SPITZER v. VITTER...

This is a long, rambling thought. So, if you don't have time to read it, just move on...you won't miss anything profound, I promise you.

The current flap over New York Governor Eliot Spitzers' resignation in the wake of "the big scandal" of the week has renewed talk down here in Louisiana of our own "dirty laundry." Specifically, the revelation that while in the U.S. House of Representatives, our current Senator David Vitter also solicited prostitutes in D.C.

Much of the talk focuses on Spitzers' resignation, and Vitters' refusal to do so. I'm not going to try to justify what either of these fellows did (they did break a law...whether you agree with the law or not), but I do want to point out a few differences in their situations.

And just as an editorial note, I could be looking at this through biased eyes. I don't care for Eliot Spitzer personally. I've followed his career a little bit since 9/11, and truthfully he seems to me like Eddie Haskell on steroids...just a real "obnoxious snot." At the same time, I have a great affection, even admiration for Senator Vitter. He is a very humble man. He is a real servant of the people. He looks you in the eye, and listens to you. He takes advice from his constituents...long stories that I won't go into.

Gotcha! -

So what's the difference? First of all, David Vitter had come clean years ago with his wife and family about it all. Long before the "scandal broke" Vitter had confessed his sin to his wife, his Priest, to Christ, and had been in long-term counseling with Wendy. This was not an on-going thing. Did that justify it? Well, if you believe as Davids' Roman Catholic faith teaches that "justification" is granted by Christ...well then "yes," it does...not justification of the act, but absolution from the penalty. Adultery, whether with a prostitute or not, is a serious, harmful sin.

In fact, Vitter's transgressions were known by some Washington insiders years before they were revealed. In David's Senate run he faced several opponents. Louisianas' unique "open primary" system requires that all candidates, regardless of party compete in the first primary. It was assumed by the campaign of his main opponent, fellow LA Congressman Chris John (D) that the two would face off in the runoff. The John campaign was holding this information for the runoff.

Lo and behold, Vitter won on the first ballot in a real "shocker," becoming the first Republican Senator from LA since Reconstruction. So the information never made it to the public. Would it have mattered?

Yessirree! Vitter campaigned as a "family values" guy. It would have buried his campaign, and any chance for a future career in politics. Personally, I think that confession, and rejection of sin in ones' life is a "family value." But it wouldn't have played that way.

Spitzer experienced a "royal gotcha!" Eliot ("Ness," as he had been nicknamed) established the persona of a real dogged crime-fighter. He went into office pledging to clean up corruption in New York, etc. All the while he was participating in illegal activity that he even "went after" as Attorney General.

It might just be me, and it is just a hunch, but I suspect that there is something much deeper going on here than simple solicitation of prostitution. We all know that public officials just don't make that much money. Some of them invest wisely, and some are born into money. I don't know Eliots' financial past, but "5 large" sounds like a whole lot to me for a few hours roll in the hay.

And if media reports can be believed, this is not the first big chunk he's dropped on his "diversion." I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more to this "money-moving" than we see now on the surface. But we will see.

Compromising position - 1 of 535 v. 1 of 1 -

Now to the question of "blackmail." This is pretty simple. David Vitter put himself in the position of being compromised...politically blackmailed if you will. As a Congressman, and sitting on Congressional committees (a member of the majority at the time), Vitter could have been blackmailed to either push legislation, kill legislation, or vote one way or another.

Throughout all the Clinton/Lewinski scandal this is the issue that bothered me the most. The fact that the most powerful man in the free world would allow himself to be compromised in that way was truly frightening. The difference in the Executive and the Legislator however, is as stark as "day and night."

A Governor is an extremely powerful person. Executive orders can be made in many cases with no oversight. A Governor has the power of the "veto." And vetoes are very difficult to overturn in most cases. The Governor normally gets just about what he wants in the State budget. The Governor normally has great influence on the Legislative committees.

In short, the Governor of a State has much more "stroke" than any member of the US Legislature. If compromised, and "blackmailed," there is not much of a "check" on what the blackmailer can get for his/her silence from an Executive.

Spitzer had to resign, because he truly is 1 of 1 in his position. The "trust" of the public was destroyed. I think people take these things into account. Some of the opinion polls showed over 70% of New Yorkers wanted Spitzer gone.

No such thing happened in Louisiana over Vitters' scandal. The State was disappointed, upset, felt betrayed...but no polls ever showed that many citizens wanted David to resign. Vitter is 1 of 535 legislators. It might have been honorable of David to resign, but not necessary in my book. It was terrible judgment, but not compromising to the point of "egregious" in the big scheme of things.

So, that's a "ramble." That one was "free"...and probably worth what you paid for it.