Client 9's Options

The public pressure on Mr. Spitzer to resign will be enormous, if only because he has set new records for self-righteousness among American politicians.

He would seem to have few other options in an atmosphere where Democrats are poised to take over the State Senate, although perhaps he can pull a Berlusconi and seek to repeal the Mann Act or have prostitution legalized.

Why was David Vitter allowed to stay in the U.S. Senate despite his prostitutional inclinations? Perhaps Spitzer's reputation for crime fighting trumps Vitter's moralizing. To me, both hypocrises are equivalent and fairly irrelevant.

There is a script to these things.

First, the politician acknowedges the gravity of the infraction. Mr. Spitzer's brief public statement did not do so. This isn't about prostitution. It's about -- allegedly -- Gambino crime family money laundering.

Then the politician apologizes for unspecified obligation failings. This, Mr. Spitzer did.

Then the politician retreats into a period of solitude, and then acknowledges some congenital defect or longstanding condition, such as alcoholism. TBD.

Public pressure, aided and abetted by the media, mounts. TBD.

The politician either figures out what the public wants, or he does not -- and proceeds accordingly. TBD.

Comments

How long before Dick Morris is brought in as a talking head?

Would he be that shameless?

Nevermind.

Posted by nogoatee | March 10, 2008 3:55 PM

Why was David Vitter allowed to stay in the U.S. Senate despite his prostitutional inclinations? Perhaps Spitzer's reputation for crime fighting trumps Vitter's moralizing. To me, both hypocrises are equivalent and fairly irrelevant.

Huh? This isn't about reputation (though, don't get me wrong, reputational factors sure aren't going to help Spitzer here); this is at least partially, and perhaps most seriously, about Spitzer as AG enforcing the laws criminalizing prostitution.

You don't put people in jail for drug use, then smoke a fatty on the weekends. You simply do not do it. That's hypocrisy of the highest order for a public official.

This isn't about prostitution.

It's not?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 10, 2008 3:59 PM

How sad, he did this the day before Valentine's Day.

Posted by Kris | March 10, 2008 4:03 PM

Right now, Spitzer's biggest problem is that he has no friends in NY who will go to ball for the guy, he's had a lousy first year and the public's suffering buyer's remorse, and the Democrats don't want this distraction when they're set up for the fall so well and Patterson is a historic choice for Governor well-qualified despite having his own issues.

Spitzer not resigning today was about him seeing what it'll take to stay, yes, but I wouldn't be surprised if he were gone by the end of the week baring any change in this dynamic.

His best hope is tying this up to the WH Attorney scandal and saying this was wrong; but this was a Rove trick kinda thing. I don't know if that'll fly. But I've already seen a post like this at Kos.

Posted by Rhoda | March 10, 2008 4:04 PM

What an idiot. Spitzer should resign.

Vitter could not resign because there was a Democratic governor at the time who would have replaced him with a Dem.

Posted by chris | March 10, 2008 4:08 PM

But, why has Vitter not yet resigned then.

And, waitwaitwaitwait ... where is the allegation that Spitzer is somehow helping the Gambino crime family launder money? That's what the indictment may be about, but it's not what Spitzer's phone call to empire VIP is about.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | March 10, 2008 4:13 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong here but Vitter wasn't implicated in a federal investigation. Additionally the phrase "prostitution ring" carries a much higher shame burden than "escort service." Also, Spitzer is in a much higher profile position as governor of NY so the media reception will be much greater.

Posted by Robert | March 10, 2008 4:34 PM

Another difference from the Vitter case is that Vitter's alleged, documented liaison was far enough back that the statute of limitations has passed. OTOH, Spitzer's allegedly happened last month, so he could face indictment.

Posted by Josh Barro | March 10, 2008 5:12 PM

"Unsafe", does that mean he was a gulper and not a Spitzer?

Posted by Dato | March 10, 2008 5:40 PM

Why is this different from Vitter? Simple:

Spitzer, a Democrat, would be succeeded by another Democrat, in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

Vitter, a Republican, would have been replaced by a Democrat, despite a Republican constituency (and in the face of a highly polarized senate).

Voters don't like infidelity or other "immoral" behavior from their politicians, but in the grand scheme of things they care more about keeping their representatives in line with their policy preference. If axing Spitzer would put a conservative in office, he'd be staying right where he is. But with a Dem as lt gov, they can go ahead and toss Spitzer overboard.

Posted by SN | March 10, 2008 6:45 PM

Re: Vitter
Vitter was exposed in 2007 for patronizing the D.C. madam between 1999 and 2001. Unlike Spitzer, Vitter wasn't facing imminent prosecution, because the statute of limitations had run. Also, Vitter's party rallied behind him, because if they didn't and Vitter resigned, the Democratic governor of Louisiana would have appointed a Democrat in Vitter's place. Not so here, as Democratic Lt. Governor David Patterson is next in line. Also, I don't know that the Democrats in the New York legislature have any special affection for Spitzer.

Posted by Will @ Situationville | March 10, 2008 8:27 PM

Should we say it or spell it? Oh, I guess we should spell it in case the kids are listening in the hall:

B-L-A-C-K-M-A-I-L!

This is a former U.S. Attorney, a former Attorney General of the State of New York, and the current Governor of that state who without question had his eyes on the White House. And he's caught up in a Federal probe into not a prostitution ring but into organized crime activity!

If he can prove it was the first time he should simply resign. If, as seems likely, it was not the first time he should be prosecuted, fined very heavily, and sentenced to do some time.

Posted by Larry McD | March 10, 2008 8:57 PM

Normally, FBI would suppress name(s) of prominent political figures involved in a sexual services investigation. A few weeks ago, Eliot Spitzer appeared before an open hearing of the Senate Banking Committee, where he threatened to decertify several "monolines", i.e., mortgage insurance guarantors, from operating in New York state unless they were sufficiently recapitalized in a matter of days. Needless to say, such a decertification would have caused a falling domino-like scenario of bankers and fund managers rushing to sell billions of downgraded
mortgage paper into an already collapsing market(cf:this week's Barron's).
But, gee, since we the American public have been informed the Mr. Spitzer is one of the very few senior politicians to have ever engaged the services of a call girl, I guess his decertification threat has become moot, huh?

Posted by CUI BONO | March 10, 2008 11:42 PM

Just thinking out loud here...

If you were Eliot Spitzer, and you knew you were going down in flames sooner or later, surely you'd give a heads-up to the presidential candidate you support, no? Of course you would. You would twist and wring it for any political gain, even something like this. Is it inconceivable to think that Spitzer decided to go ahead with this today in response to Obama slamming Clinton the day before a primary?

I'm probably too cynical here... what am I missing?

Posted by socctty | March 11, 2008 12:54 AM

Now wait a minute, Ambinder. Your credibility is at stake here. What is this wild accusation about "money laundering for the Gambino family"? The guy is accused of being a john, meeting a trick in DC for $3500. I mean, yeah, for shame for shame and all that. But I hope you have at least a shred of evidence, because it's not in the indictment. At all.

Posted by Tom Traubert | March 11, 2008 6:31 AM