Well, if I hadn't spitzered myself...
Now, Barack, I made a mistake, but...
What's the wash cycle for disgraced public figures these days? A year? Six months?
In what's maybe not a surprise, Eliot Spitzer seems to be testing the limits.
He pushed himself back into public life this weekend with a piece in the Washington Post about his advice for Barack Obama regarding the financial meltdown.
The short version: I was right.
A snip from the longer version:
The new president's team must soon get to the root causes of the mistakes that have brought us to the economic precipice. Yes, we have all derided the explosion of leverage, the failure to regulate derivatives, the flood of subprime lending that was bound to default and the excesses of CEO compensation. But these are all mere manifestations of three deeper structural problems that require greater attention: misconceptions about what a "free market" really is, a continuing breakdown in corporate governance and an antiquated and incoherent federal financial regulatory framework.
Last sentence:
Although mistakes I made in my private life now prevent me from participating in these issues as I have in the past, I very much hope and expect that President Obama and his new administration will have the strength and wisdom to do again what FDR did.
(And, hey, maybe we shouldn't completely count him out. Though his backstory would seem to clash with the "No Drama Obama" approach.)
As it happens, that "mistake" will be on TV this Friday. She'll be talking with Diane Sawyer on 20/20 after reportedly being compensated for "archival footage." Even so, the interview apparently contains few juicy bits about Spitzer.
Earlier on AOA:
+ Eliot Spitzer hails his own cabs now.
+ A new definition for screwing up
Say Something!
We'd really like you to take part in the conversation here at All Over Albany. But we do have a few rules here. Don't worry, they're easy. The first: be kind. The second: treat everyone else with the same respect you'd like to see in return. Cool? Great, post away. Comments are moderated so it might take a little while for your comment to show up. Thanks for being patient.
Comments
Eliot Spitzer, please go away. Because you're annoying me. Why don't you call up John Edwards and discuss your opinion with him instead of taking it to the papers? There's a 200% chance he has nothing better going on, and I'm sure you guys would have a lot to talk about.
Diane Sawyer, this passes as journalism? Why is this interview worth our time? I'm pretty sure the donkey at Chuck E. Cheese has more relevant things to say.
... said Pantaloons on Nov 17, 2008 at 11:54 AM | link
Two points: 1. He was right. 2. Her 15 minutes of fame have expired...
Let's move on and give him credit where it is due. His transgression(s) may have been inexplicable, but and it's a doozy- what he did to hold the financial industry accountable pales in comparison with the inaction of feds.
As NY Attorney General, he acted where they did not.
And here we are - With a paralyzed economy, budget deficits and bailouts galore.
... said Delmaron on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:20 PM | link
Maybe He'll run for AG again. Imagine how much fun he would be having with the meltdown.
It's not like he's a convicted felon or anything .
... said komradebob on Nov 17, 2008 at 12:46 PM | link
Spitzer was and is completely right about regulation in the financial sector. Yet his amazing stupidity and poor judgment about other matters render his point of view on this and any other issue completely irrelevant to the vast majority of people, no matter how correct or well-reasoned his opinions may be.
His final paragraph sounds like he is fishing for a way back into public life, so that his "private mistakes" no longer prevent him from "participating". Its irritating to me that he seems to presume, less than a year after his big debacle, that we can't get along without his wisdom.
Hey, maybe if Hillary Clinton becomes Secretary of State, Patterson will appoint Spitzer to her Senate spot!
... said Elizabeth on Nov 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM | link
Seriously, I don't care who he slept with or how much he paid. If he's right, he's right. All the ad hominem is getting ridiculous.
Just because he spent an evening or evenings with a pro does NOT mean that his opinions or policy views are any less valid. I have liked Patterson so far, but I wish that Spitzie had stuck around. I like him.
... said Erik on Nov 17, 2008 at 8:09 PM | link
Erik, it's not that he cheated on his wife (because, like you, I couldn't care less about infidelity in politics). It's that he got caught in the very trap he helped create! He's like Wylie Coyote from Looney Tunes putting a stick of dynamite in a dress in order to fool the road runner, but suddenly falling in love with it moments before it explodes in his face.
... said Pantaloons on Nov 17, 2008 at 9:29 PM | link
If senators that steel money from their constituents and assist in destroying the middle class can keep their positions of power, why can't a guy who did the horrible thing of sleeping with a hooker? I know that its illegal. But so is pretty much everything the Bush admin did and we let them keep their jobs for 8 years. If Spitzer is right, and can do the job, who cares? Everyone in Washington is probably guilty of some horrible and immoral behavior anyhow, so what's one more? And furthermore, what if he can actually help?
... said EllieB on Nov 18, 2008 at 6:57 AM | link
I don't get why anyone would think, or assume anyone else thinks, that Spitzer's screwup was the morally debatable transgression of buying sex. The screwup was that he could be so stupid as to think that he could get away with breaking the law, especially with all the political enemies he had gunning for him.
This man purposefully built his entire career on the image of himself as a law enforcer, chasing crooks. For him to know this, and still break the law himself, especially in such a politically damaging way (what newspaper doesn't love a political sex scandal), indicates incredibly poor judgment.
Which is why I, among others, am annoyed by him.
... said Elizabeth on Nov 18, 2008 at 10:56 AM | link
No no, ellie, you need to learn the rules of the new morality.
Sex between a man and a woman are wrong. Oral sex between a man and a woman are wrong. Spending too much money on a haircut is wrong. Men propositioning men in public restrooms is okay. Propositioning aides via email and text message is okay. Tax evasion is okay. Revealing identifying information about undercover operatives is okay.
If your middle name is the same as the last name of a really bad guy, you're just as bad as he is. But if you were involved in a savings and loan scandal and divorced your wife after a disfiguring accident to marry a younger woman a month later, you are qualified to be the president.
Just don't have heterosexual sex with that woman!
... said B on Nov 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM | link