Man who broke up with ex-wife at press conference asks media to respect his family’s privacy

posted at 5:36 pm on March 5, 2007 by Allahpundit

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably end up supporting him. But shamelessness this fragrant simply must be blogged.

He was responding to reporters’ questions about what his son told ABC about having gotten his values from his non-presidential parent. Quote:

“My wife Judith is a very loving and caring … mother and stepmother. She has done everything she can. The responsibility is mine,” the former New York mayor told reporters gathered outside the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s headquarters.

“I believe that these problems with blended families, you know, are challenges — sometimes they are,” he said. “The more privacy I can have for my family, the better we are going to be able to deal with all these difficulties.”

Newsweek’s mostly glowing profile of Rudy gets the cover this week, but they didn’t stint on one of his more ignominious moments:

Giuliani was also embroiled in personal crises. By the late ’90s, he and Hanover were leading largely separate lives. In 1999 the mayor met Judi Nathan, an attractive East Side divorcée. He was smitten. Over the next year, Nathan and Giuliani spent time together. When Giuliani was diagnosed with prostate cancer in the spring of 2000, forcing him out of a Senate race against Hillary Clinton, Nathan, a registered nurse, helped him as he underwent treatment. Finally, in May 2000, after the New York Daily News published photos of the couple, Giuliani confirmed that Nathan was his “very good friend.”

Then a bizarre sequence unfolded: a week after the photos appeared, Giuliani announced in his daily press briefing that he and Hanover would begin divorce proceedings. But later that day, in a hastily arranged press conference, Hanover had her own announcement: Giuliani’s announcement had caught her by surprise.

Giuliani’s private life was a shambles—and on full display. Another mayor of another city might have moved swiftly to settle the unseemly matter quietly; Giuliani, however, hired Raoul Felder, a celebrity divorce attorney never known to be shy of publicity. When Hanover’s lawyers filed a “paramour access motion” seeking to prevent Nathan from entering Gracie Mansion, where Hanover continued to live, Felder accused Hanover of “howling like a stuck pig.”

I remember Hanover’s press conference. The video isn’t on YouTube yet, but rest assured the Romney and/or McCain people are converting the footage to MPEG as we speak. Writes KP, “Once children enter the picture, the parents have an obligation to try and stay together, and if for some reason they can’t, then at a minimum the children should feel safe that their father will not allow attacks of their mother in the press, or publicly declare his undying love for the woman he dumped his family for.” The kids recovered enough to attend his wedding to Judi Nathan a few years ago, but it’s late in the day and a little too convenient for Rudy to be guilting the press now about airing dirty family laundry.

Maybe this is the opening Tancredo needs! Or maybe not!

Update: Changed the headline from “on TV” to “at press conference.” I honestly don’t remember if Rudy’s daily press briefing was televised that day.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Maybe this is the opening Tancredo needs! Or maybe not!

Is this any way to treat a Hot Air advertiser? The Republican insiders polled in the link are why the party is in shambles today.

Valiant on March 5, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Surely you’re not suggesting we tilt our coverage to please our advertisers. I know you’re not suggesting that.

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Good. I’m hoping Giuliani sinks like the Titanic. Keep the truth coming for conservatives to see who this man is.

The question is, are we really true conservatives, or are we going to sell out our beliefs?

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Two sides to that failed marriage, BTW, and the public doesn’t know everything, which probably is best for the children.

JammieWearingFool on March 5, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Two sides to that failed marriage, BTW, and the public doesn’t know everything

Absolutely. What does that have to do with announcing the breakup at a press conference?

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Surely you’re not suggesting we tilt our coverage to please our advertisers. I know you’re not suggesting that.

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Never.

Valiant on March 5, 2007 at 5:51 PM

Absolutely. What does that have to do with announcing the breakup at a press conference?

Getting out in front of the story, I surmise.

Look, I’m not defending either party here, just there’s plenty there and he’s not necessarily the omly one with any culpability.

Hey, the guy has baggage. Just wait until they unearth his distant cousin.

JammieWearingFool on March 5, 2007 at 5:56 PM

Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably end up supporting him.

Wow. I feel faint. Warn me when you’re gonna toss out a shocker like this.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 5:57 PM

I guess, as Judge Magruder would have said, there’s no harm in asking.

Pardon the law-geekiness.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 5, 2007 at 5:58 PM

I realy like this site but why does the people running this site have to be so holier than thouw when it comes to our side. First its we like Allen but we are going to speak our mind during the election no matter what. its the right thing. now its Ruddy, i’ll probaly vote for him but this is to good to pass up. Wow. Why not pick someone you like and support them. oh a forgot we need to show the bad stuff of everyone.

kara26 on March 5, 2007 at 5:58 PM

It’s been six plus years of listening to a wall of noise from “true conservatives” bitching and complaining about Bush’s every so-called RINO move.

And Rudy’s the frontrunner.

’cause, you know, he can win.

a4g on March 5, 2007 at 6:03 PM

Why not pick someone you like and support them. oh a forgot we need to show the bad stuff of everyone.

kara26 on March 5, 2007 at 5:58 PM

So we’re supposed to bury the story when the person we’re supporting does something wrong?

Isn’t that what liberals do? Don’t we trash liberals every day for supporting losers “no matter what they do?”

So, if we’re going to bash Clinton for cheating on Hillary, how do we now vote for Giuliani? If Giuliani wins this election, it will go a long way in proving that there’s not much difference between conservatives and liberals.

That’s a very scary thought. I thought we were supposed to be smarter than that. I thought we were supposed to be the ones who stood on principle and backed up what we claimed to believe with our actions.

Guess not.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:04 PM

but it’s late in the day and a little too convenient for Rudy to be guilting the press now about airing dirty family laundry.

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize asking the press not to invade his family’s privacy, was guilting them. I could had sworn that Giuliani was running for President, not his children.

Gregor, if you want every non-100% Conservative to sink like the Titanic, you’ll see our power in Washington sink along with it. Brownback ain’t winning, neither is Gingrich. There’s a reason for Allah’s opening statement “Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably end up supporting him.”

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:04 PM

Without Giuliani or Romney, we don’t have a shot in the dark of retaining the White House.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:05 PM

I’m sorry. I didn’t realize asking the press not to invade his family’s privacy, was guilting them. I could had sworn that Giuliani was running for President, not his children.

His son is over 18 and seems perfectly happy to answer questions about his relationship with Rudy. He spoke to the Times this weekend and then ABC. If he’s worried about press coverage jeopardizing family relations, he could have said, “No comment.”

Ever think maybe this is his son’s way of getting a little revenge on Rudy for humiliating his mother in front of the whole city?

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Sad reality, but most voters, the people who aren’t like us, make the ultimate decision on elections. They’re gonna be a little more concerned about their taxes going down, and not getting blown up, than the fact he’s been married more than once. Newsflash: Without the 3 “RINOS” we lose. How Conservative is Hillary or Obama? I’m guessing less than Giuliani and Romney.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:08 PM

“Ever think maybe this is his son’s way of getting a little revenge on Rudy for humiliating his mother in front of the whole city?”

I think that he told the media, yesterday, that he thinks his dad would make a great President, regardless of his disagreements. I think that the best way to get your dad into office, isn’t getting revenge.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:10 PM

Yes, he did, but he’s not exactly helping him here by talking to the press about who he gets his values from. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair while conspicuously not cheerleading for his dad.

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:11 PM

I suspect things are going to look very different 12 months from now as far as candidates go. The vetting process tends to provide us all with a few surprises.

.

GT on March 5, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Too bad Rudy didn’t have a gay lover, all would have been forgiven on day one.

Any questions? Ask Ex-Guv McGreevey. Doens’t get any worse than his pathetic exhibition. Standing at the podium with his wife by his side, admitting he loved another man with all the cameras rolling.

Career over, life over, marriage over, I’m gay … hope you understand dear.

MSM reaction. So what?

fogw on March 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM

Yes, he did, but he’s not exactly helping him here by talking to the press about who he gets his values from. Sounds like he’s trying to be fair while conspicuously not cheerleading for his dad.

Agreed.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:14 PM

There is a lot of things about Rudy to like. He get’s it in the war against radical Islam for starters. He has a strong law enforcement record as well. His views on gun control and abortion bother me far more than his messy divorce. I have been happily married for 25 years now to the same woman but many are not as fortunate. If it’s true that he released the information at a presser before telling his wife, well that’s pretty shitty, but the fact of the divorce itself is a minor consideration to me. Anyone know where he stands on the Fair Tax?

conservativecaveman on March 5, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Gregor, if you want every non-100% Conservative to sink like the Titanic, you’ll see our power in Washington sink along with it. Brownback ain’t winning, neither is Gingrich. There’s a reason for Allah’s opening statement “Don’t get me wrong, I’ll probably end up supporting him.”

Without Giuliani or Romney, we don’t have a shot in the dark of retaining the White House.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:05 PM

I just don’t agree with you. I understand what you’re saying, but your statement is based on polls consisting of voting by people such as yourself who don’t understand why they have preliminary polls in the first place. Straw polls are not designed to determine a winner. Straw polls are designed to find the candidate who has the support of the people, which then creates a chain reaction of financial support toward those doing well in the polls. So, it’s not a stretch to say that if conservatives were to all start voting in these polls based on who we thought supported our conservative principles, then suddenly you would see people like Giuliani at the bottom of the pack, and true conservatives would move to the top.

You pick who you WANT now. You pick who you think can WIN in the primary.

It is YOU, and people such as yourself who actually CAUSE the overwhelming feeling of helplessness. If every person who believed what you just said were to say “what the hell, I’m voting for the right guy” … the right guy would win.

But instead, you say we don’t have a chance, along with all the others who feel the same way, so you vote for a liberal in red virtually assuring us a loss in 2008.

You do know that a Giuliani win is a loss, right?

He’s a liberal. On every issue. Unless you think “talking tough” on the war on terror makes him a conservative.

I just don’t get it. If you’re not going to vote for a person who shares your beliefs … why vote at all? You’ll get what you want either way. Why waste your time? Neither of the two candidates you mention bring what you claim to want to the White House. So why put them there?

Just so you can claim that you won on paper?

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

If you’re not going to vote for a person who shares your beliefs … why vote at all? You’ll get what you want either way. Why waste your time? Neither of the two candidates you mention bring what you claim to want to the White House. So why put them there?

Oh, I can think of several reasons. Like I stated, I have a feeling that Hillary and Obama are less Conservative than Giuliani and Romney. I’m also pretty sure that Giuliani and Romney will do more to fight the war on terror, than Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

I understand your point, regarding Conservatives all getting behind a candidate. In a perfect world, that would work. If it always worked, why did we lose a majority in November? Conservatives don’t follow blindly like liberals, they have their own mind, as you know.

If this was Daily Kos, I probably would have been banned already.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:29 PM

He’s a liberal. On every issue. Unless you think “talking tough” on the war on terror makes him a conservative.

I don’t know, I consider the War on Terror the most important issue. I care a little more about keeping myself and my children alive and not living in dhimmitude, than if the President has a different stance on an issue that he has little affect over. Think about it, if Bush had huge control over immigration, amnesty would have passed already. What stopped him? Congress and us.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:33 PM

My view on Giuliani is the same as conservativecaveman’s, and that’s all there is for me to say.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:34 PM

I guess I missed the real story. A young man is struggling to get along with his father? Is this something so unusual? Just since the beginning of time. At least the son had the cajones to say I may not think he is a great father, but would be a great president.
For all of you looking for a father, don’t support Rudy. He doesn’t want to be your father either.

right2bright on March 5, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Just so you can claim that you won on paper?

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

I’m not principled enough to suffer 8 years+ (+ = their VPs for another 4 or 8) of H. Clinton/Obama/Edwards.

Entelechy on March 5, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Like I stated, I have a feeling that Hillary and Obama are less Conservative than Giuliani and Romney.

I would be willing to agree that the odds are pretty high that you’re right on that one, but I don’t think it’s by much. Honestly though, we don’t have a lot of reason to believe that … other than faith. Their actions have not really defined that to be true. Their defenders simply point out that they were elected in liberal states, which forced them to make liberal decisions. But you have to ask yourself why they were able to get elected in those states.

You also have to ask yourself if you want to elect someone who alters their beliefs, or even worse, votes against their beliefs based on what they think will get them elected.

If it always worked, why did we lose a majority in November?

We lost in November for the exact same reason we will lose in 2008. Too many conservatives voted outside the party. We debated that on this blog prior to the election, with many readers saying they were going to vote independent because they were pissed. Good idea. That did us so much good, didn’t it?

Now we have conservatives voting for RINOS, after complaining about RINOS for six years.

We are killing ourselves.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:44 PM

I just don’t get it. If you’re not going to vote for a person who shares your beliefs … why vote at all? You’ll get what you want either way. Why waste your time? Neither of the two candidates you mention bring what you claim to want to the White House. So why put them there?

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:20 PM

I don’t know the origin of this, but I’ve been told it was said by Reagan: “Someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy; he is my friend, with whom I occasionally disagree.”

Its going to be interesting to see how the vetting process works out. At this stage 4 years ago, who would have thought that Howard Dean wouldn’t be the Democrat candidate?

.

GT on March 5, 2007 at 6:50 PM

I don’t know, I consider the War on Terror the most important issue. I care a little more about keeping myself and my children alive and not living in dhimmitude, than if the President has a different stance on an issue that he has little affect over. Think about it, if Bush had huge control over immigration, amnesty would have passed already. What stopped him? Congress and us.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:33 PM

That’s where are major difference is. I tend to think that the war on terror is not nearly the threat to our homeland as the immigration issue. To me, the over-extending of resources, financial over-burden, and over population caused by excessive immigration, as well as the security issues regarding illegal immigration, make it the most important topic for the future of this country.

We eventually won’t need to worry about terrorist flying airplanes into buildings. They’re already walking across the border, and when they start hitting us in our cities, you’ll find President Giuliani taking away our only means of defending ourselves. Bye-bye guns, all in the name of reducing crime, which he’ll have helped put out of control by making our borders open to all.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:55 PM

“Someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy; he is my friend, with whom I occasionally disagree.”

GT on March 5, 2007 at 6:50 PM

I agree with this. The problem is that I think Giuliani agrees with about .05% of conservative principles.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM

Gregor,
you make my point for me. you have a holier than thouw attitude. i did not say it was ok to trash anyone. it does not help when we trash our side. you can change weak minded people. bring me the next Ronald Reagan or shut up.

ross

kara26 on March 5, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Reagan is dead. He’s not coming back.

Tancredo is not Reagan (he’s a one-trick pony, actually). Gingrich is not Reagan. Brownback is not Reagan. They aren’t even close. The Republican Party has never had a candidate like Reagan, not before him (except maybe TR), not since. Even Goldwater wasn’t anything like Reagan. Reagan was a social conservative and a hawk that could win over anyone that got near him. He was a master executive and a man of vision. He was exactly what America needed when America got him.

Reagan isn’t coming back. We have to move on.

spmat on March 5, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Reagan isn’t coming back. We have to move on.

spmat on March 5, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Yes, but is it wrong to use him as the standard by which all others are measured?

.

GT on March 5, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Tancredo is not Reagan (he’s a one-trick pony, actually).

I strongly agree with that, btw.

.

GT on March 5, 2007 at 7:18 PM

Yes, but is it wrong to use him as the standard by which all others are measured?

Only if you use his entire record and not just the happy points everyone likes to remember.

Reagan did a lot of great things but he did not solve illegal immigration, he gave amnesty. He did next to nothing about abortion. In fact, he was not anti-abortion as a governor. You could call him a flip flopper. He was divorced and also had some issues with his kids. There are a lot of things that people seem to forget about Reagan but somehow hold current candidates to a bar he never reached.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 7:26 PM

I agree with this. The problem is that I think Giuliani agrees with about .05% of conservative principles.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I can’t agree with that (though I thoroughly understand the sentiment), but he is on par or slightly to the right of most New England Republicans. Besides name recognition, we do have to give him props for demonstrating a leadership quality that has been sorely lacking in the Republican Party of late. He’s demonstrated to me in the past that he’s no Olympia Snow or Lincoln Chafee.

.

GT on March 5, 2007 at 7:29 PM

There are some fine conservatives in the race and I understand those who prefer them over Rudy. However, Rudy will beat Hillary to become our next POTUS. His supposed liberal tendencies are not a factor to me. Gun control is dead. Forget about it. He’ll do a better job of SCOTUS appointees than those who nominated O’Connor, Souter, and Harriet Meyers. Nuff said. We need a Commander In Chief who will fight the jihadis. That will be his job – not drafting legislation about this or that. I will expect him to be faithful to his wife while he is President. People on the left who don’t like Hillary will vote for him. He will win decisively. No recount. No debate. No BDS. The left will learn to hate him as they hate anyone who stands in their way. Perhaps the right will learn to love him. IMHO voting values and virtue is a luxury we don’t have right now. I’m voting my neck. Now can we please get back to bashing democrats arround here for a change?

Buck Turgidson on March 5, 2007 at 7:36 PM

you make my point for me. you have a holier than thouw attitude. i did not say it was ok to trash anyone. it does not help when we trash our side.

kara26 on March 5, 2007 at 7:01 PM

Huh? I know you didn’t. I didn’t suggest you did, and in fact that was my point. You seem to have suggested that we shouldn’t attack our own when they do something wrong. I say we should. THAT’S why we’re supposed to be better, because we aren’t supposed to simply follow like blind sheep.

As for Giuliani being “our own” … see my previous comments.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Only if you use his entire record and not just the happy points everyone likes to remember.

Reagan did a lot of great things but he did not solve illegal immigration, he gave amnesty. He did next to nothing about abortion. In fact, he was not anti-abortion as a governor. You could call him a flip flopper. He was divorced and also had some issues with his kids. There are a lot of things that people seem to forget about Reagan but somehow hold current candidates to a bar he never reached.

JackStraw on March 5, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Yes, he gave amnesty. And given the times, without the aid of hindsight we have today, it was the prevailing wisdom from both sides of the aisle that it was the right thing to do. I strongly suspect that if Reagan had the benefit of 9/11 and the current issues we face today, he would have made an entirely different choice.

He was certainly no flip-flopper. As for not being anti-abortion as governor, I disagree. He signed the bill on the advice of Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger and had believed that the bill would have had little impact. He later admitted his mistake and regretted it very much.

As for the divorce, it takes two. As a son of divorced parents, I’m an expert on such matters. Trust me. And who hasn’t had trouble with their kids especially where divorce is involved? He may not have been the best father as some think he ought to have been, but one of those kids turned out pretty darn good. That’s more than many parents can say today.

IMHO, Reagan is the bar and deservedly so. Yes, he’s had his failures. But the good that he did do is far more than most would ever dream of accomplishing.

.

GT on March 5, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Buck Turgidson on March 5, 2007 at 7:36 PM

As much as I wish we would all come together and vote for a true conservative, I realize it’s a dead issue and Giuliani will most likely win. I guess I need to just get used to it and be happy it won’t be Hillary.

I fail to be too excited however, knowing that my kids will live in a socialist country which is doomed to be patterned after the EU. I already know a little Spanish. I guess I better start learning French.

I can smell the burning cars from the Islamic and La Raza riots now.

Oh hell. I guess I might as well think of better things.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 7:55 PM

For some reason, you’ll need to refresh the screen after following the link in my comment above before the video will play. Don’t know why, but it works fine after that.

Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 8:22 PM

Gregor, I could always be wrong. No one really knows the future. I do like to take firm positions about the unknown and feel good when I’m right. I hope if Rudy does win, both sides can accept one President for a change. If not, I believe he can handle the heat. Thanks for the cool link.

Buck Turgidson on March 5, 2007 at 8:51 PM

Oh hell. I guess I might as well think of better things.

I want one.

Slublog on March 5, 2007 at 9:45 PM

He’s a liberal. On every issue. Unless you think “talking tough” on the war on terror makes him a conservative./blockquote>

Gregor,

You don’t know what you’re talking about. I lived in New York with liberals like Lindsay and Dinkins running the city (or running it into the ground more precisely). That was my first lesson in modern liberalism.

Rudy is not a liberal.

Buy Danish on March 5, 2007 at 10:42 PM

I think Giuliani agrees with about .05% of conservative principles.
Gregor on March 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM

I’m not sure who gets my vote, but as to Rudy in practical terms, I think there’s a threshold of 50% minimum on one detail – that Constitutional responsibility of the government to “provide for the common defense…” I know he’s a little weak on individual defense. And borders? With his decades of tough work in the areas of crime and security, it’s hard to think he’d be blind to the security implications of weak borders.

Most importantly, you have to consider the alternatives: Hillary would seek to “provide for the common defense a worldwide conversation on the nature of the use of power…”. And Obama, …what?… “provide for the common defense keeping hope alive…”? That’s all I know about his security resumé.

eeyore on March 6, 2007 at 12:43 AM

Without Giuliani or Romney, we don’t have a shot in the dark of retaining the White House.

amerpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:05 PM

IMO, our’s is a long shot, and Rudy’s our best chance (solely for what he did after 9/11–nothing else).

If he’s worried about press coverage jeopardizing family relations, he could have said, “No comment.”

Ever think maybe this is his son’s way of getting a little revenge on Rudy for humiliating his mother in front of the whole city?

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

You’ve got a good point, and you very well may be right. But how many 21-yr-old males are super-tight with the old man? (Even the one’s still married to mom?)
Not that I think it will be conveyed by the media, or that those basing their opinions on the NYT will get it, but I think his son gave a pretty good endorsement of Rudy (all things considered).

RedCrow on March 6, 2007 at 1:58 AM

They way he handled it was wrong. Flat wrong. It would serve him best if he’d admit he made bad mistakes and is working to correct them.

I have many questions about him and I’m not sure he’s the best one for the job. His stance on the 2nd amendment is scary….after all, he said he won’t affect hunting /rolls eyes. To think we should give up nearly every conservative value in order to win is nuts…people are discounting some real good runners that have much potential. It’s too early yet.

Highrise on March 6, 2007 at 2:21 AM

Bill O’Reilly last evening was waxing eloquent on this. What an idiot–first, he played the, gee, this is a new low for the press, bringing someone’s kid into the fray. The “kid” in question being 21 years old. WTF?

Then when he saw that was going nowhere, he suddenly veers into this being such a blow to Rudy, completely ignoring the bad press Reagan had re his kids, and the fact that bad relationships with grown children are not an issue voters tend to look at.

Like I said, an idiot.

This break-up with Donna Hanover was over the top. Rudy is a bit of a drama queen IMO.

Newsweek story was pretty interesting. Points out that Rudy’s main appeal may be his aura of competence–contrast his post 9/11 performance (and his whole stint as mayor) with the Bush/Katrina debacle.

Gather round kids, while grandma Honora relates a time ong ago when competence was a given, not a political advantage in Presidential races. Oy.

honora on March 6, 2007 at 8:24 AM

Giuliani and Romney are our best options at this point. I still wish Steele would get in the race.

This cry of RINO just doesn’t hold water with regards to any of the major candidates except McCain. He’s a RINO because of his backstabbing with the gang of 14, and his ludicrous pandering to the media to the detriment of his party. He’s not a Republican. He’s certainly not a conservative. He’s John McCain, and it’s his way or the highway, which is hopefully where he’ll stay come ’08.

Rudy has nearly always been a strict supporter of the President and the party, even when his views on particular issues were at variance with the party baseline views. He’s a true blue (red?) Republican, not a RINO.

He’s just not a social conservative. His stated goals, however, are quite well within the bounds of acceptability for social cons. Judges? Strict constructionism, so check. Gay marriage? State issue (to be decided by legislatures, not judges) not to be enforced on any state that thinks it immoral, so check on that. Gun control? Again, regulation is a state by state issue, so check on that, too.

Rudy is electable. So is Romney. McCain, however, is just not. The man couldn’t win a general against my chia pet. He’s a festering sore waiting to be opened wide for the public to see, which the MSM is just chomping at the bit to do. He’s also burned more bridges than the Russians in retreat.

spmat on March 6, 2007 at 11:02 AM

This cry of RINO just doesn’t hold water with regards to any of the major candidates except McCain.

Rudy has nearly always been a strict supporter of the President and the party, even when his views on particular issues were at variance with the party baseline views. He’s a true blue (red?) Republican, not a RINO.

spmat on March 6, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Based on what? Not his actions. What do you consider a RINO? What do you consider a conservative? Rudy fits none of the standard definitions, other than being tough on crime. Let’s go through your check list.

Judges? Strict constructionism, so check.

Again, based on what? What he says in an interview? His record of appointments certainly doesn’t agree with your claim, nor does his record back his words.

Via Politico.com:

A Politico review of the 75 judges Giuliani appointed to three of New York state’s lower courts found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than 8 to 1. One of his appointments was an officer of the International Association of Lesbian and Gay Judges. Another ruled that the state law banning liquor sales on Sundays was unconstitutional because it was insufficiently secular.

A third, an abortion-rights supporter, later made it to the federal bench in part because New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a liberal Democrat, said he liked her ideology.

Cumulatively, Giuliani’s record was enough to win applause from people like Kelli Conlin, the head of NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the state’s leading abortion-rights group. “They were decent, moderate people,” she said.

How long has it been since Rudy has actually MADE A DECISION? Conservatives seem to believe Rudy is still holding office. He travels around the country talking tough, claiming to back the President on every issue, and it’s just accepted that it’s who he is?

As I’ve said before … there’s a very good reason Rudy was well liked in the same City that overwhelmingly voted for John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, and it’s definitely not because he’s conservative.

Gay marriage? State issue (to be decided by legislatures, not judges) not to be enforced on any state that thinks it immoral, so check on that.

When a candidate claims that something should be left up to the States, basically he’s avoiding taking a stand. We have Federal law for a reason. Stating that gay marriage should be left up to the States, is in effect, opening up the door for nationwide acceptance. Is this a conservative stance? You give him a check on this, for stating that he’d be okay if every State in the U.S. were to decide to allow gay marriage?

Gun control? Again, regulation is a state by state issue, so check on that, too.

This is even more confusing. So you’re giving the man a check for leaving it up to the States to decide whether or not they want to uphold the Constitution? Really? He gets a check? So the Constitution of the United States is open to debate on a State-by-State basis?

Very scary what so-called “conservatives” are willing to accept these days.

The bottom line is that Rudy’s actions do not fit his words, other than on crime. He’s pro gay marriage, pro-illegal alien, pro-abortion, and not only pro gun control, but he’s for taking them away completely. Of course, violating the Constitution is only okay if it reduces crime according to Giuliani, so maybe that’s okay with some voters. And, only if your particular State says it’s okay.

Does Giuliani admit to having a stand on anything, or is everything a State issue? It seems to me that if Giuliani is elected, there’s not really a need to call us the United States of America any longer. We’ll all be 52 individual States, able to do as we please. And all you people who complain about San Francisco having a habit of violating Federal Law, I guess we should just let each City do as they please also. Who’s to tell Gavin that he has no right to marry homosexuals. It’s his City. Let him do as he pleases. Constitution and Federal Law be damned.

Gregor on March 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM

Rudy sucks illegal aliens! I won’t settle for a “Rudy” no matter what.

paulsur on March 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM

SeattlePI.com:

In the case of the 8,000 infants who are born in Washington every year to poor illegal immigrant parents, the state picks up the delivery cost and can attest that the children are, indeed, U.S.-born and thus citizens, she said.

The state pays an average of $120 a month to cover the infants.

Ask Rudy what he’s going to do about this?

Gregor on March 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM

Ever think maybe this is his son’s way of getting a little revenge on Rudy for humiliating his mother in front of the whole city?

Allahpundit on March 5, 2007 at 6:07 PM

Yep.

INC on March 6, 2007 at 2:32 PM

A few weeks ago, I tried tracking down Reagan’s change on abortion while governor from 1967-1975. This is what I found:

I think I’ve linked previously to this column by Fred Barnes Choosing Life How pro-lifers become pro-lifers. He mentions the abortion bill Reagan signed in 1967, his first year as governor, and says it was the only political mistake he ever admitted.

Lou Cannon in his book Governor Reagan His Rise to Power mentions on page 213, that in 1970 Reagan successfully opposed legislative attempts to further liberalize abortion law. I couldn’t find further comment on the web.

On a Marxist website, (which I won’t link to, but you can search if you like) in an article titled Our Bodies! Our Choice! Winning the Fight for Reproductive Rights by Evelyn Sell, she writes:

For example, an abortion rights rally was set for March 10, 1973, in San Francisco to protest Governor Ronald Reagan’s statements against abortion.

TIME Magazine, Uproar over Abortion, February 16, 1976, discussing Carter, Reagan and Ford on abortion:

Ronald Reagan has come out flatly against abortion on demand and in favor of the constitutional amendment outlawing abortion except in rare cases posing a clear risk to the woman’s life.

From this trend over time, I don’t think Reagan was a flip-flopper on this issue.

INC on March 6, 2007 at 2:43 PM