Eliot Spitzer is my favorite "new breed" Democrat. He's really tough. When some people have challenged him he has asked them to "step outside". You've gotta love that - especially in the day and age of Right Wing Attack dogs. But, Spitzer is also very smart and incredibly well spoken. And that's where is real talent lies - his ability to deflect loaded questions and turn them back on the interviewed.
Now that we are in the majority we have to learn how to deal with the Right Wing press. And Spitzer will show us how.
Here's the backdrop to this 2005 interview with Neil Cavuto on Fox News. Cavuto spent about a month before the interview taunting Spitzer. "He's afraid to come on the show" etc... -- you know the drill.
After the interview, Cavuto never mentioned Spitzer again.
Spitzer was well spoken and very poised throughout the entire interview. Spitzer appeared to be incredibly mature, especially in reaction to Cavuto's obvious baiting tactics. He did not lose his cool once. Basically, Spitzer treated Cavuto like a petulant child who needed to be taught a lesson in a gentlemanly, fatherly manner.
Here is the transcript.
CAVUTO: All right. So prior issues where you didn't come on the show or couldn't arrange to be on the show, this is nothing personal, right?
SPITZER: Of course not. No, I am a huge fan of your guys' programming. It was scheduling issues, as you can imagine, there were a lot of demands for interviews, which I'm flattered by, but I have a job to do. And so I try to keep myself at the desk most of the day and I look forward to chatting with you any time in the future.
Right off the bat, Cavuto is baiting Spitzer, implying Spitzer is somehow afraid of going on Fox for whatever reason. Spitzer's response is perfect, essentially saying, "I have a job to do Neil. And my job is really important. I can't just drop everything I do to come on your show." Also notice how Eliot performs a nice degree of flattery here.
CAVUTO: All right. Mr. Attorney General, let's go right to the subject at hand. Now in going after the insurance companies. In going after, particularly, AIG (search), the company's chairman, Mr. Greenberg, had expressed at least indications to analysts just the day before your latest wave came down that the company was out of the woods. What made him think that?
SPITZER: Well, my understanding -- and again, of course, I can't speak for Mr. Greenberg -- but, my understanding is that it had done an internal audit, an internal examination of some sort. And I base this knowledge on press reports that they had reported that they had found only one individual in one unit who had been culpable in whatever they considered to be impropriety.
And of course, I haven't seen their internal examination, so I can't respond to it, except to say that, with the guilty pleas that are being entered today, there will be now four individuals from AIG who will have pled guilty. And as a consequence, whatever claim they've made that only one person was implicated clearly is wrong, and the problems there are more expansive than, certainly, their internal audit had demonstrated to them.
I'm not suggesting that there is corruption rife through the company. We have served subpoenas. That has been reported by them. I obviously cannot comment upon ongoing investigations, but the subpoenas are broad in nature, and we will see where they take us.
Cavuto is saying the company has performed an internal audit and we should trust those results. Very calmly and directly Spitzer says the company's internal audit is flawed based on information he already has. Spitzer essentially says that AIG's chairman is a liar and proves it.
CAVUTO: Let me ask you something that, Mr. Attorney General, when our viewers knew that you were going to be on here, many of them are investors, some directly in AIG. One of them wrote me and said: "I wonder if Mr. Spitzer can be sued for the losses suffered by AIG investors?"
What do you think of the losses that they've been incurring, just on your request for information from the company?
SPITZER: Well, the law enforcement process is one by which government gathers information. I would suggest to him, as an investor, that he is paying the unfortunate price for a leadership in a company that was not sufficiently attentive to its legal obligations.
There are stock drops in companies which are the recipients of subpoenas and ultimately plead guilty. Marsh is perhaps a more unfortunate example. And we feel terrible for the losses that are incurred by investors, by employees, but our responsibility is to ensure integrity in the marketplace. And that is what we have been doing.
Marsh has paid a fine of $850 million. Their market cap has dropped significantly, because there was a core illegality in their business model. They have now been acting to get rid of it. They are doing what is necessary and appropriate to clean up that business model.
The culpable parties are the executives at the companies who oversee and know and participate in the illegality. That is where liability falls. That's where it should fall. Our job, whether it's mine or the SEC or any other federal entity, is to examine and enforce the law to ensure integrity and transparency in the marketplace. That is what we are trying to do.
I LOVE this answer. Cavuto is (again) trying to set up Spitzer as the fall guy by implying Spitzer is bad for business, Spitzer will cause the demise of the market system as we know it, etc...
And Spitzer's answer is the equivalent of the home run. He clearly states the company is at fault because they broke the law. That's where the faulty lies. Spitzer also deflects criticism of "hurting the market" by making the brilliant statement, " Our job, whether it's mine or the SEC or any other federal entity, is to examine and enforce the law to ensure integrity and transparency in the marketplace." How can Cavuto make any argument against that and not look like an idiot? The answer is he can't. And that's the brilliance of the Spitzer's response.
CAVUTO: But some of this issue of contingent fees and some of the other things for which you have tried to go after many in the insurance industry, sir, the industry itself isn't saying they're necessarily a bad idea and have not backed away from them. Are they just cruising for a bruising or what?
SPITZER: No. I think you need to understand, Neil, that we have not filed a complaint against any insurance company merely because it had a contingent fee in its fee structure.
We have filed criminal and civil complaints, and again, as of the pleas that are going to be entered today, there will be nine guilty pleas across four different major companies. And these are all individuals who are cooperating with us, which I think indicates to most people who understand the way this works, they are cooperating so we can build bigger cases against others more senior in the industry.
Nine guilty pleas, hundreds of millions of dollars of fines, not because contingent fees were being paid, but because fraud was ongoing, deception, bid rigging, falsehoods throughout the bidding process that has cost American purchasers of insurance vast sums of money. The scheme here was to drive up the cost of insurance in a way that was illegal. That was the core of what was going on, and that is why people were being harmed.
I love this. A classic interview tactic of Right Wing Cronies is to minimize bad behavior on the part of a traditional conservative constituency and therefore imply the Democrat is making mountains our of molehills, essentially saying, "it's not really that bad, is it?"
And Spitzer again hits the ball out of the park. It's about FRAUD THAT IS HARMING CONSUMERS. THE LITTLE GUY IS PAYING THE PRICE. Again, there is no comeback to this statement.
CAVUTO: Mr. Attorney General, I guess what troubles many in this industry is that you don't often say that most of them are pretty good. Ken Crerar of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers (search) said: "The attorney general has made broad claims of corruption. That's just not the industry we know. We disclosed the compensation. That's our position, period."
SPITZER: Well, I don't know him, and I don't want to get into a back and forth with him. I understand he obviously wants to speak well of his industry, and I think well of his industry.
Having said that, when we revealed that there were structural problems within the analyst community, within the mutual fund community, now within the insurance world in terms of how some of these products are being sold, there's a reflexive desire on the part of those who speak for the industry to say it's merely one or two bad apples.
I think he is a shill for guilty people, and Tom Donohue has never once found a crime that he couldn't justify, as long as it was committed by one of his dues-paying members. And it is too bad. The Chamber of Commerce should rise above that sort of rhetoric.
Tom Donohue cannot show you one fact we've alleged that is wrong. And yet, if Mr. Donohue wants to be an apologist for criminal conduct, so be it. Then he is, I think, tarnishing the reputations of many of his members who don't want that sort of voice out there saying that illegal conduct is good. It isn't.
Here's another brilliant answer. First, Spitzer isolates the industry spokesman by stating he's an industry spokesmen. His job is to promote the industry and make it look good. So that's what he's doing.
Then Spitzer gently and quietly rips into the assertion made by the spokesman. The spokesman has not been able to counter any of Spitzer's allegations or facts. He can complain and spin all he wants, but the facts speak for themselves.
CAVUTO: You know, I know now you're running for governor, sir. The present governor, George Pataki, still isn't clear if he's going to run for a fourth term, has said that your zeal going after the financial industry is one thing, but it could chase business away from the state. He said: "It does concern me that I've had corporate and other business leaders come to me and say, 'Why should we be in New York?'"
How do you answer that?
SPITZER: Well, because business leaders whom I deal with want an honest marketplace. And you would be amazed, Neil, how many CEOs come up to me every day and say, Eliot, thank you for what you're doing. Yes, you're going after the bad guys. We want you to do that. We depend on an honest, level playing field.
The honest players out there don't want a system that is rigged. They want to be able to compete, create jobs. Most of them say, you know what, a hundred years ago, a lot of CEOs didn't like it when Teddy Roosevelt went after the cartels. But we applauded that. We know what it did for the economy. It created jobs.
They say to me, we need somebody who cleans up the illegality to permit the rest of us to play fair. That's what we approve of. It encourages investment, encourages job creation. Look at the markets these days. They're doing fine.
Again, another brilliant answer. Cavuto tries to make Spitzer the bad guy by saying, "you're bad for business."
Spitzer just nails it (AGAIN) by saying all people want a marketplace that is honest and fair. How can you argue against that? You can't.
OK - enough of my analysis. What have we learned from this?
Be calm and gentlemanly in your demeanor. NEVER LOSE YOUR COOL. The purpose of baiting questions is to bait you into losing your temper. Don't stoop to that level. So, if you're going to go on Right Wing media, make sure nothing phases you.
Know why you do things, or know your philosophy. At the heart of many of Spitzer's answers was a core philosophy of honesty and fairness. He made sure to mention those values in his answers. There is no counter-argument to those answers.
Gently call a spade a spade. An industry shill is, well, an industry shill. Don't use a derogatory term to describe them, but make sure you make the point.