Spitzer reportedly to resign

The Times is now reporting that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer is expected to resign this morning.

I've been thinking about why, in the post-Bill Clinton era, Spitzer can't just brazen out what is at its heart a sex scandal. I think there are three reasons. (There are always three, aren't there?)

• The hypocrisy angle. Spitzer is simply too closely associated with having gone after prostitution in the past. He can hardly argue that it's a victimless crime now. By the way, it turns out that the 2004 bust I referenced yesterday still hasn't come to trial.
• The money angle. The thousands of dollars Spitzer spent on prostitutes came from one of three sources: (a) his personal funds; (b) campaign contributions; (c) taxpayer dollars. If the answer is anything other than (a), he's got big, big problems.
• The jerk angle. Judging from the coverage, it seems that no one can stand him, and that the Democrats will be just as happy to see him depart as the Republicans. He can't survive something like this without allies, and apparently he has none.

That said, we should remember that few people believed Clinton could survive revelations of his scandalous behavior with Monica Lewinsky. If Spitzer decides suddenly to dig in his heels and stay, who's to say he can't survive — provided his answer to the money question is the right one?

What Spitzer may be waiting for

The New York Times reports that Eliot Spitzer won't resign as governor of New York today. Why would he prolong the agony? Here's a guess: When investigating corruption involving public officials, the feds sometimes consider it a victory if they can merely force an elected official out of office.

If I recall correctly, former Massachusetts House Speaker Charles Flaherty's resignation from office was part of the agreement he worked out with federal prosecutors. Spitzer knows that once he's stepped down, he's lost all his leverage. Better to negotiate from a position of — well, you couldn't exactly call it strength at this point. But at least he's still got something to barter away.

Why Spitzer has to go

Alan Dershowitz explains in today's New York Times:

"Men go to prostitutes — big deal, that's not a story in most parts of the world," Mr. Dershowitz said.

But he also said he had been surprised when Mr. Spitzer prosecuted a prostitution ring in 2004.

"I always thought he was somebody who would come down on crimes with real victims," Mr. Dershowitz said. "Prostitutes aren't victims — they're getting paid a thousand dollars an hour, and the johns aren't victims. What upset me the most was that they wiretapped thousands of e-mails and phone calls. In an age when terrorism needs to be stopped, they're devoting these kinds of resources to a prostitution ring?"

Here is the Times account of that 2004 bust — 18 people arrested thanks to Spitzer's efforts, apparently for doing nothing worse than what Spitzer appears to have done. I couldn't find any follow-up stories. Does anyone know if any of them went to prison?

Priceless

This is why New York Post editors make the big bucks.

Update: Give that reader a prize. I missed this last night, but it came from Richard, who suggested "HO NO! SAY IT AIN'T SO!" (Thanks to Jeff Inglis.)

Citizen journalism (?) and Spitzer

The ever-classy New York Post is letting its readers write headlines for the Eliot Spitzer story. A sampling:

• HYPO-QUIT!!!!
• The "Emperor" Has No Clothes!
• ELIOT MESS!
• Love Potion for Client #9

Those last two aren't bad. But I'll bet the Post itself comes up with something better for tomorrow's edition.