Should We Care What Spitzer Says?

Eliot Spitzer's political rehab is in full throttle, as the disgraced former governor and crusading attorney general from New York says he told us so,commenting on the financial crisis in various online and print opinion pieces. The question is, should we care about what he has to say? I think we should.

There are those whocontend that Mr. Spitzer forfeited his right to play any role in public policy when he got caught with his pants down in a prostitution scandal that drove him from office last year.

I wouldbeg to differ. For one, it's a free country, and everyone has a right to offer their opinion–especially if they know what they are talking about. After all, even the disgraced Richard Nixon was able to make a living and deliver useful commentary on geopolitics after Watergate forced him to resign the presidency.

America, thank goodness, is a very forgiving country when it comes to personal failings–especially when the transgression involves sex. Despite our historic puritanical streak, in which violence is far more acceptable than sex, after the initial hub bub and cries of moral outrage, the majority settle down rather quickly and shrug off whatever sin might have been committed.

Then there are those hard core critics who insist that even before Mr. Cleanexposed himself to public ridicule with hisrecklesssexual antics,Mr. Spitzer was nothing more than a blowhard and a bully as AG and governor, and that he should just shut the hell up already!

Here, too, I part company with the critics. While naysayers can cluck all they want about how Mr. Spitzer went overboard in his efforts to expose wrongdoing in the insurance industry, the fact is that he did indeed uncover shameful acts of bid-rigging by top insurers and brokers.

The fact isthat we could have used a bulldozer likeMr. Spitzerto crack down on abuses of subprime mortgagesand credit default swaps, but had he tried, he would have beengiven a stiff arm by Uncle Sam. Only Washington had the authority to head off this economic crisis, yet all Congress and the White House did–under both Republican and Democratic administrations–was give rogue bankers and derivative traders the green light.

Mr. Spitzer made terrible mistakes in his personal life that destroyed his political career. But at a time like this, we need all the help, insight and advice we can get. For now, Mr. Spitzer will have to satisfy his cravings for power with punditry. Before too long, however, I would not be surprised to see the Obama administration call upon him to take on a more substantial role.

In his March 30 NU column, my colleague, Associate Editor Mark Ruquet, suggested with tongue firmly in cheek that perhaps Mr. Spitzer was destined to take over AIG from the beleaguered Ed Liddy! The suggestion was brilliant–what poetic justic!–and I am only sorry I did not think that it myself.

But all kidding aside, in this country, anything is possible. Indeed, if those insurers and brokers who pine forfederal regulation finally get their wish, they had better brace themselves for the possibility of Eliot Spitzer as National Insurance Czar!

What do you folks think?