Rudy's Accountability Problem
I'm really not liking the way this sounds:
Rudy's flexible interpretation of his marital vows has always been a source of irritation to many conservatives, but if he has indeed used taxpayer funds inappropriately, then he may have trouble on the horizon.
In the fall of 2001, city cops chauffeured Rudy Giuliani's then-mistress, Judith Nathan, to her parents' Pennsylvania home 130 miles away on the taxpayers' dime. Records show that city cops refueled at an ExxonMobil station down the road from Nathan's childhood home in Hazleton on Oct. 20, 2001, while Giuliani stayed behind in New York attending 9/11 funerals. A similar receipt pops up at a different Hazleton gas station two months later, when Nathan apparently went home for a pre-Christmas visit with her parents. The records show that - in addition to using City Hall funds to take Giuliani and Nathan to 11 secret trysts in the Hamptons, as has been previously reported - taxpayers were paying to ferry Nathan on long-distance trips without Giuliani, now a Republican contender for President.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:25 PM
Comments
1
In a way, this makes Rudy look a little bit like Slick Willie.
I am not certain GOP primary voters are gonna like that, especially in places like Iowa or South Carolina (yes, I know, Iowa has caucuses... work with me, here).
This one may turn out to be the equivalent of the Dean Scream.
I am not certain GOP primary voters are gonna like that, especially in places like Iowa or South Carolina (yes, I know, Iowa has caucuses... work with me, here).
This one may turn out to be the equivalent of the Dean Scream.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 01:41 PM (SoUge)
2
Wait, you mean...Clinton got a blowjob?
Posted by: dBa at December 01, 2007 03:17 PM (nM0Mp)
3
It's not his casual attitude towards his vows that turned me against him, it's his utter and undisguisable contempt for anyone who believes in the Second Amendment, or in the security of our borders... in other words, abot 75% of teh people he expects to vote for him.
This shows either Clintonian arrogance or total delusion.
This shows either Clintonian arrogance or total delusion.
Posted by: DaveP. at December 01, 2007 04:21 PM (VUpJX)
4
I sense a sinking feeling coming on for Rudy. His publicly-financed philandering, his lack of respect for the right to keep and bear arms, his 'sanctuary city' status...no, Rudy's not our guy.
Posted by: Jeffersonian at December 01, 2007 09:37 PM (Hn7lS)
5
"sense a sinking feeling coming on for Rudy. His publicly-financed philandering, his lack of respect for the right to keep and bear arms, his 'sanctuary city' status...no, Rudy's not our guy."
. . . and if that feeling turns out to be correct, you can have a much worse sinking feeling when Mrs. Clinton takes the podium on January 20th of 2009.
. . . and if that feeling turns out to be correct, you can have a much worse sinking feeling when Mrs. Clinton takes the podium on January 20th of 2009.
Posted by: evil Bee at December 01, 2007 09:56 PM (2Ll0+)
6
I've got news for you: If Rudy has a pro-illegal, anti-gun, pro-abortion albatross hung around his neck, it won't matter whom he runs against in the general election.
Posted by: Jeffersonian at December 01, 2007 10:12 PM (Hn7lS)
7
Evil Bee, similar predictions were made about Howard Dean crushing Dubya in 2004.
In short, it's too darned early to determine who's gonna be the winner. And early prognosticators frequently end up dining on crow.
In short, it's too darned early to determine who's gonna be the winner. And early prognosticators frequently end up dining on crow.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 01, 2007 11:28 PM (4g5mr)
Posted by: peter jackson at December 02, 2007 12:39 AM (LQEWm)
9
I agree with DaveP and also point out that those who support Rudy because they think he can beat Hillary could be sadly disappointed when the Clinton Machine fine tunes its dirt digging and puts it into slow release mode to destroy Rudy.
Hillary, of course, has her share of dirt but the media will try to cover it up whereas it will provide plenty of eager assistance to the Clinton Machine to destroy Rudy.
If Rudy is the R candidate with the most potential for destruction it would be folly for the R's to nominate him.
Hillary, of course, has her share of dirt but the media will try to cover it up whereas it will provide plenty of eager assistance to the Clinton Machine to destroy Rudy.
If Rudy is the R candidate with the most potential for destruction it would be folly for the R's to nominate him.
Posted by: Flash Gordon at December 02, 2007 11:34 AM (5BaSP)
10
This is prety much the last straw for me to consider supporting Giuliani for Prez. His principles are too flexible to his needs and wants for me to need or want him in the White House.
My list has been narrowed.
My list has been narrowed.
Posted by: Dusty at December 02, 2007 03:04 PM (1Lzs1)
11
Oh, God forbid that the party of Mark Foley and Larry Craig nominate a presidential candidate who bangs women!
Good grief, we've become a party of twisted prudes.
Good grief, we've become a party of twisted prudes.
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 03:37 PM (sCr4S)
12
It's not that he "bangs women," Paul, it's that his mistress--while he is still married, by the way--is traveling at the taxpayer's expense. And it's not just the gas, it's the wages for the city employees, the wear and tear on the vehicles, etc.
Chalk up one incomplete spin. But I am sure you'll spin, spin again.
Chalk up one incomplete spin. But I am sure you'll spin, spin again.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 03:55 PM (4g5mr)
13
Ah, wear and tear on city vehicles secondary to shuttling the mayor's mistress: Now that, ladies and gentlemen, is an issue of great moment, and one on which the future of the Republic should turn. Praise God!
In 2008, we're going to get out butts handed to us across the board. We're going to lose the White House, as well as seats in the House and Senate. And we deserve it. We've shown ourselves to be a small, sad party, unsuited to the governance of a great Nation.
But you know, when Hillary is making appointments to the Supreme Court, we shall console ourselves in the knowledge that we saved on gas! After all, it's the little touches that make all the difference, don't you think?
In 2008, we're going to get out butts handed to us across the board. We're going to lose the White House, as well as seats in the House and Senate. And we deserve it. We've shown ourselves to be a small, sad party, unsuited to the governance of a great Nation.
But you know, when Hillary is making appointments to the Supreme Court, we shall console ourselves in the knowledge that we saved on gas! After all, it's the little touches that make all the difference, don't you think?
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 06:10 PM (sCr4S)
14
Not that it isn't obvious by your commentary, Paul, but you should perhaps disclose that you're actively campaigning for Giuliani on your blog.
Perhaps I'm not of the win-at-all-costs mindset, but I'd rather lose with an honorable candidate than win with a dishonorable one. For the record, I'm not sure Rudy is dishonorable, I'm just stating he has some explaining to do.
Perhaps I'm not of the win-at-all-costs mindset, but I'd rather lose with an honorable candidate than win with a dishonorable one. For the record, I'm not sure Rudy is dishonorable, I'm just stating he has some explaining to do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at December 02, 2007 06:56 PM (HcgFD)
15
Paul, lemme ask you a question in the interest of full disclosure:
What would your reaction be if the word "Giuliani" in the article above was replaced with "Romney"?
What would your reaction be if the word "Giuliani" in the article above was replaced with "Romney"?
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 07:36 PM (4g5mr)
16
By the way, since I am asking for full disclosure from Paul, I will offer it myself:
It matters not to me if the person involved in this is named Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Thompson--who, full disclosure again, I am supporting.
Wrong is wrong, and to excuse something that is wrong because your preferred candidate did it is the way of the Party of the Donkey, not the way of the Party of the Elephant.
It's the Clintons who have perfected the art of "it's wrong when you do it but not when we do it," and I refuse to do that for my favored candidate(s).
Maybe I just have higher standards, tho.
It matters not to me if the person involved in this is named Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Clinton, Obama, Edwards, or Thompson--who, full disclosure again, I am supporting.
Wrong is wrong, and to excuse something that is wrong because your preferred candidate did it is the way of the Party of the Donkey, not the way of the Party of the Elephant.
It's the Clintons who have perfected the art of "it's wrong when you do it but not when we do it," and I refuse to do that for my favored candidate(s).
Maybe I just have higher standards, tho.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 08:04 PM (4g5mr)
17
Not that it isn't obvious by your commentary, Paul, but you should perhaps disclose that you're actively campaigning for Giuliani on your blog.
Fair enough. Indeed I did think my choice of candidate was obvious from my commentary, and I supplied the link to my blog, which is presumably how you found it. But as you correctly note, I support Giuliani. I'm also a contributor to his campaign.
What would your reaction be if the word "Giuliani" in the article above was replaced with "Romney"?
Well, I am a partisan, so I can't say with moral certainty how I might react if you substituted Giuliani with Romney -- or with Clinton or Edwards. But I sure as heck know how I should react.
Look, we have big stuff to contend with: fiscal practices that are deeply irresponsible and unsustainable; Islamo-Nazis who want to kill us and end our way of life; Democrats who want to socialize the healthcare system; and a Supreme Court that's likely to face two or more vacancies in the next four years.
These are the sorts of issues that we ought to be thinking about, and debating on the merits. This other stuff -- Romney's religion, Giuliani's women, John Edwards' hair -- is petty crap. I don't know that America has ever been in a position to deal in petty crap. But she's most certainly not in a position to do so today.
Is Rudy Giuliani naughty? He is. Is Mitt Romney synthetic? He is. Is Ron Paul a loon? He is. It's true, all of it. And I don't care. I don't think we can afford to care. Fifty years from now, nobody will remember who Rudy was putting the blocks to, or whether Mitt was a Mormon. But they may well remember, for good or ill, the policies pursued by America's 44th president.
My beef isn't with people who don't support my candidate. My beef is with our corporate inability as Republicans to rise above the small and petty. Is it because we have nothing big and important to say?
Fair enough. Indeed I did think my choice of candidate was obvious from my commentary, and I supplied the link to my blog, which is presumably how you found it. But as you correctly note, I support Giuliani. I'm also a contributor to his campaign.
What would your reaction be if the word "Giuliani" in the article above was replaced with "Romney"?
Well, I am a partisan, so I can't say with moral certainty how I might react if you substituted Giuliani with Romney -- or with Clinton or Edwards. But I sure as heck know how I should react.
Look, we have big stuff to contend with: fiscal practices that are deeply irresponsible and unsustainable; Islamo-Nazis who want to kill us and end our way of life; Democrats who want to socialize the healthcare system; and a Supreme Court that's likely to face two or more vacancies in the next four years.
These are the sorts of issues that we ought to be thinking about, and debating on the merits. This other stuff -- Romney's religion, Giuliani's women, John Edwards' hair -- is petty crap. I don't know that America has ever been in a position to deal in petty crap. But she's most certainly not in a position to do so today.
Is Rudy Giuliani naughty? He is. Is Mitt Romney synthetic? He is. Is Ron Paul a loon? He is. It's true, all of it. And I don't care. I don't think we can afford to care. Fifty years from now, nobody will remember who Rudy was putting the blocks to, or whether Mitt was a Mormon. But they may well remember, for good or ill, the policies pursued by America's 44th president.
My beef isn't with people who don't support my candidate. My beef is with our corporate inability as Republicans to rise above the small and petty. Is it because we have nothing big and important to say?
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 10:12 PM (sCr4S)
18
If I might add one other thing, partly -- but only partly -- tongue in cheek:
It's not that he "bangs women," Paul, it's that his mistress--while he is still married, by the way--is traveling at the taxpayer's expense.
Oh, of course it's about the bang. These tempests are always about the bang. Human beings are endlessly absorbed with each another's sexual behavior. We're like dogs in heat. We all gather around the moment we catch the scent.
Do you honestly think we'd have a story here had Rudy passed off the security costs for hauling around his grandma? Please.
It's not that he "bangs women," Paul, it's that his mistress--while he is still married, by the way--is traveling at the taxpayer's expense.
Oh, of course it's about the bang. These tempests are always about the bang. Human beings are endlessly absorbed with each another's sexual behavior. We're like dogs in heat. We all gather around the moment we catch the scent.
Do you honestly think we'd have a story here had Rudy passed off the security costs for hauling around his grandma? Please.
Posted by: Paul at December 02, 2007 10:50 PM (sCr4S)
19
His grandma would be a member of his family and, thus, entitled to city employee protection. His mistress wasn't when he was still married to someone else... now that she is his wife, she is entitled to protection.
And I can only speak for myself, but personally I'd be just as pissed if it was Huckabee having taxpayers pay for driving his Sunday School teacher to church.
The bottom line, Giuliani is trying to make big claims about his tax cuts (which, by the way, have been proven to be incorrect), thus trying to place himself as a fiscal conservative, and this story flies in the face of that.
And I can only speak for myself, but personally I'd be just as pissed if it was Huckabee having taxpayers pay for driving his Sunday School teacher to church.
The bottom line, Giuliani is trying to make big claims about his tax cuts (which, by the way, have been proven to be incorrect), thus trying to place himself as a fiscal conservative, and this story flies in the face of that.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 02, 2007 10:57 PM (4g5mr)
20
I wish someone would write a story of which other mayors, spouses and children get polic protection. A few years ago, I noticed Rudy and Kerik were always travelling with beefy bodyguards, even when they were out of office and running his consulting business. I thought they liked the image of power it conveyed, telling the world they were important people - move out of our way. They were both too full of themselves and now we witness the illegal choices they made in their pursuit of power.
Posted by: ann at December 03, 2007 12:21 AM (t9wG9)
21
Ann, were the people city cops, or a private security firm?
Anyone with the balls and the dollars can hire a private security firm to provide muscle.
Anyone with the balls and the dollars can hire a private security firm to provide muscle.
Posted by: C-C-G at December 03, 2007 12:26 AM (4g5mr)
22
Hmmmm.
I've stated many times before, on this and other blogs, that Guiliani is a flake and that if he is the nominee that there will be problems.
IMO this is just the extreme tip of the iceberg.
Rudy Guiliani is vastly more flaky than this.
I've stated many times before, on this and other blogs, that Guiliani is a flake and that if he is the nominee that there will be problems.
IMO this is just the extreme tip of the iceberg.
Rudy Guiliani is vastly more flaky than this.
Posted by: memomachine at December 03, 2007 10:30 AM (3pvQO)
23
Where'd Paul the Giuliani shill go?
Posted by: C-C-G at December 04, 2007 08:15 PM (SoUge)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.009 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0065 seconds, 31 records returned.
Page size 18 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.