See the previous entry. It appears that the wiretaps involving Governor Spitzer developed out of a public corruption investigation (although the full facts are surely not yet known).
What is the reaction of the left? I can tell you because I heard 45 seconds (leterally no more than a minute) of the Alan Colmes radio program last night--inadevertently.
It is the KEN STARR defense. Attack the prosecutors/investigators. This, of course, changes nothing about the conduct of Governor Spitzer. The prosecutors/investigators in this case appear to have acted with much more justification and reasonableness than that which characterized Spitzer's overbearing tactics as a prosecutor. But Spitzer's conduct is the same, whether anyone else did anything "wrong" or not.
Yes, a caller to Colmes, with approving nods from Colmes, accused Republicans of being out to "get" Spitzer, and falling back on SEX (shades of Monica Lewinsky) when they could not get him on anything else. Colmes even then brought up the question of whether searches involving Spitzer were legal--as if that had anything to do, either, with Spitzer's conduct. Alan Colmes remains a leftist politcal hack doing nothing more than regurgitate leftist "talking points".
This time it is not going to fly. Governor Spitzer evidently had extensive dealings with a prostitution ring (as a customer) AS GOVERNOR. As attorney general of New York, Spitzer had prosecuted such prostitution rings, and had called them a courge upon society in strong termes. Spitzer was well aware that such rings are often connected to organized crime (in addition to constituting organized crime in and of themselves). For a serving governor to involve himself with such an operation goes beyond mere sex.
Did not Sptizer have an obligatioin to report this criminal organization to the authorities? Was this not going to create extraordinary conflict of interest/blackmail problems if this organnization was under investigation in New York and came to Spitzer for help--with threats of exposure of Spitzer? The full facts may make it obvious that Spitzer was violating the public trust in more ways than are even now apparent. But it is already apparent that a sitting governor has no business patronizing a prostitution ring.
I have said before that we pay too much attention to seexual indiscretions. I stand by that. Hoever, Governor Spitzer has probably gone over the line separating private misconduct from public misconduct. He did not just pick up a prostitute on the street (whcih I would regard as unsavory, but having little to do with his job as governor--even though you could argue that Spitzer has an obligation to enforce the law as governor). Spitzer trasported a call girl across state lines, and engaged in substantial dealings with a criminal enterprise. Although I am not as outraged as conservative talk show hosts (with their own hypocrisy issues), I can see where this type of conduct is unacceptable in a governor.
Contrast that with David Vitter (Senator from Louisiana who patronized a D.C. madam YEARS BEFORE as a Congressman). Vitter, of course, was not in an executive position responsible for enforcing the laws. Plus, Vitter's name clealy came out because of a VENDATTA by one of the most slezy and reprehensible characters in America today: Larry Flynt. However, the mainstream media, and leftists like Colmes, were perfectly willing to get into bed with a total sleazeball like Flynt, using the usual "hypocrisy" charge against Vitter also used against Senator Larry Craig in an even more minor incident (with MUCH more indication of entrapment than Spitzer--another defendant caught int he same "sting" as Craig was ACQUITTED on the grounds that the police officer initiated the contact; Craig--remember--only pled guilty to disorderly conduct).
Hypocrisy? As I have said before, "hypocrisy" is an overrated "sin" with regard to personal, moral lapses. We are ALL hypocrites. It is a greater sin when the hypocrisy is a type of intellectual DISHONESTY. This is the type of hypocrisy Alan Colmes was showing, as he lets his political agenda color his view of that Spitzer has done. Yes, conservative talk show hosts often act the same way. That does not make it right.
Governor Spitzer recently PROSECUTED prostitution rings. He ran for governor as a squeaky clear reformer. He then put himself in the postion of extensive dealings with a criminal enterprise of the type he had prosecuted. This raises hypocrisy to a whole new level. Still, I think if is a mistake to consider "hypocrisy" as Spitzer's "crimes" (as I believe Repubicans have to stop considering it irredeemable "hypocrisy" for a person to fall from moral grace). The question is NOT "hypocrisy". The question is whether Spitzer's conduct crosses the line into public misconduct--for which a good case can be made.
The real, indefensible hypocrisy here is that intellectual dishonesty of leftists like Alan Colmes--trying to defend Spitzer by attacking the prosecutors. Colmes knows exactly what he is doing. It is not a fall from more grace. It is deliberate intellectual dishonesty based on politics. Colmes is willing to get in bed with scum like Larry Flynt, as are the mainstream media, in condemning David Vitter for an old "sin" less serious than that of Spitzer (using the "hypocraisy" excuse), and then Colmes twists himself into logical and moral knows trying to defend the much worse conduct (including worse hypocrisy) of Governor Spitzer. Larry Craig is not even in the ballpark, in terms of his minor alleged misconduct.
Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat (leftist). Hypocrisy, thy name is Alan Colmes.
No comments:
Post a Comment