I got a question:

He's probably really apologizing for getting caught. and for being an idiot.

  I think people are also more offended with the idea of a whole prostitution ring being involved as opposed to an "office romance". not only is he a cheating bastard, but he's a pitiful one that cant even get the ladies on his own.

i really couldn’t care less either way, and for those of us who done live in NY you really have to ask yourself "For every Spitzer news story you hear, what actual news are you missing?"

$4300 for this girl?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23600504/

Yeah, I guess I could see that. 

Also, she's from Jersey.  High five everybody. 

$4300? she better be doing backflips...

The other matter besides the sex is the money.  Apparently, he spent about $80,000 at this one escort agency, and there seems to be some questions about the source of the money.  He was moving cash around so much that the bank tipped off the IRS about something unusual.  It's one thing if he was just hiding it from his wife, it's another if he was using public funds.

As far as I'm concerned, prostitution should be legal.  I have no problem with this guy going to a hooker to get his knob polished. Although I assume his wife and 3 teenage daughters might have an issue with that.

But as a prosecutor and DA, how many lives has this guy ruined?  How many people has he chased and put on trial?  How many marriages has he blown up by catching some working class guy who was getting laid by a whore?

I love to see hypocrites fry in their own grease.  This guy deserves any public shame and humiliation he’s going through.

The late-night TV hosts are really milking this little scandal these days, and it's not all that funny anymore.  Yawn, America...

Wouldnt it be wonderful if people stopped caring about how "moral" our leaders are, and more about how well they can take care of things?

history serves as evidence that its the prudes who screw things up

You got to care to some degree how moral your leaders are. otherwise you end up with yahoos like Hitler, Stalin and the rest of that endless list. There's got to be some middle ground where you get both someone moral and someone that can handle things. But I ain't gonna hold my breath for that person to show up anytime soon.

The church decides what is moral, and then regular people distort those views so it can actually be applied to real people besides mormans. 

techinically, the church believes stealing from people and molesting young boys is wrong as well.

Mine too.

But, just for the sake of playing the proverbial Devil's Advocate - and I do mean that, not "this is my not-so-cleverly-hidden-opinion": Who says we're right?

Who determines that stealing is bad? There is a small country near Jordan where the men believe stoning a woman for adultery if she's been raped is the right thing to do! How do we tell them they're wrong? How do we tell the molesters they should have their balls cut off... if we don't have a source to reference?

tee hee. 

Richard Dawkins and other atheist scholars and philosophers have detail;ed and discussed humanist ways of constructing concepts of morality and legality that are not dependent on religious beliefs, and even while numerous studies including those done by Mensa have indicated that there is an inverse relationship between intelligence and belief in God, which is to say that the smarter you are the less likely you are to believe in God, the current climate of our country demonized people who express even an agnostic never mind an atheistic point of view, and so no one takes, at least not politically, takes Dawkins or others seriously.  It is their assertion that many politicians, in America and elsewhere, throughout history, were deists, agnostics or atheists, but for fear of public opinion pretended otherwise. 

"The immense majority of intellectualy eminent men dis-believe in Christian religion, but they conceal the fact in public, because they are afraid of losing their incomes." --- Bertrand Russell

A book multi-million book deal is already in place and some of her songs posted online has already made millions.

So yes and yes.

Morality is right along the lines of Love and Happiness - intangible, but certainly some thing noticeable in either its presence or absence.

It's an extreme example, but if I steal from you or commit physical violence against you, some moral code you possess - be it the basest, say self-preservation,  or something more advanced like "justice" - will most likely appear. Better than that, if I steal from someone you love or commit physical violence against someone you love, morality is even more likely to rear it's head. 
Like here: 
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0638,hentoff,74473,6.html

Neither religion nor faith in some higher being are necessary to develop a moral code - I don't think any philosopher is needed to tell us us this. The difficult questions arise when I personally have to determine whether or not some moral code is valid or not. The subject of the above article has his own moral code - and whether or not he's religious is irrelevant because he believes it. But I think we can all be sure of this: The sane women involved believed that his view of morality is a bit "off."
In a world free of religion, there will still always be people who will take what they want - hence, the creation of "law" - it's in the absolutes that the details become difficult to decipher.
I believe this because I believe each of us - anti-Christ or anti-Atheist or Anti-Religious, etc. - has his/her own moral code. Rejecting one belief means accepting another - it's a basic law of existence. You reject one thing because you do not believe in it - but you believe that it is untrue, and that something else is. That something else could simply be: "That other belief is untrue."
Where that moral code came from or how we learned it is impossible to completely divest ourselves of, because the "damage has been done" as the saying goes. How we react to what we've learned is obviously the only controllable characteristic, but even that is at least partially determined by what we've learned and how we've learned to change ourselves.
I guess the real question I'm asking is: Do we have a common measurement by which all mankind can agree? If not, either someone is right and someone is wrong, or everyone is wrong. We can't all be right - or conflict would not exist.