Podcasting Liberally: High Priced Hooker Edition!

Beer, vulgarity and erudite chit-chat flowed freely last night, as we begin to get back into our Podcasting Liberally groove.

Me (Goldy), Lee, Dan, Carl, and John provide live coverage of Hillary Clinton’s big win Barack Obama’s disappointing 23-point victory in Mississippi’s Democratic primary, a philosophical discourse on the intersection (difference?) between politics and prostitution, the tanking prospects of Sen. John McCain in WA state and what this means for Republicans down-ticket, plus a conversation with EOI Executive Director John Burbank, a candidate for WA’s 36th Legislative District. Tune in and find out what would have made the life of this particular downtrodden white boy so much easier and more successful.

The show is 47:56, and is can be downloaded here as a 43.9 MB MP3.

[Recorded live at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. Special thanks to Darryl for producing the show, and Confab creators Gavin and Richard for hosting the site.]

Comments

  1. 1

    spews:

    Good thing they investigated a person instead of a crime…..

    I am sure every multi millionaire that takes a few thousand in cash out of their bank accounts gets wiretapped….

    Wiretapped by a justice department that seems to investigate 6 dems for every republiconvict.

    Something smell here?

  2. 2

    spews:

    Read this:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....lenews_wsj

    David Postman has it linked on his blog, and it’s a serious expose of Eliot Spitzer’s abuses going back a long time. Interesting that almost as soon as the prostitution story broke, he was abandoned by Democrats – even Democrats who owe their offices to him.

    What goes around comes around.

    Yet he does have apologists who seek to minimize what he did and make him into the victim. That level of denial cannot be dealt with here. Psychiatric commitment and months of talk therapy and psychotropic drugs are necessary for that level of derangememnt.

    The Piper

  3. 3

    harry poon spews:

    What’s happening to Spitzer is the reason why the rest of the world laughs at us and our media’s cockamamie priorities.

    There must be at least 30,000 househods in this country wodering why the government and the media were not as assiduous in their pursuit of the lying crooks who have brought this country to the brink of ruin.

    But, I guess whoremongering is more important.

  4. 6

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    @2 Interesting that you link the Wall Street Journal, a shamelessly pro-business rag, and the WSJ bemoans media “enablers” who allegedly looked the other way at a politician whose offense was patronizing a house of prostitution (and a high-class one, at that).

    Interesting how you see no tragedy in the downfall of the country’s most effective white-collar crimefighter, and in the loss of his irreplaceable and immeasurably valuable services to America’s consumers and small investors.

    Interesting how you refer to a politician’s private sexual pecadilloes as “abuses,” but do not use similar language to describe the torture, kidnapping, and murder perpetrated against innocent people by a Republican administration that behaves more like Stalinists than the leaders of a democracy.

    You’re a piece of work, piper.

  5. 8

    Roger Rabbit spews:

    The corporate crooks are dancing in the streets firing their imported ballpoint pens into the air today.

  6. 9

    spews:

    How many million dollars did the justice (sic) department / fbi spend trying to catch Spitzer? How much did they spend investigating Duke Cunningham, or Safavian?

    It was a newspaper that caught Cunningham, not the FBI.

    Kinda like they spent 60 million on Whitewater, but not one cent on Bush’s insider trading of Harkin Energy stock.

  7. 11

    Richard Pope spews:

    Goldy should extend an invitation to “Hannah” to participate in next week’s Podcasting Liberally. But don’t count on anyone showing up, especially not an actual female.

  8. 13

    spews:

    Piper Scott,

    “Yet he does have apologists who seek to minimize what he did and make him into the victim. That level of denial cannot be dealt with here.”

    Once again, your occasionally-demonstrated ability to engage in intelligent analysis is suppressed and shoved under your private shitpile of Wingnut simplistic thinking.

    Many people were deeply disappointed in Spitzer’s apparent actions and therefore wanted him to resign. Some of those SAME people felt that the circumstances by which his actions were uncovered were deeply disturbing.

    In other words, even though Spitzer was wrong, the investigation of him might well have been wrong (i.e. motivated by partisanship), as well.

    That is neither denial nor being an apologist, and it is a rational position. It is simply evaluating and criticizing the actions of two different parties independently.

    Some people may take that further and state that if Spitzer was entrapped in an illegal investigation or partisan sting operation, then he should not step down. You may disagree, but the position is rational and doesn’t imply an apology for Spitzer’s actions or deny anything about his actions.

    And then there are those who feel that prostitution should be legal (this would include many libertarians), and therefore neither Spitzer nor anyone else should be prosecuted for purchasing the services of a prostitute. You and I may disagree with this position for ethical, social, or political reasons, but the position is rational (and somewhat widely held). Some in this camp may think Spitzer should continue….some might think he should resign out of hypocricy (prosecuting prostitution in the past). Either way, the position is neither denial nor being an apologist for one individual (and certainly not a indication of mental illness).

    I hope you can probe a little deeper next time and rescue your analytical abilities from that shitpile!

  9. 14

    Mr. Cynical spews:

    darryl–
    You are wrong to attempt to deflect the discussion to HOW Spitzer was busted. Spitzer was communicating via e-mail & text messages which are potentially Public information.
    He is arrogant, spiteful and done politically….right where he belongs. It’s amazing how some young thangs genetilia can make someone of Spitzer’s intellect so stupid. Almost like he wanted to get caught.
    Spitzer also jeopardized NY Public Safety and Public Assets in communicating via e-mail & text as they could be used to blackmail him. That is a huuuuuuuuuuge issue.

    You should be celebrating that the KLOWN got caught Darryl…not being his apologist by deflecting attention away from him.

  10. 15

    Richard Pope spews:

    Mr. Cynical @ 14

    Who said that Spitzer was using a state computer or state cell phone to communicate with the prostitution enterprise? Spitzer is very intelligent, although not entirely wise, and I would bet he used his own laptop and computer account and his own cell phone.

  11. 17

    spews:

    Cynical, so you would say the same of Senator Vitter? The slimeball that ran on nothing more than “moral values” right? He could be blackmailed too right?

    That is the difference between the left and the right. Us “liberals” want all crooks locked up. Cons want to cover for their criminals, and pretend they are not crooks, and then scream like little babies when a dem is caught.

    Who is more American?

  12. 18

    spews:

    @6…RR…

    Then read this from the NY Times:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....ref=slogin

    Democrats in New York have no love for the guy and seem to be quick to toss him under the buss. And he even used the name of a supposed friend of his as an alias to cover his trysts. The now ex-friend was not amused.

    You look for a conspiracy everywhere. Yet the reports are that Spitzer stumbled into something not aimed at him. Still it’s not good enough for you to let the facts speak for themselves. You have to rationalize them away or minimize them in order to cover the scat.

    Why not just accept that maybe the guy was bad? But that would require intellectual honesty on your part, which I sure won’t hold my breath waiting to hear.

    Great piece by playwright David Mamet in today’s Village Voice on why he is no longer a “brain-dead liberal.” In it he quotes John Maynard Keynes thusly:

    “John Maynard Keynes was twitted with changing his mind. He replied, ‘When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'”

    http://www.villagevoice.com/ne.....064,1.html

    You love to rant and rave that all Republicans or conservatives are evil and Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. Well, the facts have changed; care to change your opinion?

    Somehow I doubt it.

    Long ago I said both Larry Craig and David Vitter should be gone because what they did impuned their office and offended their constituents. Ditto Eliot Spitzer.

    The Piper

  13. 19

    spews:

    Mr. Cynical,

    “You are wrong to attempt to deflect the discussion to HOW Spitzer was busted.”

    You are wrong for suggesting I was attempting to deflect the discussion away from Spitzer’s actions, since my comment dealt with BOTH. The fact is, no matter what Spitzer did, there is a separate, legitimate, question about how his actions were uncovered.

    “Spitzer was communicating via e-mail & text messages which are potentially Public information.”

    So? What does THAT have to do with the price of rice in China. I thought the issue was Spitzer’s illegal actions?

    “He is arrogant, spiteful and done politically….right where he belongs.”

    Spitzer’s personality it completely irrelevant. The issue is that Spitzer broke the law. Some people focus on the moral issue of him having an affair, as well.

    “It’s amazing how some young thangs genetilia can make someone of Spitzer’s intellect so stupid.”

    Ummm…hate to shake your world, Cynical, but “some young thangs genetilia” have made many, many people stupid. But stupid isn’t a crime. Soliciting a prostitute is.

    “Spitzer also jeopardized NY Public Safety and Public Assets in communicating via e-mail & text as they could be used to blackmail him. That is a huuuuuuuuuuge issue.”

    Bullshit. He was susceptible to blackmailed whether he used private email or his state email. The only question is whether his use of email fell under the Use Policy for employees in the Governor’s office. Many Use Policies in government offices allow for low-level personal use, provided it doesn’t tangibly cost the state money.

    “You should be celebrating that the KLOWN got caught Darryl…not being his apologist by deflecting attention away from him.”

    And you should learn to rationally analyze what my previous comment said. You’ve made many simplistic errors in your response.

  14. 20

    spews:

    @13…Darryl…

    Cultivating the disagreeable nature of your personality again, eh?

    Eliot Spitzer seems to have regarded himself as above the law. While he zealously prosecuted prostitution rings, he turned right around and participated in one, and, if the timing is as alleged, he did so while he was prosecuting them.

    Whether prostitution is or should be legal is not, nor can it be, the point. What the law should be is for the legislature to determine. Spitzer, as the chief law enforcement official of New York, was legally obligated to enforce the law as it is. That he happened to engage in flagrante delicto in Washington, D.C. is beside the point; he doesn’t get to pick and choose.

    That you, like Rabbit, lack either the knowledge of how public corruption investigations are conducted (your rhetoric supposing this was partisan in nature and aimed at him) and your pretty obvious lack of intellectual opennes and honesty (when the facts change, change your opinion) is typical…and pretty boring.

    Again, you resort to invective and profanity, which seem to be the default weapons in your arsenal.

    I’m not hearing anyone out there raise the objections and foster the suspicions raised by you, Rabbit, and others among the HA Happy Hooligans save your colleagues on the extreme left.

    Consider: He was outed and out of office not in a matter of days, but a matter of hours. If he had a case to be made in his defense, don’t you think that he would have made it? Smart Harvard educated lawyer that he is? And isn’t it odd that so quickly after all this broke that there were enough Democrats in Albany ready to impeach him?

    Sure didn’t hear any Democrats in New York decrying the investigation! Sounds like they all thought Mr. Too-Big-For-His-Britches finally got what was coming to him.

    But you’re not willing to let the facts speak for themselves since that would mean you would have to admit that the guy was no good. Instead, you’re seeking, like Rabbit, to take the edge of what he did by planting, without even one shred of evidence, suspicions that maybe he was the target of wire-tapping moralists in the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Starr/Reagan/Hoover/Rossi/Tim Eyman adminstration, which would then exculpate him.

    Ever considered that maybe the guy was so arrogant and filled with his own hubris that he stumbled into a pre-existing investigation?

    No matter…He’s toast and gone from the public scene.

    How about shedding a tear or two for his wife and daughters? Think especially of his daughters, who now have to regard their father in this new light. As a father of daughters, I know that those teenage girls are going to experience their own shame, guilt, and feelings of responsibility for this – completely unwarranted but very real and painful feelings.

    Instead of taking up Spitzer’s cause or arguing that his behavior wasn’t really that bad because dipping your hand into the nookie jar is really no big deal – just another progressive public policy pronouncement from the HA Happy HooliHookers – why don’t you show some respect and sympathy for the aggrieved wife and the three girls?

    Or is that beneath your contempt?

    The Piper

  15. 21

    Tlazolteotl spews:

    Geez, Pooper. What a load of dreck. Seriously. First, I’m sure that after someone retrieves the smelling salts, his wife and daughters will be able to get on with their lives, and that they won’t just faint away into a permanent coma.

    Second, NOBODY here has said he doesn’t deserve to be gone. Quit knocking down straw men. Darryl has tried to explain to you that there are several things at issue regarding this story, and that asking questions about the circumstances of the investigation in no way excuses Spitzer’s illegal behavior. Whenever he has tried to explain this, you shift to some other whine, this latest being the standard conservative cry “what about the children!” Please. The youngest daughter is 17, I’m sure she knows what men do with their pee-pees besides urination by now.

  16. 22

    Save Our Bill spews:

    “(W)hat about the children!” That, of course, was the standard Clinton cry that was shrieked in the night whenever Bill got caught. Variation on the theme: “No investigation ever fed a hungry child.”

    The Clinton fallback, whenever he got caught, was to get himself seen, emerging from church, waving a big black Baptist Bible in the breeze.

  17. 23

    GBS spews:

    President Bush is unfit to command.

    The military portion of the Petraeus Surge worked perfectly. Our men and women perfomed to the highest traditions of valor our storied military prides itself on.

    Unfortunately for our servicemen and women, the current Commadner-in-Chief failed to implement the political solution during the lull in violence the military surge created. Now, with no plan in place violence in on the rise again in Iraq. All those supreme sacrafices made for democracy and freedom in Iraq and Bush failed to have a political solution. Failed as a leader. Failed as a military commander.

    How many more Stone Gardens have to be created before conservatives stop supporting Bush and the Republicans?

    How many more mothers have to grieve?
    How many more kids will never see their mom or dad again?
    How many more billinos of dollars have to be squandered on Bush’s lost cause and misadventure while his children and Mitt Romney’s kids don’t do squat?

    Being a conservative today means being on the side of the French Freedom Tankers and al Qeada.

    Rocket blasts kills 3 U.S. soldiers in Iraq
    12 soldiers die in 3 days; rise in deaths cast doubt on ‘surge’

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23591348

  18. 24

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    So what should we do? Beg Spitzer to retract his resignation and come back and NY governor? Not have those cumbersome banking laws that require banks to report suspcious activity? Is is OK to have money laundering, then? Just how much should the government (federal, state, local) be allowed to poke around in our bank accounts and financial records?

    Hey, I’m open to everyone’s ideas on this. What do you say that we repeal the laws that “caused” this situation to come to light? I’ll go for anything that reduces government power. What do you say?

  19. 25

    Politically Incorrect spews:

    GBS says:

    President Bush is unfit to command.

    The military portion of the Petraeus Surge

    So are most people.

  20. 28

    spews:

    @21…Tlazolteotl…

    You obviously don’t have daughters. If you did, you wouldn’t be so cavalier about their feelings and how behavior like that engaged in by Eliot Spitzer can be devestating to an adolescent young woman.

    Go talk with someone experienced in child psychology if you don’t believe me.

    This isn’t something akin to him getting audited by the IRS. Instead, it strikes at the essence of the relationships within a family. Especially where the dad has a massive reputation as a crusader.

    I only knock down the strawmen that Darryl, Rabbit, and now you raise to cloud the issue. Again, the only ones asking questions about the investigation are those who do so in the same breath as they tout Spitzer’s virtues. The planted suspicions that somehow the investigation is tainted or driven by a political agenda is not supported by any evidence. New York Democrats aren’t saying this stuff, only a bunch of lefties in Seattle who can’t abide that one of their own is no good.

    The only reason these “questions” are being asked is to deflect the full measure of responsibility that needs to be taken by Spitzer.

    Assume for a second that the investigation is 100% legit, above board in all respects, and considered completely within the ordinary course of events for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies. Now further assume that Spitzer stupidly allowed hismself to be caught up in it and that he was easily recognized. Given his high profile and big mouth, how could it this have been kept under wraps? And maybe his version of the perp walk comes about because he set himself up for the big fall.

    Like the others, you’re unwilling to let the facts speak for themselves. Nope. There has to be chicanery, Bush administration corruption must be presumed, and Democrats get in trouble only because of Republican persecution.

    Give it a rest!

    A bad man went down. Period!

    The Piper

  21. 29

    Sempersimper spews:

    It is to laugh at the pious, self-righteous hypocrite who thinks anybody here takes him seriously. Alors.

  22. 30

    The Clinton/Flynt Administration spews:

    “(T)he pious, self-righteous hypocrite who thinks anybody here takes him seriously …” Excellent description of Eliot Spritzer, former Governor of New York.

    Alors, yerself.

  23. 31

    rhp6033 spews:

    “You are wrong to attempt to deflect the discussion to HOW Spitzer was busted. Spitzer was communicating via e-mail & text messages which are potentially Public information.”

    Uh, the Justice Dept. affidavit I read had no reference to e-mails or text messages from Spitzer. Instead, they were e-mail and text messages between participants of the call-girl ring. I could be wrong (I might have missed something), but that kind of stuck out to me at the time.

    Besides, since when are e-mail and text messages supposed to be “potentially public information”????? They are private communications. The government is supposed to have a wiretap warrent or search warrent to access them. Are you conceeding that under the Bush administration, the government feels it has the right to access any of our electronic communications and use that information for partison purposes?????

    As for “deflecting the discussion”, don’t you see the hypocracy of this argument in the context of the Republican position regarding our local Congressman, who the Republicans have attempted to crucify for revealing a telephone conversation by the Rep. Speaker of the House who was violating the terms of his ethical probation?

  24. 32

    rhp6033 spews:

    “Like the others, you’re unwilling to let the facts speak for themselves. Nope. There has to be chicanery, Bush administration corruption must be presumed, and Democrats get in trouble only because of Republican persecution.”

    Eight years ago I would have been willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt. But numerous instances of political abuse of the Justice Dept. by the Bush Administration has shown this to be a mistake. If we are to protect our liberties as free Americans, it is our duty to be wary of government motives and conduct. Perhaps in future years our trust can be regained, under another administration. But not yet.

  25. 33

    rhp6033 spews:

    If Spitzer is guilty, he should be prosecuted, to the same extent similar crimes are prosecuted in the federal system, regardless of party affiliation.

    If further investigation reveals that he was politically targeted, then those who engaged in politically-motivated prosecutions should immediatly lose their jobs, and also be prosecuted for any criminal violations they may have committed, and sued in civil court for abuse of process.

    Of course, in another year a Democrat will be in the White House. Maybe Piper Scott will change his tune, if he thinks the Democrats are targeting Republicans for criminal investigations?

  26. 34

    spews:

    Piper Scott,

    “Cultivating the disagreeable nature of your personality again, eh?”

    Just for you, Bro :-)

    “Eliot Spitzer seems to have regarded himself as above the law.”

    Yep…as I pointed out in my comment above, many people found this most shocking and a great disappointment. That he violated the law and the public trust is why many liberals and Democrats were calling for his resignation.

    “Whether prostitution is or should be legal is not, nor can it be, the point. What the law should be is for the legislature to determine.”

    Sure…I completely agree! New Yorkers make their laws and they should be followed or changed. (Damn…that’s not helping me cultivate my disagreeable personality!)

    “Spitzer, as the chief law enforcement official of New York, was legally obligated to enforce the law as it is.”

    Indeed! (Double damnation!)

    Were you under the mistake notion that I had suggested otherwise?

    “That you, like Rabbit, lack either the knowledge of how public corruption investigations are conducted (your rhetoric supposing this was partisan in nature and aimed at him) and your pretty obvious lack of intellectual opennes and honesty (when the facts change, change your opinion) is typical…and pretty boring.”

    Where the hell did I suggest there was partisanship in the investigation??? Are you fucking retard?

    Read my comment at 13 again. I pointed out several different positions people can take on this case, but I did not suggest anywhere that I subscribed to any of them. Since when is DISCUSSING DIFFERENT POSITIONS the same thing as ADOPTING those positions?

    The only clear position I was taking in 13 was that your analysis was shallow and simplistic. And that I feel you were capable of giving a more insightful commentary if you can use your brain rather than being blinded by partisanship.

    This current comment is another example of you failing to engage your brain because a simplistic Wingnut haze has clouded your thought processes. I have higher hopes for you, but you keep letting me down, man.

    “Again, you resort to invective and profanity, which seem to be the default weapons in your arsenal.”

    So? Did you somehow believe that including “dirty words” in a comment automatically makes the underlying point invalid????? That is simplistic bullshit thinking, too. Goldy has stated many times that his comment threads are edgy. Get over it—this ain’t kindergarten.

    “I’m not hearing anyone out there raise the objections and foster the suspicions raised by you, Rabbit, and others among the HA Happy Hooligans save your colleagues on the extreme left.”

    I didn’t “raise” suspicions or objections. I was listing a number of positions that others have taken. It is irrelevant whether you have seen them raised outside this blog or not—they have. Apparently, you haven’t been paying attention.

    “Consider: He was outed and out of office not in a matter of days, but a matter of hours.”

    Yes…and your point is???

    “If he had a case to be made in his defense, don’t you think that he would have made it?”

    Yes. I do. Why do you ask?

    “And isn’t it odd that so quickly after all this broke that there were enough Democrats in Albany ready to impeach him?”

    No…I don’t find that odd at all. It seems entirely reasonable that members of his own party would be deeply disappointed by the revelations. Your point?

    “Sure didn’t hear any Democrats in New York decrying the investigation!”

    Really? Then you weren’t paying attention. The point I originally made is that even people who wanted to him resign for his breach of public trust could (and some are) deeply suspicious of the investigation. But don’t confuse my discussion of other people’s position as being my position. I don’t have a strong position on this point, since I am largely data driven on such things.

    “Sounds like they all thought Mr. Too-Big-For-His-Britches finally got what was coming to him.”

    That sounds like the opinion of his opponents, not his friends and Democratic colleagues. Most of his friends and Democratic colleagues seemed shocked to their shoes and disappointed.

    “But you’re not willing to let the facts speak for themselves since that would mean you would have to admit that the guy was no good.”

    No…you just were sloppy in reading my original comment.

    “Instead, you’re seeking, like Rabbit, to take the edge of what he did by planting, without even one shred of evidence, suspicions that maybe he was the target of wire-tapping moralists in the Bush/Cheney/Rove/Starr/Reagan/ Hoover/Rossi/Tim Eyman adminstration, which would then exculpate him.”

    Nope, again, you didn’t read my comment carefully. My point wasn’t about Spitzer. It was a response to your lazy comment, and your inability to break out of your partisan bullshit non-thinking mode. Really…I would much rather read insightful, well-thought-out comments from you, even if I disagree with your conclusions.

    “Ever considered that maybe the guy was so arrogant and filled with his own hubris that he stumbled into a pre-existing investigation?”

    Yes…I clearly recognize that as a possibility.

    “Instead of taking up Spitzer’s cause or arguing that his behavior wasn’t really that bad because dipping your hand into the nookie jar is really no big deal…”

    Hopefully, I have already made it abundantly clear that I’ve not taken any such position!

    “Or is that beneath your contempt?”

    No…IGNORANCE is beneath contempt. And I wish better from you in future posts. Please re-read my original comment. I’d be happy to clarify anything you don’t understand.

  27. 35

    spews:

    Piper Scott,

    “The only reason these “questions” are being asked is to deflect the full measure of responsibility that needs to be taken by Spitzer.”

    Come-on Piper. Seriously. ENGAGE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN!

    Given that Spitzer has resigned and likely faces some charges for soliciting a prostitute (and, apparently, human trafficking), it is hard to argue that taking “full measure of responsibility” is not well underway.

    The other issue that is being raised is how he came under an FBI probe. This is an independent issue that has been raised that in no way detracts from the first issue.

    If you read opinions across the blogosphere, you will find a plethora of people who think the investigation smacked of Bush League Justice. (*Disclaimer…I’ve not made this claim*) And of those opinions, some agree that, either way, he should resign; some believe that should have stayed on and fight. (*Disclaimer…I’ve not expressed an opinion on either*)

  28. 38

    GBS spews:

    Piper Scott @ 21:

    You obviously don’t have daughters. If you did, you wouldn’t be so cavalier about their feelings and how behavior like that engaged in by Eliot Spitzer can be devestating to an adolescent young woman.

    You obviously don’t have sons. If you did, you wouldn’t be so caviler about their “feelings” and how behavior like that engaged by Larry Craig can be devastating to an adolescent young man being afraid to use public restrooms because some fucking hypocrite Republican is cruising the bathroom looking for young boys to suck him off.

    Grow up.

  29. 39

    spews:

    @34…Darryl…

    You said:

    “In other words, even though Spitzer was wrong, the investigation of him might well have been wrong (i.e. motivated by partisanship), as well.

    That is neither denial nor being an apologist, and it is a rational position. It is simply evaluating and criticizing the actions of two different parties independently.

    Some people may take that further and state that if Spitzer was entrapped in an illegal investigation or partisan sting operation, then he should not step down. You may disagree, but the position is rational and doesn’t imply an apology for Spitzer’s actions or deny anything about his actions.”

    On what basis do you even begin to suggest that the investigation “might well have been wrong?” Shouldn’t you have some reasonable basis upon which to make a suppostion? Even when passing the buck off to “some people?”

    In the same vein, on what basis can you assert that “some people may take that further and state that if Spitzer was entrapped in an illegal investigation…etc.?” Where’s your offer of proof? Or at least some modicum of objective rationale for your assertion?

    Just because some idiot at some other blog alleged conspiracy doesn’t legitimize your passing the rumor along. The least you ought to do is ID “some people,” or are there “no people?”

    From the looks of it, Spitzer got caught fair and square. If there was even a scintilla of evidence to the contrary, he would be screaming from Buffalo to Great Neck.

    Red handed – he got caught red handed by good old fashioned police work…despite those “some people” apologists.

    Curious…were you as vigorous in passing along what “some people” said about the possibility of entrapment in the Larry Craig case? At least there was some objective evidence to support that defense.

    He still owed it to his constituents and the nation to resign, however, entrapment or no.

    But cocktail gossip and whispers from “some people” are simply the fantasy delusions of conspiracy theorists.

    And parsing the issue by touting your “I take no sides; I have no position,” or words to that effect merely compounds your hypocrisy. There’s always “some people” to whom you can pass the buck and lay the blame.

    Too bad #9 didn’t shtup the broad on a grassy knoll after deliberately blowing up the Twin Towers. The allegedly illegal wiretap (according to “some people”) could have gotten it all on tape! All conspiracy theories all the time.

    Next time, before you allege anything based upon what “some people” aver, don’t you think you owe it to the reading public to provide an offer of proof?

    The Piper

  30. 40

    spews:

    @38…GBS…

    Who do you think you are? George Bernard Shaw?

    I have three sons, two daughters, two daughters-in-law, one son-in-law, and two grandsons.

    Trust me…I know what goes to the hearts of young women and young men when it comes to their parents, and this cannot be anything other than devestating to Spitzer’s three teenage daughters.

    To you, however, it seems to be no big deal, and that’s sad…for your children.

    The Piper

  31. 41

    PuddyPrick, The Fact Finding Prognosticator... spews:

    Don’t Moonbat! 16%ers process facts.

    Spitzer tried to cover up a wire transfer at his bank. He tried to get his name from the trasnfer The bank mgmt got wind of it and called in the feds.

  32. 42

    spews:

    Piper Scott,

    Look again with the preceeding sentence:

    Many people were deeply disappointed in Spitzer’s apparent actions and therefore wanted him to resign. Some of those SAME people felt that the circumstances by which his actions were uncovered were deeply disturbing.

    In other words, even though Spitzer was wrong, the investigation of him might well have been wrong (i.e. motivated by partisanship), as well.

    I was stating a position, not taking it.

    ‘On what basis do you even begin to suggest that the investigation “might well have been wrong?”’

    I didn’t suggest that that. I was stating one (of several) positions that are widely seen in this case.

    “Shouldn’t you have some reasonable basis upon which to make a suppostion?”

    Hopefully, now you will understand that it wasn’t a supposition I was making.

    ‘Even when passing the buck off to “some people?”’

    I am not sure what you mean by “passing the buck.” Are you denying that this position is easily found on the inter-tubes?

    “In the same vein, on what basis can you assert that “some people may take that further and state that if Spitzer was entrapped in an illegal investigation…etc.?” Where’s your offer of proof? Or at least some modicum of objective rationale for your assertion?”

    My assertion here is (1) that some people believe Spitzer was a political target, and that (2) some people who believe 1 also feel (or felt) that he should stay on and fight it.

    This is objectively true…I could easily point out a dozen blog posts taking this position. (*Note: I have not stated MY position on this*)

    “Just because some idiot at some other blog alleged conspiracy doesn’t legitimize your passing the rumor along.”

    Oh dear. So…now I have to educate you on the difference between a fact and a rumor? I was pointed out the FACT that there are people who held a particular position (several different positions, in fact). In doing so, however, I neither stated acceptance nor did I reject the proposition that Spitzer was a political target.

    ‘The least you ought to do is ID “some people,” or are there “no people?”’

    Really? You doubt that such opinions can be found? Go to Google blogs and type “Spitzer” in the box. You will find a plethora of opinions, including the several positions I was discussing.

    “From the looks of it, Spitzer got caught fair and square.”

    Could be. But your opinion is not shared by everyone. (*Disclaimer: I say that without taking sides*)

    “If there was even a scintilla of evidence to the contrary, he would be screaming from Buffalo to Great Neck.”

    You think so? My opinion is that the shame of getting caught doesn’t put Spitzer in any position (right now) to challenge the way in which he got caught.

    “Red handed – he got caught red handed by good old fashioned police work…despite those “some people” apologists.”

    So you’ve opined.

    “Curious…were you as vigorous in passing along what “some people” said about the possibility of entrapment in the Larry Craig case?”

    No…should I have? Was this an issue? BTW: my raising the various opinions was not about Spitzer, and certainly was not questioning the motives behind the investigation. I was pointing out how YOUR argument was flawed.

    “At least there was some objective evidence to support that defense.”

    If you say so. I’ve not seen any evidence besides knowing that Craig pleaded guilty.

    “He still owed it to his constituents and the nation to resign, however, entrapment or no.”

    At least…that’s your opinion.

    “But cocktail gossip and whispers from “some people” are simply the fantasy delusions of conspiracy theorists.”

    Sometimes they are…sometimes they aren’t. You just stated that “there was some objective evidence to support” Craig being framed. I don’t know if that is fantasy and conspiracy theories or not. But I state a fact when I point out that you made the statement.

    “And parsing the issue by touting your “I take no sides; I have no position,” or words to that effect merely compounds your hypocrisy.”

    Really? That doesn’t make any sense to me. Perhaps you can explain how NOT stating a position is “hypocrisy.” Then you can try to explain how NOT stating a position “compounds hypocrisy.”

    “There’s always “some people” to whom you can pass the buck and lay the blame.”

    Pass the buck and lay the blame for what?

    “Too bad #9 didn’t shtup the broad on a grassy knoll after deliberately blowing up the Twin Towers. The allegedly illegal wiretap (according to “some people”) could have gotten it all on tape! All conspiracy theories all the time.”

    I have no idea what you are babbling about here.

    “Next time, before you allege anything based upon what “some people” aver,”

    But I did not allege anything. You still do not seem to have a basic grasp on the difference between enumerating a variety of positions and promoting said positions.

    “don’t you think you owe it to the reading public to provide an offer of proof?”

    Offer proof of what? That there are people that take some of the positions I outlined (and that I was contrasting with your position). Several seconds on Google Blogs will objectively verify each of the positions I outlined (as well as your own position).

  33. 45

    spews:

    Piper AND Darryl

    1. I think you are both missing the key issue here. Spitzer is being hung for the “crime” of hypocrisy, but hypocrisy is NOT a crime in NY.

    2, Nobody outside of the Spitzer family knows the underlying moral issues. For example, how do we know that Mrs. Spitzer is capable of or enjoys sex? Imagine she is not and that Elliot is a stallion. How would you have them solve this problem? Is the Gruiliani-Gingrich-Jackson-Eisenhower-Kennedy-Sarkozy/mistress solution better? Abstinenace??

    I suspect that their ages. there are many couples who live together, love ecah other, but assuage their sexual needs by one or another illegal means.

    How would either of you respond if I told you that my cousin, Mrs. Spitzer’s best friend, told me that SHE was apuing for the prostitutes?

    Would the latter scenario change your opinion of Mr. Sptzer’s having broken the law?

    —————————————

    Lets put this in context of other minor crimes that we tolerate in this society:

    Mitt Romney employed illegal aliens
    Bill Gates long record of speeding.
    Dan Savage multiple acts of sodomy
    Bob Dole lobbyist assisted hi in real estate purchases in Fla.
    GW Bush …better skip THAT one.
    myself .. serving wine to children under age

    The bottom line, hypocrisy is NOT illegal. The crimes Spitzer is charged with are not prosecuted (for good reasons) by most governments.

    —————————————————-

    Retruning to hypocrisy. maybe the time has come to make hypocrisy ITSELF the key issue. Consider Gary Hart, Eisenhower, Kennedy, … none of these were hypocrites. Should they get a pass?

    Consider Craig, Gingrich, Bush (in re his use of the death penalty as Governor), should they get a pass?

    I would argue that the answer is clear. When the law itself is debateable (eg marijuana, Johndom) then judgments of the matter ought to be made based on hypocrisy. Obvious examples of major hypocrisies exist in both parties, inclding the recent outbreak of racism in Clinton’s partisans and the extreme pandering by Mr. McCain.

  34. 46

    spews:

    TBG

    You may be the closeat to a sane troll HA has! But what elxe t expect of a Reprican who supports Hillary because she is the only true cnservative?

    Sp let me ask you this: By your standards, assuming Mrs. Spitzer was not opposed to Elliot’s little hobby, was he a “hypocrite?”

  35. 47

    spews:

    Jew

    You got the point!

    Spitzer is not a hypocrite. He has been a true crusader, esp for a Jew, against crime. Going after the folks who profit from Prostitution as a criminal activity is very different from going after the harmless act itself.

    What we are really seeing here is a resurgence of the governing left. These people are the same, whichever party is in powwr. Thet control our system and Spitzer was a threat!

    Spitzer threatens the Westchester/Connecticutt crowd of New York dwellling Jews who make a living off of skimming dollars off of our fair system. These people are getting at Spitzer to protect THEIR turf.

    What the dems do not understand is that party is a lot less important to people like this than class. There have been Republican reformers (e.g. Nixon) who got caught for the same reasons! McCain, Bush, Obama .. these are ALL in their thrall.

    So why vote Hillary? The answer is obvious, the Clintons represent an Independent crime family, one devoted to its own interests! Hillary doesn’t give a damn about Westchester ..