Terry Cowgill

11 Comments »

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

1. This news is still breaking; we’re all in the news gathering phase of the process. That said. Spitzer is the rising star in the Democratic party, an Eliot Ness like, Rudy kind of guy who, like Rudy, has made more enemies than you can shake a subpoena at. When will these guys learn? Even sociopaths have a charming side. You make enemies on Wall Street and in corporate board rooms you’re going to get burned. And forget about political futures with pasts like those. The latest I just heard was that the feds might even get him on the Mann Act. As he wanted Kristen ( Book out soon!! ) to fly down to D.C. from NYC. Crossing several state lines.

   What a story. Eliot Ness meets Eliot’s Mess.

   Comment by Terrence McCarthy — March 10, 2008 #

2. Maybe Spitzer can get a job working for the city of Waterbury. He could be put in the same department as John Rowland!

   Comment by Marshall Miles — March 10, 2008 #

3. What is wrong with these people? Do they really look in the mirror and say, “I am above the law”. Where does this sense of entitlement and sexual perversion come from? From the Mayor of Washington D.C, Clinton, Gov of New Jersey, Mayor of Waterbury and now Spitzer? Gov. Spitzer is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard; it is not like he’s stupid! Like no one would find out!!!?? Pleeze!

   Comment by Barb — March 10, 2008 #

4. “Now in addition to siccing the State Police on his political enemies (a Nixonian trait)…”

   How about a little background on this. I googled a bunch of word combinations like “Nixon/political enemies/police” and didn’t come up with any examples. I’d be interested to know what Nixon did that was similar to what Spitzer did with his state police. Not saying he didn’t, just don’t know of any examples.

   Comment by Jake — March 10, 2008 #

5. My recollection is Nixon used the CIA to get the FBI to block the Watergate investigation by falsely claiming that national security was involved. It was the “smoking gun” on one of the White House tapes. I think Sorensen pointed this out in one of his books.

   Didn’t Nixon also use the FBI to snoop on his political opponents and harass them? Now that’s really Spitzerian.

   Comment by Terry — March 10, 2008 #

6. It is now Wednesday morning and I am amazed that Spitzer has not resigned as of yet…

   Its unbelievable..

   Comment by Marshall — March 12, 2008 #

7. Here’s the “smoking gun” tape.

   http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml

   You tell me.

   Re the FBI, we now know who Deep Throat was and what he was doing. So I’m not sure your speculations hold much water in that regard.

   Anyway, my point is that it is kind of accepted fact that Nixon did a lot of things that he never actually did.

   Comment by Jake — March 12, 2008 #

8. What’s with the backhanded swipe at Clinton? (Bill, though maybe your motive is to malign Hillary as well, who knows?)

   Maybe you consider it a “semantic” distinction, but while I wouldn’t argue that Bill Clinton has been faithful in his marriage, I’m not aware of him ever having been implicated with any connection to prostitution.

   I think this deserves a retraction.

   Comment by Charlie Derr — March 15, 2008 #

9. Charlie,

   My point that Bill had a “zipper problem” was only that he, like Spitzer, has a proclivity for sex outside marriage.

   Some executives are into old fashioned pay-to-play corruption (e.g. John Rowland), others are power hungry and paranoid (Nixon, Spitzer) and others have sexual urges that cannot be satisfied within their marriages (Bill, Eliot and countless others). In my book, that makes Spitzer both Clintonian and Nixonian

   No suggestion that Bill paid hookers was ever intended. Credible allegations of sexual assault were made against him, however, which, if true would be much worse than paying for sex.

   Comment by Terry — March 15, 2008 #

10. Terry,
    I’m surprised that you’re playing “spin” games with the details. Your quote is pretty clear in what it implies (to me, and I can’t imagine its intent is anything else). You said “the NYT is reporting Spitzer has been linked to a prostitution ring (a Clintonian trait)”.

    If you had chosen to replace “a prostitution ring” with (for instance), “sexual misconduct” or something, then I’d buy your argument, but I don’t actually understand your kneejerk defensive reaction (and refusal to accept my point).

    Comment by Charlie Derr — March 16, 2008 #

11. Well Charlie, you are the only one who raised this issue, so I assume not everyone took it that way. But you are a very sophisticated reader, so I will concede the point that my wording may have conveyed the wrong impression. Your suggested phrasing would have been clearer, but I can’t imagine why you’d think I would intentionally want to link Bill w/ prostitution.

    Comment by Terry — March 16, 2008 #

Leave a comment