I'll try to catch up over the week on what's been said while I've been gone, and maybe do something original of my own. For now, talk amongst yourselves.
Labels: Jeremy Young
Unknown on 3/10/2008 10:20 PM:
It's truly a dark day for Democrats today, even though I'm not one of them. I really did not believe that one of ours could be as hypocritical as David Vitter. Apparently I was wrong. Another hero bites the dust.
As usual, I'll recommend Bowers on this, to match Scott's hilarity.
Ahistoricality on 3/10/2008 11:35 PM:
I guess I missed the part where Spitzer was the Great White Hope: I didn't realize that I was supposed to take it personally. Nothing against you, but I'm just surprised at the tone of Bowers and some of the others, since Spitzer never came up before that I was aware of.
There's some interesting pushback going on, by the way: Spitzer may be a hypocrite (arguable: since he was doing his job as NYAG, it could be argued that he was just doing his job), but the investigation and indictments are starting to look like a stretch, and possibly a variation on the "use the DoJ for vendettas against Democrats" theme of the US Attorney Firing variety.
Maybe a bit too inside-baseball, but Spitzer was the guy who unearthed, prosecuted, and convicted the Enron, Tyco, Adelphia, and numerous other corporate malefactors. He was the guy who would hit Wall Street hard when no one else would. He was at least indirectly responsible for at least one SEC chairman's resignation. He won the governorship of New York with over 70% of the vote when the previous occupant of the governor's mansion was a Republican. Believe me, hopes were very high. Possibly too high -- I wonder if that's what made him snap.
Ahistoricality on 3/11/2008 2:57 PM:
In other unsurprising news, Pentagon finds no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda despite poring over 600K documents from the regime.
The only surprising thing about this report is that it ever got leaked.
The revelations about Eliot Spitzer are interesting. There's a cute thread at Acephalous about whether it's good or bad for Obama. What I find most striking is that a man with his legal background issued a statement of apology in which there's no indication that what he did was any different than having an affair -- damage to his family, disappointing to his constituents -- as opposed to being illegal on several levels. I suppose there's the "never admit anything" theory, but in a case where what is alleged is prima facie illegal and he doesn't deny doing it, what's the point?