I feel sorry for Elliot Spitzer (Read 817 times)

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass about Spitzer's infidelities. That's between him and his wife. If he did so with public funds, well that's something entirely different.

On some level, I really want to agree with that but it's never quite that clean. Certain official's lives are so public that there really isn't an easy notion of really private infidelity. Clinton didn't have sex with some random stranger, he did it with an intern. Someone who he had significant influence over. That does matter. The secret service guys that guard him probably were asked to play a role or at least turn a blind eye in arranging the activity. Then consider how a public official could be blackmailed to conceal the behavior. "Approve this land project or I'll tell the press about your little affair." Now try and argue that it was between him and his wife. This is why on security clearance investigations they consider this stuff. If you're gay and concealing it, you can be blackmailed. If you're out of the closet, its not a security risk. Barney Frank isn't a security risk because of his homosexuality. Senator Craig? Different story. If he's willing to cheat on his wife, he'll cheat on something else. Character matters.

If you remember, Elliot Spitzer was part of Toby Tanser's audio guide training series for marathon runners (he was the 9 min. pace) and he was interviewed in Runner's World.

He should work on his website with all his free time. (He got what he deserved.)

Excuse my french but F**k him.

But see, that was sort of the problem.

Excuse my french but F**k him.

And get a disease? No Thank you, there is not enough disinfectant in the world.

On some level, I really want to agree with that but it's never quite that clean. Certain official's lives are so public that there really isn't an easy notion of really private infidelity. Clinton didn't have sex with some random stranger, he did it with an intern. Someone who he had significant influence over. That does matter. The secret service guys that guard him probably were asked to play a role or at least turn a blind eye in arranging the activity. Then consider how a public official could be blackmailed to conceal the behavior. "Approve this land project or I'll tell the press about your little affair." Now try and argue that it was between him and his wife. This is why on security clearance investigations they consider this stuff. If you're gay and concealing it, you can be blackmailed. If you're out of the closet, its not a security risk. Barney Frank isn't a security risk because of his homosexuality. Senator Craig? Different story. If he's willing to cheat on his wife, he'll cheat on something else. Character matters.

You raise some good points, but I don't agree with you. Even public officials are entitled to a private life - no matter how twisted and screwed up you or I might think it is. That said, what he did was illegal in New York. Whether you or I agree/disagree with that the point is moot, it is the law. So, charge him with a crime and be done with it. Why does it have to be a sensationalist media frenzy? Really, who or what does it help? Why are you talking about Clinton? I thought we were talking about Spitzer? While we're at it, was he blackmailed? Did he abuse the public trust? Are you sure? You have proof of this? Or, are you raising conjecture? Last I checked it was still about innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Gay or straight. That's your business. Not mine. Conceal it, or don't. Shout it from the rooftops if you like. But, sexual orientation is still a private matter. I don't know Barney Frank or Senator Craig, but it sounds like one is openly gay the other maybe hiding something. So what? Once you have the government poking around in your bedroom when does it stop? Slippery slope indeed. I don't think we should use this episode to vilify a man who's given his life to public service. Yes, character matters but some things are just none of our damn business.

I raised the issue of Clinton because he was referenced by a previous poster as someone who's private conduct didn't matter. I'm not just making moral judgements on private behavior (although I'd be lying if I didn't say I disapprove on moral grounds as well). I'm simply describing the potential risks that make that private behavior something other than a purely private matter. The blackmail doesn't have to occur for a public official to be influenced, particularly someone with the kind of authority that we invest in the US president. Gay, straight, who cares. I agree. In the closet or out of the closet does matter if you're a public figure though. If you don't like the Craig analogy, consider McGreevy. Is it too much of a stretch to guess that he may have a approved some legislation he otherwise would've opposed because someone threatened to out him? If you want to argue no connection between his character and that issue, he hired his boyfriend for a job for which he was utterly unqualified. Pure coincidence or evidence of a lack of character? The new NY governor has gone public that he had a two year affair back a couple of years ago. Is that any of the public's business? Not really. Does it make sense for him to divulge it because now no one can use it against him (again back to blackmail)? Absolutely. As far as the government poking their nose in my (or your) private life, I think we agree completely that the government doesn't have the right to do that (or likely the resources, time, or interest). Then again, you're not a public figure. Even then, it shouldn't be the government doing the looking except for things like security background investigations. I do appreciate the polite disagreement though