Do I have sympathy for David Paterson? Does anyone?
And what of Eliot Spitzer? Practically nobody in the world had sympathy for Spitzer. But now, surely, many people feel that for the sake of the New York State commonwealth, it would have been better to have overlooked his transgressions. From the point of view of the public good, Spitzer's form of moral turpitude is surely preferable to Paterson's outright incompetence (not to mention his form of moral turpitude).
It is the New York Times who helped force Spitzer, the elected governor, out of office and made possible the various calamities of the unelected next governor. And it is the Times that has now made it impossible for Paterson to do his job--even if, in fact, he was competent enough to do it. Paterson will shortly have to go, or exist in a grievous power vacuum until his term is up.
From almost any reasonable measure, we are now in a significantly worse-off position then we were before the New York Times turned its attention on the governor's office.
So how much is the Times to blame for the present mess? What if, for instance, as is reasonable to assume, the Times, with regard to both governors, was the tool of their enemies?
Continue reading on newser.com