Blow by blow of madam’s contacts with Spitzer and with prostitute

The most detailed account of the federal investigation of the prostitution ring that (to the investigators’ surprise) implicated Gov. Elliot Spitzer of New York was provided by the New York Times and is copied at the Corner. From the conversations reported here, Spitzer, who paid the prostitute $4,300 for 2 1/2 hours of her company, evidently had been a customer before and was planning to be a customer again.

- end of initial entry -

Ron L., who is active in New York State politics, writes:

Spitzer is a thug laid low by hubris.

He went after Wall Street firms for non-crimes, finding leftist judges who would crate-law by interpreting narrow statutes for different purposes. It’s been called ex post facto demagoguery but became a shakedown deal for funds for the state Democratic party and Spitzer’s campaign fund.

Spitzer turned illegal aliens into a protected class. Not only did he want to give illegals driver’s licenses, but he forced companies to give said illegals a paid holiday for politicking.

As governor, Spitzer then used the State Police to keep track of his political opponents and rivals. Unfortunately the voters of NY have looked the other way. [LA replies: How can Ron say this? Spitzer’s misuse of the State Police against Senate Majority Leader Bruno has dominated NY State politics for the last six or eight months.]

One of the few good things he did as Attorney General was to treat prostitution rings as organized crime. It is ironic that this is what has taken him down.

For whenever the anger of divine spirits harms someone, it first does this: it steals away his mind and good sense, and turns his thought to foolishness, so that he should know nothing of his mistakes.
—Sophocles, Antigone

LA replies:

There no doubt that Spitzer at his core is a thug—a leftist thug.

Spitzer’s model is less Bill Clinton than Hugh Chavez.

Ben W. writes:

Ahem, you do realize the irony of your title concerning Spitzer, i.e. the first three words…

Mark K. writes:

So does this mean that Spitzer’s presidential ambitions are derailed? Or could he make a comeback through proper contrition and humanitarian acts?

Mark K. continues:

Martha Stewart has her revenge!

LA replies:

I forget—was Stewart prosecuted by State or Federal authorities?

Either way, I thought her prosecution and imprisonment were wrong and I said so repeatedly.

N. writes:

Did you notice that Spitzer at his press conference laid the most emphasis on how he had violated his standards? Not the standards of society, not his wife’s trust in his marriage vow, but his standards. Evidently he does not live on planet Earth, but on planet Spitzer.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes him to commence rehab of some sort. Will he make a pilgrimage to Billy-Jeff Clinton’s office in Harlem? Will he arrange for a retreat with Jesse Jackson? Perhaps he’ll undergo treatment for “sex addiction,” then appear on Oprah to celebrate his changed life?

The only thing I see holding Spitzer back is he apparently is rather short on genuine friends in New York State. Of course, in the old days he’d have to leave and never return.

LA replies:

No, he said his behavior “violated my, or any, standards of right and wrong.”

LA continues:

At the same time, I have to agree with N. that there is something inappropriate and revealing in Spitzer’s saying that he had “failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself,” rather than the standards of society, law, morality, religion, and so on:

“I have acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong,” the governor said. “I apologize first and most importantly to my family. I apologize to the public to whom I promised better.”

“I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family.”

Ron L. replies:

Thank you for posting my comment. I understand your response but disagree. I never said that New Yorkers didn’t know about some of Spitzer’s indiscretions, only that they don’t care. His approval ratings improved in time and with his help, the Democrats have picked up what used to be a safe Republican Senate seat and held a marginal seat.

Opinion pools are pointless. Spitzer won at the ballot box and is only in trouble now because of his hypocrisy, not his sin.

From: Daniel H.
Subject: I feel sorry for the guy….I just see a hapless schmuck

This sentimentality is a probably a sign of some quiescent liberalism in me. I know that he was a mean, petty and vindictive liberal; a Giuliani with twice the brains. But I feel pity for him. He has damaged his family, which should be, and probably is, most important to him. Let him find humility, ask for forgiveness, make contrition and move on. He can only become a better man.

LA replies:

I wonder if Daniel H. is rushing to pity too quickly. Spitzer is a ruthless, egomanical person, who boasted of being a “f——g steamroller” who would roll over anyone who got in his way and crush him. He’s very smart, very aggressive, very successful, screwing everyone he sees as his enemies while seeking his own, claiming superior morality as his license for harming others while having none himself, as well as pursuing a career of apparently a steady line of assignations with ultra pricey prostitutes over a period of at least many months, maybe years. How can such a person be described as a hapless anything?

What evidence do we see in Spitzer of humility, self-examination, contrition? Shouldn’t we at least see some signs of such qualities in him before we express confidence in his moral renewal?

LA writes:

Covering the Elliot Spitzer scandal on “Nightline,” Terry Moran had on the Hollywood Madam, Heidi Fleiss, and, in an earnest tone suggesting he had just arrived in this solar system yesterday, asked her, “Why do men do this?” Fleiss answered matter of factly, as you would expect a madam to do, “Men think about sex 99 percent of the time. They want to get laid.” During the course of the brief interview, she must have said, “Men want to get laid,” five or six times.

I had mixed feelings about hearing this language on TV. While it is not suited for polite company, the expression “to get laid” is far more real and human than the politically correct phrase “to have sex,” which is one of the most soulless, dehumanizing, and, indeed, de-sexualizing phrases ever coined by man. However, it doesn’t belong on TV, and the fact that ABC allowed it is another mark of our decline.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 10, 2008 05:53 PM | Send