Making Larry Craig Look Good
A lot of people are playing a game right now: Who's worse? In one corner, Bill Clinton, in the other, Eliot Spitzer.
I actually don't have an opinion. However, I do feel that what's most offensive about both are not the inciting incidents, but related issues of how they comported themselves.
posted by LAGuy @ 1:08 AM
6 Comments:
One interesting wrinkle is that Spitzer, as AG, in 2004 was prosecuting two high-end prostitution rings that presumably were the direct competitors of his service provider of choice. This meant that he was acting as their de facto muscle to control competition in the high-end market. It also meant he had to know at least some of his money was going to end up in the pockets of organized crime.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry- too many typos above so I deleted- here it is again.
By comportment, did you mean how Spitzer basically humiliated himself to the Sex Club operator-mailing bags of cash, running out to ATMs, listening to "suggestions" of increased tips all to get two hours with a NJ girl. It ain't like Dynasty.
Hey I'm not suggesting that Clinton, Craig, Vitter, Morris Barney etc comported themselves any better-but I am curious what issue of comportment are you raising? (There's a lot to choose from)
I'm talking more about how Spitzer used and abused his office, threatening people who went against him, and prosecuting people for doing what he was doing.
Clinton, meanwhile, not only did a lot more than have sex with an intern (which would have been enough to get him fired in most jobs), but also lied under oath about it to protect himself, and was accused of many other things regarding his sexaul advances.
Gee lying about sex under oath was one of the good things Clinton did.
We can joke about it, but committing perjury is pretty serious--really something that's untenable for anyone serving in office.
And, as I noted, he didn't do it for any reason more noble than protecting himself.
Perhaps he never should have been in that situation, but once he was (and he decided to talk rather than default on the case), it was his duty to tell the truth. He got disbarred for what he did--who would have thought the requirements for being a President are lower than those for being a lawyer?
(I'm reminded of the conservatives who said Watergate was the only good thing about Nixon.)
Post a Comment
<< Home