Monday, March 10, 2008

What's In A Name, Client 9?

Consider this. Eliot Spitzer is now, and forever will be Client 9. He is finished as Governor of New York. I hope for his daughters’ sake his wife is already talking to her attorney. And I hope he doesn’t cost as much as the call girl Spitzer took to D.C. On Valentine’s day!!!??? But I do hope her divorce attorney is a shark.

Clinton is a name that comes to mind in just a case like the Spitzer one. Sleazy sex scandal. Not Hillary, of course, but charming Billy. Not that Bill ever had a taste for the kind of babes who work for The Emperor’s Club, or that he ever paid for it except, after the fact, in lawyers fees fighting law suits. Maybe a settlement or two, but the sleazy sex part, the bad judgement regarding the wants of his little brain, the betrayal of his wife and daughter (in Bill’s case one and in Spitzer’s case, three), the lies, and finally the public apology. That’s classic Clinton. Spitzer called it a “Private Matter,” today in his press conference. Do you get the cognitive dissonance of that construct? Does Mann Act mean anything to you Governor? Your name is soon to be added to the list of famous men prosecuted under the Mann Act. You and Charlie Manson. Nice company you’re keeping these days. And not to leave Republicans out, let's not forget Larry Wide-Stance Craig.


sitenoise said...

What is the difference between being "Involved in a prostitution ring" and seeing a hooker? What's in a name?

Utah Savage said...

Dear Sitenoise, Governor Spitzer was a Prosecutor and then Attorney General for New York and fairly famously busted several prostitution rings. He was Mister Law and Order, It isn't the simply that he paid for sex, but that he transported it across lines. It is also that his trip was paid for by the had working tax payers of the State of New York.

Glad to see you're still reading. Thanks for the comment. Always provocative.

sitenoise said...

Utah Savage said..."It isn't the simply that he paid for sex, but that he transported it across lines."

What is "it" in that sentence? Does that mean he was actually in the act of fucking someone at the time he crossed state lines?

I couldn't give a shit about the prick, but when I saw the CNN headline I was expecting to hear about human trafficking, or that he owned a brothel heidi fleiss style. Something involved in the means of production not just smoking opium.

Isn't it always that the ones who shout the loudest are the "first ones on their lousy knees." [christopher hitchens]

I guess the difference between being "involved in a prostitution ring" and seeing a hooker just depends on who you are? Did I get that right?

K McKiernan said...

You know what? Men and their vices is nothing new. Men in power cannot seem to keep their dick in their pants (most other men cannot seem to either... but they are not in the limelight taking all the hits). Do I condone their lack of will power? Absolutely not. But frankly, its none of my business. If he spent tax payer dollars, then he should deal with the ramifications of spending those dollars. But, his pathetic nature of being consumed and directed by his penis is not my business. Nor do I want it to be my business.

You know.... there is a way to solve a political leader being lead by his rod.... Elect a woman. Start with: ELECT HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!! ~Grin.