"Well, I read an old quotation in a book just yesterday
Said ‘Gonna reap just what you sow,
The debts you make you have to pay.’
Can you get to that?...

I recollect with a-mixed emotions
All the good times we used to have
But you were making preparations
For the coming separation
And you blew everything we had...

When you base your love on credit
And your loving days are done
Checks you signed with a-love and kisses
Later come back signed ‘insufficient funds’"

- George Clinton (not the one who was Governor)

Outside of the free and easy sex, one of the few nice things about Albany has always been the reluctance of the participants in the Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle to use the tools of law enforcement for the advancement of political aims. Contrast this to Washington, where perjury traps and special prosecutors (not to mention the golden olden days where one could sic the FBI and IRS on one’s opposition) have been as essential to the political process as prime voters lists. Compared to Washington, Albany is a wide open town; like Kansas City in the thirties, but without the contingent of world class jazzmen. With the minor exception of using state troopers as personal chauffeurs, abuses of police powers have generally been an off-menu item on the Albany high-caloric bill of fair.

Well before last year’s election, Shelly Silver told a close confidante, "you know, Eliot is not one of us". This has clearly been proven to be an accurate assessment, although whether it necessarily qualifies as an improvement is surely a matter of one’s personal taste. For example, the unwritten laws of Albany state that a Governor is never allowed to use his personal power to disrupt the existing partisan majorities in the chambers of the State Legislature. I was personally very fond of the contempt Spitzer displayed towards this unwritten law during the recent Nassau County special election for State Senate. I am, however, somewhat concerned about what appears to be a similar level of contempt for those laws which are actually written, as well as for the spirit such laws are said to embody.

Like he said in one of his campaign ads, Eliot Spitzer never asks if it is popular or unpopular, but simply whether it is right or wrong. Spitzer believes that this is not a bad rule. Whether one agrees with him or not may be dependent upon whether one shares Spitzer’s sense of what constitutes right and wrong.

As per the Albany norm, the press is missing the point. This is not a matter of hypocrisy; Eliot Spitzer did not get into trouble because he betrayed his principles; Eliot Spitzer got into trouble because he lived by them. Like Rudy G, Eliot S is the sheriff who came to clean up Dodge. He sees himself as pure and righteous; at best, he sees others as craven and cowardly lesser men, living by expedience; at worst, he sees them as the embodiments of evil incarnate. And certainly, even those of us who disagree with Spitzer’s assessment of himself, can appreciate the accuracy of his assessment of almost everyone else he’s encountered in Albany thus far.

Like the Giuliani crime family (I call it "The Partnership"), Eliot and his crew see themselves as the good guys; the good guys stand for justice. Laws are there to keep those who are not good guys in line; they are there to prevent the bad guys from doing bad, and not to hamper the good guys from doing good. There may occasionally be internal debates within "‘this thing of ours" concerning the eternal question of whether to draw the line at "by any means necessary" or "by any means possible", but in the end, the ends will always justify the means, provided that the means are deemed effective.

This renders the obsession by the press and various Republicans concerning "what the Governor knew and when he knew it" into an object of sheer hilarity. Can any one doubt that the working environment created by Spitzer made clear that free license was available for any and all means seen as useful to accomplishing the implementation of the sacred program for “reform”? The sole caveat to such license was that the means which were deployed were only to be those which would work. In fact, the untimely revelation that the means which were deployed did not ultimately prove effective, and were, in fact, counterproductive, is the only possible source for any shred of plausible deniability on the Governor’s part.

The one thing we expected from Eliot Spitzer was competence. Instead, we’ve been treated to a display of hubris undone in which Harry Reems has been revealed to be (if Bonnie Bramlett is to be believed) Elvis Costello. The whole thing reminds one of Tom Delay’s effort to enlist the Federal Aviation Administration into tracking down the location of a group of Democratic Texas State legislators hiding in secrecy in order to prevent the enactment of a midterm reapportionment designed to ensure the continued Republican control of Congress. The only difference is that Delay deployed his tactical abuse of power to accomplish a specific goal. By contrast, Spitzer’s crew deployed their abuse of power seemingly for its own sake, because they could.

Bad dog!

Does this cast doubt upon Spitzer’s credentials as a "reformer"? Well, it is clearer than ever that he wants to "re-form" state government. What is in doubt is the manner of "reform" he seeks to achieve. For years the debate in Albany has been between those who want to perpetuate "Three Men in a Room", those in the Assembly Minority, who want to expand the playing field to "Five Men in a Room", and those in the Senate Minority who prefer to keep the system the same, but (except for Carl Kruger) want to change one of the men. By contrast, Spitzer’s preferred model appears to be "One Man in a Room".

This may be the one consistency embodied in what otherwise seems to be a series of confusing gyrations. The Governor wants what he wants, and will do what ever it takes to attain his goals.

In the battle over the Comptrollership, Eliot wanted a fight with Shelly Silver. He did not want a Comptroller, in a position to make crucial pronouncements over revenue estimates, to be beholden to the legislature. Silver, beholden to a conference not without its ability to threaten rebellion (just ask Steve Levy!), offered Spitzer any legislator of his choice; Spitzer demurred. Eventually Spitzer, Bruno and Silver agreed to the implementation of a modified version that Albany favorite, "Three Men in a Room" (here called "The Three Wise Men"). When it became clear that the "Three Men" would list Assemblyman Pete Grannis among their favorites, Grannis suddenly and unexpectedly found himself named as Spitzer’s Commissioner of Environmental Conservation; the alarming possibility of peace was to be avoided at all costs. Spitzer’s favorite, Billy Mulrow, did get through the panel, allowing the Governor the opportunity to have the "independent" revenue forecaster be beholden to him, instead of to the legislative branch, but the NY Times editorialized against this possibility, removing that temptation and allowing Spitzer to mount the "bully pulpit" and make his bones as a "reformer" by backing Martha Stark and traveling across the state humiliating local Democratic State legislators in their home districts.

This is the Spitzer version of "How to Win Friends and Influence People", and the strategy was quite effective once it was understood that the friends Spitzer was attempting to win were not in the legislature; even though Spitzer’s ultimate goals did include influencing the legislature, his strategy for doing so was analogous to having George Latimer wake up to find himself in bed with a horse’s head (by contrast, the Governor now appears to have walked into his own office suite only to find it populated with a roomful of the horse’s other end). In the eyes of the press, Spitzer emerged from the Comptroller battle an heroic figure. Like a sacrifice bunt turned grand slam, Spitzer had morphed into Houdini, wrapping himself securely in the jaws of defeat only to emerge victorious and unscathed.

From the Comptroller’s race, the Governor swung full force into the budget process, and seeking to avoid the embarrassing delays of years past, immediately reverted into the traditional version of the "Three Men" strategy, concluding that the sordid means he had pledged to forsake were justified by the worthy end of avoiding uncomfortable headlines about Albany disfunction and paralysis. This seemed to be the exact opposite tact from the one displayed earlier, but both reinforced the image, if not the reality, of Spitzer the Crusader in Charge.

Now we see a different image. The Governor has been humbled in a manner from which he cannot recover. He may not have suffered a loss of his considerable constitutional powers, but he can never reconstruct the busted cherry of his image as Albany’s caped crusader. And over what? Joe Bruno has trumpeted to anyone who would listen (seemingly everyone) that the Cuomo report has deemed "proper" his sleazy use of taxpayer financed airspace to facilitate his fund-raising endeavors, which he’d disguised using as camouflage "state business" as substantive as Courthouse toilet paper. Joe, the word is not "proper", it is "permissible". The only manner in which it is "proper" is as part of the term "proper-gander" (it walks like a duck, and if there were any justice, Joe’s goose would be cooked).

Is it any surprise that, in an atmosphere where such abuses of the public till go unchallenged, Spitzer’s folks could have believed that "anything goes"? In the end, Spitzer’s greatest powers emanated from smoke and mirrors, and now the smoke has cleared and there is little that remains but shattered glass.

To their credit, in this scandal, the Senate Republicans have not abandoned their principles, such as they are. Unlike their Washington counterparts, or the Spitzer administration, the Senate Republicans have no interest in using the tools of law enforcement for political aims; in fact, they have no interest in law enforcement having any relationship whatsoever with life as it is lived in the City of Albany. Certainly, they have no interest in criminally prosecuting Spitzer or his subordinates, or in removing Spitzer from office. That is the last thing they want. They’ve got themselves a completely gelded governor with three and a half years left on his term; what more could they possibly need? David Paterson? Hell, Paterson as Governor could plausibly say he didn’t see a thing. Better, as always in Albany, to maintain the status quo.

Yes, the Senate Republicans will attempt to conduct hearings, but that is only to keep Spitzer’s wounds open and well salted. And, whether an act of selfless integrity, or just convenience, one cannot help noting that it is not unprcedented for members of the Family Cuomo to lend aide and comfort to the State Senate's Republican Majority; although, in fairness to Cuomo, it is clear that he does not share Joe Bruno's desire that Spitzer remain as the state's top Democrat.    

As someone who largely embraces the overwhelming majority of the substantive program of the Spitzer administration, who thrills to Spitzer’s willingness to flout all the conventions of the Albany’s Culture of Corruption Through Legality, and who applauds Spitzer’s efforts to destroy the Albany Bi-Partisan Iron Triangle, even if somewhat unsure about the desirability of whatever it is Spitzer ultimately intends to put in its place, it is galling to watch the press so willingly bend over and cede Joe Bruno the moral high ground. But Eliot Spitzer lived his political life writing checks on the credit accumulated from a mandate for "reform", and now the notes have been called and he has defaulted on his moral obligation bonds, as checks he signed with love and hisses come back marked insufficient funds.

Can you get to that?