Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Greenwald: Why is Eliot Spitzer described as "disgraced" when GOP johns and adulterers aren't?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:10 AM
Original message
Greenwald: Why is Eliot Spitzer described as "disgraced" when GOP johns and adulterers aren't?
http://www.salon.com/news/newt_gingrich/?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2010/07/13/vitter_gingrich_gop_disgrace

Topic:
Newt Gingrich

Tuesday, Jul 13, 2010 22:14 ET

Joan Walsh David Vitter,

Newt Gingrich and GOP disgrace

Greenwald's good question: Why is Eliot Spitzer described as "disgraced" when GOP johns and adulterers aren't?

On MSNBC's "The Ed Show" Tuesday, I got to ask GOP pundit Tony Blankley the question Glenn Greenwald posed Monday: Why is former N.Y. Gov. Eliot Spitzer routinely described as "disgraced," after admitting to patronizing prostitutes, while the word hasn't dogged Vitter, even though he confessed to the same thing? Gingrich has gotten off, too, Greenwald noted, though the former House speaker admitted to cheating on his first two wives (he had an affair with his third wife, a staffer, while married to his second wife, and also leading the charge for President Clinton's impeachment.) The video is below.

But first, Blankley and I got to talk about whether Gingrich is serious about running for president in 2012. Thankfully, just yesterday Justin Elliott joined Salon from TalkingPointsMemo.com, and he's already become invaluable, today helping me trip up former Gingrich press secretary Blankley on the question of how many times Gingrich has "seriously considered" running for president.

Elliott laid out the timeline early Tuesday: Although Gingrich says his current contemplation is "more serious" than before, the former House speaker has now said he was seriously considering a run for president multiple times in three different election cycles – and he hasn't yet run. He flirted with running in 2008, through much of 2007. He did the same in the second half of 1995, when Clinton looked vulnerable. That's where Elliott's reporting tripped Blankley up; Blankley insisted his boss thought about running briefly in June 1995 and quickly dropped the idea. But Elliott reported that in November, Gingrich was still telling the Boston Globe that he was thinking about a run, and that he'd sit down and discuss it with his wife Marianne. (They apparently decided against it.) Ironically, Gingrich has also said he'll make his decision in 2012 after talking to his third wife, Callista. Same story, different wives. (Blankley called me "sleazy" for mentioning Gingrich's three marriages; but I didn't even call him a "serial adulterer," as I have before.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:11 AM
Response to Original message
1. IOKIYAAR!
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 06:12 AM by hobbit709
Next question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cirque du So-What Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:13 AM
Response to Original message
2. IOKIYAR
It's OK if you're a republican. A compliant/complicit media doesn't hurt either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistler162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. Not a good question.
Shows that Greenwald has a lack of knowledge on the whole disaster that was Gov. Spitzer term!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:36 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. explain please..ty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
4. Why? Republicons are 'different'
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 06:39 AM by SpiralHawk
There are different standards for human beings who are held accountable for their actions, and those 'special' RepubliEntities who are into wide-stance, foot-tapping, diaper-clad faux-lesbian rentboy luggage-handling male escort big-booty bondage prostitutes.

There is a difference. RepubliCorporate Media gets it. Why can't you?

How long have you had this problem?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
9. Does that mean Vitter is 'normal'? Or the 'Christian conservative'
running against him?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=8782074

snip//


As sleaze goes, this gets pretty ugly, even for the right-wing. According to the allegations, Traylor got involved with a married woman, whom he later married after her divorce. When she later died, Traylor began another affair with the wife of his stepson.


As Justin Elliott summarized, "Louisiana Republicans are facing a choice between a family values incumbent who solicited prostitutes and a family values challenger who is currently sleeping with his stepson's estranged wife."

And did I mention that Traylor considers himself a Christian conservative, whose most notable accomplishment was "protecting traditional marriage" in Louisiana?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Cassandra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. His knowledge of what's going on on Wall Street...
is valuable and I don't care if it's an ego trip that's sharing that with us.
I've spoken to Spitzer a number of times and went to school with his sister (and him but he was younger, so who was paying attention then). His wife does have the social skills, but we would have been better off with him still in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. What tripped up Spitzer........
Spitzer violated the federal Mann Act by taking a prostitute across state lines. If you ever "pay for play" do NOT drive across a state line to find a "no-tell motel".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Gaedel Donating Member (802 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
26. Apparently
Apparently, Switzer wanted his favorite doxy available for "road trips" rather than relying on the local talent available at the destination.

"Those who the gods would destroy, they first make mad"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
39. Takes one to know one.
The Mann Act was enacted way back when travel was a lot slower than it is today.

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/06/thank-goodness-congress-looks-after-our-morals/

In the 21st century, crossing from New York to New Jersey or Pennsylvania is an everyday occurrence. Back when the Mann Act was enacted, it was only quick and easy for people who lived close to the New York/New Jersey or New York/Pennsylvania state lines.

The Mann Act.

In recent years, the Mann Act has been used selectively. But it has not faded into irrelevance. Last week, four people suspected of running the Emperor's Club — the prostitution service that Spitzer allegedly frequented — were charged with violating the Mann Act, among other crimes including money laundering.

Enacted during a time of great change and "moral panic," the Mann Act was originally designed to combat forced prostitution. The law, however, has been applied broadly over the years and, critics say, used as a tool of political persecution and even blackmail. In the past century, thousands of people have been prosecuted under the Mann Act, including celebrities such as Charlie Chaplin, Frank Lloyd Wright, Chuck Berry and Jack Johnson.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88104308

It would seem to me that the organizers of the prostitution should be subject to prosecution under the Mann Act, but not those who solicit or frequent prostitutes and who could easily be tricked (pun intended) into crossing a state line.

Was Spitzer the target of the investigation in his case? Were those who organized the prostitution prosecuted or even named? I have not heard that they were. Do you know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:13 AM
Response to Reply #17
32. She was an independant contractor....
Are not prostitutes free to travel this country most politicians do? Spitzer most noted violation was with the banking laws and the withdrawal of sums of money over 10k while trying to avoid filing the necessary Federal forms. The independant contractor in this case was an adult and her expenses were added to her fee. Spitzer didn't force her to travel and didn't provide transportation for her.

Unlike the South Carolina Gov. who left the country with his girlfriend/hooker/prostitute and had wonderful hiking trip.

Spitzer should have stuck it out, but he caved in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JDPriestly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #17
36. How many Mann Act prosecutions have you heard of lately?
On June 25, 1910, Congress passed the White-Slave Traffic Act, better known as the Mann Act after its principal author, Rep. James R. Mann of Illinois. “White slavery” was the focus of one of the moral panics that sweep the nation from time to time, each one seemingly nuttier than the last and each one adding to the evidence that human beings are more closely related to lemmings than to the more thoughtful apes. Connoisseurs of the form will fondly remember “ritual Satanic abuse of children.” Those were the days.

The phrase “white slavery” usually referred to prostitution. The ostensible goal of the Mann Act was to clamp down on organized prostitution. It undertook to achieve this by making illegal the transportation of women across state lines “for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.” The “state lines” condition signals that the act took its constitutional cover from the all-rubber commerce clause.

As ever, one’s man’s moral crusade is another man’s opportunity. While support for the act had been whipped up by lurid tales of innocent girls being drugged on city streets and kidnapped into sexual servitude, once they had a law in hand authorities found it difficult to find actual cases of the sort. One of the first persons to be prosecuted under the act was Jack Johnson, who was arrested in 1912 for crossing a state line with his girlfriend. She declined to cooperate with the prosecution and two months later married Johnson. He was promptly rearrested for having crossed states lines with a former girlfriend before the Mann Act was passed. Upon conviction, Johnson fled the country.

Did I mention that Johnson was black? And that in 1908 he had become the first black boxer to hold the world heavyweight title? And that in 1910 riots broke out across the country after he successfully defended his title against the “Great White Hope,” former champion James J. Jeffries? Oh, and that the two women were white? But these are mere irrelevant details, surely.

much, much more

http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2010/06/thank-goodness-congress-looks-after-our-morals/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
7. Because GOP's fascist pals bought control of most broadcast media in the 80s and 90s
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #7
35. Depends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 06:44 AM
Response to Original message
8. Because Gringrich married his?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
11. Which reminds me
What's the latest with Ensign??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
12. Sweeping generalization - most women intensely dislike Gingrich
Edited on Fri Jul-23-10 07:16 AM by Phoebe Loosinhouse
The divorcing the cancer-stricken first wife has too much resonance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
glitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #12
16. +infinity (we don't even need the pink doughboy look squeaky voice thing he's got going on) nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selfevident Donating Member (3 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:24 AM
Response to Original message
13. No
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:57 AM
Response to Original message
18. Spitzer was going after wealthy con artists on Wall Street. Vitter and Gingrich protect them. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
19. I'd like to think that we hold ourselves to higher standards
than the Repukes do.

With Spitzer, the real problem is hypocrisy. I personally don't care if "family values" Rethugs wear diapers with prostitutes, but when a guy who made a name for himself busting sex workers ends up using them, I'm going to look askance at him if he tries to wear the label of progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. Think you missed the entire point of the article
Its the media that calls Dems "disgraced", while not doing the same to Republicans caught up in similar situations.

Why does the media do that? Any ideas?

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. Think you missed the point of the article too
But the media never refers to Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, or Gingrich as disgraced.

Why do they all get a pass by the media?

Any ideas?

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SunnySong Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. RW noise machine and honestly Vitter didn't resign which makes a difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #27
33. Vitter didn't do the right thing and resign which makes a difference?
What kind of difference is that?

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kingofalldems Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #22
29. Don't understand, are you saying Vitter's Democratic opponent
is worse than him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
23. Spitzer's whole schtick was that of a do-gooder crusader who was squeaky clean.
He actually pushed some very good anti-sex trafficking laws, and then went ahead and broke them.

That, and there was a witness with testimony and a federal grand jury involved.

And, Vitter is a Louisiana pol--almost all Louisiana pols are some kind of sleazy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #23
30. All those Republicans campaigned on "family values"
Did the media and some others forget that?

Don
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. It's kind of assumed that the family values crowd are perverts. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:23 AM
Response to Original message
25. The Media jumped with Briebart as if he was Gospel and they
must always try to discredit Spitzer. What is wrong with
this picture????

Another bit of evidence that they must push their narrative.
The Narrative--The Republicans are going to take over House
and possible Senate.

Therefore they go with Briebarts Wedge Racial Politics.
After all he is a Republican.

Reality Spitizer did an excellent job in NY. Reality is
Wall Street Hated Spitzer and feared his fearless pursuit
of wrong-doing by Business. Reality is Media being Corporate
Media take the GOP side on issues. Reality is GOP does
not want Regulation of Business, therefore Spitzer was
enemy number one. Spitzer comes across as a strong personality.
GOP tactic --kill any strong Democrat. They will threaten
our position. The Media appears to try to do the dirty
work of the Republican Party. Repeat--Disgraced Spitzer
so he is marginalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
28. I think they all should be described as disgraced
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
37. The GOP fuckstains were never 'graced' in the first place. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 11:34 AM
Response to Original message
38. Very true. So many of them are disgraced and not referred to as such.
Shows the power of the corporate media to shape our national discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KurtNYC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-23-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
40. because it is redundant ? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hydra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-24-10 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
41. The easy answer is that there is a double standard
In Spitzer's case, it's because he's still VERY dangerous to the people in power, and they want him shut up.

What better way than with something like this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC