Site Meter

Good Riddance Spitzer

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. mls says:

    I will put you down as undecided on Spitzer.

  2. Joe says:

    He lost 52/48 after coming into the race late. I’m glad he lost myself, but can do w/o the hyperbole here.

  3. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Joe: He spent an enormous amount of personal money, massively out-advertising his rival, drenching the entire region with television spots and handbills splattered in every neighborhood of the City. Nor did he obtain the endorsement of any of the major newspapers or other responsible civic leaders. There is no hyperbole: the defeat was decisive.

  4. Joe says:

    Mr. Cunningham, the tone of your comments is imho a bit overblown and your reply here (“splattered” etc.) doesn’t help my concerns much.

    He came into the election late though he had name recognition, including for me who, with respect, don’t have the same opinions as you on his treatment of certain parties. They like he is a maverick sort that insiders of various types don’t like.

    If he entered the race early, playing a long game, things might not have went the same way. And, losing by two percent is not very “decisive” to me, though he did lose, and I’m glad for it.

  5. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Joe:

    Thanks for the follow up and interesting speculations. You speculate that the late entrance hurt Spitzer yet the facts support the opposite inference. First, Spitzer chose his entrance date. Second, the more time people spend getting to know Spitzer and his behavioral problems, the less they are inclined to like or support him. Earlier polls showed Spitzer leading by a margin that gradually vanished and finally flipped.

    Spitzer’s strategy was to enter late, spend lavishly, and tell people he is a maverick outsider looking out for the little guy. Having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth and ascended the heights of New York politics, the story is misleading at best. Something other than looking out for me and my family is behind his ambitions.

    PS: I reported the presence of “splattered” handbills based on my observations walking around a dozen NYC neighborhoods during the campaign. The handbills were actually misleading: they plucked headlines from the major newspapers who denounced him to make it appear as if they were supporting him.

    Further, it was impossible not to hear numerous television commercials from him despite the fact that our family watches very little television. They were equally deceptive and misleading and I can see how they may have fooled a lot of people into voting for him. Yet the longer such a campaign goes on, the more likely it seems to me that people would figure out the truth about a candidate.

  6. Douglas says:

    Walter Olson aptly describes Spitzer as a “whited sepulcher.”

  7. Peter Johnson says:

    As someone who worked as an AAG for Spitzer, I can say that, in my experience, he (and the bureau chiefs) did not force anyone to work a case if they did not believe in the case. While he broke the law, pursued some bad cases and, in my opinion, failed to treat his family with love and respect, I find it impossible to reasonably argue that ALL of the cases he pursued were flawed or otherwise improper. Despite the piercing ad hominen attacks, your conclusion is defensible – that liars and cheats should not be in office. If only we could apply that across the board…

  8. Joe says:

    “First, Spitzer chose his entrance date.”

    Did he do so because he thought it would be beneficial as compared to other factors?

    “Second, the more time people spend getting to know Spitzer and his behavioral problems, the less they are inclined to like or support him.”

    People in NYC are not aware of Spitzer and his behavior problems already? The basic problem here to me is that some of the grave negatives you flag as to his tactics are liked by some people. Others, such as Laurence O’Donnell, believed he had more experience to do the specific job in question.

    “Earlier polls showed Spitzer leading by a margin that gradually vanished and finally flipped.”

    Elections go in cycles. A longer campaign could have involved a comeback. I used a hedge, since we simply don’t know.

    “Spitzer’s strategy was to enter late, spend lavishly, and tell people he is a maverick outsider looking out for the little guy. Having been born with a silver spoon in his mouth and ascended the heights of New York politics, the story is misleading at best. Something other than looking out for me and my family is behind his ambitions.”

    Maverick outsider is a common theme of rich candidates and given that even when he was inside, he was a “maverick” (by your lights recklessly), it is not totally out there. It’s possible a short campaign was his goal.

    Unlike you, I hedged my bets a tad. See also Peter Johnson who didn’t define him in a good light, but w/o the “piercing ad hominem attacks” (using his language).

    “PS: I reported the presence of “splattered” handbills based on my observations walking around a dozen NYC neighborhoods during the campaign. The handbills were actually misleading: they plucked headlines from the major newspapers who denounced him to make it appear as if they were supporting him.”

    Campaign literature that are “misleading”? No! I noted the “splattered” since it fits in the overall tone of your pieces on the subject here. Respectfully, they come off as overkill. This is not really a defense of the man. There are ways to attack people with a tad more finesse.

    “Yet the longer such a campaign goes on, the more likely it seems to me that people would figure out the truth about a candidate.”

    The “truth” of Spitzer is not a mystery. People still were going to vote for him. How a long term campaign would have worked is unclear and would have used a different strategy.

  9. Olni says:

    Cunningham is right. Ad hominems are fair game in political elections. Especially when “piercing”

  10. prometheefeu says:

    Do you have a cite on his daughters being “scarred for life”? I don’t like the guy one bit, but there is no need to heap inaccuracies on his already terrible record.

  11. Douglas says:

    prometheefeu sounds like a law review editor. they ask for citations to support the obvious.