I have to tell you, there's a lot of indignation in Washington DC about the Spitzer mess. I went to see the Pogues last night, and then caught some drinks with various friends, and everyone was talking about it with varying degrees of outrage. We always knew that the man had a size twelve ego in a size four soul, but this really does take the cake. We welcome Governor Spitzer into our city, and he imports a prostitute from New York? That's the kind of regard in which he holds us? Who the hell does Eliot Spitzer think he is?
You know, we may never be Gotham, but we're actually pretty proud of our little city here--in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's the best damn city in . . . um . . . whatever region we're in. And we've got some darn fine businesses here, yes sir, darn fine. Eliot Spitzer may think that he's too good for DC prostitutes, but I'll put our working girls up against any brothel in the world--yes, seven days a week, and twice on Sundays. When I think of all the fine, hardworking local women putting themselves out there every day, just trying to feed their families and maybe buy a ski chalet in Gstaad, and then I think of Eliot Spitzer waltzing into our city with an illegal alien--well, I'll tell you one thing, he'll never be invited to a Chamber of Commerce bruncheon in this town again.
Nice comment, but how were the Pogues?
I kept hoping against hope that his press conference would include the words, "Damn b***h set me up!"
After the DC Madame debacle, can you blame him? The last thing a man his position can afford to do is end up in the news. Oh, wait...
I think it's disgusting that a Democrat, the party of the working-class, went to such a high end hooker! He coulda been helping some poor Mother get through med school or law school, or whatever school she was going to that required her "working" to pay her tuition!
I mean, that's really what it was all about, right? Just another politician helping about a needy constituent.
Hell, it worked for Clay Davis!
You think your city's getting dissed by this mess? I'm from Albany! I'm sure we have at least one attractive prostitute.
Hey! These hard-working women might have kids too! From John Gapper's blog (he cites from the actual Federal complaint):
So Spitzer might have been supporting a working (likely single) mother after all. See? Not so bad.
Now, how come that none of us, enlightened libertarians that we are, have expressed
outrage at the FBI assigning its preciously scarce, evil-doer-fighting resources (and tax-payers' money) to combat a high-end prostitution ring instead of where they might actually be useful protecting lives?
Well, we could raise that issue, but it would be factually dishonest. The FBI was investigating Spitzer's interesting financial transactions. Transactions that made it appear he was trying to hide the sources and uses of his cash, which made the Feds suspect bribery or other corruption. Even libertarians are against politicians making or receiving bribes, aren't we? Now, with 20/20 hindsight, it appears the only "corrupt" thing Spitzer was doing was trying to hide (from his wife?) his cash payments to the brothel. So, the FBI wasn't "wasting it's precious resources" any more than a wildcatter wastes money in drilling for oil and coming up with natural gas. They weren't looking for the type of criminal behavior Spitzer was engaged in, but should they now look the other way? The man appears to have knowingly broken several criminal laws. I doubt Spitzer, the prosecutor, would have given Spitzer, the perp, a break under these circumstances.
David,
First of all, I wholeheartedly agree with you: libertarians should be the first to rally against corruption of/by public officials. And second, you're right, my apologies: new info cleared up my picture. What I had been reading earlier suggested that the investigation had started as a prostitution case, and that Spitzer's transactions had been reported later and linked to this ongoing case. But then the NYT reported that things were sparked by Spitzer's transactions. Elsewhere, in my blog, I had explicitly made the caveat that my peeve would NOT hold if the investigation had started as a corruption case; but here, instead, I got cheeky: your correction serves me right.