It sounds like most of the condemnation on Spitzer is that he was a hypocrite who rather than his original failing (I don't know if he will end up being tried on it) of visiting prostitutes. For a lot of things this seems to be the case so for people like Ted Haggard or Larry Craig it isn't so much that they pursued homosexual sex but that they publically railed against it. I'm curious to see philosophically what people think. Is hypocrisy usually worse than the original failing?
I don't care what willing adults do behind closed doors. If you get caught breaking the law, my philosophy is "hey its the law", so I won't defend breaking a law because I don't agree with the law. The hypocrisy is an issue, especially for guys who run on issues they get busted on.
As a followup question: Is hypocrisy forgivable? And to head off the inevitable that all things can be forgiven by God, I'm speaking in a terms of public reputation.
It's clear hypocrisy is worse. MUCH worse. It's like multiplying the "original failing" by a factor of ten. Certainly hypocrisy can be forgiven and recovered from in some instances, though not all. It depends on how severe the failing is and if the apology is emphatic and believable enough. In this instance, Spitzer as governor of NY is toast and he can't be salvaged.
Well... it depends. What's worse? IMO: 1. A guy murdering someone or A murderer criticizing another murderer? The murder itself is worse. 2. A guy soliciting prostitutes or A guy who solicits prostitutes criticizing other people who solicit prostitutes? Definitely the hypocrisy is worse. 3. A guy cheating on his SO or A cheater criticizing other cheaters? Probably the hypocrisy, but it's close.
The lack of pride along with overbearing arrogance makes political hypocrisy far more unforgivable than another politician committing the original crime.
It seems to me that criticizing others for hypocrisy is itself the penultimate in hypocrisy. I don't think there is a person alive who has not been hypocritical. But, when someone else is caught in a hypocrisy, it's suddenly intolerable. I don't even see Spitzer's crime as hypocritical. That he was effective in enforcing our laws doesn't reflect on his own moral convictions or even moral statements. He's just an agent of the State.
I was watching the Spitzer thing with a friend while it was being broke on the news. He's worked on Wall Street and does IPOs and the like. Really knows his stuff. He said, long before the TV people did, that people on the Street would be doing cartwheels over this. That while Spitzer did a hell of a lot of good, he went too far, bringing up personal stuff to attack people he was investigating, when it had no bearing on the charges. Hypocrisy in spades. Impeach Bush and Save Us from Canada!
That is an excellent point. There is a story about Elliot Ness that when asked what he would do when Prohibition was repealed he replied, "have a drink." I don't know enough about Spitzer if sexual morality was a big issue with him but would it change anyone's opinion if Spitzer really didn't feel there was anything wrong with prostitution except that it was against the law.
None of the above. The worst trait is not understanding the nature of human beings. Stating absolutes about behavior will almost always make you wrong. (I wanted to work the word Repugnant in there somewhere but don't want to write a treatise. I just love that word)
He went much further than enforcing the laws. He would bring people's personal lives into lawsuits. I think in one case he was attempting to uncover an affair. Also, many of his law enforcemant actions had the aura of a moral crusade. Sort of how Bill Bennett may have been technically correct about Bill Clinton committing perjury, but he also incessantly talked about how important morality and virtue are. It made him look like a huge hypocrite when his own moral failings come to light. I think the original failing is worse. But each one of us has moral failings and should recognize that when criticizing/persecuting others. That said, even if Bennett and Spitzer are hypocrites, doesnt mean their arguments were necesarily wrong.
You want hypocrisy? Just might find it residing in John McCain. McCain's Role in Plane Pact Spotlights Ties to Lobbyists By Michael D. Shear and Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 12, 2008; A06 To show that he's a crusader against wasteful spending and congressional corruption, Sen. John McCain repeatedly brags about his leading role in stopping a scandal-plagued air tanker contract between the Air Force and Boeing in 2004. Four years later, a $35 billion contract has been awarded to Europe's Airbus consortium to build the latest generation of tanker planes. The decision has sparked anger from Boeing's congressional supporters and critics of outsourcing. It has also focused attention on McCain's reliance on lobbyists in his campaign for president because his finance chairman and several other top advisers lobbied for Airbus last year when it was in fierce competition with Boeing for the Air Force contract. McCain has spoken out for years against the influence of special interests in Washington, but his campaign includes a number of prominent Washington lobbyists, including campaign manager Rick Davis, who founded a lobbying firm, and top political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., chief executive of a well-known Washington firm. Neither of them lobbied for Airbus. McCain finance chairman Thomas G. Loeffler and Susan E. Nelson, who left Loeffler's lobbying firm to be McCain's finance director, both began lobbying for Airbus's parent company in 2007, Senate records show. William L. Ball III, a former secretary of the Navy and frequent McCain surrogate on the trail, also lobbied for Airbus, as did John Green, who recently took a leave from Ogilvy Public Relations to serve as McCain's legislative liaison. "Airbus, I have to give them credit," said R. Thomas Buffenbarger, the president of the International Association of Machinists, which represents Boeing employees. "They know they need that kind of lobbying help. And they went after people who could deliver." It is not clear what specifically the McCain campaign advisers did for Airbus. Lobbying registration documents list only "initiatives and interests regarding the KC-30 Aerial Refueling Tanker Program." Loeffler did not respond to e-mail requests for an interview. McCain spokeswoman Jill Hazelbaker said the senator from Arizona and his advisers have done "nothing improper" in the tanker deal. "John McCain was never personally lobbied on this issue," she said. Democratic and Republican lawmakers in Washington state, where Boeing has long had a significant presence, have lambasted McCain for laying the groundwork for a decision that will cost their economy thousands of aerospace jobs. Lawmakers in Kansas, where Boeing has a plant, have also been critical. On the campaign trail, McCain hails his involvement in the years-long search for a modern tanker as clear evidence of his commitment to rooting out special interests. In 2004, he led the congressional investigation that uncovered a bribery scandal in which top Boeing and Air Force officials went to prison or were forced to resign. "I saved the taxpayers $6 billion in a bogus tanker deal," McCain said during a recent debate. But the easy applause line at his town hall meetings has become a much murkier issue for the presidential hopeful. McCain has confirmed sending two letters to Defense Department officials urging them to level the playing field for a deal that would provide a fleet of in-air refueling planes for military aircraft. In one 2006 letter, McCain urged officials to change their criteria for evaluating bidders for the tanker contract. "I am concerned that if the Air Force proceeds down its chosen path . . . the Air Force will risk eliminating competition before bids are submitted," he wrote in September of that year. "In my view, this is not in the best interests of either the taxpayer or the warfighter." McCain has steadfastly said that his role in the process has been one of a neutral arbiter. Yesterday, McCain told reporters that he had "nothing to do" with the winning Airbus contract other than insisting on a fair process. "I think my record is very clear on this issue, including a paper trail of letters that we wrote to the Department of Defense during this process and saying clearly and unequivocally we just want a fair process and we don't want a repeat of the previous process," McCain said Monday in St. Louis, according to the Associated Press, which first reported that McCain's advisers lobbied for Airbus. "I think my record on this issue is very clear and authenticated by both written and verbal statements on the issue," McCain said. McCain's spokeswoman said the senator sent the letters months before the Airbus group hired his advisers. "John McCain uncovered a taxpayer rip-off that led to Boeing and USAF officials being convicted of corruption," Hazelbaker said in an e-mail. "They were sent to jail. The CEO of Boeing resigned. McCain saved the tax payers $6 billion dollars. And somehow he's the bad guy?" But some McCain critics say the deal creates the appearance of hypocrisy. Airbus parent EADS North America more than tripled its contributions to U.S. lawmakers after 2004, as it pursued the Air Force contract, according to an analysis done by the Center for Responsive Politics. McCain was the top individual recipient of contributions from company employees and the company's political action committee in the 2008 election cycle. "This isn't your average Washington politician. It's John McCain, crusader against special interests and presidential contender," said Sheila Krumholz, CRP executive director. "It's more than purely coincidental that he was their top target." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...1103134.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008031103379 Impeach Bush.
No thanks. I do think it a bit bizarre, however, that the campaign of a senator who makes large claims about what he's done to clean up Washington and the influence of lobbyists has large numbers of lobbyists helping to run his campaign. Bush is in a class all his own. Impeach Bush.
agreed. he's one of the keating five but now acts like he's high and mighty. the rules may have changed, but the man hasn't.
Now you guys are not understanding the nature of American politics. It runs on the economy of favors. There may be a few uncorrupted idealist out there but the good ol' boy machine takes aim at those that won't play the game. PAC money, committee appointments earmarks, appropriations ... the uncorrupted do-gooder is going to be an ineffectual legislator and won't get his people even what they are proportionally due. The preacher with his own demons is usually the most intense evangelical. None of this applies to Obama though, he is the exception to the rule. It is the very reason for his popularity; until the swiftboaters attack.
The same could've been said about Spitzer up until last week. At the risk of derailing my own thread, although Deckard might've done that already, I think part of the appeal of Obama is that he hasn't been in national politics for very long and his meteoric rise from state Senator to Presidential contender has meant he hasn't had much time to either be exposed to the potential temptations of power at the highest level or been that long in the incessant spotlight searching to seek out a failing.
