Manhattan Madam Is Running Against Spitzer On The Libertarian Line - Can't Wait For Her To "Buy" My Vote!

[Selene]

Brilliant Move By The Libertarian Party!

Spitzer to Face Prostitution Ringleader in Comptroller Bid

Monday, 08 Jul 2013 12:14 PM

By Melanie Batley

Former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who Sunday announced his candidacy for New York City comptroller, says he wants to help shape the city's budget and work on Wall Street accountability.

And in a bizarre twist, Spitzer, who resigned in 2008 after it became known he frequented prostitutes, will be running against libertarian Kristin Davis, the former Manhattan "Madam" who ran the high-class prostitution ring used by Spitzer and other high-powered clients, Breitbart reported.

Spitzer discussed his reasons for running during a round of television and radio interviews Monday. On CBS' "This Morning," he cited shareholder power, corporate governance, protecting pensions, and investing city money among his priorities.

"It's now five years later. I hope they [voters] look back at what I did as attorney general, as governor, as a prosecutor and say, 'Hey, this guy was ahead of the curve on Wall Street issues,'" he said.

"I want to do to that office what I did to the attorney general's office, re-envision it, re-imagine it."

Spitzer would have been aware he was running against Davis when he made his decision to join the race, Breitbart reported, as Davis announced her candidacy months ago.

"This is going to be the funnest campaign ever," said Davis, who went to prison for three months for her role in running the escort service, according to Breitbart.

"I've been waiting for my day to face him for five years," she reportedly told the New York Daily News. "I sat … in Rikers Island, I came out penniless and nothing happened to him. The hypocrisy there is huge."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/spitzer-prostitution-ringleader-comptroller/2013/07/08/id/513816?s=al&promo_code=14181-1#ixzz2YWcVb2Na

[FuturistNow]

Well from that quote, she sounds like she has a vendetta against this guy. Was it wise for the Libertarian party to put someone out there with a chip on their shoulder?

[Selene]

Well from that quote, she sounds like she has a vendetta against this guy. Was it wise for the Libertarian party to put someone out there with a chip on their shoulder?

Yes. Great publicity on equal treatment of men and women and the absurdity of prostitution laws when the fucking Governor of the State of New York was patronizing the prostitution with taxpayer money,

He walks and she goes to jail!

A...

[studiodekadent]

I wholeheartedly endorse Kristin Davis.

She has more experience in financial management than Spitzer (Davis is a businesswoman who amongst her other careers also has experience as an hedge fund's senior Vice Prez). She isn't a corrupt-as-all-hell career politician. She read Rand and Mises and Hayek when she was in jail. She's truly socially liberal and believes in genuine free market economics.

She's simply the best candidate for the job.

Anyone who attacks her past enterprises doesn't deserve to be listened to. Prostitution, unlike politics, is an honest and productive industry.

[BaalChatzaf]

could Spitzer be running against a one time vendor of services to which he availed himself?

Can the Madam be running against a former customer?

Only in America (Or Italy or France).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Whenever I here a New York Democrat talking about protecting capitalism, I grab my wallet! Same way I felt with George Bushes statement on "saving" capitalism in 2007!

Still, Mr. Spitzer rejected the theory raised by some that he has his eye on even higher office. And he denied a New York Post report that he’s separated from his wife, whom he said he’s expecting to join him on the trail. “She will be with me,” he said.

He also repeatedly mentioned his new book, perhaps fueling suggestions made by some that his run is part of an effort to boost sales. “The book is a good book,” he said on more than one occasion. “It’s called Protecting Capitalism: Case by Case.”

[ginny]

Maybe I'm too cautious, but does anyone want the Libetarian Party associated with prostition and little else?

[caroljane]

Maybe the Libertarians should rename themselves the kNOw- Hypocrites to echo the Know-Nothing movement.

[ginny]

How about The Should-Know-but-Doesn't-Want-to-Know Party?

[studiodekadent]

ginny, on 10 Jul 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

Maybe I'm too cautious, but does anyone want the Libetarian Party associated with prostition and little else?

On the other hand, criminalizing prostitution is the archetypal example of an infringement on both personal and economic liberty. An entire sector of the economy, one which has existed since the dawn of human civilization, is made illegal for "moral" reasons.

Supporting WHORES WHORES WHORES! is to endorse both the sexual liberty of consenting individuals AND the commercial liberty of consenting individuals.

And no, "looking edgy" or "counterculture" isn't bad for political success.

[Selene]

ginny, on 10 Jul 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

Maybe I'm too cautious, but does anyone want the Libetarian Party associated with prostition and little else?

On the other hand, criminalizing prostitution is the archetypal example of an infringement on both personal and economic liberty. An entire sector of the economy, one which has existed since the dawn of human civilization, is made illegal for "moral" reasons.

Supporting WHORES WHORES WHORES! is to endorse both the sexual liberty of consenting individuals AND the commercial liberty of consenting individuals.

And no, "looking edgy" or "counterculture" isn't bad for political success.

Yep!

There's my wingman!

This has been a position of the Libertarian party since the '70's.

Now, in the current "sexualized" political environment, which over compensates for the homosexual agenda, and, which leads to funding, it is a significant decision to make for the party.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Heh.

Poetic justice exists.

Michael

[ginny]

Sorry, guys, I can't see votes coming for only legalizing prostitution. What else has she got? i may hate politics, but I know enough that a politian needs to stand for something. Even if you could get past the prostitution thing, it's too emeshed with child prostitution to be any kind of starter.

Get a grips, gents. Seriously. This ain't flying in Peoria.

[studiodekadent]

Now, in the current "sexualized" political environment, which over compensates for the homosexual agenda, and, which leads to funding, it is a significant decision to make for the party.

Adam,

What exactly do you mean by "the homosexual agenda" exactly?

To be blunt, that's a thought-terminating cliche used by those on the right to imply a Big Gay Conspiracy, and it automatically causes anyone that is concerned with certain causes often associated with the left to turn on you.

I know multiple non-heterosexual people (including gay people). There's no homosexual agenda. It isn't like the second you come out of the closet you get sent a copy of a secret political agenda.

I oppose state-enforced affirmative action. I also oppose any antidiscrimination legislation controlling the private sector. But "the homosexual agenda" as a phrase refers to the Christian Right's allegation that gay people want to burn all churches and mandate gay sex ed in pre school and other ridiculous things which the vast majority of gay rights advocates do not support.

There is no "homosexual agenda." The phrase implies that being a dude-who-wants-to-fuck-other-dudes means that you MUST share a whole list of completely unrelated social-economic policy preferences with every other dude-who-wants-to-fuck-other-dudes.

Sorry, guys, I can't see votes coming for only legalizing prostitution. What else has she got? i may hate politics, but I know enough that a politian needs to stand for something. Even if you could get past the prostitution thing, it's too emeshed with child prostitution to be any kind of starter.

Ginny,

Why not look at Ms Davis's website? You can find it at http://davis2013.com/

And Ms Davis is an anti-human trafficking campaigner who also runs a charity that combats human trafficking. So talking about child prostitution (which is by definition human trafficking) is just ridiculous.

[ginny]

Studio, I went to the website. Good suggestion. There is definitely more to her than pimping out a roll in the hay. I believe and like her libertarian thinking. A pleasant surprise.

Personally, I'd like to see her win. I never meant to say otherwise. I'm stating that politics is, unfortunately, mostly smoke and image. The label 'former madam' will kill her. Sexual piccadilos has brought men to their kness; a woman wouldn't survive it. That's reality. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

BTW, with my quick peak into the site, I didn't see her trafficking stand. That is the ONE issue with which she might get middle class attention. Everybody rallies together for abused kids. That's what she should be pushing to the constituency.

[caroljane]

From certain comments made on other threads, I am sure she would get Brant's vote.

[ginny]

And Adam's. Michael might move to NY just to vote.

Carol, what's she got we don't?

[caroljane]

Umm, discretion? Michael is a happily married man who would never vote for anybody unless Kat told him to!

[Selene]

Adam,

What exactly do you mean by "the homosexual agenda" exactly?

To be blunt, that's a thought-terminating cliche used by those on the right to imply a Big Gay Conspiracy, and it automatically causes anyone that is concerned with certain causes often associated with the left to turn on you.

I know multiple non-heterosexual people (including gay people). There's no homosexual agenda. It isn't like the second you come out of the closet you get sent a copy of a secret political agenda.

There is no "homosexual agenda." The phrase implies that being a dude-who-wants-to-fuck-other-dudes means that you MUST share a whole list of completely unrelated social-economic policy preferences with every other dude-who-wants-to-fuck-other-dudes.

Andrew:

I thought you and I had gotten past this "reverse straw man."

There is, in American politics, a "homosexual agenda" in regards to fund raising, influencing legislation and forcing private businesses to comply with that agenda.

That is a fact.

You and I have had conversations off site that would not justify the assertions in your post.

A...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Go to NY to vote?

Hmmmm...

I do find her platform sexy.

(suddenly looking around...)

Nobody's seen Kat around here, have they?

Michael

[caroljane]

Go to NY to vote?

Hmmmm...

I do find her platform sexy.

(suddenly looking around...)

Nobody's seen Kat around here, have they?

Michael

Hey big boy, you think my platform is sexy, you should check out my stiletto.....

MME X

Manhattan

Vote for Me!

[Darrell Hougen]

Studio, I went to the website. Good suggestion. There is definitely more to her than pimping out a roll in the hay. I believe and like her libertarian thinking. A pleasant surprise.

Personally, I'd like to see her win. I never meant to say otherwise. I'm stating that politics is, unfortunately, mostly smoke and image. The label 'former madam' will kill her. Sexual piccadilos has brought men to their kness; a woman wouldn't survive it. That's reality. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong.

BTW, with my quick peak into the site, I didn't see her trafficking stand. That is the ONE issue with which she might get middle class attention. Everybody rallies together for abused kids. That's what she should be pushing to the constituency.

I'm going to have to agree with Ginny on this one. Much as I'd like to see Kristin Davis win, being a former prostitute and libertarian is an almost insurmountable obstacle to her election. Where is she going to get votes? People on the right that support small government are going to have a hard time overcoming her profession. Women like other women as candidates but don't like prostitutes because they represent a threat to their mate's fidelity. Women are primarily responsible for criminalization of prostitution (and their husbands better also vote for criminalization, or else). Besides, people on the left that might otherwise support a woman will support Spitzer instead. So, I just have a hard time imagining her winning, much as I'd like to see her beat Spitzer.

Darrell

[Selene]

So, I just have a hard time imagining her winning, much as I'd like to see her beat Spitzer.

Darrell

Darrell:

No one is talking about her winning. She has no chance of winning.

The point of her run is to lay out the Libertarian positions and attack the corruption of a sitting Governor who was attacking prostitution and looking to use all the powers of the state to crush that profession.

And at the same time, the hypocrite was breaking Federal Law [the Mann Act] crossing state lines to engage in x.y and z!

A...

[studiodekadent]

Andrew:

I thought you and I had gotten past this "reverse straw man."

There is, in American politics, a "homosexual agenda" in regards to fund raising, influencing legislation and forcing private businesses to comply with that agenda.

That is a fact.

You and I have had conversations off site that would not justify the assertions in your post.

A...

Adam,

I understand that by "homosexual agenda" you mean "the political agenda which the large gay-rights lobbying groups advocate." This agenda includes items I agree with (such as civil marriage equality) as well as some items I do not agree with (like antidiscrimination laws which regulate private sector entities).

The point I was making is that the phrase "the homosexual agenda" has many connotations attached to it, and as a result it doesn't mean (to most people) "the political positions advocated by the large gay-rights lobbying groups."

Instead, when most people hear "the homosexual agenda" they take the phrase to be referring to the Christian-Conservative conspiracy theory that there are secret cabals of gay people aiming to destroy the heterosexual nuclear family and abolish Christianity etc. etc.

I know you don't believe this conspiracy theory, and I am not accusing you of believing it, so if you thought I was then I apologize for my lack of clarity (after re-reading my post I can see why you interpreted it as a direct attack. Sloppy phrasing on my part). I know you aren't a Christian Conservative and I know you don't think "the homosexuals" are out to "destroy America."

But I am suggesting that the use of the phrase "the homosexual agenda" will make other people instantly perceive you as a Christian Conservative, and thus will predispose them towards hostility when listening to you. They'll basically ignore the merits of what you say simply because you used what amounts to a "trigger phrase."

My point is really one about communication strategy. Yes, I know on this forum we don't always have to be super-clear and precise and diplomatic, but I get frustrated at the common stereotype of Libertarians and Objectivists being crypto-Conservatives and as such I tend to find "Libertarians/Objectivists acting in ways which can be perceived as stereotypically conservative" to be a bit frustrating.

Then again, I'm sure some of the more culturally conservative members of the forum would find my antics to be frustratingly counterculture. So it probably goes both ways.

Much as I'd like to see Kristin Davis win, being a former prostitute and libertarian is an almost insurmountable obstacle to her election. Where is she going to get votes? People on the right that support small government are going to have a hard time overcoming her profession.

Anyone that claims to support small government yet supports criminalizing prostitution cannot truly claim to support small government. At best you can argue they support a smaller-than-the-current-government.

A truly small government wouldn't make purely voluntary commercial exchanges illegal.

[Selene]

I know you don't believe this conspiracy theory, and I am not accusing you of believing it, so if you thought I was then I apologize for my lack of clarity (after re-reading my post I can see why you interpreted it as a direct attack. Sloppy phrasing on my part). I know you aren't a Christian Conservative and I know you don't think "the homosexuals" are out to "destroy America."

But I am suggesting that the use of the phrase "the homosexual agenda" will make other people instantly perceive you as a Christian Conservative, and thus will predispose them towards hostility when listening to you. They'll basically ignore the merits of what you say simply because you used what amounts to a "trigger phrase."

Fair enough.

However, be careful, because you could be compared to that dress wearing FBI director, J. Edgar Hoover[fascinating name for a closet gay] from years past...lol

A...