Democratic governor caught with his hands in the nookie jar *UPDATED*

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.