Saturday, March 24 , 2018, 5:46 am | Fair 48º


Mark Shields: Despite Reckless Behavior, Weiner and Spitzer Are First-Rate Politicians

First, former Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who was forced to resign his seat in Congress in 2011 after he was revealed to have publicly lied about having repeatedly sent explicit, lewd images of himself to women online, announced he was a candidate to be the next mayor of New York City.

Then, Eliot Spitzer, who was forced in 2008 to resign as governor of New York or face possible criminal prosecution in a prostitution scandal, declared himself to be a candidate for the job of New York City comptroller.

Both men are Democrats who left office in disgrace. Even the political and personal enemies of both men (who would fill a small field house) conceded Weiner and Spitzer were smart, energetic, cocky, relentlessly ambitious and, even as young men, able to hear — at distances of up to a half-mile — film being put into a TV camera. Together, they could make the 2013 New York City campaign season into one long sitcom.

But please understand that Weiner and Spitzer were totally different public officials. Weiner was a legislator, at 27 the youngest person in history to win a New York City Council seat, followed by election, at 34, to the House of Representatives. Spitzer, having been the lead investigator in the office of the New York district attorney in the case that drove the Gambino crime family out of the trucking and garment industries, was twice elected state attorney general before winning the governorship in 2006.

At the State University of New York at Plattsburgh, the future congressman ran for student body president on the slogan, “Vote for Weiner, He’ll Be Frank.” Once in office, Weiner had an insatiable appetite for media attention. He spent more time on cable news shows than he did with his House colleagues, virtually none of whom came to his defense.

Spitzer, who as a sophomore was elected president of the Princeton student body, was bad at personal relations. He always had more admirers than friends and inspired little affection.

But, unlike Weiner and most elected Republicans — and, yes, Democrats — Spitzer took on the most powerful, well-connected and deep-pocketed individuals and businesses in New York. After he and the superb staff he assembled, with no consideration given to political ties, went through 95,000 pages of Merrill Lynch emails, they were able to document the dishonest recommendations that the brokerage’s analysts were foisting on trusting customers just so the firm could lock in the lucrative investment banking of the recommended company. Exposed, Merrill Lynch paid a $100 million fine.

Attorney General Spitzer blew the whistle on the sleazy practice of mutual funds (which held the investments of some 95 million Americans) allowing big, powerful clients to buy a company’s stock at a lower price after the official closing of the market at 4 p.m. So when a company, after that 4 p.m. closing, issued a favorable earnings report, the favored “insiders” — but not the 95 million other Americans — were guaranteed a windfall profit when the market opened the next morning. Spitzer won 11 guilty pleas and $4 billions in settlements from the late-trading illegal actors.

The insurance giant Marsh & McLennan was made to pay $850 million in fines and reform its business practices, even though the company’s new chief executive was Michael Cherkasky, the man who had been Spitzer’s boss in the district attorney’s office and a contributor to his campaigns.

Spitzer, by his reckless misbehavior, wounded his wife and family. He disgraced his office. But, more than anyone else in public office, he had the guts to take on Wall Street and to hold them accountable. No wonder they fear him still.

Mark Shields is one of the most widely recognized political commentators in the United States. The former Washington Post editorial columnist appears regularly on CNN, on public television and on radio. Click here to contact him, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are his own.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click here to get started >

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >