As I re-read what you've written, I think you've perhaps overstated things with such a pro-Spitzer tilt, that the floor slants.

You write: "Let's look at the facts:
Spitzer did not ask State Police to follow Bruno. Bruno asked for the State Police to follow Bruno, ostensibly because he received death threats. Spitzer and his aides were not conducting police surveillance, or monitoring the activities of political rivals."

How do you know any of these "facts"? Were you there? Are you relying on what appears to be an incomplete enquiry from AG Cuomo? Your last sentence, sadly, appears to have
been false: Mr. Spitzer's aides did in fact monitor Mr. Bruno's activities.

You next write "After the fact, when Spitzer and his aides found out Bruno might be abusing state aircraft privileges, Dopp started working with reporters on a story about it."

You see, do you not, that "found out Bruno might be abusing" does not mesh well with "not monitoring the activities of"?

Next you write: "In order to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he told Albany Times Union reporters that they should make a FOIL request for info on Bruno's travel."

Have you noticed that you have glossed over and misstated the problem? You left out the part which might well say: Having used state investigative resources for partisan political purposes, (Dopp) tried to cover his tracks by fabricating an after-the-fact FOIL request.

By your telling of the story, the partisan use of public resources to discredit political opponents must be just fine. Are Mr. Bush forays in this regard OK too? Is all steamrollering OK with you? Well, not with me.

The problem here is that, at least so far as I see it, Mr. Bruno may not the only bad guy in Albany.

If we fail to confront the GOP majority in the State Senate with the actual policy differences between us & them, if we focus on idiotic and unimportant (and, as it happens, false) claims of minor misuse of power, we could blow the chance for real political change. Worst of all, if we excuse Mr. Spitzer's misbehavior toward Mr. Bruno -- how will we respond when that style of misbehavior is turned toward us? To mangle a famous phrase: If we are not for others, even Mr. Bruno, who are we?

Daniel, I understand where you're coming from, but I stand by my argument.

I'm working off the same public information you are, I wasn't there or involved in any way. Specifically I'm referring to the ATU article Bouldin linked to in an earlier post, and a few other articles.

If it turns out Spitzer or his people lied to the AG, or in the reports that are coming out in the press, I would have to re-assess my opinion, but for now, Spitzer still deserves the benefit of the doubt in my mind.

None of the actions Spitzer's aides took were illegal, or in my opinion unethical. It basically amounted to them asking state police to write very brief reports on what they did the times they traveled with Bruno. The reports are a few lines each. This is not a gross mismanagement of state resources.

My main point here was not really trying to make excuses for Spitzer. To be honest, I think that this plan was stupid, and unnecessary, just like you. I agree that dems have a good chance at taking the Senate. Going after Bruno is not the best way to do it. Spitzer and the Dems should be targeting individual weak senators like Serph Maltese and Frank Padavan.

My point was that once this plan was hatched, and when they got caught, they could have handled the fallout much better. Cuomo's report was pretty critical of both sides, and Spitzer could have muted some of this criticism if he had not gone on the defensive so quickly.