "major crime" and apparently a "minor crime" is absolutely inane.

Apparently we're going to just leave it up to Hijinx to determine for us, on a case-by-case basis what constitutes a "major crime" and what doesn't. What a crazy idea to either enforce the laws on the books, or if you don't like the law push for new legislation. It makes a lot more sense to just decide which ones we think are worthwhile and ignore the rest.

The governor broke the law, plain and simple and he ought to pay the consequences like everyone else. Technically his resignation was completely voluntary, so no one forced him out or took his job from him.

It would be damn near impossible to effectively run the state and at the same time be tried for Federal crimes. It's in the best interest of the state that he resign and turn over the reigns to someone who won't be distracted by the legal mess that's sure to ensue.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by hesscl34

My post wasn't directed at you Smoot, or I would have replied to your post rather than just posting a comment about the news. My post was directed at those that thought I was male bashing, which you were not.

My "all too common" post was just as they said on the news tonight.. meaning people recently in poweful positions have often found themselves in these situstions over the last few years... Or I should say been caught in these situations. My orignial post was that I think this has become a problem among men in power, which led us down the rode of you all accusing me of male bashing, which I'm not doing. I'm saying it's sad that this had happened so often recently.

I don't think it happens as much as your making it out to seem. Give us a list of men busted like this over the past 2 to 4 years. Then lets think about all the men in power which you claim make these mistakes. I bet its less than .05% of the men in power or maybe even less.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by dmek25

not to change the subject, but since his wife is available, anyone have a cell number where i can reach her? i think she is pretty hot

A woman is humiliated by husband in public manner and clearly in a difficult situation and the commentary from warpathers is (in short form) - she's hot, I'd hit on her, etc.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this is why some of our female members take issue w/ our analysis at times.

I'm just saying....

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A woman is humiliated by husband in public manner and clearly in a difficult situation and the commentary from warpathers is (in short form) - she's hot, I'd hit on her, etc.

Perhaps, just perhaps, this is why some of our female members take issue w/ our analysis at times.

I'm just saying....

I'm not defending anyone by any means, and I certainly feel bad for his daughters, but I'm a touch less inclined to be sympathetic to his wife.

So many of these politician's wives stick beside their husband when he's outed for some pretty reprehensible stuff. I'm just a little suspicious that they didn't know what was going on all along and/or didn't turn a blind eye to it. I also wonder about the state of a marriage that has a guy dropping $4000 a month for 8 months on high-dollar prostitutes.

These women get power and influence too, as well as a lifestyle, through their husband's position. I also guarantee that a lot of these guys wouldn't have made it to where they are without their wives help and backing. In other words it's more of a political team than a marriage and each side has a lot to lose if they lose their position.

There's no way in hell any "typical" wife is going to stand beside her husband as he announces that he's spent thousands of dollars on hookers. Most normal women would be livid and out of there. I think these women have something to lose if their husband goes down in flames.

The real losers in all of this are the three daughters.

[JoeRedskin]

Fair enough. I'm not saying that she is not in some way accountable for her own action or inaction. Rather, I am simply saying that treating her as a physical object - as opposed to debating whether or not she bears some responsibilty for her husband's actions - is perhaps central to assertions by some of the women who post on this site that there is a certain "locker room" mentality by the guys.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by mheisig

I'm not defending anyone by any means, and I certainly feel bad for his daughters, but I'm a touch less inclined to be sympathetic to his wife.

So many of these politician's wives stick beside their husband when he's outed for some pretty reprehensible stuff. I'm just a little suspicious that they didn't know what was going on all along and/or didn't turn a blind eye to it. I also wonder about the state of a marriage that has a guy dropping $4000 a month for 8 months on high-dollar prostitutes.

These women get power and influence too, as well as a lifestyle, through their husband's position. I also guarantee that a lot of these guys wouldn't have made it to where they are without their wives help and backing. In other words it's more of a political team than a marriage and each side has a lot to lose if they lose their position.

There's no way in hell any "typical" wife is going to stand beside her husband as he announces that he's spent thousands of dollars on hookers. Most normal women would be livid and out of there. I think these women have something to lose if their husband goes down in flames.

The real losers in all of this are the three daughters.

...and I think herein lies the dichotomy. On the one people want to feel angered and on the other hand they want to feel compassionate.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Fair enough. I'm not saying that she is not in some way accountable for her own action or inaction. Rather, I am simply saying that treating her as a physical object - as opposed to debating whether or not she bears some responsibilty for her husband's actions - is perhaps central to assertions by some of the women who post on this site that there is a certain "locker room" mentality by the guys.

I agree with you there completely.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by saden1

Come on, the dude is not that ugly. You make him sound like he's frighteningly hideous.

If he showed up on the set of the original Star Wars movie, George Lucas would have sent him straight to the Creature Cantina without makeup.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Absolutely, because I don't think this "crime" is a big deal, like I didn't think Craig's "crime" was a big deal, like I didn't think McGreevey's affair was a crime. These are all morality issues. Its a case of a "righteous" few imposing their beliefs on others.(see prohibition) You assumed I thought this wasn't a big deal because of his party, but I wasn't even sure of the guy's party when I had all ready made up my mind that the media reaction would outweigh the "crime".

If some senator from a flyover state that I never heard of got caught with a small amount of pot, I wouldn't think much of it. I would make that decision without having to find out the senator's party affiliation. I am sure the media would do non stop coverage of it and the other party would call for the guy's head, but I wouldn't think it was a big deal.

If Spitzer had killed a guy, stole money from the government, or ran a dog fighting operation, I would say he should get every bit the punishment that anyone else would get. More in fact so that others would learn.

Had this been you or me chances are no one would have ever found out, this is a minor crime at most. Moreover law enforcement generally goes after the supply side of this "crime", much like drug enforcement.

This from "A Man for All Seasons" by Robert Bolt:


William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


The point is we don't get to decide which laws should be obeyed or enforced. It's not cafeteria style.

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

But again sex is not illegal. Clinton's blow job may have offended you, but the majority of this country saw it as nothing more than a political based attack.(thus his 90% plus approval rating)

And you can try to twist my words on what I said about morality, but I stand by the fact that the GOP plays the morality card to appeal to the Christan conservatives, but usually these "morals" are more about fear and hate. Bush basically won in 2004 on the "issue" of gay marriage.

It was the Massachussets Supreme Court that made homosexual marriage an issue, not George Bush and not Christians. To the extent they were overzealous, well, that's their problem. It is the political left that seeks to change the status quo and so they are equally guilty of pushing a "morality" on others. All laws represent someone's conception of morality. The idea that you can't or shouldn't "legislate morality" is nonsense. You can't legislate anything else.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

It was the Massachussets Supreme Court that made homosexual marriage an issue, not George Bush and not Christians. To the extent they were overzealous, well, that's their problem. It is the political left that seeks to change the status quo and so they are equally guilty of pushing a "morality" on others. All laws represent someone's conception of morality. The idea that you can't or shouldn't "legislate morality" is nonsense. You can't legislate anything else.

Actually, the Republican-led Congress made gay marriage a big, national issue when it passed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. The MA Supreme Court didn't issue it's ruling until 2004.

I agree that nearly all law is based on society's morals. But, IMO, the modern day right is pretty well known for pushing certain values (i.e., Christian values) to the exclusion of others. In that regard, the right has lost its way and has strayed too far from its "small government" roots.