Of course, Giuliani already has been playing the sleaze game hard for his entire career and it will take a lot of smearing to make up for his ties to the uber-corrupt Bernard Karik, his marriage to a second cousin, and his press conference announcing his intention to divorce Donna Hanover (wife no. 2).
But there's more.
According to Talking Points Memo (linking to a Village Voice article by Wayne Barrett), Giuliani used "the city's emergency-command center in the World Trade Center" as a love-nest for his then mistress Judi Nathan.
I hope that Republican smear-artists are going to be paid overtime. They're going to have to sling an enormous amount of poo to make any Democrat look as bad as Giuliani actually is.
Hope their arms don't get sore.
Here's the excerpt:
The 7 WTC site was the brainchild of Bill Diamond, a prominent Manhattan Republican that Giuliani had installed at the city agency handling rentals. When Diamond held a similar post in the Reagan administration a few years earlier, his office had selected the same building to house nine federal agencies. Diamond's GOP-wired broker steered Hauer to the building, which was owned by a major Giuliani donor and fundraiser. When Hauer signed onto it, he was locked in by the limitations Giuliani had imposed on the search and the sites Diamond offered him. The mayor was so personally focused on the siting and construction of the bunker that the city administrator who oversaw it testified in a subsequent lawsuit that "very senior officials," specifically including Giuliani, "were involved," which he said was a major difference between this and other projects.
Giuliani's office had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.
I'm sure Judi Nathan was impressed. Otherwise, she might not have become wife no. 3.
Posts
10 comments:
attempt to create a "moral equivalence"
Defining himself down as a strategy to victory. Not sure I see the point, but you're the professor.
smearing to make up for his ties to the uber-corrupt Bernard Karik, his marriage to a second cousin, and his press conference announcing his intention to divorce Donna Hanover (wife no. 2).
Of course, liberals wouldn't bring this stuff up. They are policy oriented. I'm sure you're using it here to illustrate the larger point.
But there's more.
Ooooooh, I love gossip.
Giuliani used "the city's emergency-command center in the World Trade Center" as a love-nest for his then mistress Judi Nathan.
I suppose this could set the stage for an argument that he might use the Oval Office for the same purpose, and therefor the second recent president to do so. I just hope he's more careful of blue dresses.
Hey, I thought we were supposed to be the hypocrites. Get your own act.
Smearing smearers because smearing is wrong. Does this induce any amount of twitching when you write or is your ability to dismiss your own hypocrisy deep enough to suppress it?
It doesn't look like we have a disagreement here. My claim was that the Republicans would be smearing in 2008 in an attempt to create a moral equivalence with the Democratic candidate. Do you disagree with that? Perhaps you think the Republicans will launch their smear campaign for other reasons.
FROM MAY 31, 2007. THE HUFFINGTON POST. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/05/31/conservative-catholics-or_n_50251.html
(BEAR IN MIND, CONSERVATIVE CATHOLICS SHOULD BE THIS MAN'S STRONGEST SUPPORTERS. BUT...)
Conservative Catholics Organize To Sink Rudy
The early success of Rudy Giuliani's presidential bid has provoked a groundswell of opposition from disparate forces including conservative Catholics, remnants of Pat Buchanan's presidential campaigns and regional political operatives seeking to break into the Republican firmament.
The opposition is united in its determination to block Giuliani, a supporter of abortion rights and gay rights, from becoming the GOP's standard bearer. But lurking just beneath the surface is another motive for these anti-Giuliani conservatives: cash. The groups hope to benefit from a large constituency of donors willing to write big checks to bring down the former New York City mayor. The donors include backers of Giuliani's competitors as well as ideologues of the right.
The new organizations are relying on two fundraising models, both of which were highly successful in previous attacks. One is the drive in 2005 to force White House counsel Harriet Miers to withdraw her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. That campaign, spearheaded by conservatives opposed to Miers, raised an estimated $2 million. The other is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign in 2004, which began with a modest budget but ended up raising millions in an effort to destroy John Kerry's reputation as a war hero.
One of the anti-Rudy groups is The Conservative Declaration. Based in Michigan, the group claims backers in over 30 states, many with ties to the hard-right. The group is led by former Buchanan supporters and Christian Coalition activists.
Paul Nagy, the group's top-gun in New Hampshire, believes nominating Giuliani would be disastrous for the American conservative movement. Along with other activists, Nagy signed a letter seeking additional signatories to the anti-Rudy declaration. The letter states: "Rudy Giuliani is an unacceptable Republican nominee for President of the United States. He is pro-abortion, pro-partial birth abortion, pro-registration of handguns, and pro-homosexual rights. He is the most liberal Republican candidate for President in our nation's history."
In its campaign to thwart Giuliani, The Conservative Declaration is joined by a recently-established group named Fidelis, a Chelsea, Michigan-based organization with the goal of becoming the preeminent Catholic political operation within Republican ranks. (Data based on exit poll surveys in 2002, 2004 and 2006 suggest that about 20 percent of Republican primary voters are Catholic.) Fidelis was founded by Joseph Cella, who in 2004 founded the annual National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, an event regularly attended by President Bush. Federal Election Commission and IRS reports filed by the Fidelis PAC and the Fidelis Media Fund, two political arms of Fidelis, reveal the group raised only $22,386 in the 2005-2006 election cycle.
But Fidelis organized anti-Giuliani protests in April at the Republican debate in Columbia, South Carolina, and the group intends to be a constant presence at Giuliani events from now on. Cella, who is eager for publicity, contends that "using new media strategies and tactics, we can mobilize hundreds of thousands of people against an unacceptable nominee, or candidate in this case, and have a very powerful impact with a relatively small financial investment."
The anti-Giuliani group with the least visibility - but substantial ambition -- is run by Steve Dillard, a Catholic activist in Macon, Georgia. Dillard, a former law clerk to conservative Judge Daniel A. Manion of the Seventh Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals, in 2002 created Southern Appeal, a conservative legal blog. He is currently launching a web site, Catholics Against Rudy, with the goal of becoming an integral part of the Catholic blogosphere, consisting of more than 1,000 web sites accessible at www.catholicblogs.com. A search for "Giuliani" on catholicblogs.com suggests that Dillard may have a ready audience: the overwhelming majority of posts are from people who share Dillard's belief that "a faithful Catholic cannot in good faith vote for Rudy Giuliani."
For now, the Giuliani campaign has adopted the same posture towards these adversaries that John Kerry initially did toward the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: no comment. The Swift Boat vets began on a shoe string, but by the end of 2004 had raised and spent $17 million. Giuliani no doubt hopes the Swifties will be a tough act to follow.
INTERESTING.
That is interesting. But I wonder when they're going to move from "opposing" Giuliani to smearing him.
It doesn't look like we have a disagreement here.
The main disagreement seems to be your apparent belief that the Dems don't, or won't, do the same thing. Unless it's OK because, well, the Republicans deserve it for being, I don't know, evil or something, while the Dems, they're just trying to save America.
As to motivation, right or not, some voters, or potential voters respond to it (on both sides of center).
(BEAR IN MIND, CONSERVATIVE CATHOLICS SHOULD BE THIS MAN'S STRONGEST SUPPORTERS. BUT...)
Only, only, only if you believe that members of any identifiable group owe some amount of allegiance to each other. While that view may be popular among those that ascribe to identity politics, there are some in America that believe it's the content of your character that matter most. Giuliani may call himself Catholic, may in many or most ways follow Catholic teachings, but many of the issues he splits on are the "big ones".
ef, your common dissent seems to be a moral equivalence one as well: "Dems do it too." This, despite the invitation to show where this has happened? Have Democrats accused a nominee of being liar and traitor? Have they accused one of them of claiming to invent the internet? Do they do incredibly brilliant things like hand out flip flops at their conventions, so the delegates can bang them together.
Any example of this alleged equivalence would be wonderful. I mean, politics is full of dirty tricks and all, but the kind of smearing Rove and Bush did was impressive in its vileness. Lee Atwater would have been proud (hold it, wasn't he a Republican?).
I forgot, when the dems do it's important, relevant questions to which Americans deserve answers.
I read both of the links provided, and neither of them indicates that he used the Emergency Command Center as a love nest. They do not have the balls to actually make that claim. Instead, they rely on the Libtards running with the insinuation, all while offering no evidence.
Then name one, for God's sake. The only national one I can remember is Johnson smearing Goldwater. Do you have any other or are we to take your word for it?
Right. Clinton never went after Bush. Clinton never spoke ill of Dole. Gore never spoke ill of Bush. Kerry never spoke ill of Bush. Good god, you are dense and myopic.
Post a Comment