On Tue Dec 24, 2002, Nomiprins at aol.com wrote:
> Krugman is right on wrt the whistle blowers and California regulator,
> though I disagree with his characterization of Spitzer.
I'm curious Nomi, which part do you disagree with? Krugman concedes up front that the fines were nothing. He basically praises Spitzer for putting all this stuff in the spotlight and stoking people's outrage. And I think one has to concede Spitzer that. He did generate headlines.
Admittedly, K's second argument that Spitzer couldn't have done more because the cards were so stacked against him seems to ring hollow in light of the historical parallels you've already drawn to Guiliani and Drexel.
BTW, question for the legal gallery: did Guiliani have any more levers at his disposal than Spitzer did on account of being (a) a Federal rather than a state prosecutor and (b) a Republican when the Republicans were in power?
Michael