Governor Eliot Spitzer: Client Client No. 9, Seeks a Hooker Oh-So-Fine…
There are a few things we could write about right now, but let’s just talk about what everyone is talking about: New York’s prostitute-patronizing governor, Eliot Spitzer. Here’s a fresh thread for discussion (since the old one is already a comments clusterf**k).
From the New York Times (which broke the story):
Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who gained national prominence relentlessly pursuing Wall Street wrongdoing, has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a law enforcement official and a person briefed on the investigation.The wiretap 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 hotel room, according to an affidavit filed in federal court in Manhattan. The person briefed on the case and the law enforcement official identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.
Mr. Spitzer, a first term Democrat, today made a brief public appearance during which he apologized for his behavior, and described it as a “private matter.” He did not address his political future.
For a legal gossip blogger, this is huge: a highly pedigreed lawyer (and former state attorney general), who once had a blindingly bright political future, caught in a prostitution scandal. It would be tough to make this more juicy. Maybe a three-way with Rodge Cohen?
P.S. Bonus question, posed by Lawrence Hurley: Did Governor Spitzer violate the Mann Act?
Update: More details from the FBI affidavit (via MSNBC):
“Kristen” was sent to room 871, which Client 9 was leaving ajar; Client 9 wanted to be reminded of what she looked like and was told “American, petite, very pretty brunette, five feet five inches, and 105 pounds.”Apparently the session went from 9:36 p.m. [on February 13, the day before Valentine’s Day,] when “Kristen” arrived in the room, until 12:02 a.m., although it appears she waited a bit for Client 9.
“Kristen” said the appointment went “very well.”
“Kristen” said “that she liked him and did not think he was difficult.” She collected $4,300 from Client 9.
CNN reports that this $4,300 reflected money Spitzer owed from prior to be applied toward other visits. But escorts who worked for the Emperor’s Club — not to be confused with the heartwarming Kevin Kline film, by the way — did charge hourly rates well into the four-figures. Biglaw partners, eat your hearts out — $1,000 is chump change to these ladies.
“Kristen” and her bosses in New York also discussed Client 9’s sexual preferences and whether he had asked “you to do things that, like, you might not think were safe.”“Kristen” appears to have been OK with whatever went on in Room 871. “Kristen” stayed overnight in D.C. and took the train back to New York the next day.
Spitzer Is Linked to Prostitution Ring [New York Times]
Did Gov. Spitzer Violate the Mann Act? [Washington Briefs]
(183) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
Firstity First
first of many
Let me be the FIRST to say, good riddance Mr. Spitzer!
if you read the smoking gun excerpts, spitzer liked to go bareback with whores. that is just foul.
I use my first year associate salary to frequent the hos on the K Street corridor - they aren't that great. I know what its like Spitzy.
Dear Politicians,
Can we drop this whole charade of pretending to be a Christian nation and admit there is nothing wrong with two unmarried people have consensual sex. Please, adjust the laws accordingly.
He sent a Christmas card around to all the partners in my firm. On the front was displayed a smiling pic of Gov Spitzer and a smilling, happy family.
Sad.
E.S. is clearly into that whole Harvard Thing.... he is probably a closet homosexual who does lot of cocaine. That whole Harvard thing.
He definitely never handled the Fisher account....
6:06 here
OK so he appears to be married. Doesn't change anything. Still two people having consensual sex.
No 6:01, whether or not Spitzer like to go bareback with whores does not depend on on whether anyone read it on the Smoking Gun.
The Smokng Gun (and other websites) have posted the indictment. The affidavit states that the prostitute had a conversation with her handler in which the handler said something to the effect that Client No. 9 liked to do things that some women didn't consider safe - it doesn't say exactly what.
"Paul Allen," it wasn't funny on the other comment thread, and it hasn't improved over on this one.
6:06/6:10,
Agreed, in principle. But Spitzer aggressively pursued prostitution rings when he was AG. It's not that he frequents the hos that I find problematic. It's that he a hypocrite of the highest order.
He obviously has an addiction. Leave Eliot alone!!!
Eliot did NOT frequent women who turn tricks for money. They were.... Illuuuusions!
Unsafe acts Spitzer may have engaged in:
1) Bareback (to any or multiple orfice)
2) Ass to mouth
3) Choking (him or her or both)
4) Gagging
5) cutting with razor
6) Drinking blood or other body fluids
7) Some extreme positions (chandelier)
8) Insertion of large or dangerous objects (in her or him or both)--think lamp stand or fireworks
9) Jumping from 8th floor into pool below
How bad does it have to be for a HOOKER to find it unsafe? I doubt bareback would merit mention with a high-class hooker...
6:14 -
Presumably the news networks have people re going through tapes of Spitzer news conferences when he was AG, collecting statements by him of the evil wrought by prostitution rings, the number of women they exploited, and how his prosecution of them was a great blow for truth and justice.
To be honest, no matter what happens, she was totally worth it.
Spitzer needs a stint in a state-run rehab -- where he can be drugged, raped and beaten until he is cured. Like I was.
Can you really EXPLOIT a woman you are paying more than $100 dollars to (much less $4,500!!!)
If you were a public figure, especially a former law enforcement agent, why would you ever hire a hooker?
If you wanted to cheat on your wife, why wouldn't you simply go to any restaurant or bar in any major city in America and seduce any of the star-struck twenty-somethings who would be more than happy to pin their legs behind their ears for you?
I suppose the hope is that the prostitute will be discreet and free of emotional attachment, whereas a mistress may not be either.
That being said, soliciting a prostitute is illegal, whereas banging the hostess at The Capital Grill is just tacky.
It's a lot easier to explain the mistress. And it doesn't have any legal ramifications (outside of divorce, I suppose).
So, politicians of America, I entreat you, please tag free strange.
AG to ATM?
AG to CIF?
Elliot loves greek?
Finally 6:24, someone else who understands where I'm coming from!
I agree with you completely, except on one point: why go to an expensive place like The Capital Grill to pick up the hostess? I'm partial to the hostesses at Olive Garden myself.
I am more furious than all of Bruce Lee's movies, and he puts me in women like they were puppets.
Spitzer is a superdelegate. What's going to happen to that vote if he resigns?
It is sick that we allow gambling but forbid prostitution. The Europeans must be laughing at Americans. That chick would probably have cost 100 euros in amsterdam.
6:30 - that is fabulous!
Shut up 6:34. Gambling rules.
6:30, that is the funniet thing I have read so far this year.
pics or gtfo
Hmmmm.
Unsafe sexual practices?
Anyone remember the scene from Gravity's Rainbow featuring Katje and the commandant?
Methinks Spitzer likes a Cleveland Steamer.
Did Governor Spitzer violate the Mann Act?
Of course he did. Expressly. Like he was on Dateline 'to Catch a Preditor' or somthing.
Except he got caught on a Federal wire asking a hooker to travel to another state for an agreed price to have sex.
(Hmmmm. I wonder what kind of sex?)
6:34- In about 6 months 100 euros will be about the same as 45-freaking- hundred dollars! I for one am appalled and shocked by the fact that hookers are now more expensive than a plane ticket around the world! WTF Elliot! You should have banged your intern, at least you would have kept your job! Personally I think if you are the Governor you should be able to meat slap a whore if you want to. America sucks! Hookers to 190K!
Since party affiliation wasn't mentioned, he must be a democrat. Otherwise the first word in the scandalous headline would have been Republican.
Gee, 6:22, I don't know. Is it possible to exploit associates? I mean, we do make gazillions. Maybe if you pay someone enough at some point it's *impossible* to exploit them. Pay someone enough and he or she ceases to be human, and instead is just a big pile of money for you to do with as you will.
Spot on 6:14!
This fuckin hypocrite should step down. Karma's coming quicker and quicker for us. More and more truth is gonna continue to come out about our "leaders." I can't wait.
"Party affiliation" has been mentioned in every story, as it is with every political sex scandal--Dem or not.
Gotta love this guy.
Spitzer's family is fabulously wealthy and powerful, so he can "crusade" against rich people and drop $2k/week on "Kristen" without skipping a beat.
Way to go, guy.
He ruined some good men during his overzealous prosecutions as AG. I am not saddened that he also has been ruined.
I believe NY's Constitution has a provision for impeachment. I'm sure a certin NY State Senator would love to play a part in that proceeding. Don't resign, Governor, let's turn this into an educational moment in the history of the NY State Constitution.
You hire the talent because star-struck 20 somethings don't know how to shut up and want to be your girlfriend, which can become seriously embarassing when you happen to be married.
That said, a good rule of thumb would be that her time shouldn't go for more than your time.
Brian Ross on ABC News has this choice Spitzer quote - talk about eating one's own words. And it looks like the Feds got wind of the deal by being tipped off by Spitzer's bank about possible structuring.
Anyway:
>Prosecutors reportedly have a series of e-mails and wiretapped phone conversations of Spitzer.
>In a interview two years ago, Spitzer, then-attorney general, told ABC News he had some advice for people who break the law. "Never talk when you can nod, and never nod when you can wink, and never write an e-mail because it's death. You're giving prosecutors all the evidence we need," he said.
WCBS supposedly has it on very good word he is resigning very soon...
Will somebody tell him you never go ass to mouth?
In every picture I've seen, his wife looks like she's been sedated. I can't believe she would stand up there with him.
Looks like wife found out about the same time staffers did, i.e. today.
Wife probably needs to be sedated.
And you would think a State AG who has investigated all sorts of criminal enterprises would understand what a "cutout" is and how to use one. Or a throwaway cell phone if you want to be cheap about it (not that this enterprise looks like it was cheap).
The site, based on the HuffPo cache, is a fantastic exercise in marketing, by the way. Rate the girls 1-7, charge more the higher you go, and let ego do the rest. Pretty sophisticated.
Seriously. "Maya" is 10, but for $30K for a day you could probably find four of her on porn sets in the San Fernando Valley. Or hell, shoot your own porno, bareback (for you E.S.) and all.
Great marketing success on their part, but stupid f*ckers who bought into that pricing schedule because of "diamonds."
What's the over/under on how soon pictures of "Kristen" hit the net?
The best part is that I voted for Faso in 06.
Kristen, tell us about your night(s) with the (ex-)Governor!
What a train wreck Gov. Spitzer has become. This is truly a shame.
Kristen is probably already on the net in the cached photos from Emperor's Club, just not with the name on the cite matching the name she was using matching whatever her real name is.
From the transcript, she sounds smarter than Spitzer, so there's probably not an overt match.
Look for a "pretty brunette who is 5'5" 105" in the cache.
The real lesson of all of this is:
Either convince your wife to be more sexual, or alternatively, get some good porn and masturbate frequently to address those instincts that your wife will not.
How many ethics awards does Spitzer have? He should be able to use them as get out of jail free cards.
As a side note, his wife didn't look that upset. Was Client 9 a couple, mayhaps?
All this hooker talk makes me want to get a hooker. But Jesus, $4300? I need to pay off my student loans first.
spitzer got a 180 on the lsat. little known fact.
$4300? She must have some orifice only rich people know about.
Probably so little known because a top score on the LSAT was a 120 back when he took it.
Wait, he went to harvard - is their law school part of BU? You know, like how PENN law is part of Penn State?
All in the game yo, all in the game.
Screw BU and Harvard too.
Back in the 70's, guys in my bath house would go bareback all the time. It was no big deal.
Pretty lame, 8:43. Pretty lame.
Wait, he went to Harvard? He told me he went to Yale!
Client Number 9 has pre-recorded his resignation speech and it just leaked onto the internet. Check it out below:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=OQA5WkorAsc
Shame he didn't tell you that in Mass., 9:03. Maybe you could sue!
Best quote from the coverage so far comes from the WSJ:
"His brother, Daniel Spitzer, a neurosurgeon, said: 'If men never succumbed to the attractions of women, then the human species would have died out a long time ago.'"
Right. If men didn't occasionally pay four grand for kinky sex, the human race would surely die out. I love that guy.
9:09, don't get picky. Goal effectuating rules are always over (or under) inclusive.
8:31/8:37 - The top score on the LSAT was 50 when Spitzer took it.
New York to 190!!
"Number nine.....number nine....number nine"
John Lennon, The White Album
Danny Boy is a sexist douche -- guess it must run in the family. Unless he's a fan of rape, survival of the species also takes women succumbing to the attractions of men. Because, last I checked, prostitutes don't generally have their johns' kids for them. That takes a wife/girlfriend/partner or a surrogate, and surrogates got nothin' to do with attraction on either side.
Seems like Danny Boy's point, 9:27, might have been something along the lines of "Eh, we're hardwired to go get hot tail, so everybody just chill."
Which would be an appropriate response, if Spitzy wasn't such a self righteous douche bag.
9:27, last I checked, Danny was only trying to put his brother's actions into context, not the prostitute's. Also, he was pointing to the urge to have sex, not the urge to have kids.
What's the origin of "Guys in my high school used to... It was no big deal"? I must know.
Chill--can't a guy just get laid?
No strings. The poor "victim" made $4,300 for 2 hours "work".
I don't know, hypocrisy aside, it seems "victimless" to me, unless he pulled the cash out of a bribery slush fund.
I mean, where DOES a civil servant lay his mitts on $4K in Benjamins?
THAT may turn out the be the REAL scandal here.
I'm sure Cadwalader was involved in this somehow. I just don't know how yet.
Just another example of T14 in action.... The next time a T14 posts about their (alleged) superiority, I reserve the right to bust your ass with this, yet another post, relating to T14 inferiority.
$5500 an hour....that's much more than an equity partner at Cravath earns...seems like we are in the wrong biz.
Supply and demand. There are lot of idiots out there that can pass as biglaw partners... but not many can meet the multi-diamond status requirement of Emperor's Club - VIP.
"I mean, where DOES a civil servant lay his mitts on $4K in Benjamins?
THAT may turn out the be the REAL scandal here.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 10, 2008 10:28 PM "
.... D'oh ... pay attention... his family is loaded ...
BREAKING: Spitzer just retained Paul Weiss for his defense.
defense of what? what are the charges?
Lets get off this super smoke screen and discuss what we are going to do about GAS going up to $4.00 a gallon. Where the f....k are any politicians protesting the price of GAS for the entire populace of America.
I dont care where Elliot Spitzer sticks his dick. I do care about the price of GAS for everyone else!!!
RALLY and MARCH on WASHINGTON to lower the price of GAS!!!!!!!!
Lets get off this super smoke screen and discuss what we are going to do about GAS going up to $4.00 a gallon. Where the f....k are any politicians protesting the price of GAS for the entire populace of America.
I dont care where Elliot Spitzer sticks his dick. I do care about the price of GAS for everyone else!!!
RALLY and MARCH on WASHINGTON to lower the price of GAS!!!!!!!!
For legal advice and in anticipation of his (inevitably necessary) defense.
AP: "A spokesman says Spitzer, who has been linked to the investigation of a prostitution ring, has retained the Manhattan law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind Wharton & Garrison. Spitzer is accused of paying for the services of a high-end call girl at a Washington, D.C. hotel."
10:28 - Spitzer's family is worth half a billion dollars. This is less than chump change.
So it's great that another famous douchebag gets his comeuppance but I find it disturbing that the government is wasting money "busting" these super high class call girls. I'm sure the thousands of underaged, third world women that are gang raped and forced to fuck a dozen men a day are glad the government has its priorities straight. /end pc rant
11:18 it's just the way it is
http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html
...making anonymous internet posting illegal. What would we do?
Is Spitzer the Lawyer of Day?
This is the ultimate ABOVE THE LAW scandal!
NYT: Governor Spitzer, since when have you had anal sex?
Spitzer was formerly an associate at Paul Weiss so it's no surprise that he hired them.
Of course, he also worked at Skadden, but he didn't hire them. Maybe he has bad memories of the anal-retentive partners there. Then again, I would've thought the whole idea of "anal" might make him go with Skadden.
Did the Gov wear a condom?
Someone has posted this ad from his 2006 race up on YouTube. Oh how funny...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic4cmjVtBgY
"Client 9 wanted to be reminded of what she looked like and was told 'American, petite, very pretty brunette ...'"
How do you *not* look "American"? What, like wearing lederhosen or something?
11:57 You can't ask our Governor a question like this. Wait...maybe you can?... our governor-imbecil....fcuk...nope
11:57 You can't ask our Governor a question like this. Wait...maybe you can?... our governor-imbecil....fcuk...nope
He didn't hire Paul Weiss to defend him against a prostitution charge. According to the ABC report, he's facing charges for financial 'structuring', whatever that is. A form of money laundering, perhaps?
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4424507&page=1
Spitzer Rap:
For a Real OG,
The Former AG
Is now the NY G-O-V
Spitzer, E!
I wish I was Spitzer
Then I could put my fist into
a whore named 'Kristen'
for $4300 an hour and
Mike Tyson that shit, son.
Ms. Lewinsky did perform oral sex on him.(210)
210. Lewinsky 8/26/98 Depo. at 20. They engaged in oral-anal contact as well. Id.
Back when I was in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Platoon, guys in my crew used to pork call girls bareback for 4300 dollars all the time. It was no big deal.
you guys seem to be confused here, debating this like it is a question of the morality of prostitution or whether spitzer is a hypocrite. The issue here is that gov spitzer put himself in a position to be blackmailed and bribed by members of a prostitution ring, an industry that is by definition organized crime and is usually connected with more nefarious mob elements. this is iresponsibility of the highest order. Gov spitzer should be ashamed of himself and resign immediately. The fact that he seems to be holding out is embarassing.
Back when I was in Eagle County, guys I knew used to cum on the faces of young girls in hotels all the time. It was no big deal.
Back when I was in Hollywood, guys I knew used to pee on calls girls provided by Heidi Fleiss all the time. It was no big deal.
Back when I was in Denver, guys I knew used to smoke meth and sodomize male prostitutes in hotels all the time. It was no big deal.
Back when I played for the Cowboys, teammates I knew used to throw sex parties, snort coke, and fingerbang hookers at our gangbang townhouse all the time before Sunday football games. It was no big deal.
It wasn't me.
Back when my father was The Great Leader, guys I knew used to get drunk of Scotch, gather packs of teenaged virgins, defile those virgins, bukake all over their faces, and then laugh at them when we threw them back to their parents' podunk villages. It was no big deal.
Back when I left Sodom for the caves in the hills, my daughters used to get me shitfaced drunk, suck me off, have group incest sex with me, and bear my (grand)-children with my dirty old man semen all the time. It was no big deal.
Nothing wrong with some innocent Dirty Sanchez action. Does miracles for acne.
"It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds." - Doc Holliday
"We're both part of the same hypocrisy, senator, but never think it applies to my family. " - Michael Corleone
"It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!" - Fredo Corleone
Back when I was in high school, white girls would have sex with Asian guys for $4,300 in hotel rooms all the time. It was no big deal.
Uhhnn, yeeass, preeese send up u best girra an I wanna one who no spitzer. No this is ma rear namea Erriot ... I mean Gorge Foxe. Chop chop you send her up nowa or I indict your ass. No this is no fake accent. This is rear shit asshor. Send girra who no spitz my road or you goin to jaior asshor!Now! Goddamit!
He should plead guilty to whatever he can get in exchange for the FBI not releasing more embarassing details...this was just the tip of the iceberg! They have plenty on this guy.
How did they figure out that ES was client 9?
Why aren't they going to out the other clients mentioned?
>>>Why aren't they going to out the other clients mentioned?<<<
What makes you think they're not? Just because you haven't heard about it? Read the indictment (not just selections). They are going after more than just ES.
Hofstra to the New York governor's mansion!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Paterson
Hof1L, you beat out Harvard yet again!
It was clearly his wife's fault.
Why is he wearing a star shaped earring in the picture? Very strange.
I like how Sen. Craig was branded a hypocrite, liar and criminal (which he is) by the major media outlets, who never failed to mention he was a Republican. The Post waits until the second paragraph of its story to mention Spitz's political affiliation and the headline reads "Prost. Sting Nicks Spitzer." Oh, I see. He was just nicked in the sting. Not potentially facing 20 years for violation of the Mann Act.
Baack in myyyy dayyy, if you waahhnted to haave sex with a hoooker, you juussttt had to maake sure and kill them aahhffterwards.
Someone needs to get these girls law degrees. Then we could bill $10K/hour for meetings with clients.
And have happier clients.
In response to those posters wondering why the focus on Spitzer rather than the other clients (other than the obvious newsworthiness of Spitzer, as opposed to random rich guys):
Based on this morning's NY Times, the whole investigation began when banks starting reporting to the IRS about Spitzer-related accounts engaging in odd transactions clearly designed to hide the source and destination of various payments, which payments were all going to various dummy corporations (that were set up by the escort ring). The IRS was pursuing this investigation under the assumption it was some sort of political corruption/bribery/blackmail/kickback situation, and the prostitution angle was a surprise.
In other words, Spitzer did not get caught up in the prostitution investigation, the prostitution ring got caught in the Spitzer investigation. Of course, assuming he is as wealthy as he is reported to be, it is rather interesting that he was not able to make payments of only a few thousand at a time without raising suspicions. (I wonder exactly how many prostitute transactions were there, and if the transactions were not simply in cash. If they were in cash, wow, pretty impressive that the government tracked it)
9:05, your post is great. You complain that Craig's political affiliation was always mentioned, then say that Spitzer's was mentioned. The horror of consistency! Then you complain about one single publication's - and The Post, at that - failure to discuss his hypocrisy. You've really shown the MSM to be incredibly biased.
11:18 - The call girls were not even charged, the money laundering pimps were charged. The call girls will probably get nothing more than a slap on the wrist if they cooperate with the Feds. Oh, and Kristen will get a multi-million dollar photo shoot with Playboy. Not bad for two hours of work.
Point of clarification - The NY Times reports that the entire investigation started because the IRS noticed Spitzer was doing something fishy with cash. They wanted to see if there was some sort of graft involved and then they saw this. So, it's not like the fed. was investigating call girls and found Spitzer - it's the other way around.
And for pete's sake, whether or not prostitution should be illegal is not the point. You can't selectively abide the laws.
Prediction - once Spitzer gets a promise that he won't be charged, he will resign. This will happen by Friday.
Damn I miss being powerful....
Nice call, 9:38. She's flying to the grotto as I type.
9:38 -- Multi-million dollar photo shoot with Playboy? Since when??
Right now there are a number of high powered polticians and one former President that are praying that the other shoe doesn't drop. This by no means over....
How does a guy worth nine figures not have a safe of cash in the house?
I don't understand why going ass to mouth is so bad. Isn't that why you get the hepatitis B vaccine?
Something like this would never happen in Chicago
It was not the barebacking (that is a given at $4300), it was the choking and fisting that got ES in hot water!
I used to like Elliot Spitzer as a corporate governance advocate, but then this whole prostitituion-bareback-$4300 news leake -- and now the man is a freaking GOD!
This media coverage is too intense, I just came...
This Sptizer smoke-screen has diverted our true efforts -- ban SEN!
9:05: The level of stupidity required to accuse the NYPost of being biased toward the left is mind-boggling.
The single largest threat to the sanctity of marriage in this country is the penis.
6:20, you also forgot the vaunted Rusty Trombone. That's pretty unsafe too.
A Cleveland steamer is also pretty unsafe.
Dirty Sanchez has already been mentioned, but that's terrible too.
Analingus? Yuck.
What is a Dirty Sanchez?
Spitzer taken down by something that is TOTALLY legal in Europe and Clark County. Bullcrap puritans.
all I'm sayin' is, if his wife wants some revenge, I would be happy to give her a ride on my tube-steak. I would even take pics to post online.
if his wife wanted to take revenge, I would be available. All I'm sayin'
12:07 - Prostitution is not legal in Clark County. It is legal in Nevada outside of Clark and Washoe Counties.
Adultery laws are on the books in many states, and as the state AG, Spitzer was charged with enforcing New York's.
Maybe ES can now become a pornstar with titles like, "I've Got Her Wrapped Around My Fist" "Spitzer?I don't Even Know Her" "Spitzer Fister"
Look - I'm not gonna chastise a guy for trying to get a little pu55y on the side. Putting aside the host of charges he may be facing, like charges under the Mann Act and/or for structuring, what I do have a problem with is the hypocrisy. Spitzer built up his reputation as a crimefighter and, most recently, an anti-prostitution crusader, and now he ends up doing the same things he spoke out against.
I take no position as to whether or not Spitzer is guilty of any crime. However, I believe all vestiges of his moral authority to serve as Governor have been destroyed. He ought to spare his state and his party the ordeal of impeachment, do the right thing, and resign. And I say this as a liberal Democrat too.
Who cares?
If the scandal had involved a republican the sexy times would have been with a 12 year old boy.
9:17 - To address your (somewhat misplaced) point, I didn't have time to lay out the litany of headlines that I've seen on this, all of which conveniently fail to mention Spitzer's political party. I chose my hometown paper as the source. If you care to check out the LA Times headline (which somehow makes the GOP look like the agressor - GOP tells Spitzer to resign of face impeachment) the Boston Globe, CNN.com, MSNBC, any number of sources, all of those headlines support my conclusion. Now do a goole search for headlines on Larry Craig and see how many times "Republican" is used to describe him in the headline. The contrast is stark. Newsflash - the major media is biased and hugely pro-Democrat.
11:12 - I hope your post was a joke.
Spitzer's expected to resign.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/nyregion/11cnd-spitzer.html?hp
The top score when Spitzer took it was 800. I know because i took the test in 1982 when it changed from 200-800 to 10-50. I studied during he 1982 israel lebanaon war. Top score of 48 came later. What is the scale nowadays?
1:20- The difference is that most Dems don’t go around exploiting social wedge issues and pretending to be holier than thou (like gay Larry Craig). Rather than saying “Democratic Caught in Sex Scandal” it’s more important point out that Spitzer was a hard nose prosecutor and foe of prostitution, and I think that a lot of news organizations are picking that up. This is not about politics, its about hypocrisy.
Where is Spitzer getting this money? Does being the AG and the Gov of New York pay well enough for not one, but apparantly mutiple all expense paid call girl trips? And keep in mind that you'd need the money in a slush fund your spouse didn't know about. Where is this money coming from?
If Spitzer resigns, Lt. Gov. David A. Patterson will become Governor. Patterson will be the first blind Governor in the history of the United States.
And he's a 1982 Hofstra Law grad.
1:37 - in light of what's just transpired to the "sherif of wall street," do you care to retract your first sentence? Give me a break. There's no monopoly on hypocrisy in politics. Both sides are offenders.
Democrats are no strangers to social wedge issues, either, BTW. Or do you not consider social welfare, immigration, universal health care, increased taxes on the middle class, affirmative action and reproductive rights, wedge issues?
One reason the media may have mentioned Mark Foley's and Larry Craig's political affiliation more prominently than they mentioned Spitzer's is that before the scandals broke, Foley and Craig were not as well-known outside their home states as Spitzer was. Identifying them as a Republican member/Senator from state X put them in context.
Whereas when the Monica Lewinski scandal (and all the other Bill Clinton sex scandals before it), the headline did not say "Democratic President Bill Clinton Involved in Sex Scandal" because unless you were living under a rock, you knew who he was and what party he belonged to.
And yes, the tension between the Republican party's positions on gay rights and the conduct of Foley and Craig played a big role in the hypocrisy angle. But the media bust Democrats for hypocrisy too - remember when stories came out about how much energy Al Gore's mansion consumed? Lots of people have big energy-wasting houses, but unless they are hyper-enviromentalist Democrats, their houses would not be interesting or newsworthy. Or Geraldine Ferraro's comments on Obama and race - her party and her role on Hillary's campaign make her comments more newsworthy.
More like Gov. Spritzen. Lol.
1:58 got it right. Something often becomes a "social wedge" issue or opinion because the media labels it as such if it doesn't fall in line with the regular Democratic party line. Fact of the matter is, opinion on abortion/choice is split about 50/50. A pro-lifer railing on to no end is no more "exploiting a social wedge issue" than a pro-choicer railing on to no end. The "any judicial nominee who doesn't agree with Roe is unfit" stance is just as sanctimonious as the reverse position, but it seems to get a pass.
The original poster has a general point -- I thought it was more glaring in the recent reports about the mayor of Detroit that almost without fail did not mention his party (D). I think it's not as glaring here. Plus, part of the issue is that as much as plenty of people hated Spitzer, virtually everyone thought he was clean. That makes this a little less about political party than other stories.
9"05/1:20: Somewhat misplaced? How is pointing out that your evidence didn't support your argument misplaced?
And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say there is a "stark" contrast between the headlines. If you google both, there really is no difference in treatment.
Which is your "hometown" paper, The Post or the LA Times? It would help me a lot if you could clean up your writing so that I knew what you were talking about. Where in your first post did you refer to headlines?
Your LA Times example is a bad one. That's only one of the more recent articles on Spitzer from that paper. For you to argue the LA Times is biased (or any news outlet is biased), maybe you should offer evidence that it put the fact that Craig was a Republican in a headline? And maybe in a headline within 24 hours of Craig's scandal?
The NY Times, which has a reputation as being a liberal paper, was the paper that actually broke the story.
9:17 - admittedly, my writing wasn't the best this morning. Many of us don't have the time to lay out our arguments to your exacting standards. But let's just say that if you're not seeing the difference in the way major media outlets are treating this scandal and Craig's, you're in willing disbelief.
CNN's headlines were awash with referenes to the GOP and Republican party during Craig fiasco. The Post had a headline reading "GOP Sen. Pleaded Guilty After Restroom Arrest." Today? "Pressure Mounts for Sp. Resignation." Underneath the headline, "NY Republican threatens to push for impeachment." Do you really not see the difference there friendo? Gov of NY is facing violation of the Mann Act, a federal indictment and up to 20 years, not a misdemeanot lewdness charge. Care to comment?
I don't have exacting standards. Minimal competence is fine with me.
Again, you point to two misleading examples. First of all, The Post is not a liberal paper - if its coverage were as you describe it (which it is not), it tends to show that any media outlet, whether conservative or liberal, had differing coverage, which kind of defeats your point that the MSM is liberal. (I'm not conceding that you are right, but you also are under the assumption that Craig and Spitzer are equally-known. Spitzer is and was a nationally-known figure. Craig, despite holding national office, was not on the same level before his scandal as Spitzer. People know/knew Spitzer is a Democrat. Most didn't know Craig from a hole in the wall.)
Second, your broad characterization of the headlines is not evidence. It is your conclusion. As you've already shown, you relay information poorly and have bad judgment about whether pieces of information prove an argument.
What does the punishment of their crime have to do with whether the MSM mentions if they are a Democrat or a Republican? If you can't see that Spitzer and Craig's acts are approximately equal in their hypocrisy, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
". . . you also are under the assumption that Craig and Spitzer are equally-known. Spitzer is and was a nationally-known figure. Craig, despite holding national office, was not on the same level before his scandal as Spitzer. People know/knew Spitzer is a Democrat. Most didn't know Craig from a hole in the wall."
Exactly! A headline like "GOP Senator Pleaded Guilty After Restroom Arrest" makes sense because the name Craig would not mean anything to most people other than Idahoans and Hill groupies. A headline like "Democrat Spitzer Caught in Prostitution Bust" would seem almost as odd as "Democrat Clinton Lied About Sex With Intern" or "Democrat Ted Kennedy Caught in (Yet Another) Sex Scandal" - it insults the reader's intelligence.
I do think the media tends to have a liberal bias in general, but I don't see it in the reporting of this story.
What Post are you talking about, genius? The Washington Post is a liberal paper. At one point in its storied history it was the mouthpiece of the Democratic Party. Did you even look at the articles I mentioned or are you just spouting off at the mouth with no actual knowledge?
I've given you the WP's relative treatment of the two scandals. Can you address that? I could give you more, but I won't. I've wasted enough time talking to online Clarence Darrow today.
And you want to talk about assumptions? I have not assumed that Spitzer and Craig have the same degree of national prominence. Spitzer is more prominent, but hardly a household name. In fact, I would take issue with your assumption that Spitzer is a national figure. I think his fame is localized to the northeast and DC. I'd also take issue with your off-the-wall theory that the MSM identifies political party in cases where the politician is less prominent. Where's the evidence for that? You make that up?
If you think I'm characterizing headlines, you're absolutely right. I don't know how one would objectively determine the MSM's bias without some interpretive skills.
Been nice talking, 9:17. Enjoy that job in insurance defense.
9:05/1:20: Well, if you agree with me that Spitzer has more national prominence than Craig, then your Washington Post (there are other Posts, genius, including one in Spitzer's home state) headlines are as much evidence for the logical conclusion that "the MSM identifies political party in cases where the politician is less prominent" as for any sort of bias on the Washington Post's part. But the headlines you cite are essentially no support for either proposition, because the sample size is too small to be significant.
By the way, I didn't actually argue the conclusion that "the MSM identifies political party in cases where the politician is less prominent" in my post. I only set out the facts. YOU arrived at that conclusion based on those facts. Oddly, the only fact that you took exception to - that Spitzer is nationally known - does not undermine the conclusion you reached, since the Washington Post caters to the geographic region where you acknowledge Spitzer is famous.)
Thank you for stopping. It's hasn't been easy to chase you from one position to the next all afternoon. I'm glad you've given up.
I agree with 2:51. Who came up with this theory that less well-known politicos who get embroiled in scandal are more likely to be affiliated with their party regardless of party affiliation? Two examples that cut against that are Rep. Jefferson from Louisiana and Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. I didn't even know Jefferson was a Democrat until he ran for reelection and I was in La.
Actually, one more thing.
9:17 - So, you were referring to the wrong Post and therefore you implicitly admit you were shooting your mouth off. Go ahead, admit that you were spouting bile and hadn't even read the right healines or articles. Hahahaha. Are you also that clueless a lawyer (student)? You have no credibility; you were referring to the wrong paper when you made your posts! (BTW, for future reference, when people in the know refer to the Post, they're referring to the WP, as in the Big Three, as in WSJ, NYT and WP.)
And let's talk about bias shall we? By assuming it was the rag NY Post I was referring to, you've shown your bias that you either live or are from NY. Hmmmm, a person affiliated with NY thinks that Spitzer's a household name all accross the country. Imagine that.
Now, I'm done.
9:17 and 9:05/1:20 are just mad at each other because one of them suggested the other should run on the ticket as the vice president, while the other one's associates made some racially-charged comments.
Its getting pretty ugly.
Actually, 1:20, I was assuming that you had the wherewithall to track down a headline. Papers produce headlines on big stories as soon as there is anything else to report. I looked at the NY Post's coverage of Craig and Spitzer, and concluded that there were multiple headlines for each. I did not isolate each of your headlines, but assumed they were in among the rest. Now I realize that I should not have assumed that about you.
You were not clear in your posts which paper you were talking about. I wasn't the only one who made that mistake. You are talking about a NY politician, widely covered in the NY papers. You referred to the Post. You did not give me any reason to believe (and still haven't) that you are "in the know". You didn't give me any context to suggest that you were referring to the Washington Post and not the NY Post. Why would I assume you were referring to the Washington Post?
I'm not from NY state. I moved here within the last couple years. Where I come from, Eliot Spitzer is a household name. Anyone who has appeared in national publications as often as he has, for the reasons he has, is a national figure. You can argue that if you want, but what's the point? You're not winning any ground based on it. You've lost the broader argument, so now you're picking nits.
Each of my errors has been a result of your writing. Like I said, please write better.
Im most offended by how much he overpaid.
In Miami-- 160-200 for FS
Guess his Daddy gave him a big piggy bank.
RIP Eliot
9:17 - totally called out. Lulz.
On what, 7:47?
7:47 = 9:05
Maybe Sen. Clinton can impress on Gov. Spitzer's wife some of her EXPERIENCE.
7:47, 9:05, 9:17, 1:20, et al. -
You guys may think your pretty smart with all this talk about which Post is The Post, and whether somebody has or has not been called out, but answer me this:
Was the girl who spilled the drink a summer associate or not? Nobody has ever resolved that to my satisfaction.
11:22 - Well played, sir. Well played.
You can’t be serious 9:17. You truly don’t see how your mistaken belief that I was referring to the NY Post instead of the WP undermines your entire argument? (I’ve read the various posts on this thread and it wasn’t sloppy writing that led to your mistake; it was pure assumption of your part.)
First, you argue that 1) the “Post” isn’t a liberal paper and therefore doesn’t support my argument; 2) that I’ve been mischaracterizing the headlines and articles and 3) my sample size is too small. Your first argument is simply wrong because you were mistaken to the facts. Your second argument is undermined because you haven’t read the headlines or articles that I cited. (In fact, I listed a number of media outlets, which had differing coverage of the two scandals; I assume you ignored those as well.) Even your flimsy reply that you assumed the headlines were accurate is undermined because you have clue as to whether the headlines I mentioned were representative of trend (which they were) or anomalies. Further, you have no clue as to the tone of the articles themselves because you didn’t read them.
As to your third argument, I provided numerous points of comparison, other than the direct comparison of WP headlines—CNN, the LAT, Boston G, etc., which I can only assume you also failed to read. There are only so many MSM outlets in this country; I’ve provided a decent sample size. Please feel free to provide some evidence to the contrary, like, I don’t know, a lesser known democratic pol who’s embroiled in a scandal and is branded as D-crat over and over again in the headlines? Maybe Kilpatrick in Det?
Finally, you've managed to demonstrate that you’re not a fair judge as to whether Sp. is a national figure or not.
I rest. My case.
9:05: Here is where you started: "I like how Sen. Craig was branded a hypocrite, liar and criminal (which he is) by the major media outlets, who never failed to mention he was a Republican. The Post waits until the second paragraph of its story to mention Spitz's political affiliation and the headline reads 'Prost. Sting Nicks Spitzer.'"
I pointed out that on it's face your argument made no sense, because it is internally contradicts itself. You acknowledge that they mentioned Spitzer's political affiliation.
Then you backtracked and started focusing on "headlines" and ad hominems: "To address your (somewhat misplaced) point, I didn't have time to lay out the litany of headlines that I've seen on this, all of which conveniently fail to mention Spitzer's political party. I chose my hometown paper as the source. If you care to check out the LA Times headline (which somehow makes the GOP look like the agressor - GOP tells Spitzer to resign of face impeachment) the Boston Globe, CNN.com, MSNBC, any number of sources, all of those headlines support my conclusion. Now do a goole search for headlines on Larry Craig and see how many times "Republican" is used to describe him in the headline. The contrast is stark. Newsflash - the major media is biased and hugely pro-Democrat."
In response, I argued (and you haven't contradicted) that your LA Times argument was a bad one (which it is), and that Google didn't produce the results you claimed it did (which it doesn't). You can't cherrypick headlines - each paper has tens (and now hundreds) of headlines on the Spitzer and Craig incidents.
Still focusing on HEADLINES, you abandoned your earlier arguments (LA Times, Google), and pushed for CNN and "the Post" (check one of the stories posted today on ATL referring to "the Post" and meaning NY Post): "CNN's headlines were awash with referenes to the GOP and Republican party during Craig fiasco. The Post had a headline reading "GOP Sen. Pleaded Guilty After Restroom Arrest." Today? "Pressure Mounts for Sp. Resignation." Underneath the headline, "NY Republican threatens to push for impeachment.""
I assumed (reasonably, but incorrectly) that you were referring to the NY Post, since we were talking about a NY politician and the NY papers have lead the coverage of this story. I checked the Posts' headlines, concluded there were many, and got a general sense of their flavor, and then responded that you mischaracterized the general thrust of the headlines. Two cherrypicked headlines from a single paper's coverage of two intensely covered scandals does not prove a MSM liberal bias.
Losing on the merits, you attacked me for not having read the headlines OR ARTICLES (for which you only cited the headlines, not the articles), which I assumed were there: "9:17 - So, you were referring to the wrong Post and therefore you implicitly admit you were shooting your mouth off. Go ahead, admit that you were spouting bile and hadn't even read the right healines or articles. Hahahaha. Are you also that clueless a lawyer (student)? You have no credibility; you were referring to the wrong paper when you made your posts! (BTW, for future reference, when people in the know refer to the Post, they're referring to the WP, as in the Big Three, as in WSJ, NYT and WP.)"
I responded, saying I assumed (which I did) that you were correct that the headlines you cited existed. Of course, my point was that even if those headlines exist, you mischaracterized the overall coverage. Of course, I was not looking at the paper you were citing, because you did not specify which "Post" you were referring to, which you should have. (I'll point out that others made and continue to make the same assumption I did in this thread and subsequent threads).
Only now do you refer to the "tone" of the articles, when before you cited only headlines. The only way to actually determine whether there is a MSM bias is to do a comprehensive study. You are willing to take isolated headlines out of context to "prove" your point, when anyone who has half a brain knows that that is not enough. And if you look at the hundreds headlines from the Washington Post on each incident, there is essentially no pattern at all.
And Spitzer IS a national figure. Is this not a national story? Why is it a national story? Would it be a national story if Spitzer were not already a national figure? Lots of state politicians have been busted for prostitution and never get a quarter of the publicitly this is getting. Did you even check the MSM coverage I cited on this issue?
Your case (to the extent you even have a single case - you keep hiding the ball) is bad. You Lose.
Well, you get an "A" for effort. Sorry, I actually don't have the time to respond to this much carping. Suffice it to say that this this point is the single most dubious you've made:
"And Spitzer IS a national figure. Is this not a national story?"
If you remember the thread was discussing those figures who were national in reputation before the story broke. Hence references to Craig, Jefferson and Kilpatrick as not being national figures and the Pres, etc. as national figures, before any media coverage.
"Why is it a national story? Would it be a national story if Spitzer were not already a national figure?"
This is a circular reasoning and pure hogwash. By this rationale, Monica Lewinsky, Joey Buttafuoco and John Bobbitt must have been national figures before they were in the news. Why else would their stories have turned into national stories? Sorry, but one does not have to be a national figure for one's indiscretions to turn into a national story.
I think the whole national figure thing is beside point, anyway. It was one theory floated by a poster as to why MSM coverage of some Rep scandals tends to focus more on that person's political affiliation. I don't agree with that theory, because, as others have pointed out, it doesn't seem to apply to Jefferson and K. Kilpatrick, who are both Dems and, incidentally, were not national figures until the stories broke.
Seriously, gotta run. It's been fun.
You've attacked the one point that is immaterial to your defense. It is also not a strong point for you, since you already acknowledged that Spitzer was a figure in DC, the home of the paper you cited most loudly. You also happen to be wrong about it. But I'm glad you are finally leaving after claiming you were going to stop for about four posts now.
This is dumb. But I guess I'll play along.
It's a national story because it's scandalous. Yes, Spitzer is probably an uncommonly well known governor, in part because the NY gov is usually more prominent than other states, and in part because he he well known in the business world. But he is far from a "household name." Politicos, lawyers and business people across the country know him. The majority of the people who voted for H. Clinton in Ohio probably don't.
All of that is beside the point anyway. This has been poorly argued on sides -- sorry fellas.
There have been media studies, however, that do indicate that MSM touts the politicial affiliation of Republicans and conservatives caught in scandal, while failing to mention, or burying, the party affiliation of Dems caught in scandal.