Here's my question: Ensign and Vitter are still in the Senate, this asshat will still be the governor, and someone talented like Eliot Spitzer had to resign?
Tell me how this is fair. And for the record, I don't want the asshat trio of Sanford, Ensign and Vitter to resign. I just want us to stop giving a shit when a bunch of politicians diddle other women (or men in public restrooms). I mean, there's a certain satisfaction from the family values folks getting caught with some other person, but other than that, I just don't care.
Yes, I know, as a feminist blogger I'm supposed to be OUTRAGED at Eliot Spitzer, right?
Yeah, F that.
When the man is right, he's RIGHT. And he is absolutely right on on the financial crisis, and I wish he hadn't been stupid enough to be caught with his pants down acting like a hypocrite. My views on sex work (decriminalize, harm reduction) aside, the point is that Spitzer's voice is an important one that is simply not getting heard on this issue.
Today, he appeared on Fareed Zakaria, for my money the only person on CNN worth watching (I know Karthika agrees with me on this subject). In his first interview since resigning from office, Spitzer, who went after AIG when he was NY Attorney General, called out executives, regulators, and congresspeople alike. He denounced false populism from legislators who had plenty of authority to enforce regulation (:cough: Chuck Schumer) and noted that the SEC and other regulatory agencies had plenty of authority to do what they needed--like I wrote here, they simply didn't do it.
Then there's a novel idea. Why not bring in the man who took on Wall Street and AIG long before it was trendy? Elliot Spitzer. Call me crazy. But he foresaw the bubbles and disasters resulting from deregulatory frenzy and the financial service industry's creation of toxic credit default swaps and derivatives. As the Sherriff of Wall Street, Spitzer launched investigations and lawsuits deploying the creative cudgel of the previously-obscure 1921 Martin Act. Yes, he acted miserably toward his wife and family and he should pay the price for that. But some believe Spitzer was taken down by certain "masters of the universe" seeking vengeance for his aggressive policing of their financial fraud and corruption.
"The search for villains is emotionally satisfying, but...it does not solve the problem," Spitzer said, and he's right. And whatever you think of his past screwups, he's right the hell on and has EVERY moral authority to speak out on AIG and Wall Street, and far more than most.
After Spitzer, Fareed lost a whole bunch of credit with me by convening a "panel of experts" to talk about populist rage. His panel? Megan McArdle, Henry Blodget (formerly investigated by Spitzer on fraud charges from his tenure at Merrill Lynch, now a "journalist"), and Roy Smith (formerly of Goldman Sachs). A bunch of experts on populism, in-fuckin-deed.
Or absolutely not. Fareed's had Barbara Ehrenreich on before--he knows where to find actual populists and outside voices, if he wanted them. Instead, he chose a bunch of the very same vapid insiders who both caused the current crisis, and failed to see it coming--or made excuses for it. One of his "experts" is banned from ever working in securities again after fraud charges. Seriously?
This is exactly what's wrong with the media. The reliance on insider voices, a circle of consensus and a very, very narrow sphere of legitimate debate. You're talking about public rage without a single voice of public rage? People are organizing a march on Wall Street--where are they? Where are the labor voices, the people? How about William Greider, with a great op-ed in the Washington Post today?
How about our own Erik, whose study is actually relevant? How about historians, organizers, anyone who is actually used to dealing with "the great unwashed"? (Y'know, us?)
This isn't helping. Following Spitzer's great interview with this panel of so-called experts is insulting--or maybe a failed attempt at balance?
I was starting to have a little faith in the media for a second. But by the end of that, I just wanted my pitchfork again.
Maybe that was what Fareed was going for? Stoking the populist rage rather than understanding and explaining it?
Eliot Spitzer clearly had his eyes on the presidency.
He's finished, at least as far as the big job goes. His first year in office had been pretty rough but nothing had happened to dampen his possible presidential candidacy in 2012 and 2016. But being involved in a high-end prostitution ring? That's pretty bad. Particularly when he has showed such moral indignation over prostitution in the past. I don't know that he can't survive this in New York. But one of the Democrats' brightest stars is no more.
Addendum: You know who is probably really happy about this? Andrew Cuomo. He immediately becomes the big star in the NY Democratic Party (well, outside of Hillary I guess). If being a major NY politician automatically makes you a presidential possibility, this just popped Cuomo up a notch.
Addendum #2: A lot of bloggers are complaining that the media is all over Spitzer in a way they never were for Louisiana Senator David Vitter, a Republican who got busted in a prostitution ring last summer. True, but it's not about Spitzer being a Democrat as these blogs are hinting. It's about being the governor of New York as opposed to a fairly obscure senator from a small Southern state with a century-old reputation for corruption.
