I hope you are referring to Ella Fitzgerald. A most popular crossword puzzle clue.

We can only hope that this guy does to the Democrat party what Pataki did to the Republicans.

LOL you beat me to it.

-Eric

i think spitzer’s rise illustrates what a compliant (or intimidated) media and control of the dominant party’s apparatus can do. It was all he needed to jump from AG to Governor. NY voters get flak over this, but in reality the small % of voters that actually even knew who he was, much less knew some things about him not from cnn, never had a practical chance to keep him out once he had the party itself under control. McCain is another good example of this, with some differences.

Next day (information) BUMP!

Client Number Nine's Troubling Number Two

Eliot Spitzer's sordid saga is quickly unfolding into a classic lesson on the perils of hypocritical self-righteousness. But it also teaches the importance of the often underrated choice a leader makes in selecting his second in command.

In a year promising many historic political firsts, David Paterson's likely ascendance would make him New York's first black Governor as well as the nation's first legally blind one. Unfortunately, his distinctiveness truly transcends these milestones.

The lieutenant governor's unique law enforcement positions are beyond ultra-liberal -- they're ultra-moronic. As NY senate minority leader, he reacted to the 2000 acquittal of the four cops that shot and killed Amadou Diallo, after mistaking the African immigrant's wallet for a gun, by proposing state penal code amendments to limit police use of firearms.

The bill would contain cops to the use of "minimal force," even when responding to deadly force. Amazingly, it would require an officer to attempt shooting an attacking suspect in the arm or leg, even when doing so might jeopardize the lives of themselves or others. Adding to the lunacy of the bill is this:

"Further, the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the minimal number necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes the purpose, it is neither necessary [n]or appropriate for an officer to empty his barrel."

Essentially then, officers could spend up to 15 years in jail for the second-degree manslaughter charge discharging their weapons in self-defense might bring should a jury be convinced they didn't "shoot to wound."

Not only does the idea -- which endangers both cops and citizens -- betray a complete lack of law-enforcement experience, it also clearly demonstrates an ignorance of firearms approaching irresponsible for a public official.

After all, rule two of the universal laws of gun safety warns "never point the gun at anything you are not willing to destroy." Any instructor worth his or her salt quickly instills in students that a muzzle should never be directed at anything you don't want a hole in, or anyone you are not willing to kill.

You see, outside of TV shows and Hollywood movies, guns make dreadful non-lethal weapons.

PoliceOne.com quotes Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato:

"Senator Paterson does not understand any of the issues of performance psychology and performance skill. He apparently has been trained by TV to think that officers have lots of time and are able to do amazing things when they are confronted with life-threatening dangers.

"In reality, most deadly encounters unfold very rapidly and very dramatically. Shooting to wound is rarely an option. Given the training most officers have, they are lucky to put bullets into center mass without trying to hit limbs that can be moved faster and more radically than larger parts of the body. Paterson's proposal is almost beyond commentary."

Besides, suppose a cop only wings a bad guy, and the attacker -- surely shooting to annihilate -- then manages to kill him, his partner or an innocent bystander. Does Paterson actually believe that the life of a criminal with deadly intent is somehow more precious than any of these three thoroughly guiltless individuals?

Edward Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association rightly denounced the bill:

"In light of the [recent] police shootings and terrorism, why in the world would you create a bill that would actually tie the hands of police officers? I see lunacy in creating a bill like this."

Why, indeed?

Might there be racial concerns involved? Such overtones were paramount in the Diallo case reportedly at the heart of this preposterous bill. And Paterson's death-penalty opposition on the grounds of its "unfair distribution" further suggests a man crusading against perceived racial injustice. Add the fact that Paterson is facing a lawsuit claiming he replaced a white staff photographer with a black one in 2003 solely because minority senators wanted "a minority photographer, a black photographer," and his motives certainly might appear suspect.

Neither state senator nor Lieutenant Governor Paterson has yet managed to pass this unforgivably inept and questionably inspired legislation.

Should the Governorship allow Paterson to do so, the results promise to be nothing short of devastating.

And, given that such a naïve and uniquely unqualified man would never have been elected to the state's highest post, the fallout would represent yet another truly disastrous decision.

From the man believed to be client number nine.