Check It: DADI |


Spitzer Revisited


I was perusing the news this morning when I read that former NY Governor Elliot Spitzer will not be charged for his role as a john (i.e., customer) in a prostitution ring bust. At the time when news of his involvement first broke, I was annoyed at the ridiculous attention Gov. Spitzer was getting. It eventually led to his resignation because any male who likes to pay for some strange is unfit to govern the land. I took a different stance. To me, I just called it what it was: reality. Men who are attracted to positions of power, including political office, tend to be by nature aggressive, competitive guys with narcissistic tendencies. These same guys are the ones who crave sex (aggression) and think that they are never going to get caught when cheating on their wives and/or paying for a hooker (narcissism).

All that said, my simple thought on the matter was that having the traits of most politicians should be grounds for being forced out of office by public opinion. Spitzer's desire to get his dick wet did not affect his ability to act as the Governor of New York, and may have even aided it. Would you rather have your governing officer pre-occupied with meeting and bedding chicks, or would you rather he be able to just get his rocks off, pay for it, and be on his way? And let's be real, cheating on your wife is nothing new in politics. I did a whole post on Presidents who cheated on their wives yet were still fit to serve office after the John Edwards Gets Some Poontang on the Side story broke.

In response, the incredulous among you said that Spitzer was wrong because he used government money to pay for his trists, including paying for security when he traveled to see his call girl. In reality, as Governor, he had security detail on him 24 hrs. a day, so they would follow him anywhere, whether it be to have sex or to pick up a new DVD player at the local Best Buy. Is it a waste of taxpayer dollars to pay for security to get audio-visual equipment with the Governor for his new pad? Hell no! They are required to be with him. Just because it was DVDA instead of a DVD doesn't change the "corruptness" of having security with him 24 hrs. a day.

The same arguments were made for Spitzer's decision to pay for hotel rooms in which he had illicit sex with taxpayer money. Of course, those people trumpeting this horror failed to disclose tha the hotel rooms were paid for because he was on official business. The sex was an aside. It's like getting upset that Elliot Spitzer ordered room service (that he paid for out of pocket) and therefore was eating in his publicly-paid-for-room but not doing official business while he ate his personally-paid-for club sandwich. Sure, the clubsandwich is illegal, but that's what I'm getting to...

It is illegal to be participate in prostitution. HOWEVER, the johns are rarely, if ever, charged. Why? I don't know. Probably because if cops arrested every john, there'd be no room in jail for actual criminals. Regardless, why should Spitzer be treated any more harshly merely because he is governor. Why should we pretend that he and only he should be prosecuted for paying for a hummer when traditionally, johns are not targets.

The answer is, we should not charge Spitzer for being a john, because johns are not charged. Spitzer was no different.

But here is the real kicker. The media acts shocked that a politician likes to pay for sex, the public act shocked, and Spitzer is forced to resign from office. And who do we end up with in his stead? A fucking blind guy who no one ever wanted as Governor, who has admitted to cheating on his wife multiple times and doing hard drugs. What the fuck, America?! This is the upgrade from the cleancut guy who liked to have some new cooch every once in a while and was willing to pay for it to keep it purely business?

And so, Spitzer is not charged for any crimes. He is no longer Governor. His political career was kicked in the sack, and it was all for this illusion of innocence. What a load of crap.

Until next time, make mine poker!

posted by Jordan @ 10:10 AM,


At 10:47 AM, Blogger Karol said...

He didn't have to resign. He could've stayed and fought it and made all the points you made. But that would've been straight insanity. He was an asshole, a guy who loved taking down guys in power who had skirted the law. And then it was found that he skirted the law too. I used "skirted" not because his offense relates to women but because, like you note, he did indeed break the law but that Johns are not generally prosecuted (which is ridiculous, btw. Either prosecute neither the hooker or the John or prosecute both). He deserves everything he got, and more. So many people were happy he got taken down--you reap what you sow. Shouldn't have been a dick.

At 9:42 PM, Blogger pearatty said...

Have to agree with Karol. His problem was that he made his career being a tight-ass about enforcing the law. If he'd just cheated on his wife, survivable. Breaking the law, not so much.


Post a Comment

<< Home