It is not a normal thing, by any means, for IPandora to link to the DailyKo(ok)s and it’s assortment of nutroots, but truth, wherever found, is still truth.
BarbinMD wrote today:
Spitzer’s actions are in no way a reflection of Clinton’s judgement or character. But it does put an open letter sent out this weekend by super delegate Steven Grossman, the former Chairman of the DNC and Clinton supporter, in a whole new light.
And BarbinMD’s excerpt from that letter:
…our party concluded that we had demonstrated the ability to act as stewards of the national party–and of the national interest. By dint of our experience in the community and our public service, we were adjudged fit to fulfill a moral responsibility to act in the best interest of the country as we saw it–
“What they do in the bedroom is no business of mine” is a common refrain in cases of moral failure by elected government officials of all stripes and parties, usually by those who’ve invested effort in getting those officials in their positions.
If we really believe that, why are not Spitzer’s actions dismissed out of hand?
Because we don’t believe that.
What is done in the bedroom matters very much outside the bedroom.
If a man cannot honor his wife and family in his own home, his word cannot and ought not be trusted in any other part of his life.
And we know it.
Tellingly, BarbinMD completes their commentary with this gem:
All things considered, perhaps Mr. Grossman and his ilk should spare us their experience and morals and instead respect the will of the voters.
UPDATE: Roger Simon asks for a reality check-up on Alan Dershowitz who apparently doesn’t think it’s such a big deal.
And points Spitzer has made it a signature part of this platform putting prostitutes in jail.
What about the johns? And Spitzer?
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt highlights an article by Carol Platt Liebau “Will Spitzer Resign” in which she makes the following statements:
…(Spitzer) may not plan to resign. If that’s true, it’s part of a new and troubling pattern in American political life. It’s not a partisan thing; Larry Craig’s refusal to resign was another manifestation of it.
The whole idea, pioneered by you-know-who and enabled by you-know-who-else, is that illicit sexual behavior and the scandals resulting therefrom can be brazened out by the insistence that they are irrelevant to the discharge of public duties.
…it’s all part of a new ethical calculus concluding that — uniquely in the constellation of virtues — sexual morality is a subjective and purely personal matter that’s of relevance only to “religious” people (or else prurient and “judgmental” ones), even when it impacts the public.
IPandora is ashamed to say we did not trumpet the call for Mr. Craig’s resignation. In defense, I thought there was a lot of condemning going on and not a lot of proof or evidence at the time.
Nothing against the condemning, just when I wasn’t convinced of the burden of proof I wasn’t ready to condemn.