OK, this is getting downright weird. Not one, not two but now three Gail Collins columns within three weeks dealing in one way or another with Rudy Giuliani's sentimental attachments. On November 8th came the suggestively-headlined "Pat Loves Rudy," about the Robertson endorsement. As observed here, that column contained Collins lurid allusion to Rudy "busy committing adultery." Just two days later, as noted here, Collins captioned her column about the Kerik indictment "Rudy and Bernie: B.F.F.’s" ["Best Friends Forever," in the lingo of groovy gals like Gail].
Comes Collins column of today, and wouldn't you know it: Gail is back on the Rudy love-life beat. The ostensible subject of "Rudy’s Security Blanket" is the use of official security details to accompany then Mayor Giuliani to Long Island, assertedly on visits to Judith Nathan, the woman who would eventually become his wife.
Rudy will have to literally and figuratively account for the matter. But Collins seems at least as interested in prurient details as with political implications. Consider these excerpts [emphasis added].
- security details that guarded Rudy when he was out of town pursuing nonmayoral ventures such as golf and adultery.
- his divorce-studded private life.
- what Rudy does behind closed doors
- When he was mayor, his sex life spilled into weird press conferences
- Lately, he’s contented himself with interrupting his speeches to accept strange cellphone calls from the latest wife. [Snippy, snippy, Gail!]
- police guards to protect and transport not only Rudy, his children and his elderly mother, but also both his wife and his mistress.
- city police officers cooling their heels outside his mistress’s home in the Hamptons
- He called his wife, Donna, “my lover” [note: in his inaugural speech of 13 years ago]
Let's see: Collins manages to work in "adultery," two uses of "mistress," one of "lover." assorted references to "sex life" and divorces and an allusion to what Rudy does behind closed doors. Was I reading a supposedly serious NYT political column, or did I somehow stumble into an online bodice-ripper?
Yesterday, I noted how newly-conservative Keith Olbermann fretted that Rudy had issues with "infidelity and morality." But Keith's a mere acolyte to the Avenging Voice of the New Liberal Victorians: Gail Collins.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
How about.....
December 1, 2007 - 10:25 ET by motherbeltHow about "Gail hearts MoDo"? (That's "Gail loves Maureen Dowd" in the lingo of groovy gals like Gail LOL).
She is starting to emulate Dowd's "snippy" comments about personal matters with politicians she doesn't like.
Hopefully they stay BFF (not BFF's.....it's "best friends forever", not "best friend forevers") or we could have a cat-fight....MMROWWW!
What a bunch of hypocrites:
December 1, 2007 - 10:27 ET by msh1973What a bunch of hypocrites: Bill Clinton has a sexual romp in the Oval Office (mind you) and the msm looks the other way. Whatever.
I think this is a legitimate story
December 1, 2007 - 10:27 ET by sarcasmoWhether or not the RINO-lovin' news media's been late to finally-notice it. As I said yesterday, Rudy seems to have Slick Willie's uh...member. It's an issue. It's not going away for the rest of the campaign, and Rudy's fans need to understand that.
Again, imagine (it ain't that hard considering his positions on a variety of issues, as I also said...) Rudy running as a Democrat and the NB reaction to him, then. 1 standard, folks.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
I agree, sarc. It's an
December 1, 2007 - 10:48 ET by motherbeltI agree, sarc. It's an issue. I think that just like people need to decide if we want Slick Willie back in the WH (with lots of time on his...uh...hands), voters have to decide if they want someone in the WH who, like it or not, has a reputation as a "serial philanderer."
As much as I admire a lot that Giuliani has done, I find it hard to believe that so many Republicans (who pilloried Clinton, and made Livingston resign over less, etc.), would suddenly be willing to look the other way on this. If the country does go with Giuliani, no one can say we didn't know what we were getting.
What MB said.
December 1, 2007 - 10:50 ET by dervishOnly more concisely.
"More concisely"???? I
December 2, 2007 - 09:46 ET by motherbelt"More concisely"????
I thought I was pretty brief! LOL
How do you boil that down even more? Without getting tacky, that is.
Sorry, should have been clearer.
December 2, 2007 - 11:40 ET by dervishI meant that you said what I thought, only YOU were more concise.We made pretty much the same point simultaneously, only you got to it quicker.
I see what you mean....I
December 2, 2007 - 15:10 ET by motherbeltI see what you mean....I hadn't read your comment below when I commented on this one..
I have to agree, sarc --
December 1, 2007 - 10:47 ET by dervishAnd then duck and cover. Liberal political writing in 1996 was all about how a certain national leader was able to "compartmentalize" his
life, and how his rather morally loose private life had no effect on
his job performance. "Character doesn't matter," I think the mantra
went -- and the next four years showed that it damn well DOES.
Certainly
Rudy is a piker compared to Willie, but these concerns about his
character can't simply be dismissed. Call me old-fashioned, but
marital infidelity is a serious breach of conduct in my mind, and I
don't know many multiply-divorced men who don't have some significant
problems. It's unfortunate, because based on his public track record
of managing both acute and chronic disasters, I was all for Rudy, even
willing to hold my nose on the abortion issue. I know that many men,
myself unfortunately included, have sometimes let their little heads do
their thinking, but manage to overcome mistakes and get on with life.
I honestly hope Rudy has, and that he can somehow demonstrate that
fact. Ignoring the issue, or pretending that it doesn't really matter, are not acceptable means of demonstration. (I haven't seen yet looked
into how Rudy is dealing with this controversy, and am more than
willing to be educated on the issue.)
That the Democrats have people even worse, and that the press covered for them, is no defense.
Maybe Rudy and Judy (OMG,
December 1, 2007 - 10:53 ET by motherbeltMaybe Rudy and Judy (OMG, could we really end up with "Rudy and Judy" in the WH???) should go on "60 Minutes" like Bill and Hill, and he could confess to "causing pain in my relationships" and not having been all that he should have been, but delcaring that it is all behind him now, and saying he is reformed. Then I would hope he makes it stick, not like Slick Willie.
Americans seem to love a big, public "mea culpa"....maybe that would do it for him...but both you guys are right...it can't be ignored. It would just give the Dems something to beat him up with. One way or another, it has to be dealt with....and soon.
And that's the problem --
December 1, 2007 - 11:00 ET by dervishI don't know what it will take to fix this issue, but facing it directly would be a good start.
Well Gail is just doing her job (as she sees it)
December 1, 2007 - 10:30 ET by c5thenShe is trying her best to undermine the reputation of one of the front-runners in the GOP nominee race. She will eventually get around to others (if she already hasn't). That's her job as she sees it. She is a typical liberal/socialist journalist and that is how they all see their "calling". They are there to propagate their ideology by any means necessary and any means is justified because of their goals. Innuendo is the chosen method because it is the hardest to refute and is almost unactionable in the courts.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Most electable Republican is not someone the MSM can ignore
December 1, 2007 - 11:50 ET by ChrisMillsI agree that this is a concerted effort by the MSM to break down the Republican that can beat the dems in the general election. Imagine if they were to ignore the candidate who can stand in the way of realizing their goals of surrender in Iraq, higher taxes, and liberal judicial legislators. How would that be furthering their goals? This kind of hit job required innuendo and fact-twisting. Truth-telling props to the first MSM outlet that actually acknowledges that the accounting practices were used to refund police officers their travel expenses more quickly or that the mayor didn't choose to have 24 hour security - it was a requirement of the job.
Interesting...
December 1, 2007 - 10:42 ET by porterjervisI am sure others here have noticed this as well that when Bill Clinton was
being called on the carpet for philandering, the donks said it was a private affair;
values are irrelevant, blah blah blah.
Guess they forgot about that.
that's what makes this situation so much fun for me.
December 1, 2007 - 10:46 ET by sarcasmoI was merciless back then from day one. The donks hated it as much as Rudy's fans no-doubt hate it now, too, but they all know it's true if they even-slightly know me. :)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
This is what political
December 1, 2007 - 10:59 ET by motherbeltThis is what political posturing has become now. It's like a Hannity and Colmes segment:
Colmes: When Clinton was unfaithful, you guys went nuts and said he should be impeached.
Hannity: and when Clinton messed around, your side said it was a private matter, not political and it was nobody's business.
And that accomplishes......what, exactly? Other than showing that each side has double standards?
That's why I seldom watch that show any more.
Mamacita....Colms forgets We impeached....because
December 1, 2007 - 11:08 ET by JayTeeMSM, and Colms keep forgetting we impeached Clinton because he lied to a Court of Law, not because of his sexual habits..
He lost his license to practice law, because of his lying under Oath.....not his sexual habits....
He kept his Marriage intact, not because of his Sexual habits, but ...as we see now...., the Clinton marriage is based upon Politics.
It's obvious to the most casual Observer........and most ordinary Americans ain't gonna vote for Clinton...and the very weak Dem field is a strategy to make Hillary look strong, amongst weeklings.....democratically speaking.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
The is no comparsion of
December 1, 2007 - 12:00 ET by midnight cowboyThe is no comparsion of slick Willy to Guilliani.
Clinton was a serial adulterer and tidbits were coming out in th '92 campaign. They had to set up the bimbo eruption squad to silence any woman who came forward.
Giulliani had an affair, divorced his wife and remarried. End of story. Is it ugly, no doubt. Is it immoral, no doubt. However it's all out there, nothing secret, nothing hidden unlike BJ Clinton.
midnight -- your comparison
December 1, 2007 - 12:13 ET by Jack Bauermidnight -- your comparison is spot on. Although there are plenty of Christians who do NOT think divorce is immoral.
The Anglican church was formed so that Henry 8 COULD divorce.
It is a fact, that the Clintons are immoral however, not because they are merely human and let him without sin, et al... but because they are perpetuating a sham marriage. That is grossly immoral.
Every Washington based journalist knows this. They all know who Billy boy has slept around with lo these many years. And they all know that the Mrs C word knows down to the last tart.
American marriages.
December 1, 2007 - 17:50 ET by OttoThen a quarter of American couples must be grossly immoral.
How low can they go?
December 1, 2007 - 12:29 ET by exLibSo this is what it comes to?
In order to make Clinton appear morally superior the new benchmark is not infidelity but staying married?
The Bible states that even looking at woman lustfully is marital unfaithfulness, so we all fail in that regard.
She needs to get a life. In
December 1, 2007 - 13:47 ET by kgShe needs to get a life. In fact she needs to get a sex life. Her fantasies about Bill Clinton clogs her mind.
Rudy's sex on the city.
December 1, 2007 - 17:48 ET by OttoIf Finkelstein thinks this is about Rudy's sex life he must be on another planet. This is about a rather seamy attempt to cover expenses incurred while he was bonking this woman at her place in LI. It's indefensible, it's that simple. By trying to minimize it we make the GOP look like a bunch of sleazy little dirtballs. Obviously this is just the start and there is going to be a steady trickle of this stuff over the next month or two. There are already stories circulating about NYPD taxi services and dog walking. If this story gets legs which it is starting to do, it could well sink Giuliani's candidacy. The jury's still out on whether the legs are there but it's starting to look ominous from where I sit. Finkelstein can spin but we're better rid of this guy before the Moveon ads start running in the general.
HYPOCRISY. She'll call out
December 2, 2007 - 02:48 ET by wiwfHYPOCRISY. She'll call out Rudy on being a lover, but she'll just as soon give Clinton a little somethin' somethin' and tell it's a-ok.
Rudy having sex=bad. Liberals legalizing sex with robots in the name of freedom=good.
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy