This is the problem with filing away links for a rainy day… by the time one is ready to post them, the story very well may have moved on. Or oneself may have moved on. As I’ve said elsewhere, we already knew Bruno and friends were going to behave like this. The real unknown was how Spitzer was going to behave. All people cared about was whether the new guy on the block (Spitzer) was going to be the solution, or at least, part of the solution. With his reluctance to clean his own house, I wonder if Spitzer has proven himself to be just another part of the problem. Maybe that’s not true — maybe he is part of the solution — but I don’t know if the people of New York have the patience (or time) for a solution that involves simply a bigger dose of mealy-mouthed legalistic maneuverings.
I have collected a series of other bloggers’ takes on the Eliot Spitzer situation (or Troopergate, or Choppergate, or Brunogate, or whatever “gate” it is). Read on for those…
Demahir, a poster at The Albany Project, analyzes Spitzer’s apology letter to the New York Times.
Adirondack Musing is impressed with Spitzer’s initial apology.
Sean Kirst marvels at the way Spitzer has managed to turn Joe Bruno into Norma Rae.
The Daily Politics (the Daily News’ political blog) compares this scandal to the murder of Thomas Becket, Archbishop of Canterbury. (And I thought I was the champ at digging up obscure historical analogies to current news…)
Change CNY is somewhat suspicious of Cuomo’s motives.
Fault Lines comments on FOIL as it relates to Cuomo’s report:
FOIL requires disclosure of existing documents, it does not require new ones to be produced. However, FOIL does not prevent new documents from being created to meet a request for information. The spirit of the Freedom of Information Law is open government — as much information should be made public as possible. And if a particular request would demand that a new document be produced, while the law does not require that this be done, production would certainly be in the spirit of FOIL (full disclosure).
While the idea of people of one party trying to smear a person in another is repugnant, if the information disclosed is not of a personal nature, but rather involves official activities and spending taxpayers’ money, why shouldn’t it be made public? There is no indication in the story that any of the information was falsified. It is clear that had these officials not misbehaved, the public would have no clue how Mr. Bruno was spending their money.
A poster at the Daily Gotham is annoyed that Spitzer didn’t go far enough:
The main problem is that Spitzer and Baum have allowed the debate and headlines to be hijacked by basically one right wing, NY Post reporter, Fred Dicker… I am upset with Spitzer and Baum, not because of this rather hare-brained scheme, but because they didn’t have the fortitude to see it through. Spitzer should not have apologized to Bruno or anyone else. According to the Cuomo report, neither he nor Bruno, nor anyone else broke the law. Spitzer should have seized on the parts of this report that reiterate the fact that Bruno was misusing state aircraft… If you’re gonna steamroll, then steamroll, don’t stop halfway through.
Democracy in Albany thinks the controversy has been good for getting the word out about Joe Bruno’s transgressions.
I could go on, but it’s sufficient to say, everybody’s talkin’.