home

Giuliani's Personal Past is a Story With Legs

The media continues to analyze the effect of Rudy Giuliani's troubled personal life on his chances of getting the Republican nomination for President.

The radical right will never go for him.

Republican strategists say Giuliani's troubled family relationships are likely to hinder his standing among conservatives who already have questions about his positions on social issues. They say the estrangement could raise a question in voters' minds: If Giuliani can't keep his family together, how will he keep the country together?

In fact, Giuliani's support for abortion and gay rights, his backing of gun control measures and his very New Yorkness already had given conservatives pause about his candidacy. He has also marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu.

More...

Then there's his divorce from Donna Hanover. It's familiar to those of us who have followed Rudy since then -- and those in New York who remember his brief entry into the 2000 Senate race against Hillary, but middle America may not have a clue. That will change. At an appearance in Los Angeles this week,

America was getting a look at what New York tabloid readers were familiar with from the pre-Sept. 11 world, when Giuliani's planned 2000 Senate campaign against Hillary Rodham Clinton fell apart in the face of his prostate cancer and the messy and very public breakup of his marriage to TV personality Donna Hanover.

Judith Nathan was the other woman back then and subsequently became Giuliani's third wife and stepmother to the two Giuliani-Hanover children, Andrew and Christine. Giuliani's first marriage to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi, ended after 14 years in divorce and later an annulment.

But that wasn't the worst of it back then.

Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land, for example, described Giuliani's breakup with Hanover as "divorce on steroids." Hanover learned her husband was seeking a divorce from television after he announced the decision at a press conference.

"To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children - that's rough," said Land. "I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control." Marital history and family values have been bubbling just below the surface of the Republican campaign for months.

The article ends with a reference to Nelson Rockefeller's failed presidential bid. He too was divorced and had remarried.

'We need a leader, not a lover,' was the slogan used against him," recalled [Gerald] Benjamin, a Rockefeller biographer.

< Where's Karl Rove? | Weekend Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Debatable. (1.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:34:03 AM EST
    The radical right will never go for him.

    Maybe, maybe not. But aren't you forgetting about the rest of us? You talk a good game, but Giuliani has led many, if not most, of the polls of likely Republican candidates.

    This seems to me to be an example of "if we say it enough, it will be true." The "it" in this case, being "conservatives won't vote for a thrice-divorced man."

    Giuliani (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by wlgriffi on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    "This seems to me to be an example of "if we say it enough, it will be true." The "it" in this case, being "conservatives won't vote for a thrice-divorced man."

    LOL!! Since when won't "conservatives" sacrifice principles for political gain? Principle is no hindrance to hypocrites.

    Parent

    100 Percent of (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edger on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    next to nothing is still next to nothing.

    Parent
    Hmm (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jarober on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    Substitute "Clinton" for "Giuliani".  Now ask yourself how you reacted when the right made the same claims about him.

    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    ... didn't need homophobic, misogynistic, hypocritical bible thumpers to get elected ... twice.

    Parent
    Same Claim???? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:11:23 PM EST
    The claim about Clinton was that he was so studly, he couldn't resist a quickie and then he lied about it.

    Was he mean to his wife or children? Did he publicly humiliate them? Was he nastiness personified?

    What a lie that you try to conflate the two claims.

    Parent

    Duhhhhhhh (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:30:37 PM EST
    So you think  your husband having a highly visible sexual relations with multiple emcounters with a woman half, or more, your age isn't humiliation writ in LARGE BOLD LETTERS?

    Parent
    Pay attention ppj (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 05:35:31 PM EST
    Substitute "Clinton" for "Giuliani".  

    These two are not comparable. Giuliani's act was intended to harm and humiliate, while Clinton's magnetism drew in some close admirers.

    Act of love v act of hate.

    Parent

    photoshopped (1.00 / 3) (#8)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    That picture on the thread looks badly photoshopped IMHO

    Obviously (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:20:22 PM EST
    this troll doesn't like collage. Not to mention is not able to add content to the thread.

    Parent
    photoshopped (1.00 / 4) (#9)
    by getoffthefence on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:18:50 PM EST
    That picture on the thread looks badly photoshopped IMHO

    "Guliani has led many, (none / 0) (#6)
    by jondee on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:40:31 PM EST
    if not most, polls"

    I wouldnt have it any other way.

    Jondee (none / 0) (#19)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:29:08 AM EST
    Rudi is the Left/Demos worst nightmare.

    Parent
    Don't throw us in the briar patch! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 05:19:39 PM EST
    Rudi is the Left/Demos worst nightmare.

    Of course he is.  He terrifies us!  Oh, what will we DO if Rudy runs?

    I'm already scared.  Whatever you do, please don't nominate Rudy!  (Clutches pearls, swoons with the vapors.)

    Parent

    With Rudy, it only gets worse. (none / 0) (#7)
    by LabDancer on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    The arc of post World War II Chicago city politics - right up to this past week - testifies to the tolerance of Windy City voters for their local politicians' historical tendency to create policy  from a nucleus which in almost any other major metropolitan center in the U.S. would be see as nothing more than graft. Yet who among us would refuse to acknowledge Chicago a "great" city, based on a host of virtues having nothing to do with the gene which predominates on the municipal government allele of its DNA?

    Being not resident in Chicago, its local political style does't carry the same relevance to me as, say, Alberto Gonzales' apparently unfettered access to my personal correspondence and financial affairs. So I readily grant that those who actually live in that city have the better perspective on what's tolerable in a candidate to run it.

    However, the fact is that neither member of the two successive generations of the Dalys who have run that city ever tried to test that tolerance on a larger political stage, and so forced those of us who live outside Chicago to deal with them as 'relevant'.

    Similarly, I am content to cede to the residents of the great city of New York a perspective immeasurably greater than mine on Rudy Guiliani as a candidate for their mayor.

    But as Guilani steps up to this larger stage, the measures of history on his policies become relevant to many others - including me. And even at this too early/never too early point, I foresee difficulty in his overcoming what's depicted in this excerpt of a comment by The News Blog's Steve Gilliard in August 2003:

    "in the real world, the GOP still tolerates racists. ...the GOP has two problems with blacks, and they don't care about addressing either one.

    First, they are still coddling the racists.

    Instead of admitting that they have people who want to keep America white, an impossible goal, they talk and dance around it. The cold, hard fact is, from black America, the GOP is the party of bigots and black lackeys. Rudy Giuliani, a man many New Yorkers regard as racist to his core, who actively disenfranchised black New Yorkers, who disrespected black officials, is now feted at Reagan Foundation events. No one has forgotten his callousness towards black New York and his message that he didn't care about or need us. Yet GOP officials push this guy as some kind of hero. Giuliani is so racially driven that when Saturday Night Live had 100 firefighters, EMS and cops on their stage, not a black or latino officer was to be seen. Not one."

    http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_stevegilliard_archive.html

    I would have no hesitation whatsoever in excoriating the GOP, or any party or group, should it manifest intolerance for Guilani's support for women's right to control their own bodies, the rights of all to tolerance of their sexual destiny and the National Rifle Association's criminally negligent spin on what the Founders intended by the 2nd Amendment - even to the point of voicing my willingness to tolerate to the point of overlooking Guilani's brand of 'family values'.

    But as of this moment, I do not anticipate being moved to lend my support for a candidacy carting along its own intolerance on an issue of deeply historical national significance.

    Heh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:09:29 PM EST
    He has also marched in gay pride parades, dressed up in drag and lived temporarily with a gay couple and their Shih Tzu.

    That seems like an odd inclusion, don't you think? Wait, you don't think they're suggesting...

    Man on Dog (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    Santorum as running mate ought to put those worries to rest.

    Parent
    As I recall... (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    good ol' Rudy moved his new lover into the manse while his wife was still living there also!

    Actually. . . (none / 0) (#17)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:42:12 PM EST
    his wife kept living in Gracie Mansion.  Rudy moved in with a gay couple.

    Parent
    No surprise here (none / 0) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    Rudi is in front, so we have Demo hournalists talking about unidentified Republican strategists saying he can't win...

    Hmmmmmmm