EXTRA EXTRA! Post all about it! (new news thread)

[elpollodiablo]

Oh snap

New Yorkers, whaddya think?

[C of heartbreak]

At least he wasn't cruising for gay sex in airport bathrooms. Cause that's, y'know, worse.

[RoyBiggins]

Worse than IMing tweens about sexually explicit stuff?

[elpollodiablo]

While I see what you're saying, I dunno that the comparisons mean all that much. There's that rank whiff of hypocrisy in this, as well; as you'll see down the page, in the past he prosecuted those responsible for organizing just the kind of prostitution ring he's alleged to have patronized.

[FreddyKnuckles]

when its a democrat, you're supposed to make excuses and say what various unrelated republicans have done that is worse, fall in line pollo.  (I had to look up that he's a democrat, which once again confirms that scandal articles always say REPUBLICAN SENATOR FUCKING DOODS, but NY GOV. PAYING FOR tEH SEXORS

[hannah]

oh boohoo me an ocean

[DCDave]

Freddy needs to go off the reservation.

[elpollodiablo]

when its a democrat, you're supposed to make excuses and say what various unrelated republicans have done that is worse, fall in line pollo.  (I had to look up that he's a democrat, which once again confirms that scandal articles always say REPUBLICAN SENATOR FUCKING DOODS, but NY GOV. PAYING FOR tEH SEXORS

Just because you don't know who Elliot Spitzer is doesn't mean it's incumbent upon CNN or the NY Times to mention his party affiliation

[C of heartbreak]

And actually the NY Times did mention his party affiliation.

[dieblucasdie]

Also this story is just gearing up methinks.  I expect the claws to really come out in the next day or two.

It *is* too bad, though, since Spitzer is arguably the most prominent pro-gay-marriage politician in the country.

[Thermofusion]

What I don't understand is how the marital infidelity of public figures is somehow more sensationalized now than it was, say, during the JFK era and even decades prior.  We're supposed to be moving away from our stick-up-our-asses Puritanical roots, right?  Meanwhile, these scandals--whether they involve Republicans or Democrats--couldn't be less relevant to whether a public official is capable of performing their job.

[dieblucasdie]

FK are you seriously claiming that the media should've gone easier on Mark Foley?

[C of heartbreak]

What I don't understand is how the marital infidelity of public figures is somehow more sensationalized now than it was, say, during the JFK era and even decades prior.  We're supposed to be moving away from our stick-up-our-asses Puritanical roots, right?  Meanwhile, these scandals--whether they involve Republicans or Democrats--couldn't be less relevant to whether a public official is capable of performing their job.

In Spitzer's case, it is kind of relevant because he was involved in a crime. But I'd say we've become a good deal more puritanical in a lot of respects since the sexual revolution declined, while media sensationalism has grown exponentially.

[elpollodiablo]

Also this story is just gearing up methinks.  I expect the claws to really come out in the next day or two.

It *is* too bad, though, since Spitzer is arguably the most prominent pro-gay-marriage politician in the country.

Yeah and we're definitely going to hear some one-follows-from-the-other rhetoric from Bill-O', Glenn Beck, et al.

Le sigh

[Thermofusion]

What I don't understand is how the marital infidelity of public figures is somehow more sensationalized now than it was, say, during the JFK era and even decades prior.  We're supposed to be moving away from our stick-up-our-asses Puritanical roots, right?  Meanwhile, these scandals--whether they involve Republicans or Democrats--couldn't be less relevant to whether a public official is capable of performing their job.

In Spitzer's case, it is kind of relevant because he was involved in a crime. But I'd say we've become a good deal more puritanical in a lot of respects since the sexual revolution declined, while media sensationalism has grown exponentially.

I agree..  I think the sexual revolution had the effect of making Middle America less embarrassed to talk about sexual matters out in the open, yet Middle America's conservative attitude towards things like infidelity never really changed.  If the JFK infidelity stuff had occurred post-sexual revolution, I'm sure the news media (which was growing more and more sensational, anyway) would've worked themselves up into an orgy over it (pardon the pun).

[coldforge]

I don't think any resentful conservative is gonna see Spitzer get a free pass on this one. People around here are talking. A lot of it has to do with the fact that he's been involved, actually, in quite a few high profile ethical kerfuffles. 'Dirty tricks', discrediting his opponents, etc. People had pretty high hopes for him when he came in, but he's actually turned out to be pretty scummy. His views are right-on, but even a pro-gay marriage anti-corporatist like meself is hard pressed not to admit that he's not shown himself to be a sterling individual.

[FreddyKnuckles]

FK are you seriously claiming that the media should've gone easier on Mark Foley?

No, I'm saying that when someone in your party does something fucked up, you should own up to it and put it behind you instead of deflecting it by numbering off the thing republicans do

[dieblucasdie]

You mean like, say, whining about how the NYT is teh big bad liberal media instead of owning up to the fact that the champion of campaign finance reform changed votes thanks to a close relationship (sexual or no) with a lobbyist?

[dieblucasdie]

And in fairness, I think Brian was seriously asking how much trouble he could get into for sending explicit material to tweens.   

[FreddyKnuckles]

You mean like, say, whining about how the NYT is teh big bad liberal media instead of owning up to the fact that the champion of campaign finance reform changed votes thanks to a close relationship (sexual or no) with a lobbyist?

I think that there's a pretty big difference between accusations in a NYT article with no sources and someone admitting they've done something wrong.  If McCain was like "yeah I fucked her" it'd be another story for me.

[Andrew_TSKS]

it doesn't matter if mccain fucked her or not (god DAMN it)*, the point is that he had a good working relationship with her and her company, and changed votes to reflect the interests of her and her company. i don't care if their relationship extended to sex or was merely a platonic one, what he did is equally hypocritical as a result of it.

*--this is me making an inside joke to myself (it involves joe pantoliano).

[C of heartbreak]

I'd like to say my Larry Craig reference was entirely sarcastic, so I'm not sure what FK is talking about, because I don't hear anybody making excuses.

Though on the McCain bit, I think they ever proved that he changed his votes for her, but to be honest I stopped following it when I found out he didn't fuck her.

[elpollodiablo]

I tended to follow it more closely after I found out he'd fucked us

[dieblucasdie]

You mean like, say, whining about how the NYT is teh big bad liberal media instead of owning up to the fact that the champion of campaign finance reform changed votes thanks to a close relationship (sexual or no) with a lobbyist?

I think that there's a pretty big difference between accusations in a NYT article with no sources and someone admitting they've done something wrong.  If McCain was like "yeah I fucked her" it'd be another story for me.

But the fucking isn't even the issue.

I get the feeling you haven't even actually read that NYT article, just the hysterical conservative reaction to it.

[C of heartbreak]

Today I heard that there was a report that compared the statements of the Bush administration about Iraq before the war to available intelligence at the time. The catch is nobody can read the report until the information in it is declassified.