Audience to a morality play

Eliot Spitzer resigned as governor of New York Wednesday, as his wife, Silda Wall Spitzer, looked on. (STEPHEN CHERNIN/ASSOCIATED PRESS)

I AM troubled by the general outcry over Eliot Spitzer's personal indiscretions. Was he not an effective attorney general, and was Spitzer, who resigned Wednesday as governor of New York, not effective in that role? Why crucify someone outstanding in their career for indulging in prostitution, a profession which, though technically illegal, is universally tolerated by much of the public and law enforcement in this country? Classy magazines, after all, are happy to collect prostitution's advertising dollar. And didn't public sentiment, finally, after searching its collective soul, let Bill Clinton, now an elder statesman, slide?

I would wager that many of those who called for Spitzer's ouster work happily with - and would not want to see dismissed - highly competent colleagues who are engaged in extramarital affairs, online pornography, prostitution, and the heartless game of trading up for a wealthier or more glamorous partner. It seems to me that moral hypocrisy cries for the ruination of another based on sexual acts between consenting adults.

GORDON MASSMAN
Medford

IT WAS interesting to follow the coverage of the prostitution scandal surrounding Eliot Spitzer, the Democratic governor of New York. Tuesday's front-page Globe article, "Scandal engulfs N.Y. governor," buried his party affiliation, and put it on Page A5. Believe it or not, that was better than many other media outlets. If you read other papers or watched one of the networks, you might have thought that Spitzer was not enrolled in any party.

Not labeling a Democrat involved in a scandal is nothing new for the mainstream media. Recently, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, a Democrat, was involved in an affair with his chief of staff, and his administration has been accused of corruption. When either of those stories is covered, the fact that he is a Democrat is rarely stated. When you contrast this with the coverage of various Republican indiscretions, it is laughable. The party identification of Mark Foley or Larry Craig was so prominent that one could be forgiven if they thought that Foley's or Craig's first name was Republican.

This double standard is probably not an intentional attempt to discredit one party or to minimize damage to another. Perhaps when reporters see a liberal Democrat involved in a scandal, they see the controversy as newsworthy only because most of them are also liberal Democrats. The next time media outlets push for diversity in the workplace, they might want to include ideology as a category that needs improvement.

CHRIS HOGAN
Taunton

ELIOT SPITZER may have hired prostitutes, but he did not have New York invade New Jersey on false premises in order to secure its oil and enrich the pockets of contractors who were his private cronies. He did not leave a state or nation dismantled, and suffering from thousands and thousands of deaths. He did not commit the extreme pornography of sadism by sanctioning torture. He did not consider New York to be his own personal playroom, whose wallpaper of the Constitution he felt free to deface with executive signing statements.

While Spitzer is surely a hypocrite, is not the greater hypocrisy and corruption pretending to love your country while destroying its economy, moral leadership, and many of its young for the sake of imperious ambition? If we had our priorities straight, we would not have the gall to waste all this time and energy on sexual escapades while those who create real scandals of war, ruin, and treason go unpunished. If a governor can resign over low crimes, then certainly those who commit high crimes should be made to follow.

LEE STEPHANIE ROSCOE
Brewster

RE "DISGRACED in New York" (Editorial, March 12): It troubles me to hear so much of the discussion surrounding Spitzer's indiscretions refer to women as the helpless victims of a troubled man. You mention that Spitzer "made his wife endure a humiliating show of televised support." The truth is that Silda Wall Spitzer made the choice to appear beside her husband. It is not fair to assume that this choice was forced upon her, and a statement like this presumes that it would have been impossible for her to make that decision on her own. In fact, a decision like hers is deeply personal, and I trust her to have made the right decisions in order to achieve what is best for her and her family. Silda Wall Spitzer is a strong, capable woman, and to assume anything less does a disservice not only to her but to all women.

SARAH STEINFELD
Easthampton

I WAS almost inclined to agree with Linda Pines, who writes, in her March 12 letter "Too many men of the hour," that "we are witness to the arrogant contempt for the public trust by a man who believes that nurturing his ego is the prerogative of power." But I disagree with her "practical suggestion" that "maybe we should start by electing Hillary Clinton president." After all, this is the woman who elected to stand by her man, just as Silda Wall Spitzer has.

I believe it is time for a change, and that Barack Obama should be elected president.

ELIZABETH CHOUINARD
Danvers

RE "TOO many men of the hour": Spitzer's alleged crime was committed with the complicity of a woman. Perhaps more representation by women will change the "frat-house mentality" into a cathouse mentality.

JOHN GOING
Westford

ELIOT SPITZER, note to self: Next mid-life crisis, buy a motorcycle.

DIANE McNAMARA
Wellesley