the funny thing here is,that it couldn't knock clinton off the air on the Tucker show

a) It's against the law and

b) he's a state governor who was previously the state attorney general

... I don't much care.

Now, I personally happen to think it shouldn't be against the law. But it is. And my understanding of how these things work -- which is admittedly almost entirely second-hand at best -- is that prostitution operations tend to be associated at least on some level with organized crime and/or corrupted law-enforcement officials. Given that, his involvement -- even if it's only as a customer -- compromises him, at least in appearance if not in fact.

personally I dont care what Mr.Spitzer does in his private time as long as he does a good job running his office..but the problem is that even the left is guilty with all this moralizing..wait for all the feminists to now start ganging up on him for abusing a poor hapless woman and using her body for sex..

But also, we know we cant expect anything good from the Republicans...but if Mr.Spitzer is gonna go on a moral crusade to cleanse America of all its sins, then he should expect the same treatment that metes out to others....

There is the issue of judgment -- and hubris. Did he really think he wouldn't be caught? He's handed the Republicans his reputation, and far, far more important, he's also screwed up just when the state was on the verge of finally making some real progress toward enlightened government. Even if the Republicans are behind his fall (which would hardly shock me) , I am very angry with Eliot Spitzer.

Is this just another part of the Department of Justice program to rid the country of those troublesome democratic governors?

Spitzer voluntarily took on the job of governor of New York where he personally destroyed the lives of countless people involved in sex work. It would be manifestly unjust if he were spared the punishment that he so consensually inflicted on others. In the very least he absolutely must resign for flagrantly violating the law that he swore to protect.

As always, you are spot on and as you suggested, I only wish people would get as riled up about the crimes of Bush and his cronies as they do about Spitzer's crime - which certainly pales in comparison.

Listening in to private conversations. Busting guys for hiring prostitutes.

He's handed the Republicans his reputation, and far, far more important, he's also screwed up just when the state was on the verge of finally making some real progress toward enlightened government. Even if the Republicans are behind his fall (which would hardly shock me) , I am very angry with Eliot Spitzer.

Were you angry with Bill Clinton for the same reasons?

Spitzer voluntarily took on the job of governor of New York where he personally destroyed the lives of countless people involved in sex work.

What do you mean by this specifically? He prosecuted some owners of escort agencies, which - as I said -- is definitely hypocritcal, outrageously so.

But what do you mean when you say "he personally destroyed the lives of countless people involved in sex work"? Are you referring to that? As far as I know, he never prosecuted any prostitutes or clients.

In the very least he absolutely must resign for flagrantly violating the law that he swore to protect.

Would you say the same about him -- or any other public official -- if it were revealed that he had smoked pot once, or gambled in a poker game, or committed adultery in a state where that is a criminal offense -- all acts just as illegal as prostitution?

Let me quote, "Let [the one] who is without sin throw the first stone."

Meanwhile, of course this is a case of illegal and inappropriate wire tapping - using the federal justice department to dig up dirt on one's political enemies or at the very least, the rising stars of the opposing party.

But of course, it would need to be the justice department itself or a special prosecutor that would start any investigation of such malfeasance, and it will be a very cold day in what is reputed to be a very warm place before any such investigation begins, at least for the next 10 months or so.

But Glen, seems those other services he put out of business would have been competitors of Spitzer's favored house of ill-repute, no? Beyond hypocrisy, can't an argument be supported that, by hitting competitors, he was simply paving the way for Emperor's Club to get ahead in the escort market in NYC? On the flip-side, he certainly could have been doing a little first-hand research in order to better fight the good fight against pernicious prostitution in the Empire State?

I have always found it very curious that one of the following, but not the other, is illegal:

(a) Two people have sex, one of them gets paid for it;

(b) Two (or more) people have sex, all of them get paid for it, and it is videotaped and sold to third parties as a commodity.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument why this difference makes any actual sense.

Anybody got a better idea for a name for this scandal?

Which is more deserving of attention, a President who has likely been involved in stealing elections, starting illegal wars based on lies that cost hundreds of thousands of lives and guts the Bill of Rights down to the Bill of Right, or a Governor's sexual escapades? Oh, hands down, give me the sex.

Seriously, how many people die each year from prostitution? How many die from people speeding and running stop signs/red lights in their cars (quick answer: 46000)? Why do we not get excited unless we can talk about someone else's sex lives?

Oh come on now. If he had an affair, that'd be one thing. He appears to have committed (at least one) Federal crime, however. This wasn't just an example of bad judgment, it was the highest official in the state committing a crime.

Now, it's certainly possible he didn't commit the crime, in which case he shouldn't resign, should plead not guilty, and should fight. The evidence does seem pretty darn compelling, however.

Should this be a crime? In my opinion, no. That doesn't change the fact that it IS a crime. It's private, consensual, and AGAINST THE LAW, something that he clearly believed when he prosecuted others for engaging in prostitution. This is a classic case of "OK for me, but not for them," something you don't accept from the Bush administration, and shouldn't from a Democrat, either.