A few months ago I wrote about the prospect of Spitzer running for office again in NYS. Well, it looks like that may happen:
Eliot Spitzer, who stepped down from the governor's office amid scandal, is now strongly considering a run for state comptroller, sources told The Post.
Spitzer has in recent weeks had discussions with some Democratic donors and insiders about the position currently held by Tom DiNapoli.
DiNapoli, a former assemblyman from Long Island, was appointed comptroller in 2007 after his predecessor, Alan Hevesi, pleaded guilty to using state workers as chauffeurs for his wife.
A Democrat who spoke with Spitzer said, "He's seriously thinking about it."
"He wants to run if he can," said another source. "He's still talking about it."
Gov. Paterson backed the idea.
"The type of way that former Gov. Spitzer managed would be most useful these days in the finance area rather than in law enforcement," Paterson said. "As you can see our biggest problems are - and the current comptroller has handled them very well, warning the Legislature over and over again what's going to happen if we don't act - so those who want to make change I think would be inclined to move in the finance area."
DiNapoli, who was a former Assemblyman appointed to the position by the legislature, is, aside from Paterson (who may not be the nominee), the weak link in the NYS-2010 ticket- even if Cuomo abandons the AG spot to run for Governor. His polling numbers and name ID are still low. And personally, I'm way over Spitzer's scandal, which is now a few years old (and not uncommon in politics, or personal life) and I'm all for him getting back into politics. He is a bar fight primary kind of Democrat, someone who seeks confrontation rather than conciliation first, and in the midst of all this Wall Street mess (his specialty), anyone the Chamber of Commerce declared a "War on Spitzerism" over is someone we could use. He also campaigned on the stump in support of marriage equality when running for Governor in 2006.
The interesting thing is if he took a Jerry Brown-esque approach to get back to the Governor's mansion some years from now. For now, though, he would be a great Comptroller, and I hope he runs.
To follow up on my post re former AG and Gov. Spitzer considering a comeback, the musing and maneuvering has begun. Immediately after The Hill and Danny Hakim at the NYTimes reported he was considering it, Spitzer came out with a full denial Tuesday night, then announced yesterday he was planning on teaching a course on law and public policy at City College of New York. Of course, this doesn't preclude doing a campaign as well, but it does try to bat down the rumors. Meanwhile, Survey USA did a snap poll, finding that 62% of New Yorkers would definitely or consider voting for Spitzer if he ran again for public office. It also found that 41% of voters think Spitzer is more qualified than Paterson to be governor, with 31% going for Paterson and 35% unsure. This follows up on a May poll finding 51% would rather have Spitzer as Governor over Paterson. While Spitzer's numbers do tank against Giuliani (if he runs) in the SUSA poll, and this is all speculation until Cuomo makes up his mind on running for Governor or not, I think there is some positive sign there that he could definitely run for office again and win, perhaps for Comptroller.
I should also mention that the New York State Comptroller is a guy named Thomas DiNapoli, who was most recently a member of the Assembly until chosen by his peers to replace the previous Comptroller over a scandal. An August 24th Siena poll found a whopping 74% had no opinion of DiNapoli, despite taking office in early 2007. To be honest, he's maintained a low profile, and I think can be beaten in a primary. I see that, or running for Attorney General if Cuomo opts to run for Governor, as the most likely possibilities.
The one other thing I did want to address was opinion over respect and forgiveness. After the news came out Tuesday evening on speculation that he might run again, I chatted with my mom and my sister about it. My mom was previously a die-hard Spitzer supporter. I interned in his Buffalo office when he was AG many years ago, and the same office intervened on our behalf when a car dealership tried to screw her out of their warranty obligation when the car was broken. And, as she would say, he's a good Jewish boy.
I was shocked by the flat refusal to support him (at least, in a Dem primary), and it was because of the prostitution issue. To me, I don't care about his personal life to any extent, unless he's using state resources or severely breaking the law, or it's rape. To her, and my sister, cheating on your partner is one thing, but cheating on your partner via prostitution is another. It's supporting an illicit industry, I was told, condoning a lifestyle that shouldn't be condoned, even if it's to support a child. It's taking advantage of women, even if it's consensual. It's interesting to note my mother and my sister are both die-hard feminists and Hillary backers (their reactions to the McCain campaign's targeting of Hillary supporters by picking Palin inspired me to write this piece last year analyzing the effects of it), so perhaps that has something to do with it. Each is entitled to their own opinion, but I am concerned this may by more prevalent than expected, at least among women or a certain demographic of women. It would certainly an important concern in any Spitzer campaign.
The Hill and Danny Hakim at the NYTimes, who usually has a good ear on what's going on in state politics, are reporting that former AG and Gov. Eliot Spitzer is "considering a comeback", possibly for Comptroller, his former post as Attorney General, or to primary Kristen Gillibrand for U.S. Senate.
A couple of quick reactions (native New Yorker and former Spitzer intern- many generations ago- that I am, I can't resist):
There are a lot of musical chairs here. Spitzer's running for Attorney General is predicated on Cuomo vacating the seat to challenge Gov. Paterson, should Paterson choose to run again, which is also not clear, but I'm told is extremely doubtful. Meaning, I don't think Spitzer would run in a primary for AG, and I am not sure he would beat Cuomo if he did.
While Spitzer against Gillibrand would certainly be interesting, I'm not sure it is the best expenditure of resources in terms of his candidacy. I'm not the world's biggest fan of Gillibrand, particularly her movement on LGBT issues around her appointment, but I also think she's been solid in terms of voting, and admire her leadership on marriage and Don't Ask, Don't Tell since she's come in.
According to the NYS Board of Elections, he has only $268,914 in his 2010 campaign account. He would face an uphill climb there, especially if it's against Cuomo or Gillibrand.
Regarding running for any office, yeah, conventional wisdom says he's too hurt by the scandal, it's only been two years since, yada yada. I say it doesn't matter. I remember when I was younger Bill Clinton had sky-high approval ratings in New York all through the Lewinsky episode and the same time period afterwards. Hell, if he was Constitutionally permitted to run again, he would have won New York easily. We're also the state that's elected two carpetbaggers- Hillary and RFK- to Senate. Plus, Spitzer's a Democrat from Manhattan. It's his base. I don't pretend to be an expert on NYC politics, but the Democrats in Manhattan I know see this stuff all the time, and shrug their shoulders. It is Manhattan, after all. If he were a Republican and his base was Cattaraugus County (where my Grandpa lives), it would be a problem, but he's not.
Spitzer as Comptroller is not the most exciting thing in the world, but the guy gets numbers and finances. When I flip on the cable morning shows and the topic is the economic crisis/Wall Street, he's there more often than not on panels, explaining how x led to y led to z and how to fix it. He's also done a number of op-eds on financial regulation, a particularly good one here, where he attacks free market fundamentalism. All of that helps him. I still occasional bring up his name back home, and the most common reaction I get is that the guy was smart, tough, and knew what he was doing re financial stuff. Don't forget he made his name as the "Sheriff of Wall Street". Plus, it can be a stepping stone.
My one true wish is actually that Spitzer runs for Governor again in 2010, Cuomo stays where he is, and Paterson opts not to run again. I have enough problems with Paterson's electoral viability, and Cuomo's noted lack of caring about any issues except housing, along with running to the media as soon as he gets a big settlement, to see this as important. Spitzer is a bar fight primary kind of Democrat to me. The opening of his resignation statement still makes me grin.
For the past nine years, eight years as attorney general, and one as governor, I have tried to uphold a vision of progressive politics that would rebuild New York and create opportunity for all. We sought to bring real change to New York and that will continue.
According to a former Fed and Treasury official interviewed by Financial Times, on Wall Street 'everyone picks the pocket' of the central bank by finding out ahead of time what securities they plan to buy and inflating the prices they're sold at.
In the interests of transparency, [the Fed] often announces its intention to buy particular securities in advance. A former Fed official said this strategy enables banks to sell these securities to the Fed at an inflated price.
The resulting profits represent a relatively hidden form of support for banks, and Wall Street has geared up to take advantage. Barclays, for example, e-mails clients with news on the Fed's balance sheet, detailing the share of the market in particular securities held by the Fed.
A former official of the US Treasury and the Fed said the situation had reached the point that "everyone games them. Their transparency hurts them. Everyone picks their pocket."
With the inauguration of David Paterson as New York's new Governor set to take place at 1 PM EST, I have some thoughts on how he's being set up to succeed, or to fail, by the traditional media. There are several frames being developed by him and the traditional media in which New Yorkers will start off in their judgment of Paterson over these next few months. I discuss four frames being set up, and the implications of each for progressives in the wake of Eliot Spitzer, in the extended entry.
Cenk Uyger talks about the double standards between Eliot Spitzer and David Vitter:
It is true that there is a partisan double standard here, where Democrat Eliot Spitzer is forced to resign over a prostitution scandal while Republican David Vitter is not. That, however, is not the only double standard in play.
For one thing, there is clearly a gay / straight double standard, too. After all, Larry Craig and Jim McGreevey both resigned, although in Craig's case he simply stated that he will not run for re-election. Still, Vitter will probably receive the enthusiastic backing of the Republican Party in his 2010 re-election bid, while Craig would never have received any such thing. So, there is a sexual orientation double-standard on top of the partisan double-standard.
There is also a regional double-standard at play. One of the factors that prevented Spitzer from being able to weather this storm is that he is from New York, the media capital of the nation. The press coverage on Spitzer was much, much more extreme because it was a New York based story. Had Spitzer been the Governor of, say, Colorado, there would have been far less press coverage. This is both a double-standard and a bias, where politicians from major media centers are subjected to more press scrutiny, but also where major media centers just don't care as much about the goings-on in areas of the country that are not major media centers.
Above all else, there is double standard for reformers. Even the faintest whiff of impropriety by politicians who seek to reform the political, economic, or media institutions in America automatically places that politician into a double-standard. The media even admits this:
While pledging to turn down donations from lobbyists themselves, Sen. Barack Obama raised more than $1 million in the first three months of his presidential campaign from law firms and companies that have major lobbying operations in the nation's capital.Portraying himself as a new-style politician determined to reform Washington, Obama makes his policy clear in fundraising invitations, stating that he takes no donations from "federal lobbyists." His aides announced last week he was returning $43,000 to lobbyists who donated to his campaign.
The subtext here is that there is not wrong with accepting lobbyist money, but there is something wrong with no being hermetically sealed from lobbyists if you calim tyou want to reform the system. There have been dozens of articles in the press working to find some sort of hypocrisy in Obama's fundraising and lobbyist money. Nowhere in these articles will you find the obvious point that Obama has taken more steps to separate himself from lobbyists more than some of his opponents in the campaign. The point in these articles isn't that Obama while not perfect, is doing better according to the same standard, but rather that Obama is worse because he should be held to a higher standard.
I think, in the end, this is what happened to Spitzer. He was a charging reformer throughout his political career, and so he was always held to a higher standard than politicians who accept the status quo of major institutional operations. Some may argue that politicians like Spitzer who claim to be reformers should be held to a higher standard, but I disagree. Ultimately, reforming our political, media and economic systems is a higher value than being perfectly, internally consistent. Unfortunately, it its attempt to be non-ideological, the media holds a concept like consistency as a far, far higher value than it holds reform. The media takes no position on reform, but does take a position on consistency. This necessarily leads to reformers being held to a higher standards, inevitable flaws being found in anyone, the reformer appearing like a hypocrite, and then reform not taking place. In the end, by valuing consistency above things like reducing the influence of corporate money in the political process, reformers are outed as hypocrites, necessary reforms never take place and the status quo is protected.
I get emails and complaints all the time about how it is wrong for me to take sides in the Democratic primary. However, as a progressive activist, I fail to see how I could achieve any progressive change unless I take sides in primaries, on issues, and on pretty much anything. By not taking sides, and holding up consistency as the highest value, many media outlets actually protect the status quo and serve as a barrier to change. There are many circumstances where a partisan and ideological media is absolutely necessary. While I do not have a complete philosophy detailing how and when it is necessary, I did at least want to demonstrate how a non-ideological media can ultimately serve as a protection of the status quo.
In 2002, however, Mr. Paterson shot to unusual prominence for a Senate Democrat. With two other Manhattan legislators, Eric Schneiderman and Liz Krueger, he staged a coup that ousted the sitting Senate Minority Leader, Martin Connor. The Manhattanites saw Mr. Connor, of Brooklyn, as overly resigned to Republican control of the body. They wanted to fight more actively to retake it.
Ah, so Paterson has been one of the driving forces behind Democratic Senate gains in New York. Also, he seems to have good friends, like Eric Schneiderman, who recently wrote an excellent piece about transforming the liberal checklist for the Nation. (Check out Digby's write up of the piece here.) Those are a couple of whistles about Patterson that ring loud and clear to me that there are reasons to be hopeful that another transformative progressive is taking Spitzer's place.
David A. Paterson (born May 20, 1954) is an American politician and the current Lieutenant Governor of New York. He is the first African American and legally blind person to hold this position. He was selected as running mate by New York Attorney General and Democratic Party nominee Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 New York gubernatorial election.
On a more superficial note, he also has a beard. This may sound stupid, but as a DFH who frequently sports facial hair myself, I am prone to trust male politicians with beards. Maybe he could form a caucus at the DGA with Jon Corzine.
I think there are some real signs here that David Paterson has real potential as the next Governor from New York. That should not be too surprising, since he was chosen by Eliot Spitzer in an election where Spitzer could have chosen really anyone and still won. This is another reason by choosing a reinforcing choice and / or a progressive choice as Vice-President is key for the Democratic presidential nominee this year. Let's just say, hypothetically, that Republicans attempt to tar and feather the next Democratic President with everything they can find. You know, like what they did to Bill Clinton. and let's just say, hypothetically, that the Democratic nominee is not a perfect person. You know, like everyone. As such, doesn't it make a lot of political sense to have someone like David Paterson in reserve, where in the horrifying event that the Vice-President needs to take over, that such a shift does not cause progressive policy moves to be halted? Having a second in line who will continue a progressive project is an unfortunate, but necessary, guarantee against an effective coup d'ete by the Republican Noise Machine. In fact, an overtly progressive choice for Vice-President like Sherrod Brown might even make Republicans think twice about getting rid of the next President. With Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, choosing a progressive as Vice-President could even potentially cause Republicans to back off a little bit (not likely, but also not impossible). A reinforcing and / or progressive second in line is a good guarantee for effective governance in the next Democratic administration.
As a New York State Democrat who donated to the Spitzer campaign and volunteered my time to get him elected, I am writing this diary to say:
Stop making excuses for Eliot Spitzer, people.Spitzer brought this disgrace on himself, and he should have known better.
Spitzer set himself up as Mr. Clean and as a crusader against corruption. He promised us that he'd fight for higher standards and expectations from public officials in Albany.
Digby, Glenn Greenwald, and Jane Hamsher raise important questions about the Spitzer scandal. Yes, it looks like he hired a prostitute, but there seems to be more to the story. I found this post by Scott Horton to be highly disturbing. Here's the nub:
All of these facts are consistent with a process which is not the investigation of a crime, but rather an attempt to target and build a case against an individual.
The answer of the Justice Department to all this is likely to be: Trust us. But in the current environment, the reservoir of trust is tapped. The Justice Department needs to submit to some questions about how this probe got launched, who launched it, and to what extent political appointees were involved in its direction. This has nothing to do with Spitzer's guilt or innocence. But it has everything to do with the fading integrity of the Public Integrity Section.
Spitzer is clearly one figure willing to stand up to Bush. He is a arrogant and committed this petty crime, but I don't have a huge amount of confidence in the Bush DOJ.
I have acted in a way that violated the obligations to my family and that violates my - or any - sense of right and wrong. I apologize first, and most importantly, to my family. I apologize to the public, whom I promised better. I do not believe that politics in the long run is about individuals. It is about ideas, the public good and doing what is best for the State of New York. But I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard that I expect of myself. I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family. I will not be taking questions. Thank you very much. I will report back to you in short order. Thank you very much.
This is a serious blow. I feel as though progressives have lost their top bench contender for President of the Unites States. Spitzer could have run against a Republican in 2012 or 2016. He could have run for an open seat in 2016. He could have even been a possible primary challenger in 2012 if a Democratic President had screwed up and sold us out really badly.
Even though the two actions are not comparable, I feel about the same today as I did back in April of 2005 when Russ Feingold announced that he was getting a second divorce. The progressive bench for possible presidents is pretty darn thin, suffering from the electoral bloodbaths progressives received, both in general elections and in primaries, from 1980-2004. And yes, obviously, when I talk about progressive presidents I mean something different than either Obama or Clinton (or probably Edwards for that matter). Centrist policy positions and faux transformative progressivism dominate even non-DLC Democratic politics these days. Remembering how much days like these hurt reminds us that we need to embrace the few progressive we have, and help incubate a bunch more, in order to one day build a progressive national leader. It takes a long time to build a President.
Among Democrats who have never run for President, who do you see as possible leaders in four, eight, or even twelve years time?
This will be a short diary, as I should not even need to write this. I am seeing, in the comments sections of several major blogs, a new meme amongst some (and I emphasize the word, as it is not all) Obama supporters, somehow trying to connect the upsetting Prostitution Ring scandal of Gov. Eliot Spitzer to Hillary Clinton. Luckily, no one has been ignorant enough to claim she had something to do with it, but they are all trying to claim that this will hurt her, that the Republicans will use this against her, etc.
By now you've heard that Eliot Spitzer was caught in a prostitution ring. While this is certainly scandalicious, it's not clear to me how this stacks up to larger crimes that politicians regularly engage in abusing their oaths of office. This is a personal matter, and since Spitzer is a public figure, what is personal is public. But he didn't abuse his office as Governor of New York state, though this is a crime.
Now, I really like Aaron Burr as a historical figure, and he was, shall we say, weak in temptations of the flesh. This though isn't good.
In one such case in 2004, Mr. Spitzer spoke with revulsion and anger after announcing the arrest of 16 people for operating a high-end prostitution ring out of Staten Island.
""This was a sophisticated and lucrative operation with a multitiered management structure," Mr. Spitzer said at the time. "It was, however, nothing more than a prostitution ring."
Political, the scandal matters because of his early legacy political ineptitude. I had breakfast with a savvy New York politician last week, and Spitzer was referred to as a keystone kop type politician. Many of us had high hopes for Spitzer, and he could still recover if he chooses to hang in there. The Democrats are still picking up state Senate seats fairly regularly, within one seat of a majority and a transformative governing apparatus in New York State. The underlying governing trend is still positive for progressives in New York. Still, Spitzer needs to get his act together. He didn't do so before, and he might be done because of it.
It would be too bad to lose someone of his capacity, but he clearly isn't learning.
In a major victory for Gov. Eliot Spitzer and his party, a Democratic assemblyman won a stunning upset in a State Senate election on Tuesday in a district that has been in Republican hands for a century.
The win reduces the Republicans' majority to one seat and will intensify pressure on the majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, as he tries to maintain his party's grip on the Senate, which it has controlled for more than 40 years.
The Democrat, Darrel J. Aubertine, a dairy farmer, leaned heavily on Mr. Spitzer's media consultant and the state Democrats' money as he waged a costly campaign against the Republican, William A. Barclay, a lawyer and an assemblyman whose father once held the Senate seat.
Mr. Aubertine won 52 percent of the vote to 48 percent for Mr. Barclay, according to unofficial results. Republicans outnumber Democrats 78,454 to 46,824 in the north country district, and Mr. Barclay had been favored to win....
Both party operations poured money and campaign workers into the race, and ads flickered on television screens in Jefferson, Oswego and St. Lawrence Counties, which make up the district. The Capitol in Albany emptied out on Tuesday as staffers hit the streets to wave signs, knock on doors and staff polling places.
The Democrats also relied on the Working Families Party, a union-backed group with a strong voter-mobilization operation, to get out the vote for Mr. Aubertine.
The special election was called after Senator James W. Wright, a Republican, announced his retirement.
The possibility of taking back the Senate has taken on a special urgency to Mr. Spitzer as he struggles with low approval ratings and the aftermath of a scandal last year involving his aides' attempt to discredit Mr. Bruno.
The district is heavily Republican, and this is one step closer to taking the Senate in New York state and making it an innovator in progressive governance. It's a clear lucky break for Spitzer, who needs one, and another reason for the institutional machinery backing Republicans in New York state (1199, for instance) to back liberal Democrats instead.
STATE BLOGS
