I have already made clear my feelings that Republicans should not be too happy about Spitzer's downfall when our own house is far from clean. However, I think it is fair to assess the great disparity in how the media covers Republican scandals versus Democrat scandals.

Fortunately the good folks over at Newsbusters have already done the heavy lifting for me. They conclude:

An examination of the fifteen ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news shows through Wednesday night finds Spitzer was called a Democrat just 20% of the time — twice on CBS, once on ABC, and never on NBC.
. . .
[T]he bottom line is that in the early days of their scandals, Vitter and Craig were labeled as Republicans on every broadcast news program — 100% — that mentioned their wrongdoing. For Democrat Spitzer, four out of five news programs (80%) have skipped his label. On NBC’s Today and Nightly News through Wednesday night, reporters never once acknowledged that Spitzer was a Democrat.

I have no problem acknowledging the fact that Vitter and Craig are Republicans. As elected figures, they should be expected to be identified by their Party. What I do have a problem with is the great lengths the media goes to in order to hide or bury the Party affiliation of scandal-ridden Democrats.

This is not paranoia or a conspiracy theory. As Newsbusters' study shows, it is borne out by the facts and it is part of the reason why so many Americans no longer trust the information provided by the mainstream media.

Back on September 7th, I made my return to SST with a post entitled "On Character." It addressed the GOP's very apparent character issues in the wake of the Foley, Vitter and Craig scandals.

As we now sit on the other side of the fence from a discraced officeholder, I think it is a good time to look back at what I said then. I stated:

Is there a double standard at work here? Yes. But such complaints conveniently ignore the fact that the Foleys, Vitters and Craigs of the world have violated the public trust by failing to live by the standard they have endorsed.

Republicans lose credibility when we call out the other side for their moral failings yet look away or rationalize when one of our own is caught red-handed. We must decide whether or not we believe moral leadership to be an essential qualification for public service, and that standard should be applied equally.

I believe that moral leadership is essential and that it should remain so. Therefore, I also believe that when any elected official fails to meet this standard he should do the right thing and resign his position, regardless of the political consequences.

You can read the rest of it here.

The point is that I stand by what I said then about moral leadership and I STILL believe that Vitter and Craig should resign immediately, and I am embarassed that few in my Party have had the guts to say the same.

I certainly hope that Eliot Spitzer receives the punishment he deserves, but I also think that Republicans who are taking joy in his rapid descent ought to be careful to base their arguments on principles not politics. I believe that morals matter ALL the time, regardless of your Party. Those who don't may find Spitzer's shoes fitting a bit snug when they are placed on the other foot.

According to this Marist poll, 70% of New Yorkers believe that Governor Eliot Spitzer should resign for his breathtaking hypocrisy.

Amazingly, 22% of New Yorkers do not think he should resign, including a mindboggling 14% of Republicans.

I guess this helps explain how Hillary Clinton got elected to the United State Senate.

Watching CNN this evening, I was forced to be "educated" by liberal hack and Eliot Spitzer's former law school professor, Alan Dershowitz. Seriously, they let this tool teach at Harvard? I thought that was supposed to be a decent law school.

Every single American with even a shred of common sense can see the extreme hypocricy of the New York Governor's participation in a prostitution ring after having built his career on supposedly cleaning up corruption in government and business. But apparently the logic of that situation is lost on the "brilliant" Dershowitz.

Unfortunately, Dershowitz clings to the old liberal canard, invoked by Spitzer himself in his non-apology, that this is "private conduct" and a "victimless crime." Sorry Alan, but despite what you might have read in the Berkley handbook on ethics, crime is not victimless. That's why it is crime. And its not just our society and trust in our public officials that suffers. Why don't you ask Spitzer's wife and children if his lying and philandering was a victimless crime, Alan?

When will liberals learn to stop trying so hard to convince Americans that personal conduct has nothing at all to do with professional conduct. Everyone who has ever met a slimeball of Spitzer's ilk in person knows that when you are a slimeball in your personal life, those same ethics and behaviors will ALWAYS manifest themselves in your professional life sooner or later. Indeed, in retrospect, the corrupt lengths to which Spitzer went to punish his political enemies were merely a warning of the depths of corruption in his personal life.

I know it is wishful thinking to ask the warped minds of folks like Dershowitz to change after decades of misuse. I can only hope that the American people see through the ridiculous and transparent arguments that are bound to keep coming from those who will defend Spitzer and his actions as "no big deal."

Contrary to Dershowitz's assertions, Spitzer is not the victim of any political witchhunt here. He is a lying, cheating, corrupt douchebag who will hopefully get exactly what he deserves, which is a swift exit from the NY Governor's mansion and an eternal exile from national politics.

Any person, regardless of party who conducts themselves in this manner does not deserve the public's trust. You'd think someone of Dershowitz's intelligence could put aside their ideological agenda and admit that.