Skip to content

Why not Spitzer?

April 8, 2010

Seriously, why can’t this man run again? Was his transgression in being unfaithful really so egregious that he should never be allowed a second chance to serve in elected office?

People are going crazy over Tiger Woods right now. They are cheering him on – hoping that he makes a triumphant comeback. Unlike Tiger, Spitzer didn’t apologize profusely and weep again and again in public. Is that what we insist he do?

Of course, Woods wasn’t an elected official sworn to uphold the law. Spitzer was, and maybe he should indeed be held to a higher standard than others. But what about all the other elected officials who have DWIs, campaign violations, ethics law violations, income tax problems, etc. They are allowed to continue in public service, but not him?

Spitzer is now in the media again, expressing obvious remorse for what he did and agonizing over his downfall. Is this pitiful? Or does it strike some chord of sympathy?

NT2 poses these questions to provoke thought on the matter. At the same time, we must confess to having mixed sentiments regarding the man. We believe he has tremendous intellectual capabilities, capabilities that are vastly superior to most pols. We think he might actually be a better politician if he returned to public service. He wouldn’t repeat the same mistakes. He’d certainly be more open to cooperation and compromise.

But we are still unsettled by this man and can’t explain precisely why. It has something to do with a quote in today’s Times style section profile. Spitzer was asked why he wasn’t involved in pro bono work or some other cause. He said: “That would be too transactional: ‘I’m doing X, now you will forgive me.’ I don’t think it can or should work that way.”

But isn’t that the way it is supposed to work? Aren’t good works indeed the path toward redemption? Isn’t it an underpinning of religious belief and our legal system? If you screw up, you admit it, you pay the price and then you try to make amends through community service, right? Why couldn’t Spitzer go off and start a foundation to help small investors or do something else that would help people? Doesn’t part of him want to do it?

Alas, Spitzer seems to reject the concept out of hand. He still seems to still want to play by his own rules, which is troubling.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. Anonymous permalink
    April 8, 2010 3:54 PM

    why not a retirement fund for aging prostitutes?

  2. anonymous permalink
    April 20, 2010 3:19 PM

    By all appearances, Spitzer is still arrogant and has learned nothing at all. He may be brilliant, but he is not smart. He was a terrible Governor. He had absolutely no understanding of government. It is his brief record that disqualifies him from future office, along with his inability to actually learn. That’s why you are unsettled by him.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: