Elliot Spitzer, Whoremonger And Hypocrite?
This just in from the New York Times:
Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a person briefed on the federal investigation.
The wiretap recording, made during an investigation of a prostitution ring called Emperors Club VIP, captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a room. The person briefed on the case identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.
…
The man described as Client 9 in court papers arranged to meet with a prostitute who was part of the ring, Emperors Club VIP, on the night of Feb. 13. Mr. Spitzer traveled to Washington that evening, according to a person told of his travel arrangements.
Classy guy, screwing around on his wife the night before Valentine’s day, eh?
Here’s a nice photo of the family man with his wife and three daughters:
(I found that photo on an adult webmaster board along with the cruel-but-funny caption: “Daddy’s been banging some prostitutes, girls, so let’s all go to church!”)
I’ll leave the detailed analysis to Susie Bright, who really enjoys tearing into the sexual hypocrisy of conservative old white male politicians (into which camp Spitzer, though a Democrat, surely falls, thanks to his reputation as an aggressive, even rabid, law-and-order prosecutor). I’ll just say there surely must be a special circle in hell for prosecutors who enjoy a particular vice while denouncing that same vice and sending people to jail for it:
Mr. Spitzer gained national attention when he served as attorney general with his relentless pursuit of Wall Street wrongdoing. As attorney general, he also had prosecuted at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force.
In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.
“This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure,” Mr. Spitzer said at the time. â€?It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.â€?
Update, courtesy Jay Leno: “In the governor’s defense, he was bringing prostitution to its knees… one woman at a time.”
Second update: Susie’s take, as anticipated.
Shorter URL for sharing: https://www.erosblog.com/?p=2199
�It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring.�
I’d like to believe that Spitzer was just wistfully expressing disappointment that it was “…nothing more than a prostitution ring.” With his persistence, character, and never-say-die attitude, I guess he found more: like the Emperor’s Club. Gee, I’d like to believe that…
He is Jewish, so he would be going to a Synagogue, not a Church.
PLEASE, Bacchus, please don’t fall into the trap of “People who do things I disapprove of are THOSE kinds of people”. Spitzer, in all his hypocritical glory, is a Liberal, close pal of Bill and Hillary, on the road to being a frontrunner for the DEM presidential race in 2012 or 2016.
Sex “scandals” are independent of political persuasion. They happen when somebody gets so arrogant that he thinks that the rules for him are different than the rules for other people. Bill Clinton, D. Larry Craig, R. Jim McGreevy, D. And Mark Foley, R, just to name a couple from each party.
Spitzer campaigned on POPULIST credentials; bust those bad rich guys for being rich, never mind that they hadn’t committed any crimes worth mentioning. His signature move was to pile on the charges and hope the victim would plead to a lesser count, because he didn’t get many convictions when he actually went to trial.
I’m a conservative Libertarian, myself; I think “prostitution” should be legalized. But I join with many Wall Street traders who, on news of Spitzer’s downfall, cheered despite the market being down 170+ points. Schadenfreude _IS_ a sin, and I’m guilty.
Oh, yes; “conservative old white male politicians”. At 48, Spitzer is hardly “old”. And hardly “Conservative”. “White male”? Granted. So Susie is batting .500.
tech reader, that was me saying that, not Susie.
And I have to say, I’ll cling to my own judgment regarding who’s liberal and who’s conservative. I don’t disapprove of Spitzer’s commerce with sex workers; what I disapprove of is his hypocrisy and disrespect of his family.
Sex scandals may be independent of political persuasion — I never said different — but aggressive hypocrisy has long been weighted to the conservative side, because they alone feel the need to condemn the very things they enjoy. And that’s the company Spitzer’s behavior and record put him in, whatever he may claim as his party affiliation and ideology. He, Larry Craig, and Mark Foley are all brothers under the skin, by the testimony of their behavior. You never saw Bill Clinton on television condemning marital infidelity, or putting people in jail for it, either.
He is certainly not a liberal in the classical sense. For those not familiar with our dear governor, he has that certain special good-old-boys disregard that often occurs in the majority party in single party states. (We may have had Republican governor last, but Spitzer’s election was not seriously uncontested.)
It certainly is reminiscent of the majority in DC.
By the way Bacchus, Clinton may not have condemned marital infidelity on television, but he did create tough mandatory minimums for marijuana and push prosecutions. The difference is that he did not ever deny smoking marijuana. Maybe Spitzer should have just told every body that he used prostitutes in the past, “but only twice, and I didn’t like it.”
Let me see if I get this straight–he’s a conservative because he’s a hypocrite? That’d be a mighty novel political classification if it were your view.
Does that imply that it would’ve been OK for a liberal, if the behaviour wasn’t hypocritical?
The hypocrisy isn’t even the point. The point is that his JOB is to uphold the law, not to break it.
I would think most of the readers of this site would believe prostitution should be legal. I certainly do.
Hypocrisy knows no political party. I consider myself a conservative libertarian, or a classically liberal individual. The way I see it, what goes on in your house is your business. Had he gone to Nevada and done this, his only problem would be with his wife and kids. Had he had a mistress, the only problem he would have would be with his wife and kids. What he did was allegedly hire a prostitution ring to supply him with women, that in the state of New York is illegal, and he is expected to understand this because he was the Attorney General, and now Governor of New York. Plus taking it across state lines, as Gov. Spitzer is alleged to have done, is illegal in the eyes of the Federal government. If you want these laws changed, vote for those who will change them. Right now, Mr. Spitzer is in the middle of a shit storm of his own making.
Dave, careful readers of this site will realize that I’m too much of an anarchist to give much of a shit about what’s legal and what’s not. My revulsion here is in response to a man who cheerfully put people in prison for their involvement in the same vice he enjoys. “The law is for little people.” Fuck him for that; fuck him twice because he was a prosecutor who swore to uphold the law, then he swore it again when he took the governor’s oath of office.
Ultimately his family problems are his own, and private. But unless he had an understanding with his wife — unlikely judging by her public facial expressions yesterday and his own words at his press conference yesterday — he was being a shit there, too.
It all goes to show, “Bedfellows make strange politics”
Jax is dead on.
Though I do find it interesting that generally the Democratic party supports him while the Republicans want to crucify him. Sigh… Does nothing ever change?
Spitzer is well-known for his populist crusades, often going after targets on Wall Street and in business boardrooms. He is hardly known as a conservative. In fact this is the first time I have seen this categorization of Spitzer anywhere.
What is particularly damning in this case is that Mr. Spitzer has used ‘dirt’ in the past to wring compliance and payment of large fines from his targets.
When Wall Street learned of this denouement many many financial commentators lined up to stick a fork in Elliot.
Well, of COURSE the Democratic party supports him. They don’t think he did anything wrong. Democrats give themselves a pass on matters of sex. Gary Studds went on to serve something like 7 more terms in Congress after being caught having sex with a male page.
What I wanna know, above and beyond the hypocrisy of this “corruption crusader” getting nailed for both money laundering and getting caught with a hooker …
is WHAT set of perversions is worth %5000 (or $1500 per … have heard several figures quoted) an hour, to secure professional services therefor???
Well, the news today is that not even Democrats are standing up for him; many politicos in Albany are urging him to resign quickly. Even Hillary has had him erased from her web site. (To read the analysis, Hillary can’t say much because she made excuses for Bill over Monica and the “bimbo eruptions”; if she urged Spitzer to resign, it would remind people of her cheating husband.)
But I think we can ALL agree that this sort of behavior is one of the reasons why the word “politician” is held in such disdain.
What a tool. And Spitzer made his poor wife stand up there and be his crutch while he was giving his little song and dance speech. If it were me, I’d be sweeping the floor with him before performing a blunt force castration.
Jest sayin. Hell hath no fury.
A lot of people ask, How can a smart person like Eliot Spitzer (or Bill Clinton or Gary Hart) who knows what’s at stake, not have the sense to keep it zipped?
I’d say it’s tied up with the constraints of power. With great power comes great constraints, and it gets really hard to take after a while. Do you remember when George Bush the Elder said, “I’m President, and I don’t have to eat broccoli if I don’t want to!” After the firestorm that erupted, he knew he did have to, and pretend to like it, too. In those public fishbowl positions, great power requires constant calculation and constant strategizing. Constant self-control.
Is it any wonder that sometimes, some of these guys (and gals, presumably) say to themselves, “Somehow, I’ve just got to grab a chance to do what I want to, just because I want to.” Consider that ordinary human psychological pressure, cooking up inside someone surrounded by the perks of power. It would be easy to lose sight of the rationally-planned long-term strategy, and all the self-control it requires, and just unzip, and/or spit out that broccoli.
Each of these guys knew they were taking a chance, but they convinced themselves they could get away with it. Or they just didn’t think it through, because they just had to have a moment without the constant self-control.
If he’d gone to one of those discrete ranches in Nevada, where its legal, we’d have never known about it. $5000 would easily have covered the airfare as well. As it is, he’s going to have to spend that much again on diamonds, just to square things with the wife. If he’d given the diamonds to her to begin with, he’d probably have gotten what he wanted from her…*evil grin*
Whiplash, I really hope that was intended to be humorous. Humor or not, the implication that all his wife cares about is money and that diamonds will buy both sexual favors and forgiveness is a very sad view of women. I know that you may not see it this way, but it perpetuates the very pervasive meme that women’s motivation for anything is primarily financial, and we hold sexual relations and emotional benefits for ransom.
Of course, I could just be commenting from my bias: I don’t like diamonds ;-)
Kali, I suspect Dr. Whiplash was aiming for humor, as that’s his usual pattern here.
Although I respect and to an extent support your challenge to the stereotype about the reputed aphrodesiacal power of diamonds upon women, I’m a little uncomfortable with your characterization of it as a “very sad view” — it’s a very common view, and one that’s got some anecdotal basis, as most stereotypes do. If you’d like to challenge the stereotype in this space, you’re welcome; but I’d appreciate it if you’d try to find less insulting or patronizing language to do it with. “Very sad” when used in reference to someone else’s views is the language of attack and censure, which I pretty much tend to prohibit in the ErosBlog comments.
Just for reference, here are a few discussions of the stereotype that have appeared here on ErosBlog:
The Price Of Anal Sex
Not Buying Sex With Diamonds
Buying Sex With Diamonds
Not Tonight Dear, I Have No Diamonds
Kali, being previously quite familiar with both “The Price Of Anal Sex” (which has some hilarious comments) and “Buying Sex With Diamonds” to which Bacchus referred in his comment #22, I thought I was being dryly witty.
By signing off with “*evil grin*”, I was hoping to make my jesting a bit more obvious, much in the vain of Karl Elvis signing off with “(ducks and runs)”
http://www.eros...rter/
Not knowing me, and not being able to hear any inflection in my voice or see the twinkle in my eye, I can see how you might take me for a cad. I do however pass on nearly every joke that I find in my e-mail which was made at the expense of men, and there have been many jokes found there in which women were the butt, that I let die there. I also often attempt to champion the cause of women here on ErosBlog.
However, not knowing Spitzer’s wife personally, perhaps it was a bit unfair to make the joke at her expense, but to quote Bill Cosby “If they laughed, it was O.K.!”.
I might add that if there weren’t an element of truth in the postings to which Bacchus referred, those posting would have died pathetically without those subsequent humorous comments. A stereotype cannot become such without a certain recognizable truth. Beginning on the very day of our marriage for example, my ex-wife began a bartering process for EACH and EVERY sexual “favor”…
The idea that gifts will buy forgiveness, comes from women themselves who have quite matter-of-factly said that when you catch a man cheating, THAT the time to demand that fur coat or diamond necklace from the son-of-a-bitch.
I certainly don’t mean to imply that all women are like this. In fact, the real woman with whom I’m now attached, doesn’t like diamonds either. ;-)
I hope it becomes a more common view that women truly enjoy sex as much as most men do. (There are men out there who aren’t into it too.) There are many of us women for whom the sex and intimacy are their own highly sought reward. I can buy my own damn diamonds.
Bacchus,
I really was trying to be civil and polite, as it’s one of the things I respect about this area. Apologies for any offense, it was not intended.
To clarify (which I see I did badly in my initial comment), while I doubt that Dr. Whiplash really believes that diamonds = sex, I find the idea of the universally mercenary nature of women to be both saddening (as a negative stereotype that I’ve been confronted with) and reflecting poorly upon those who perpetuate it, even in humor. My comment was intended as an invitation to reject that meme. I’ve appreciated many of Dr. Whiplash’s comments in the past and wished to communicate that his statement, in my ENTIRELY subjective opinion, reflected uncharacteristically negatively on his view of women. While his statement reflected poorly, I in no way mean to imply that his actual view is as negative as the statement seemed to suggest.
Kali, no worries — as I hope I made clear, I wasn’t exactly trying to jump on you with both feet. But there remains an element of your argument that’s a bit summary for my taste, and another element that still seems to confuse argument with condemnation, even if you’re being nice about it.
Dr. Whiplash made a crack about buying one particular woman diamonds to get one man out of some particularly deep relationship doodoo, along with the suggestion that buying those same diamonds earlier would have avoided the need for the doodoo in the first place. Although informed by the stereotypes you’re concerned about, it strikes me as a huge and unsupportable leap to find “the universally mercenary nature of women” in those remarks. For one, “women” weren’t the topic; for another, the mercenary nature of women is only one of several competing explanations for why diamonds might have their reputed (but contested here) effect. I myself hew to the theory that many women respond well to diamonds not because the women are thinking “Yay! I’m wealthier now!” but because they are thinking “ZOMG, he must love me a lot if he spent all this money on me!” Shallow thinking this may be, but not really mercenary at all — because it’s informed by emotional need and a warped view of love, but not by economic greed.
In other words, it strikes me as being you who has got the specific negative view of women that you’re criticizing Dr. Whiplash for having. There are alternative, less negative, explanations for the same (disputed) phenomenon.
But my real beef remains with your now-civilly restated, but still judgmental “I find the idea…to be…reflecting poorly upon those who perpetuate it, even in humor.” It’s not just civility I strive for in the ErosBlog comments, it’s tolerance of diverse views. I’d much rather you attack the idea — which, indeed, has many vulnerabilities – than the man behind the idea. Please don’t share with us your low opinion of people who disagree with you — we can infer that anyway, and having you say it outright makes these comments a more unfriendly place no matter how nicely you try to put it. That’s what I was calling you on the first time.
I hope that’s clearer.
While I agree that this is not a forum for attacking each other, it’s my opinion that you’re being a little hard on Kali, Bacchus. If someone stated a racial stereotype, would you think it reflected ill on the person who made it — in jest or otherwise? I believe that’s all she’s saying. Had I been at a cocktail party, for instance, and heard a man make a remark like that, I would have thought to myself, “Ah. Here is a man who has a low opinion of women.” And yes, I might even place my own label of “sexist” on him. While there’s truth in every stereotype, and they’re often amusing, it does sting when one hits close to home, and as another female, I can tell you — that one, while directed at only one female specifically, speaks to an opinion of all women (or most women) generally. Amusing or not, is it fair to direct it even toward the one woman who was the butt of it? You commented on her face yourself, Bacchus. No diamond is going to make up for the blow she’s received. When a stereotype arises, I think it’s completely fair to blow the whistle on it. I loved Dr. Whiplash’s response, and I believe there was no intended harm in his remark. But… I understand completely where Kali is coming from.
I may have been confused, but my intent was for an observation, not an argument. The observation was how a statement, which I felt echoed a negative stereotype of women that you have called “common”, made me feel and included an explanation about why I felt that way and how the statement and my interpretation together reflected negatively. My intent was express how that statement could cause someone to think less of the person giving it, as a person’s words are what others base opinions of them on. I hope I was clear in pointing out that I did not believe that Dr. Whiplash intended the statement in seriousness, and certainly don’t think he actually holds that stereotype to be true. Given that, I certainly don’t see how what I said was “attack[ing]… the man behind the idea” as it was neither an attack nor aimed at the good Dr.
I will point out that even in your proposed alternative explanation for the properties of diamonds, you attributed the women’s response to “Shallow thinking” and “warped view of love” and ascribed that view to “many women.” As it happens, I agree with you that this is certainly a cause for some women’s behavior. I even agree that it is “shallow thinking” and a “warped view of love”. However, I also think that those statements are negative and do judge the view they describe.
I’m a little curious about what judgmental means to you. In itself it has a negative connotation, and indicates someone applying a negative judgment to others. It’s use is perhaps a bit curious in that calling someone judgmental requires making a negative judgment of a person.
It is, of course, your blog, and the definition of what constitutes tolerance and judgment is a call for you to make. I would espouse the view that informed opinions are a necessity, and judgment (positive and negative) a requirement for evaluating information and observations of practically everything.
Sage, I’ve been trying to handle Kali’s attack on Dr. Whiplash with kid gloves, because I understand that she didn’t mean to transgress against the local customs and because I believe her when she says she didn’t mean to be uncivil. So, no, I don’t think I’m being a little hard on her — quite the contrary, in fact.
Of course it’s inevitable that we form opinions about people because of the things that they say. But, in my view, it’s toxic to open and interesting discussion to express those negative personal opinions. Argue against the idea, please, but don’t jump directly to a condemnation of the person who expressed the idea, not in the ErosBlog comments.
I’ll go one step further, and say that in my opinion, the hasty condemnation of people who express unpopular opinions is one of the hallmarks of “political correctness”, to which I am opposed because of its intellectual dishonesty. Instead of engaging with ideas on their merits, political correctness tends to assume that all right-thinking people agree, and so criticism coming from this perspective tends to leap immediately to criticism of the speaker of unpopular ideas. The argument is not “that idea is wrong” but “people who express that idea are sick / bad / evil / pathetic.” Which is, implicitly, where Kali’s first comment seemed to be going (she chose “sad”) and then she confirmed in her second comment that she did, indeed, intend to make a negative comment about people who would express such a manifestly (to her) wrong idea.
So, no, I don’t think I’ve been too hard on Kali. I’ve been as friendly and nice as I know how, while opposing a style of argument that I find quite seriously toxic and pernicious (not to mention, unwelcome in my blog comments).
Kali, I was writing that last while you posted your last, so we crossed.
I’ve got to run out the door, so I don’t have time to respond to you in full.
Quickly, I think you are confusing judgment in the “weighing and balancing” sense with judgment in the “condemnation and denunciation” sense. When I comment on the views or approaches of “many women”, I’m not personally attacking any one woman. When you say “I find the idea…to be…reflecting poorly upon those who perpetuate it” in the presence of one such person, you are attacking that person. You were bending over backwards to be nice about the attack, but it’s still an attack.
I think my previous comment responds to the rest of your post. Your approach struck me as preferring to denounce the speaker (or anybody who would say what the speaker said) rather than engaging the ideas with which you disagree. I cheerfully concede that I’m perhaps oversensitive on this subject, which is why I’ve done my own best to be as pleasant as possible in challenging you on it.
Sage, thank you for your comment. I do appreciate having a fresh perspective who supports that my interpretation is not wholly unique.
I think much of the problem lies in that my original post was not sufficiently clear. I found the diamond comment to reflect a view that was negative/unpleasant to me (I said sad, and that was more inflammatory than I should have been). I think it was interpreted as a statement that Dr. Whiplash was a “sad” or pathetic or otherwise unenlightened person, and that was not my intent. I was, admittedly, unclear, and the language, I have said, was inflammatory in a way that lent itself to that interpretation.
Unfortunately, I am a little unclear on where current boundaries are.
Correct me if I am wrong, Bacchus: It is acceptable to make negative comments (“shallow”, “warped”) about an entire group of people (“many women”), as long as you don’t “personally attack any one woman.” (i.e. it is only an attack on the women who hold that view.) These women are not, you assume, present. Therefore your negative statements are still “intellectually honest” by virtue of not being aimed at anyone in particular, just at those “many women”.
My statements are unacceptable due to the fact that I have made them in the virtual presence of the person making the initial remark, and that I have said, rather than implied, in follow up posts how the initial remark can negatively affect my opinion of that person.
If someone had made your statement and had applied to a group of people who shared a kink, say D/s, and their interpretation had been that submissive players exhibited “shallow thinking” and a “warped view of love” that comment would likely not have made it through moderation.
Assuming it had been left up long enough for me to comment, I might have said, “Hey, that’s a really negative stereotypical view of kinksters! Your statement perpetuates the idea that kinky people are ‘warped’ in their lovin.” But I’m not sure if that response would have been taken down for being intellectually dishonest or PC. I’m a little more confident (but not entirely sure) that it would have been objected to if the wording had included “sad” in place of “really negative stereotypical”.
>>
“I cheerfully concede that I’m perhaps oversensitive on this subject, which is why I’ve done my own best to be as pleasant as possible in challenging you on it.”
Oops, the end was supposed to say how I feel the same way and realize we are both coming from the position of very personal interest. I’ll do my best to choose my words and implied targets with much more care in the future. :-)
That is truly one of my favorite things about this blog, Bacchus. It is expected that everyone play nice. Thank you.
Kali, I think we’ve almost beat this to death. I just want to make clear that a big reason for my moderation rules is to make this a civil and friendly place for discussion. Thus, negative comments about broad and amorphous classes of individuals are less likely to be moderated than negative comments about other participants in the discussion.
I also encourage people to be thoughtful, at least, about their judgmental comments about classes of people or areas of sexual practice. But that’s a secondary goal, and depends a lot on context, apparent intent, and the extent to which such comments seem to contribute rather than being inflammatory.
Finally, I’d like to point out that I spoke of “shallow thinking” and “warped views”, not “shallow women” or “warped women” as your comment seems to suggest. It’s a subtle distinction, but an important one I think.
And with that, I propose that this dead horse has been sufficiently beaten. Last word is yours, Kali, if you feel the need.
Whee! “Last Word” for my Interweb Points collection! I shall put it next to my “First Post” award ;-) Nah, we’re cool, Bacchus.
I got here from the recent “True Life Secrets” post. Would it be considered humor if I commented that “Bah. All Women want the last word. And they never admit they’re wrong. Even after painstakingly pointed out by Bacchus.”
Heh, I dunno, let’s pass it through moderation and see how it flies.