Eliot Spitzer is gone as host of his own television show at CNN. He is a tough guy lover of the state, if there ever was one, but when the power of the state is removed from his hands he appears to be a genuine person seeking truth, who can smell a phony intellectual argument a mile away. Watch the way he takes apart Herman Cain in the below video.
(Graham Dugas)
Now watch him debate Ron Paul, where the Congressman takes up the intellectual challenge and lays some pretty good punches on Spitzer. Most interviews of Dr. Paul are nowhere near the intellectual level that Spitzer delivered on his show. When a true debater like Spitzer asks the questions, even if he disagrees with a view, he is able to separate the wheat from the chaff. And it helps us all understand a little bit better what is going on.
I thought his interview that he did w/ Rand Paul back when it was Parker-Spitzer was kind of ridiculous. Although I see the point that he is a good debater--and if from a different ideology you'd definitely want him on your team.
ReplyDeleteI think Spitzer was right and wrong as was Cain. Shout out a number without having access to all the facts and you'll be beat over the head with it until the election. Cain should have specifics to some degree when prodded about the "how", but the "what" that needs to be done is beyond argument.
ReplyDeleteI remember watching his interview with Ron Paul and not being totally disgusted, as I often am by hosts like Hannity and O'Reilly.
ReplyDeleteSpitzer did much evil as Attorney General and Governor. He was a bully who abused his power and ruined the lives of innocent people for political gain. All the while, he was the darling of the Democratic Party and its kept media. He might have been president. Thank goodness he had a weakness for prostitutes.
ReplyDeleteAll that said, I think Robert may be right. Out of power and humbled by his fall from grace, Spitzer became almost decent. He should have shut up and let Ron Paul finish speaking, but he was not nearly as boorish as, say, Bill O'Reilly or Lawrence O'Donnell. He seems to have a brain in his head, too, albeit one filled with conventional views.
Let's hope Spitzer gives up his political ambitions for good and finds productive employment serving others.
Spitzer is a lawyer, but he consistently implies a basic misunderstanding of the Constitution in that it is an enumeration of power and not a grantor of rights. That's why he says "the First Amendment is different." It's not. The 9th and 10th Amendments make that clear. Spitzer's view is that which was, in theory, Hamilton was afraid of in writing in Federalist 84:
ReplyDelete"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
In this debate between the Federalists and Anti-federalists, both were right. People like Spitzer essentially argue that you only have enumerated rights while others would strip basic rights from people if they weren't enumerated.
I listened to enough of the second that I had enough of Eliot the shuckster. As soon as Paul starts to nail him down, he wants to move on. Interrupt and change the subject. That's old and cheap. And part of the reason the country is in the shape it's in. Spitzer is a spokesperson for the ruling class as per A. Codevilla's analysis and it shows.
ReplyDeleteThe revolution will not be televised.
Partly because it is a conceptual revolution and you can't photograph concepts. But it would sure be nice if we could talk about them a little more honestly than Eliot wants to.
Spitzer, while holding some abhorrent views, raised the level of discourse on CNN. Most of their shows target the lowest common denominator.
ReplyDeleteI thought that Paul's responses were wonderful. Clear, coherent, steadfast and unwavering. The usual esoteric dialogue that he puts off was formulated in a down to earth manner. If he continues to do THAT, then I think he has a real chance.
ReplyDeleteI thought Rand Paul sucker punched him back was great , with you don't want me to get into your personal life, if you wan to get into my personal life
ReplyDeleteBSuden nails it. Mr. Teflon does it again. Calm and candor are the hallmarks of this gentleman. Dr. Paul knows all the angles and is not fooled. They try to trip him up but his message rolls on like a freight train. Keen logic, B.S. does not baffle brains as he shows. Amazing man to be sure.
ReplyDeleteMake a Fed sock-puppet look bad... lose your job.
ReplyDelete