January 25, 2006
Eliot Spitzer has shown a knack for making the most of his office that is unique in America today, and is even reminiscent of Huey Long. That does not mean he is not personally a pain in the ass; in fact, the two may be related. Check out these recent complaints about Spitzer by fellow Democrats:
Mr. Rangel sounded off on Mr. Spitzer by giving public voice for the first time to an opinion that several Democratic officeholders have shared privately for years: that Mr. Spitzer can act like the smartest man in the room, even with allies, when he believes he is right, which is most of the time.
Posted by Wayne Uff at January 25, 2006 12:08 AM
“When Eliot Spitzer, the world’s smartest man, is telling me that he has picked his candidate and knows that his candidate can win, who am I to question the world’s smartest man?” said Mr. Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation.
“I like to think that the world’s smartest man has counted all the support he has for his candidate,” he continued. “I don’t remember David Paterson asking any of us for his support, but if Eliot has picked a candidate, who am I to deny him that decision?” …
Mr. Sutton, a former Manhattan borough president, said … “We’re very surprised to hear the attorney general prefers David to her; this news came out of nowhere,” Mr. Sutton said. “But like Charlie Rangel says, I’m not smart like Eliot Spitzer is.”
My theory is that when Rangel and Sutton have contributed as much to society as Spitzer has, they'll deserve an equivalent level of arrogance.
I'm for Spitzer choosing the running mate he prefers, and screw the New York Democratic party. Also, you gotta question it when the New York Times disses a Democrat. The Times has become a right-wing tabloid; witness Judy Miller, the holding up of the report on eavesdropping, etc.
Also, Spitzer's appeal, and the reason he'll win handily, is that he is his own man. He's running for governor on his personal accomplishments, not on the endorsements of a machine.
He's the real thing, and people will vote for him because of it.
IMHO. We'll see if I'm right.
Hey Chuck, do ya' think the Times has "become" a right wing paper, or is it we're just figuring it out — perhaps the web itself is turning us all into radical lefties?
I never read the Times before the internet version became available, so I can't say. Maybe someone else can.
I'm a lifetime Times reader, including one interlude of almost one year wherein I read literally every syllable published by the Times.
Editorially speaking, the Times is much more liberal now than it was 25 or 30 years ago. And no, that is not saying much. The Gray Lady was always gray. And any spice or deviation into substantial criticism was struck down; exhibit A was the ouster of Russell Baker. But starting under Howell Raines sometime in the 1990's, the paper started taking a more lively editorial and reportorial posture. The rise of Gail Collins as a columnist and now editor is a good thing, which simply would not have been possible 12-15 years ago.
Still, "the liberal New York Times" was and remains a myth. I have a strong feeling that Krugman lives every day on borrowed time.
When I was taught to read and write editorials in an English class, the best newspaper was the New York Herald Tribune. It had sunk without a trace before I was enough of a grown-up to buy my own newspapers.
Someday I'll have to go on eBay and find some old copies. I'd like to know whether it was really good or whether I was easily impressed.