Spitzer Sort of Backs Down

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer seems to be semi-backing down on the question of whether or not his aides can testify about why State Police were spying on State Senate leader Joseph Bruno. The new idea is to get them to testify before an inquiry led by the state ethics commission in order to pre-empt Bruno's preference of holding hearings in the Senate to humiliate the governor.

This Times article about Spitzer's relationship with NY Attorney-General Andrew Cuomo is also pretty interesting. In context, it helps make the point that in regard to this matter at least, American political institutions are sort of operating as intended. Bruno and Spitzer are going at it, obviously. But Cuomo, rather than acting as first and foremost a loyal Democrat and seeking zealously to shield Spitzer from scrutiny, is acting first and foremost as a selfish, ambitious politician happy to embarrass both Spitzer and Bruno in hopes of himself becoming governor some day.

Much of the crisis in Washington today boils down precisely to the congressional GOP's unwillingness not so much to "do the right thing" but unwillingness to even be petty and power-hungry; their decision to see their job as backstopping the president come what may rather than to jealously horde the powers of their own offices.

Comments

Hoard! Hoard! You're a professional writer!

You might also want to consider whether the final paragraph needs a period in it somewhere.

Posted by mq | July 28, 2007 12:21 PM

Hoard the powers. While the current Republican party may be a horde of shrieking children aghast that anyone might criticize Dear Leader, their stockpiling of quid pro quo campaign contributions from lobbyists and corporate interests is hoarding.

Posted by Dave Pooser | July 28, 2007 12:24 PM

I see it more as the most retrograde machine elements of the NY state Democratic and Republican parties collaborating to defeat a reformer, which is pretty much SOP in the state, and which is why the NY state government is the second worst in the nation and pretty much impossible to change.

Posted by Ed | July 28, 2007 12:43 PM

Yet another difference between the parties. If Andrew Cuomo were a Republican doing this to a Republican governor, his political career would be over. As it is, he's the frontrunner for the nomination.

I think Bush and friends deserve some real credit for setting up this dynamic in the Republican party. Politicians will always be guided by selfishness, and Bush has made it the case that Republican selfishness dictates fealty to Bush's own interests.

Posted by Marshall | July 28, 2007 1:59 PM

To be fair, if it were Spitzer himself in the role of Attorney General in this scenario, does anyone think he would have acted differently?

Posted by Steve | July 28, 2007 2:45 PM

You want to let republicans break with the prez, yer gonna have to get the party, and thus the party's reelection funds, to make the break first. The contemporary entralization of campaign funds in the hands of the national party is a major change from prior practice, and appears to be the mechanism the party has adopted to maintain coherence and self-definition ever since conventions became merely ratifications of the primary vote.

Posted by Senescent | July 28, 2007 4:01 PM

Theres being a "reformer" and there's being a bully. I think Spitzer, having danced on that line for some time, is now clearly over it.

My own question here is what's so bad about the GOP senate in NY? They are very good on issues of public spending when compared to lots of democratic controlled chambers in other states. They co-led the charge to override Pataki and raise taxes during the last fiscal crisis.
THey're mostly good on labor amd again are better than lots of other Democratic chambers on these issues. My main beef with them has been that NYC gets relatively screwed on school funding, but this is what has been happening in every state where the suburbs don't want to pay for the city.

Posted by benton | July 28, 2007 7:20 PM

Bush has made it the case that Republican selfishness dictates fealty to Bush's own interests.

I mostly agree with Marshall, but I don't think it's just Bush's doing. For a long time now, it's been in the interest of most individual GOP politicians to support the party, come what may, because doing so paid such good dividends. Without meaningful dissent, the party steamrolled the fragmented opposition. Only problem is, they've tied themselves together so tightly, now that Bush's ship is going down, they all sink together.

Posted by yave begnet | July 28, 2007 11:43 PM

I don't see how MY's identification of this crisis suggests that he doesn't understand how the modern GOP works. Rather the opposite. He's simply saying that it *is* a crisis. I said in a earlier comment (on a post about impeachment) that the Founders relied on politics but feared partisanship ('faction'). We often equate politics and partisanship, but functionally, they aren't the same at all.

By the way, we should nominate and elect John Edwards in '08 for, among other reasons, his having apprehended that the way we finance political campaigns is an absolutely central problem - every bit as 'keystone' a problem as healthcare. He's the only one who campaigns consistently on this issue, and has done since 2003-4.

Posted by jonnybutter | July 30, 2007 12:48 AM

Spitzer is a complete psychopath. His bullying and abuse of power are dangerous. He needs to be removed from office. The guys is a fraud -- his rich dad has financed his entire political career.

Posted by Ray | August 2, 2007 11:33 AM