Is Eliot Spitzer Playing ‘Survivor’? (at UPDATE 2: The Answer Is ‘Yes’)
I don’t like it when my worst instincts about someone appear to be coming true.
Unfortunately, I believe this is one of those times.
Yesterday, my reaction to Eliot Spitzer’s press statement was, “He’s going to gauge public reax first before deciding whether to give it up.”
I believe he’s still gauging.
The strategic elements in the Spitzer strategy look to be:
- Lawyer up.
- Hunker down; don’t say a word.
- Wait for the “private life” and “everybody does it” crowd to weigh in.
- Wait for the press to remind everyone of “how much good” you’ve done.
- Wait for the opposition to give an appearance, fed by the press, of overreacting. The opposition’s calls for impeachment while festively celebrating are, in my opinion, helping Mr. Spitzer quite a bit (”Sources told CBS 2 that Republicans were literally popping open bottles of champagne…..”).
- Wait for his defenders to start going after the people who want him to go away.
- Pray novenas that something else in the news cycle comes along to get the mess off the front pages (Hint: The Mississippi Primary isn’t it).
It’s too early to tell if Spitzer’s waiting game will work, though the unsurprising yet disconcerting news that “Spitzer allegedly used an escort service for at least six months and paid more than $15,000 for numerous meetings” isn’t helping his cause.
+++++++++++++++++
Update, 9:50 p.m.: Did I say six months? Try somewhere between 6-10 years, per the New York Post —
isgraced Gov. Spitzer dropped up to $80,000 on sex with prostitutes, sources revealed tonight.
Spitzer, a millionaire, was hopping into bed with harlots for as long as 10 years and traveled as far as Florida for call-girl trysts, sources said.
How long will we have to wait before some defender says something like “See, he was doing a great job all this time. It proves that it wasn’t a distraction”? This could actually improve his gubernatorial survival odds. Marriage survival odds, not so much.
+++++++++++++++++
But Eliot Spitzer’s game of “Survivor” might work.
Larry Craig and David Vitter in the US Senate are still hanging on in “related” matters (please, don’t bother me about the differences; I know). But, while many states’ chief executives have made it through their terms in trying circumstances, surviving in the Senate is a different matter than running the gauntlet as a state governor.
In much less severe and not sex-related circumstances, Ohio GOP Governor Bob Taft held on after pleading guilty to ethics-code violations.. He seriously damaged his party in the process, while the state’s majority-GOP legislature stood by and allowed him to do it. Democrats saw the political advantage of letting a wounded Taft go through the motions for another year, and won the next gubernatorial election handily.
In Kentucky, GOP Governor Ernie Fletcher spent most of his four years in ethical hot water, and the last couple in extramarital-affair-with-state-favors hot water too. He hung on, ran for re-election, and got whipped badly.
In Maryland, Dem Governor Parris Glendening had a girlfriend on the state payroll while he was married, and suffered no consequences. But again, the other party won the next gubernatorial election.
In Illinois it appears that second-term Dem guv Rod Blagojevich is in over his head in ethical and state-business scandals (some of which, IIRC, comes back to onetime Barack Obama mentor Tony Rezko). But he’s not going anywhere either. The Illinois GOP is so weak it may not be able to take advantage of the Dems’ problems.
In 2003, Dem governor Gray Davis was forced from office in California in a recall election over the Golden State’s budget nightmares and the state’s cover-up of those problems during the 2002 election. Alleged Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger took over from there.
These are the statehouse examples I can think of, though there may be others.
Given the history just recited, I wouldn’t bet against Spitzer surviving, though he has the following working against him:
- Nearly 3 years remaining in office if he stays. Can the country’s third-largest state afford to vegetate that long? I doubt that many think it can without severe consequences.
- A Democratic Party that just got the New York governor’s mansion back after 12 years in the wilderness. It does not want to face a bloodbath in 2010 after what would likely be three more ineffectual years under Spitzer. I don’t see how Empire State party Democratic Party leaders can stand by and let this happen. But — This is the same party whose national leadership snatched narrow defeat from the jaws of near-certain landslide victory in the 2000 presidential election by not forcing Bill Clinton out when they could have. Al Gore running as an incumbent would have been very tough to beat.
- If Spitzer stays on, the fallout may be bad enough that it puts New York’s 31 almost always Democratic presidential electoral votes in play for John McCain. You would think that Howard Dean et al will have none of that (but see previous item). I suspect the potential danger of that is being focus-grouped as you read this.
- Relentless media ridicule on the late-night and Comedy Central shows that will only get worse as more details come out.
- Spitzer’s already checkered history with the Troopergate situation last year.
- The possibility of an indictment, and the chance that Spitzer might be able to reduce his personal legal consequences in exchange for resigning.
Regardless of how this turns out, the fact that Spitzer appears to be trying to ride out the storm after the damage he’s inflicted on the people he allegedly cares about is what should really be galling people, regardless of their politics.
But apparently we’re too “sophisticated” for that.
___________________________________________
UPDATE, 10:20 p.m.: From CBS, “Spitzer Resignation Expected Wednesday” —
Governor Negotiating To Cut Deal With Federal Prosecutors
Gov. Eliot Spitzer is set to resign Wednesday, sources tell CBS 2 HD political reporter Marcia Kramer, but insiders say he’s going to use the resignation as a bargaining chip to cut a deal with federal prosecutors and he won’t step down until that happens. The talks have been going on since Tuesday morning.
The governor’s fate rests in the hands of two people: U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia and Michele Hirshman, the head of his legal defense team. The deal they cut will determine Spitzer’s future.
Criminal law experts say Spitzer will definitely have to resign the governorship and that what’s involved in the deal is key.
So the highest office in the state of New York is reduced to a “bargaining chip” that can be pulled off the table if “the deal” isn’t sufficiently satisfactory. My guess is that Spitzer can do this because he has assurances from the Democrat-dominated state legislature than they wouldn’t allow any impeachment attempt to succeed. Where’s the outrage?
UPDATE 2, 11:15 p.m.: A “See I told you so” moment, from AP at this link (backup in case of further AP updates) —
Democrats privately floated another option, telling The Associated Press that Spitzer was considering what was almost unthinkable immediately after Monday’s bombshell apology: hanging on.
“If the public is fine, he’ll stay,” said a Democrat who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.
UPDATE 3, 11:30 p.m.: The New York Times, which in yesterday’s related editorial appeared to be holding out hope that Sptizer could survive all of this (”Mr. Spitzer did not seem to understand on Monday what he owed the public — a strong argument for why he should be trusted again. The longer he hesitates, it becomes a harder case to make.”), all but slammed the door tonight:
To put it bluntly, Mr. Spitzer must either resign immediately or explain why he deserves to continue in office. It is almost impossible for us to imagine how he can survive this scandal and provide the credible leadership that New York needs.
UPDATE 4: Somebody needs to explain to me how, within 24 hours, the New York Post could find 6-10 years of history when the Times had owned the story for at least 3 days before that (a weekend yes, but three days nonetheless)? Is it possible that the Times thought that the public could handle the “one-time” situation it portrayed, simply hoped that there wouldn’t be more, and decided the risk of being scooped bigtime was less important than the possibility of saving their beloved Eliot? If I’m right, old-line newspaper people have to be aghast.









