Gay Patriot Header Image

Eliot Spitzer, Larry Craig, Sex and Circumstance

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 7:31 pm - March 11, 2008.
Filed under: Democratic Scandals,National Politics

Welcome Instapundit Readers!! 

During the last sex scandal involving a prominent politician, I contended that the real issue was not so much the scandal’s lurid details or the politician’s hypocrisy, but Idaho Senator Larry Craig’s “absence of judgment.” Here again, the issue seems to be judgment, but there is much more to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s woes than that.

If the only issue were the Democratic governor’s use of prostitutes, I might agree with his statement yesterday that this is “a private matter” where he, in his words, merely violated “obligations to my family and violates my, or any, sense of right and wrong.” To be sure, there would be the added issue of whether a man who took his marriage vow so lightly might also show a similar disregard for other vows he had taken, namely his oath of office of governor of New York.

Being pretty libertarian, I oppose the criminalization of prostitution. This is not to say I believe prostitution to be a good thing, just that I think it don’t think it should be illegal. On that score, Governor Spitzer’s actions are, as he said, a private mattter.

That said, however, this is a man who, for eight years, was chief law enforcer for the nation’s third largest state.  Such an individual should respect the laws–or use his position to push for their repeal. Not only that. A state attorney general chooses the cases he prosecutes.  And he chose to prosecute “at least two prostitution rings as head of the state’s organized crime task force.

That’s not all. He appears to have involved in structuring, moving money around to “obscure the true purpose of his payments” to the prostitutes. The issue here was as much financial as it was sexual (Via Instapundit).

If Larry Craig’s foot-tapping had not been in a public place, that would indeed have been a private matter and not merited media scrutiny. And for the Idaho Republican, it wasn’t just that one episode. He had been the subject of rumors regarding similar behavior in another public restroom ten months nearly a year before his scandal broke. That should have served as a reminder to him that what one does in a public space could easily become public knowledge.

As Governor Spitzer, ambitious man that he is, should also have been aware that would he called a “private matter” could easily become public knowledge. I mean, he prosecuted not one, but two, prostitution rings.

Or was it his arrogance? Like another smart and politically savvy Democrat, did he think he could get away with his sexual shenaningans?


Why Hillary is Silent on Spitzer

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 4:18 pm - March 11, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Democratic Scandals

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!

Since declining comment yesterday on the woes of the governor of her adopted home state, Hillary Clinton has remained mum on this disgraced Democrat. (H/t Glenn Reynolds’ excellent list of links on this scandal.)

No wonder. This is a “nightmare for Hillary,” as Roger Simon puts it, since “this kind of public sexual hypocrisy reminds people of one person only more than others: William Jefferson Clinton.”

She just can’t come out and say Spitzer should resign. That might come across as forced and hypocritical given how she continually stood by her man when his various indiscrettions came to light.

This scandal makes Americans wonder if we want a repeat of the 1990s, having the drama of an unfaithful Chief Executive (in this case, First Spouse) back on center stage, along with the scandals associated with her husband’s Administration.

Democratic scandals remind voters of the downside of the Clinton years. And this particular one more so than many of the less reported ones.

UPDATE: In linking this post, Eugene Volokh finds it “hard to condemn” Hillary for her silence, finding it a “loyal” “kind” and “political savvy thing to do.” He offers other reasons for her silence, including this one: “Any substantive statements she makes on this topic seem likely to play into the common public image of her as schoolmarmish and scolding.” Good points all.

Once Again, Athena Tackles Hera

Based on Minoan and Mycenaean seals and other artifacts from the Bronze Age, many scholars believe that the Greek goddess Hera was once equal (if not superior) to her divine consort, known in the classical age as Zeus. And many feminists and Clinton acolytes see the former First Lady as this kind of Hera.

Hillary, however, more closely resembles the Hera of classical antiquity, the unhappy wife jealous of her husband’s many extramarital activities. Meanwhile, columnist Peggy Noonan well resembles Athena, the wise daughter of Zeus, daughter to Metis the goddess of wisdom. This Athena has been taking on her spiritual stepmother for at least the past decade, having penned in 2000, The Case Against Hillary Clinton.

In her latest column, this modern incarnation of a Greek deity once again tackles her Olympian rival, explaining the reason’s for the former First Lady’s comeback:

She kept her own spirits up to the point of denial and worked it, hard, every day. She is hardy, resilient, tough. She is a train on a track, an Iron Horse. But we must not become carried away with generosity. The very qualities that impress us are the qualities that will make her a painful president. She does not care what you think, she will have what she wants, she will not do the feints, pivots and backoffs that presidents must. She is neither nimble nor agile, and she knows best. She will wear a great nation down.

In any case the Clinton campaign, which has always been more vicious than clever, this week did a very clever thing. They pre-empted any criticism of past scandals by pushing a Democratic Party button called . . . the Monica story. Mr. Obama is “imitating Ken Starr” by speaking of Mrs. Clinton’s record, said Howard Wolfson. But Ken Starr documented malfeasance. Mr. Obama can’t even mention it.

Peggy further notes that “Clinton surrogates . . . are unappealing when winning.” No wonder Jim Geraghty notes today that *Voters Prefer To Support Hillary When She’s Losing.” In national polls, Hillary lost ground to Obama since winning the Texas and Ohio primaries.

Check Jim’s post out. And make sure to read Peggy because even when she’s wrong, she makes a good point, just like her divine counterpart on Olympus.

Would Geraldine be where she is if she were a man?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:35 pm - March 11, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberals

Would Hillary?

Once again, Glenn Reynolds inspires a post. After posting my last piece, I checked my link to make sure it worked, then went to Instapundit’s main page where I caught this post: “‘GERALDINE FERRARO: ‘If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.’” (Glenn references this post which offers more of her comments, including some analysis.)

Ms. Ferraro owes her prominence in punditry to the fact that in 1984 Walter Mondale tapped her, a then-nationally unknown three-term Congresswoman, as his running mate. Many claim he did so because he thought having a woman on his ticket would give his campaign more energy. She was the first woman on a the ticket of a major party.

Now that she’s claiming that Senator Obama owes his prominence to his race, shouldn’t we be asking if she owes her prominence to her gender?

UPDATE: Seems like this has developed into a major national story, with the Obama camp calling on Hillary to fire Ferraro. I just think she needs answer the question posed in the title to this post and consider whether her candidate would be where she is were it not for her gender.

Um, Senator, they’re Clintonian tactics

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 1:15 pm - March 11, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Liberals

This morning, Glenn Reynolds linked a CBS report that, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination was accusing his chief rival of using “Republican tactics.” But, it seems Senator Obama must be assuming that since Mrs. Clinton is attacking a Democrat, she’s using Republican tactics.

A closer examination of her attacks on her opponent from Illinois, however, shows them to be consistent with the tactics her husband used against his rivals throughout his political career. Guess, Mr. Obama must not have been paying close attention to politics in the 1990s.

Throwing the kitchen sink at your opponent is what the Clintons do — and have done. Attacking your opponent instead of answering questions is a technique they have honed to perfection over the past sixteen years. As is accusing an opponent of using “Ken Starr tactics” to describe exactly the tactics they used to discredit that respect jurist.

Just because Ms. Hillary is attacking a Democrat doesn’t mean she’s acting like a Republican. Attacking a rival when you’re behind (or when you’re threatened with falling behind as was her husband in 1995 when he enlisted the Democratic National Committee to run ads attacking his likely and future GOP rival) is standard operating procedure for this power-hungry couple.