Comments on: Steamroll this!

Steamroll this!

jourman2 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:40:06 -0800

Eliot Spitzer is back in the public spotlight as a biweekly columnist for Slate. His first column argues against bailouts. More background info.

By: jourman2

jourman2 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:42:40 -0800

Sorry - better link.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:46:35 -0800

Sometimes I think those right-wing types who grumble about "the death of shame" have a point.

By: Chocomog

Chocomog — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:48:44 -0800

does it involve hookers?

By: liza

liza — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 18:57:44 -0800

y'all don't understand how "hope" died in NY with Spitzer's downfall. i own Daily Gotham and get to see NY politics front a center most of the time. to say people are just getting out of the shock is an understatement. looking back ... sigh ... i can see that electing him governor was a bad idea. he's a DA by heart and his style just didn't work with running a government. it will be interesting to see how he takes to being a political commentator.

By: 445supermag

445supermag — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:21:55 -0800

I was going to make a joke about hookers, but instead read his column. He makes a lot of good points that I haven't heard anywhere else.

By: enn

enn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:27:11 -0800

Has Slate got some kind of standing option on people to whose names "disgraced former" gets prepended? This feels like a bizarre Spitzer/Henry Blodget buddy thriller. A crusading prosecutor. The high-flying Wall Street insider he took down. Now, they've washed up at the same dead-end online magazine — and they must work together to expose a terrifying conspiracy to loot the national treasury. Before it's too late.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:34:44 -0800

I dislike Spitzer and was looking forward to disliking his column, but it's actually pretty damn good.

By: jcruelty

jcruelty — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:43:05 -0800

The man accomplished a lot. I could give a shit if he slept with an escort.

By: gman

gman — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:51:29 -0800

The man accomplished a lot. I could give a shit if he slept with an escort. I'd feel the same way IF HE HADN'T PROSECUTED PROSTITUTION RINGS.

By: jcruelty

jcruelty — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:54:01 -0800

Ok, you have a point there!

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:54:31 -0800

Also, an actor's political views determines how I judge their performance in a film.

By: grounded

grounded — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:59:02 -0800

Well, he's not a hypocrite on this one. Call him 'consistently anti-protectionist'. He against protecting the sleazy financial sector with bailouts and when he's with a hooker, he's against protecting himself with condoms.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:05:59 -0800

"None of the investments has even begun to address the underlying structural problems that are causing economic power to shift away from the United States, sector by sector" H.I., you're young and you got'cher health, what do you want with a job?

By: intermod

intermod — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:07:13 -0800

I got sucked right into his column and arguments, and then at the end realized "oh yeah, I was supposed to be ready to snark at this."

By: JohnnyGunn

JohnnyGunn — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:14:47 -0800

Spitzer is a pompous asshole who has no credibility. I wonder if he left his socks on when he wrote this?

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:14:55 -0800

Has Slate got some kind of standing option on people to whose names "disgraced former" gets prepended? This feels like a bizarre Spitzer/Henry Blodget buddy thriller. "A crusading prosecutor. The high-flying Wall Street insider he took down. Now, they've washed up at the same dead-end online magazine — and they must work together to expose a terrifying conspiracy to loot the national treasury. Before it's too late." And let me guess, Hitchens would be the grizzled Editor In Chief who makes them turn in their guns and Blackberries due to their loose-cannon antics?

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:50:02 -0800

What? Chinese jets? I tried to read it, but as far as I could tell it was the same utter gibberish that's been flying out of uniformed mouths everywhere these last few weeks. the process of creative destruction that capitalism depends on. Seriously, dude. What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Saying. "We had to burn the economy in order to save it?" I know it's Slate and not a real magazine, but come on. I'd rather read a column by the hooker.

By: drjimmy11

drjimmy11 — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:55:21 -0800

Him and the "lol no bailouts" crowd seem to live in a magical gumdrop world where those big bad financial firms and those evil unionized Big 3 automakers are swept off the map by some magical hand of God, and somehow everything remains JUST FINE for everyone else. No jobs are lost, there's no cascading impact on the economy, everyone whistles a jaunty tune and goes on about their day. if you don't even bother to mention the disaster letting these institutions fail would be for the economy, the country, and the world, you are not qualified to write a column on economics or anything else.

By: benzenedream

benzenedream — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:00:03 -0800

And let me guess, Hitchens would be the grizzled Editor In Chief who makes them turn in their guns and Blackberries due to their loose-cannon antics? Saletan would be the creepy pathologist who pretends to be a scientist.

By: Lemurrhea

Lemurrhea — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:30:28 -0800

Benzenedream, I don't really see how that Feministe article makes Saletan out to be that bad. He makes a case for contraceptives from a pro-life standpoint, and they get mad at him because They want to see women punished for being autonomous, sexual human beings. That's it, end of story. Which is quite possibly true, but it reads to me as them being the crazy ones, not him. Not that he's NOT a little bit crazy, but I think he ends up as a force for good in total.

By: allen.spaulding

allen.spaulding — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 22:51:05 -0800

Seriously, dude. What. The. Fuck. Are. You. Saying It's Schumpeter. I mean, there's plenty to criticize here, but knowing econ 101 might be a good start.

By: krautland

krautland — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 05:15:52 -0800

I have no problem with spitzer making a living opining about the financial industry but please, dearest slate, can't you make him get the whole "I fucked a hooker please forgive me" spiel out of the way? because that's really the 800lbs gorilla in the room. address it once and for all in a sincere way (negative example being that news conference) and we're done. nobody ever admits to their mistakes.

By: snofoam

snofoam — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:37:29 -0800

It's really easy to be against bailouts. It's pretty easy to suggest vague things like small, nimble banks or entrepreneurial auto manufacturers. It's much harder to show that these things would realistically work. Should we have our own Great Leap Forward and start manufacturing cars in our backyards? I also find it weird that no one mentions that our government already subsidizes certain industries. Would Boeing be around without defense contracts? Would pharmaceutical companies have new drugs without government-funded research at universities? Could someone point out which developed country has no government involvement in business? Sure, a lot is wrong with these companies, but some capital-intensive things are probably better done at a large scale, and I'm not sure public private partnerships are necessarily a bad thing.

By: sfts2

sfts2 — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:37:27 -0800

snofoam, what is also often lost is these our 'free-market' capitalist companies are usually competing with subsidized global firms. eg. Boeing et. al. v Airbus et.al, GM/Ford/Chrysler vs the rest of the world

By: a3matrix

a3matrix — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:45:10 -0800

y'all don't understand how "hope" died in NY with Spitzer's downfall. The guy accomplished nothing in his 1 year as Gov, so hope was pretty much already on the fence. I think shock set in when he had to resign, shock over his actions, followed closely by disgust at the hypocrisy of it all. He left, Patterson took office, and it would appear that he is far more effective in the office than Spitzer was in his short stay. The man is not missed, and is in fact, barely remembered.

By: snofoam

snofoam — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:37:55 -0800

sfts2: exactly! if someone wants to subscribe to the ideology that a free market exists and that it can solve all our problems, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it will actually work in the real world. someone might as well suggest prayer as an alternative to bailouts.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:40:34 -0800

We shouldn't have bailouts? Ok, sure, Spitz, but aren't you a little late on that one? I mean, I'm with you on discouraging things like "too-big-to-fail" banks, etc., but I think that could probably be handled through aggressive anti-trust regulation irrespective of the bailout. The bailout that already got voted through, in fact.

By: flippant

flippant — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 13:38:49 -0800

Thinking with your dick occasionally doesn't mean you're unfit to hold down a job. He did make it pretty far, you know. Moreso than most of the people in this thread; assuming he's an idiot in all respects because he did something monumentally stupid is, well.. stupid.