Not if you are CNN or a Democrat. Then the cover-up is the end of the crime, quickly and cleanly. Poof, gone.

How in the world does anyone come up with an actual percentage for the possibility of a sex scandal? In what way is that “based” on his “record”?

RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 8:27 PM

In other words, you can’t be a little bit pregnant.

Very true.

Are the Hamptons anywhere in the vicinity of Singapore?

I brought up another country b/c if it would be inappropriate for the taxpayers to pick up that kind of tab, it is inappropriate even it if is down the street. So it is $1k instead of $100k that the taxpayers get soaked for it’s okay, I guess. Fine, whatever. It’s just sleazy, dude. It’s the principle. It’s either right or wrong, no matter the $s or the location. I think it’s wrong, esp coupled with the apparently creative “Accounting”. I’ll withhold actual judgement on that one, though.

But if you look at this, and some of the past accusations, his connections to his old cronies, etc, its just a bad pattern of behavior any way you slice it.

doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 5:44 PM

Another Bingo!

omnipotent on November 28, 2007 at 6:19 PM

And another!

If the GOP nominates Rudy, it had better do so clear eyed and understanding the full scope of the consequences for doing so.

Or wake up in the morning and say, “My God, what is this I am sleeping next too?”.

Bryan – Like Bill Clinton’s record, Rudy’s is based on his own actions.

BINGO!

Rudy’s acting like Billy Jeff here, makes you wonder what else is hidden under his dress?

omnipotent on November 28, 2007 at 6:19 PM

Really? How’s that exactly?

RW Wacko on November 28, 2007 at 6:56 PM

So if you’re the Mayor of New York you can’t leave Gracie Mansion and you have to give up your private life? What if he was meeting Donna Hanover in the Hamptons? Would that be a legitimate expense? Are the Hamptons anywhere in the vicinity of Singapore? Maybe the Mayor needs to pay the tab for his own security detail out of his measly $195,000 salary?

Come on.

You surely stay true to your screen name. Look, if he had gone to see his kid’s high school band concert or dropped him of at summer camp or something, he would have had the same security with him, it would have cost the taxpayers just as much, and nobody would say a peep. The only reason why anybody cares about this is because he was going to see his new girlfriend while separated from his wife. The taxpayers weren’t “subsidizing his cheating” they were subsidizing his personal security wherever he went. It comes with the territory of being mayor, and he’s not the only one who has had that perk.

This whole thing is silly.

Funny, thats exactly how the Clintons defended Lewinskygate…

Are you suggesting the President’s purgering himself in a deposition is akin to a mayor hiding his expenses to hide his infidelity? Seriously?

How about this…let’s say Clinton uses a legitimate defense as a lie. Does that disqualify everyone else from using that defense forever? The difference between my “defense” of Rudy and the Clenis’s defense of himself is that I’m right that this is incredibly stupid and he wasn’t. Can we agree on that?

When Aussies lose their elections, they like to steal artwork apparently. [Wizbang] Mexicans don’t wash dirty glasses properly, and therefore send them the fuck back to where they came from. [Michelle Malkin] Rudy cooked the books so his wife wou…

What are the odds that if we have a President Giuliani, we’ll have a major sex scandal of some kind? I figure it’s about 60% or higher, and I’m only basing that on his own record.

Complete and utter B.S. – both times it was posted.

Get it through you head: There was never a “major sex scandal.” There was a marriage falling apart and a new girlfriend. Goes for around 25% of the population – the lucky ones.

We have a two-party system. Neither party represents me. QED

Enrique on November 28, 2007 at 5:43 PM

You throw away your precious vote? What a horse’s ass.

This is so stupid I feel stupid even commenting on it. But it’s too stupid not to simply observe how completely and utterly craptacular it is. Who is the cretin at the Politico that thinks this means anything to anyone?

The Apologist on November 28, 2007 at 6:09 PM

Funny, thats exactly how the Clintons defended Lewinskygate…

This is soooo dumb.

Is anyone really gonna say – “Well, I was gonna vote for Rudy, but then I found out he tried to hide his cheating on his wife. I can’t support a man who’s delicto is quite so un-flagrante.”

Who is the moron that thinks like that? Are they even intelligent to have figured out how to register and vote?

This is so stupid I feel stupid even commenting on it. But it’s too stupid not to simply observe how completely and utterly craptacular it is. Who is the cretin at the Politico that thinks this means anything to anyone?

Did Rudy try to make it hard for the press to find out about his affair? Yes. Is that immoral? Hell no.

Maybe he’ll have some success in hiding national security secrets from the New York Times. . . for once.
Nessuno on November 28, 2007 at 5:52 PM

Good point!

I certainly hope Mitt doesn’t try to use this. Rudy had 24/7 security detail. Taxpayers paid for it. Check. Your point is?

Let’s not have a GOP version of that story.