Black Box Report

Hey! Did you hear the big news yesterday?

Tucker Carlson Out at MSNBC

No? Then you were probably all caught up in that little kerfuffle over

ZOMG!!!! ELIOT SPITZER IN PROSTITUTE SEX SCANDAL!!!!!!

Which would be understandable, because as far as newsworthy items go, this was kind of seismic.

Not to mention dumb.

Mind-boggling, jaw-dropping, head-scratching, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot kind of Space-Age Ultra-Dumb.

As a former New York State Attorney General, Spitzer carved out a reputation as a hard-nosed, straight-edged, Mr. Clean reformer of the first order, the "Sherrif of Wall Street," and parlayed that reputation into a sweeping election into the Governor's mansion. Spitzer had a promising political career ahead of him, even being spoken of as a future presidential candidate. And now, for the not low at all price of over $4000 and the company of a call girl, he threw it all away:

It's hard to believe brilliant people in positions of responsibility could be this stupid and this self-destructive. And yet, here we are.

Was it arrogance? Delusions of invincibility? Temporary brain stroke? We may never know. And, as is usually the case with these types of things, what did Spitzer in wasn't the crime, but the coverup:

The feds aren't usually in the business of busting prostitution -- a state crime -- unless there's organized crime ties or forced prostitution or some other more serious underlying federal offense. But even assuming they were involved in that kind of investigation, the time frame didn't seem plausible.

Spitzer's alleged call to the prostitution service came less than a month ago, Feb. 13. That would have meant the Public Integrity Section prosecutors were brought in, got up to speed on the case, and filed their complaint in less than a month. That's lightning fast, especially in a case where literally thousands of electronic communications were intercepted. Changing prosecutors midstream can delay a case by weeks or months.

In that sense, ABC's report that the investigation was triggered by suspicious money transfers by Spitzer and that it was handled by the Public Integrity Section from the outset is a lot more plausible than some scenario where Spitzer stumbled into a prostitution sting.

If ABC's account is accurate, the whole case is sort of anti-climactic. The feds start out thinking they have the New York governor on the hook for bribery -- and instead discover that he's just skulking around with high-priced call girls.

Not surprisingly, conservative bloggers are in overdrive calling on Spitzer to resign, a novel approach for them given their collective silence on a certain Louisiana Republican Senator's own prostitution scandal. From CPAC Blogger of the Year Ace of Spades:

I know what the liberals are asking: Why is this such a big deal, and Sen. David Vitter's previous experience with call girls isn't?

Shut up, that's why.

That air-tight logic aside, there are those who are arguing that Spitzer shouldn't resign, not for the least of reasons that David Vitter and Larry Craig haven't, but now is not the time to use Republican hypocrisy as an excuse for one's own:

If David Vitter can just say "this is between me and my wife and my Lord" and hang around for a while until the media forgets about it, there's no real reason Spitzer has to resign. However, I don't necessarily believe that the acceptable standard of conduct should be set by the likes of David Vitter.

Meanwhile, a little bird tells me that one surprising source is against Spitzer stepping down: his wife, Silda. While this will no doubt spark debate over whether or not Mrs. Spitzer should "stand by her man," newly-linked-to-this-blog Alicia Menendez says it's nunya beeswax:

There is clearly a much bigger conversation that needs to begin about sex and marriage, sexuality and marriage, and marriage itself, sex aside. In the last year we've seen this type of scandal manifest on the right side of the aisle, on the left side of the aisle, and in public restrooms. Infidelity knows no partisan boundaries. It's also wrong to think that it is confined to the rich and the powerful - they are simply the ones we watch get caught.
......
Regardless of the many marital contract points Eliot Spitzer ignored, there was Silda, holding up her end of the bargain in the face of shame and betrayal. Yell at your TV to leave him or encourage her to stand by her man - it doesn't really matter. It's not your or mine decision to make. Instead, we are left with no answers, and only more questions.

And so, while the giant collective let-down sets in among liberal bloggers, the emerging consensus is that, despite one's feelings about the illegality of prostitution, Spitzer's going to have to take his lumps on this one:

It's understandable that some Democrats right now are asking questions about why Eliot Spitzer was targeted, saying the investigation doesn't "pass the smell test." It's understandable that others point to David Vitter and Larry Craig, and wonder why Spitzer should have to resign. It's understandable, when someone you liked is proven to be fallible, to turn on the attackers, rather than admit that you were wrong about them.

But we must admit we were wrong about Eliot Spitzer.
......
He broke the laws of the state of New York, laws he swore to uphold. He also violated the trust of his wife and his children; that isn't a public failing, but it certainly is a moral one. He chose to try to lure a prostitute from New York City to Washington, D.C. He chose to launder money so his transactions couldn't be traced. He made those decisions. He just got caught.

Eliot Spitzer brought this on himself.

I only have one question: Spitzer had a prostitute from New York City exported to DC. You mean to tell me Spitzer couldn't find $1,000/hour prostitutes in Washington, DC? Seriously? They're everywhere! They're called lobbyists. And that's the kind of prostitutes you should've stuck with, Mr. Spitzer.

Ya big dummy.

And now all that's left is the political fallout. Spitzer has not yet resigned, but it's comforting to know that, by all accounts, Lt. Gov. David Paterson is an upstanding public servant in his own right (but aren't they all?), and would make a fine replacement. But how far will the ripples travel? Besides the likely loss of a Superdelegate when she can hardly afford it, what effect will the New York Governor's prostitution scandal have on New York Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign?

Some say none at all:

Whether one supports Clinton or not, it’s hard to see why Spitzer’s scandal hurts Clinton. Yes, he supports her campaign, but they haven’t campaigned together, and Spitzer has hardly been a high-profile advocate. Indeed, the two aren’t even personally close. Why would this undermine Clinton in any way? This mess really has nothing to do with her.

While others suggest bad news is in the works:

After the endorsement was secured, Spitzer first became a problem for Clinton when she struggled to defend and then distance herself from his proposal to make it easier for immigrants to obtain drivers' licenses. He is a much bigger problem now. It's not that Clinton is tied in any way to the governor's troubles. Rather, he is a distraction--the big player in her adopted home state who is now in big, big trouble.

In an ideal world where things like issues matter and C students don't run the country, I'd be inclined to go with the former; but it's not an ideal world, people are easily distracted and it's relatively simple - if totally unfair - to paint a larger group with broad strokes. After all, we are reminded that all politics is local:

As Spitzer twists in the wind -- and the media covers every jot and tittle of the story -- Democrats could experience a short-term brand problem as voters recoil in disgust. The more likely atmospheric impact is "a pox on both your houses" attitude from voters, as the electorate grows more and more frustrated with the actions of their elected officials.

While the story's echoes on the national level are likely to be soft, the scandal is like a sonic boom in the Empire State.

And right on schedule, the National Republican Congressional Committee is looking to make some hay out of this while the sun shines:

The NRCC, which is broke and in danger of sustaining more House losses, is grabbing at the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal like a lifeline, sending out e-mails about Dem incumbents with the following title:

"Will John Hall Return Spitzer's Sleazy Money?"

So far we've received five e-mails over at TPM: Three messages targeting freshman incumbents Michael Arcuri, Kirsten Gillibrand and John Hall, plus two against challengers Dan Maffei and Eric Massa, all of whom the NRCC says are now "ensnared" in Spitzer's scandal.

Where "ensnared" apparently means "lives in the same state." Sorry, but that smacks of desperation. Even the Corner is unimpressed:

Spitzer's moral turpitude has no bearing on the contributions he makes to candidates in his party. Unless the money was stolen, its return is a public relations exercise with no basis in moral reality. And to tie its recipients to Spitzer's behavior is a fallacious exercise in guilt by association.

The worst effect may be on the enthusiasm of the voters (Barack Obama take note), who are reminded that their Political Heroes of Righteousness and Change are mere mortals, just like the rest of us.