kelticwizard wrote:Foxfyre wrote:You have any support for your opinion on that KW? I have a really tough time to think that the NYT and other northeastern liberal publications wouldn't have headlined a scandal of that proportion. Seems to have been pretty low key, however.
Do I have any support for this OPINION? It was chronicled over the course of a year and a half in the Daily News and Post right on the front page headlines!!!
No, the national news did not cover it, because at the time it was happening 9/11 had not happened yet and Giuliani was an interesting figure who drove crime down in New York and led a citywide renaissance in many ways. But no more than that.
When the public finds out what Rudy did to his wife over the course of a year and half or so, his popularity ratings are going to go WAY down.
I just remember how much the media or more precisely those commenting on media reports distorted the circumstances of Bob Dole's divorce from his first wife and how very few told it as it actually was. Ditto with Newt Gingrich's divorce from his first wife.
And most of us do have access to and read the NYT and however irresponsible and unprofessional it may be, it is considered to be the front runner in national news.
I do remember the news coverage during Rudy's divorce, but don't remember it being presented quite as lopsided as you presented it here. It's usually a good idea to get both sides of a story before passing judgment.
kelticwizard wrote:JPB wrote:Did he lie under oath about it, or point his finger at a camera and boldly state to his constituency that he was not having an affair when he was?
Clinton's womanizing was not the issue -- his lying about it was.
I'm very sorry, but Clinton's womanizing WAS the central issue, and the lying under oath was the legal aspect which grew out of that. In an attempt to cover his affair, Clinton lied under oath to an investigation.
To many people, Clinton slides by on this because they feel any investigation which is somehow gets focussed on investigating an affair between consenting adults has become a sham anyway.
Be that as it may. People are well aware that Clinton lied under oath, and regardless of the circumstances that's not good.
But let's be realistic-Clinton's critics were not just put off by the oath aspect, it was just the excuse to focus on the moral aspect.
Legally, Rudy did nothing wrong. Morally, his actions make Clinton's look like a Boy Scout who gave in and stole a lollipop from a candy store.
Yes, Rudy was that bad. Amazingly bad. Bizarrely bad. A great Mayor-but an absolute psycho toward his wife in public.
As a strong Clinton critic, I can tell you that I don't give two squats about what he was doing in or out of the bedroom, who he was doing it to or with, or how many cigars he put in how many places. I do very much care that he lied about it, went out of his way to lie about it, and defended his lying about it as inconsequential.
There may well be a number of Clinton critics who were upset about his lack of morality and glommed on to the oath aspect as a cover. If so, they've never said so to me.
Foxfyre:
Just going by memory here-believe me the details will come out as time goes on. Reports of Giuliani's girlfriend attending his events, sitting away from him, had surfaced for months in the newspapers. Finally, at either the Columbus Day parade or St. Patrick's Day parade-forget which, those are the two big ones-Judy Nathan was marching right by Giuliani's side. It was the official opening of the "Judy's-in-Donna-and-the-kids-are-out" campaign.
Things got strange fast. More and more Nathan appeared at Giuliani's side in lieu of wife. I'm not certain if Rudy filed a lawsuit to get his wife and kids out of Gracie Mansion or not, but it was publicly debated on radio and all over, and at no time did Giuliani ever come forward and deny anything.
The part of Nathan standing next to Rudy at the dinner while his wife and children kept out of everyone's way upstairs is a matter of public record. And the TV cameras were there to record Rudy's wife's breakdown when the TV reporters informed her that the divorce papers were coming in that day's mail-Rudy never told her.
And many, many other instances in between. All of this was chronicled on the front page of the Daily News and Post on a weekly-sometimes daily-basis for well over a year. Ater the public sentiment, even in jaded New York, swung completely on the wife's side, Rudy was forced to move out of the Mayor's Mansion and in with two homosexual friends until his term ended and he found new living quarters.
Yes, you read that last sentence right. Yes, we know that the gay movement had made great strides over the years, and New York is ahead of the curve there. But what is most remarkable is that the move-in with the gay couple was the LEAST bizarre installment of the whole saga.
(As an aside, all of what kelticwizard says is familiar to me from following it in the NYT.)
JPB wrote:kelticwizard wrote:JPB wrote:Did he lie under oath about it, or point his finger at a camera and boldly state to his constituency that he was not having an affair when he was?
Clinton's womanizing was not the issue -- his lying about it was.
I'm very sorry, but Clinton's womanizing WAS the central issue, and the lying under oath was the legal aspect which grew out of that. In an attempt to cover his affair, Clinton lied under oath to an investigation.
To many people, Clinton slides by on this because they feel any investigation which is somehow gets focussed on investigating an affair between consenting adults has become a sham anyway.
Be that as it may. People are well aware that Clinton lied under oath, and regardless of the circumstances that's not good.
But let's be realistic-Clinton's critics were not just put off by the oath aspect, it was just the excuse to focus on the moral aspect.
Legally, Rudy did nothing wrong. Morally, his actions make Clinton's look like a Boy Scout who gave in and stole a lollipop from a candy store.
Yes, Rudy was that bad. Amazingly bad. Bizarrely bad. A great Mayor-but an absolute psycho toward his wife in public.
As a strong Clinton critic, I can tell you that I don't give two squats about what he was doing in or out of the bedroom, who he was doing it to or with, or how many cigars he put in how many places. I do very much care that he lied about it, went out of his way to lie about it, and defended his lying about it as inconsequential.
There may well be a number of Clinton critics who were upset about his lack of morality and glommed on to the oath aspect as a cover. If so, they've never said so to me.
If womanizing was the issue, FDR, JFK, et al who presided in much more religious eras would have been widely excoriated. We now know that the media was well aware of what they were doing outside the limits of marriage too. If Clinton had not lied under oath and gotten caught, we might have never known about Monica until it was referenced in some future histories. I agree that even the most right wing Christians who deplore such hanky panky would not have considered an infidelity alone--not even an infidelity in the oval office--as something worthy of more than some negative press. It certainly was not an impeachable offense and nobody to my knowledge has ever said it was. Lying under oath should not be tolerated from any elected representative, however.
It is amazing how both memoirs have raked in millions when neither Bill nor Hillary could remember squat when they were in office. Our current President uses a "I can't remember" defense very sparingly if he uses it and I can't remember a time when Guiliani has used it at all.
Thanks a ton, Soz. I read the NY Times pretty frequently during those days, and it did make it on there.
But I also read the Daily News, and I must admit that their coverage of this was so much more fun.
kelticwizard wrote:Foxfyre:
Just going by memory here-believe me the details will come out as time goes on. Reports of Giuliani's girlfriend attending his events, sitting away from him, had surfaced for months in the newspapers. Finally, at either the Columbus Day parade or St. Patrick's Day parade-forget which, those are the two big ones-Judy Nathan was marching right by Giuliani's side. It was the official opening of the "Judy's-in-Donna-and-the-kids-are-out" campaign.
Things got strange fast. More and more Nathan appeared at Giuliani's side in lieu of wife. I'm not certain if Rudy filed a lawsuit to get his wife and kids out of Gracie Mansion or not, but it was publicly debated on radio and all over, and at no time did Giuliani ever come forward and deny anything.
The part of Nathan standing next to Rudy at the dinner while his wife and children kept out of everyone's way upstairs is a matter of public record. And the TV cameras were there to record Rudy's wife's breakdown when the TV reporters informed her that the divorce papers were coming in that day's mail-Rudy never told her.
And many, many other instances in between. All of this was chronicled on the front page of the Daily News and Post on a weekly-sometimes daily-basis for well over a year. Ater the public sentiment, even in jaded New York, swung completely on the wife's side, Rudy was forced to move out of the Mayor's Mansion and in with two homosexual friends until his term ended and he found new living quarters.
Yes, you read that last sentence right. Yes, we know that the gay movement had made great strides over the years, and New York is ahead of the curve there. But what is most remarkable is that the move-in with the gay couple was the LEAST bizarre installment of the whole saga.
Honestly I don't know how good your memory is. I do have some experience in working with troubled families, however, and know there are two distinct sides to the story in most cases. I don't think Guiliani living with gay friends will be an issue for anybody.
If he was truly a scumbag, never fear that at least his Democrat opponents and possibly his GOP opponents will drag it all through the mud and it will be fully aired. If it was as bad as your perception, it very well could be a factor giving the Democrat the win. I don't know.
I am skeptical of most subjective things reported by the NYT however.
Foxfyre wrote: Our current President uses a "I can't remember" defense very sparingly if he uses it and I can't remember a time when Guiliani has used it at all.
That's because Bush has learned Bill Clinton's lesson -- and consequently refused to testify under oath as president. I don't know about Guiliani either.
Foxfyre wrote:If he was truly a scumbag, never fear that at least his Democrat opponents and possibly his GOP opponents will drag it all through the mud and it will be fully aired. If it was as bad as your perception, it very well could be a factor giving the Democrat the win. I don't know.
The Democrats won't have a chance to drag Giuliani through the mud. That work will be done for them by the right-wing of the GOP.
Foxfyre, nimh pointed you right to the evidence on the NYT site. A whole lot of it is as far from subjective as you can get (like TV cameras trained on Donna Hanover as she learned about divorce papers).
joefromchicago wrote: The Democrats won't have a chance to drag Giuliani through the mud. That work will be done for them by the right-wing of the GOP.
You got that right, Joe. All the Religious Right has to do is get hold of some back copies of the Daily News and New York Post from that time period-they're gonna FLIP!
Not quite accurate -- Rudy announced the separation in a news conference (that's how she learned about it) and then she had a tearful follow-up conference a bit later, that's the one I remembered.
Quote: THE MAYOR'S SEPERATION: THE OVERVIEW; Giuliani and His Wife of 16 Years Are Separating
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: May 11, 2000
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's marital problems exploded yesterday in a public exchange with his wife, Donna Hanover. The mayor abruptly announced that he was seeking a separation from Ms. Hanover, and Ms. Hanover, caught unaware, then said that the couple's troubles began years ago because of a previous relationship between the mayor and a member of his staff.
At an extraordinary, emotional news conference in Bryant Park, Mr. Giuliani also said that as he battles prostate cancer he will turn ''more now than maybe I did before'' to Judith Nathan, the woman he describes as a very good friend.
Source
Thomas wrote:Foxfyre wrote: Our current President uses a "I can't remember" defense very sparingly if he uses it and I can't remember a time when Guiliani has used it at all.
That's because Bush has learned Bill Clinton's lesson -- and consequently refused to testify under oath as president. I don't know about Guiliani either.
I am unaware that Bush has refused a subpoena or improperly refused to testify under oath. He certainly has not refused to testify in any matter related to a private citizen. My recollection has been that Bush and Cheney have been quite accessible to panels and commissions and others in which their contribution was necessary. That is also my recollection of Guiliani. And I'm not aware that any of these have advised witnesses to lie or sent their operatives to steal or destroy evidence prior to such testimony as the former occupant of Whitehouse appears to have done.
But can't you just see the leftwing group rubbing their hands with glee and salivating at the prospect of Guiliani being smeared? It's a rotten world we seem to have created for ourselves.
sozobe wrote:Foxfyre, nimh pointed you right to the evidence on the NYT site. A whole lot of it is as far from subjective as you can get (like TV cameras trained on Donna Hanover as she learned about divorce papers).
I looked at Nimh's sources and did not disagree that he provided them. I also gave my impressions of media coverage on this stuff. But as you have pointed out frequently, you don't like the way I express myself and that's okay. You'll just have to live with the notion that I sometimes see things differently from the way others see them I guess. I am not inclined to do anything about that.
Soz:
Thanks for clarifying that. OK, Giuliani's wife learned about it from a public announcement along with the reporters. She wasn't informed by the reporters, she found out about it right along with the reporters. Fact is, Giuliani did not even have the decency to tell her what was coming, by phone call or even some kind of message. Giuliani publicly announced his divorce, and a few minutes later reporters were surrounding her asking for her reaction. Unbelievable.
That wasn't even the worst of it. There is even worse than that along the way.
There had been cracks in the marriage visible in the time previous to the public affair. The newspapers had come onto the suspicion that Giuliani had an affair with a young, (early 30's?) staffer, but nobody could prove anything. Then his wife, who was a well-known actress in the New York area, starred in The Vagina Monologues, which was perhaps a bit risque, although this IS New York. Moreover, the press did mention that the Monologues were written by a friend of the Clintons, so it amounted to a possible bit of tweaking of the Mayor by his wife. As in "Nyaah nyaah I'm going to appear in this risque play written by a feminist writer with ties to the other party and you can't do anything about it. Nyaah nyaah."
A few months passed. Then all hell broke loose.
Perhaps Giuliani's wife could be taken to task for appearing in the play. Open to question, but I can see someone saying that it was not consistent with her husband's position. Seems to me there is the issue of Giuliani realizing that artistic freedom goes with territory of marrying a beautiful actress. Still, I can see someone maintaining that Giuliani's wife should not have done it.
But that story was a minor one day story, and of interest only to that small segment of New York who pays attention to political theater. After all, I don't think there are too many families in Iowa who took their summer vacation in New York so they can see The Vagna Monologues. But regardless of that, regardless of whether it amounted to a tweak or not, nothing Giuliani's wife did justified what Giuliani did to her publicly over the course of a year and a half. Nothing.
You guys are missing the point -
Guiliani is the 'great white hope' for the Republicans now. They can't support Bush any longer - at least not with the blind, 'I won't hear anything bad about him' fervor they like - so they are turning to the next one that they can throw their reality-denying support behind.
A more honest person would admit that they think Guiliani would make a good prez. in spite of the fact that he's acted as a real scumbag to his ex-wife, rather than argue insane positions at length. But we aren't dealing with people who even have the capability of being honest with themselves.
Don't hold your breath waiting for admissions about Gulliani.
Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre wrote:But can't you just see the leftwing group rubbing their hands with glee and salivating at the prospect of Guiliani being smeared?
By "smeared" you mean what-accurately reporting what he did to his wife?
Fer Chrissake-Rudy went OUT OF HIS WAY to do it in public. Why shouldn't it be brought up?
As I've
mentioned in another context, Giuliani would never be acceptable to the Republican right-wingnuts, who would crucify him for his social liberalism, his messy personal life, and his Papism. He is just too liberal, too ethnic, too urban, too divorced, and too Catholic to get the nod from the GOP.
kelticwizard wrote:Foxfyre wrote:But can't you just see the leftwing group rubbing their hands with glee and salivating at the prospect of Guiliani being smeared?
By "smeared" you mean what-accurately reporting what he did to his wife?
Fer Chrissake-Rudy went OUT OF HIS WAY to do it in public. Why shouldn't it be brought up?
Did I say it shouldn't? Are you denying that you aren't hoping he will be thorough disgraced and embarrassed when it is?
Thomas wrote:blatham wrote:My supposition is that he represents authoritarian leadership far moreso than the other two or three options. And this is a community that really likes authoritarians.
As a strategist, would you recommend that he rename himself Giulialini?
There's a joke here (aside from my habit of spelling his name with the 'u' preceding the 'i') but I'm not sure what it is.
