Or is Ann Coulter veering in being really nasty about Eliot Spitzer’s Jewishness, and about Jews in general, both of which are entirely irrelevant to his free-fall?

Eliot Spitzer was the golden boy with an absolutely charmed life. His parents were the children of Jewish immigrants, who created a Ralph Lauren lifestyle for their children.

[snip]

Forget about his career — those around him better have him on suicide watch. Dudley Do-Right is on tape in a white-knuckle negotiation with pimps about payment for a prostitute. (Let’s just be thankful that there’s no anti-Semitic expression for Jews haggling about money.)

Had Spitzer’s Jewish up-bringing had anything to do with the crime or with any defense he offered, I could understand making his Jewish-ness an issue in writing about this whole sordid episode.  However, since it isn’t, and he didn’t, that last quoted paragraph strikes me as nothing but a mean-spirited anti-Semitic sentiment that has no place in this farce, drama, tragedy, or whatever else you call it.

I’d like your opinions on Coulter’s writing, because I need a reality check to make sure I’m not simply being too sensitive to a perceived smear.

I knew he was going to resign when, yesterday on NPR, I heard the reporters lambast him for stupidity — although their tone was high brow, what they basically asked was “how could a former federal prosecutor who understands how bank transactions are scrutinized act so stupidly that he practically red-flagged his conduct?” When your own base calls you an idiot, it’s time to leave.

With regard to Eliot Spitzer, a defense is springing up all over the MSM and the liberal blogosphere:  it’s stupid to make prostitution criminal; therefore, Spitzer shouldn’t be in trouble for paying for prostitutes.  In response to this defense, I would point out that whether it should be criminal is not the issue here.  The fact is that it is criminal.  If Spitzer thinks prostitution should be legal, he should use his bully pulpit to change that fact legislatively.  What he did was to break the law.  Jonah Goldberg has also correctly grasped that there is nothing wrong with showering shame on Spitzer regardless of ones views about laws prohibiting prostitution (h/t Earl):

Intellectually I can understand the argument for legalized prostitution, even if I disagree with it. And, I can understand, even sympathize, with the view that there should be more than a rice-paper thin Japanese teahouse wall between one’s private life and public life, even for politicians.

So let me concede, for the sake of argument, that Andrew is right that the law is an ass when it comes to prostitution (though if we are going to be loyal to Dickens, shouldn’t that be “a ass”?) Let us also concede that it is something like a private matter for a married man to visit a prostitute (though obviously it isn’t private for the wife and the kids — or for the prostitute if, as in many circumstances, she’s forced into such work).

Still, to say that something is a “private matter” is not the same thing as saying something is beyond the scope of our judgment. If Tom is a drunk, it may be a private matter but that hardly means I must approve of his “lifestyle.” If one of my married friends was repeatedly visiting hookers, I might say for the sake of social peace that it’s none of my business, but I would still think much less of him. And, if he became more and more brazen — and hence more and more humiliating for the man’s wife and family — the more likely it would become that I would feel compelled to say something.

Goldberg has more in this same vein, which you will find here.

I would be remiss if I did not point out to you that Democratic NY Governor Elliott Spitzer has some problems with prostitution — and it’s not that he disapproves of it:

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has been caught on a federal wiretap arranging to meet with a high-priced prostitute at a Washington hotel last month, according to a person briefed on the federal investigation.

The wiretap recording, made during an investigation of a prostitution ring called Emperors Club VIP, captured a man identified as Client 9 on a telephone call confirming plans to have a woman travel from New York to Washington, where he had reserved a room. The person briefed on the case identified Mr. Spitzer as Client 9.

The governor learned that he had been implicated in the prostitution probe when a federal official contacted his staff last Friday, according to the person briefed on the case.

The governor informed his top aides Sunday night and this morning of his involvement. He canceled his public events today and scheduled an announcement for this afternoon after inquiries from the Times.

If the story is true, my deep sympathies to his wife. If it’s false, I wish him the best of luck.

Of note is the fact that nowhere in the New York Times article from which I quote is Spitzer ever directly identified as a Democrat. Instead, there is a single oblique reference to his party buried in paragraph 9: “In recent weeks, however, Mr. Spitzer seemed to have rebounded, with his Democratic party poised to perhaps gain control of the state Senate for the first time in four decades.”

The “spot the party” trend continues in other news stories on the subject:

The AP story never once uses the words “Democrat” or “Democratic.”

The CNN story never once uses the words “Democrat” or “Democratic.”

The LA Times blog breaks ranks and reports on Spitzer’s status as a rising Democratic star.

USA Today‘s story, which is being repeatedly updated, as of 3:36 EST has no mention of Spitzer’s Democratic ties.

Reuters Canada (which is the only Reuters story I’ve found so far) is mum about Spitzer’s political affiliations.

Once again, as interesting as the story itself is the story about the story. The underlying story is a typical political plot: rising young prosecutor and political can’t resist temptation. Frankly, as a story, it’s been done before. The much more interesting story, of course, is the chronic inability members of the MSM have, when one of their own (i.e., a Democrat) is caught doing something bad, to fulfill their obligation to report the story, with all the who, what, where, why and how questions answered. In the case of Spitzer, given his prominence in the Democratic party, the who question should properly be answered by identifying his party affiliation. It’s shoddy, deceitful journalism that reporters are persistently trying to hide that ball.

UPDATE: It’s emerged that the prostitution ring was fairly ritzy, with hourly rates (!) running from $1076 to $5921. AJStrata asks the right question, which is “where in the heck did Spitzer get that kind of money?”

UPDATE II: Apropos the above, Spitzer was paying at the high end, coming in at $4,300 per hour. Big money for a government employee, right?

UPDATE III:  Regarding that $4,300 figure, Reader Iam let me know that this number is not quite as straightforward as the reports would have it.  Looking at some of the original legal documents squirrelled about over the internet, Reader Iam thinks that the more accurate description of that number is that it “reflects not just the cost of the Feb. 13 encounter specifically, but also a deposit toward unspecified future activity to avoid some of the issues connected with the “service provider’s” not receiving mailed funds in a timely fashion.  (The subtext, stated in some places, is that Spitzer was eschewing  other, more efficient, payment options which more typical clients used.)”  Thanks for the clarification, Reader Iam.