Monday, October 26, 2009
If by some unfortunate chance some person you encounter approvingly cites Eliot Spitzer on the question of corporate governance or ethics in business, delight them with this link.
CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.
Well, not having to be ladylike in the sense that Cassandra is, I guess I will give it a go: if the Washington Examiner instructs Spitzer to "put a sock in it," the question is what "it" is -- as in, which orifice?
So if I can fill up eight paragraphs talking about someone's political scandals they are never entitled to open their mouth about anything again? This article supports gagging Spitzer on issues of sexual fidelity and campaign finance, but doesn't really tarnish him on issues of corporate governance or business ethics.
As a general comment and/or insight to the thinking of the Left: Why is it that the Left works so hard to silence any opposition? Is it because their ideas fall apart when they are put under any real scrutiny? I used to get mad at G.W.'s handling of the media's criticism of how his office mis-handled different things. They would sit there and take punch after punch and never return a single one. They would hardly ever get in front of a story and almost never take it to the American public in a formal way to state their case.
While this White House is trying to silence the only opposition media outlet - FOX (WSJ and IBD should be worried because I am sure they are next.)Guys like Spitzer are openly talking about ways to dismantle any organization that dares to ask questions, just like he did as AG and Governor. At what point does cognitive dissonance kick in? When does somebody from the Left realize that the reason they have to silence people is because they are probably right?
Noumenon: I think you need to re-read the article, if you read it in the first place. It attacks his propensity for using means available, including the organs of the state, to silence political opposition.
"but doesn't really tarnish him on issues of corporate governance or business ethics."
The article specifically addresses his credibility on 'corporate ethics:' "Lest anybody gets the idea that Spitzer can be considered a credible source on issues of corporate ethics, let's review a few facts about his own misuse and abuse of the public trust. During his successful 2006 campaign for governor, Spitzer loudly announced his return of more than $124,000 in campaign contributions he had received since 2003 from lawyers with the Milberg Weiss law firm in New York. The firm and four of its senior partners had been indicted on 20 counts as a criminal enterprise by the Justice Department for paying an estimated $11.7 million in bribes to plaintiffs in at least 150 cases going back to 1981. The firm received $250 million or more in tainted legal fees from the cases.
What Spitzer didn't say was that he kept an additional $42,555 in such contributions. Among the unreturned checks were $10,000 from senior partner Melvyn Weiss and $10,000 from senior partner David Bershad. Weiss was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and $10 million in fines, while Bershad cut a deal with the government, got a six-month prison sentence, paid a $250,000 fine and forfeited $7.75 million. Spitzer also kept checks totaling $8,000 from Weiss senior partner Steven Schulman, who was convicted and served a six-month federal prison term.
These facts perhaps shed light on why Spitzer sat on his hands in 2004 when the Washington Legal Foundation filed an official complaint with him (emphasis mine) concerning Milberg Weiss."