What was the refrain so often hurled at the right by the "good hearted" and "more civilized" left when Chelsea Clinton was brought into the campaign discussion in the 1990s? Didn't they all solemnly shake their heads in disgust over those eeevil Conservatives who were attacking the president's kid? Didn't they scold the right saying that a candidate's children should never be an issue? Well, apparently the New York Times has abandoned that genteel notion.
I sure remember the left wagging their fingers in the nation's face over this point repeatedly, don't you?
Yes, here we have, in Saturday's edition of the New York Times, an article dragging Rudy Giuliani's recently strained relationship with his two children into the public debate on his candidacy. Here we have the bastion of leftism trying to get at a candidate through his children in stark contrast to the tsk, tsking that the left indulged in during the Clinton years.
The title of the piece and the caption of the large picture accompanying the thing drives the point:
Noticeably Absent From the Giuliani Campaign: His Children
Rudolph W. Giuliani at his inaugural as mayor of New York in 1994, where his son, Andrew, 7, captured the show. But Andrew was not at events like the one in Spartanburg, S.C., last month, right, part of Mr. Giuliani’s bid for the presidency; Andrew Giuliani says they are estranged.
This is an obvious tactic by the New York Times to needle family issues Conservatives to turn away from Giuliani. But, here is the thing, a national audience doesn't have the slightest idea that his children are "noticeably absent" or that his children were all over his earlier campaigns.
Giuliani's former campaigns were local campaigns and a national audience was not exposed to them. The only way for the rest of the country to become aware that Rudy's children are "noticeably absent" is for someone to go out of their way to make it a point to inform them about it.
The Times' piece goes on to explain how Rudy's recent marriage sent his children a bit estranged from him but that they are all trying to work out their relationships of late to try and set things to rights. The story goes on to say that an aspect that has become a stumbling block, though, is that Rudy's children are getting older and just embarking on their own young lives and have less time to spend working on their relationship with Dad.
But, it all amounts to a big "so what"?
Many Americans can identify with Rudy's troubles. With the common state of marriage and re-marriage in America today, Rudy's strained relationship with his children is not an uncommon occurrence. And it is admirable that they are all trying to figure out how to come to terms with it all.
The larger point is, why is this a story? What does Rudy's relationship with his children have to do with his current candidacy? Nothing unless it acts to make him a less desirable candidate, presumably, for the story shouldn't have any place in the campaigns when using the leave-Chelsea-alone standards that the left constantly tried to employ when their hero was in office.
But, now that the White House could be up for grabs, the Times seems to have decided that using a candidate's kids is suddenly a good idea. Suddenly the Kids are fair game.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This puts the NYT in the cate
March 3, 2007 - 09:18 ET by rimskyThis puts the NYT in the category of the National Enquirer. You know, Enquiring minds and all... This is 'NOT NEWS', news. And I see in the next post, the one with Andrew's picture, that it took TWO reporters to handle this 'NOT NEWS', news story? What a LOAD!
WTH,Exactly. Candidate's ki
March 3, 2007 - 09:24 ET by BlondeWTH,
Exactly. Candidate's kids are not news.
Nor are elected officials' children. Sins of the father, and all that.
Children of famous parents should be left alone...unless you're a liberal idiot or a liberal idiot poster here....in which case one throws down Dick Cheney's daughter or the Bush twins. I wish I could remember which little troll here always does that....next time that happens...it should result in an instant boot!
liberal way of saying thanks
March 3, 2007 - 09:35 ET by acumen"......why is this a story?"
It's the liberal way of saying thank you.
On behalf of all our fellow liberals in NY City and wishing to show our profound appreciation for all the sleepless days and nights you spent as Mayor consoling your fellow residents while pulling our devestated city together following 9/11, the NY Times takes great joy in presenting this first Republican presidential candidate smear piece to Rudy Giuliani.
(zippin'-up the ol' Nomex u
March 3, 2007 - 09:40 ET by sarcasmo(zippin'-up the ol' Nomex undies before saying this, but...) to be fair to the NYT, one of the unspoken aspects of "Leave Chelsea Alone" was "Chelsea simply ain't-gonna talk to your ass anyway, absent administration permission FIRST!!" Clearly that's NOT the case for Rudy's kids, for whatever-reason...And I've been devoted to various careers & ideas during my lifetime, but if my own Dad (a great American born on the 4th of July & a fellow-supporter of Ron Paul, but he's not at all a politician) were to run for President, instantly all that would stop and I'd quit my job & devote my waking hours to his campaign until he either won it or quit.
JMR
"Chelsea simply ain't-
March 3, 2007 - 10:43 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls"Chelsea simply ain't-gonna talk to your ass anyway, absent administration permission FIRST!!"
Well, now the shoe is on the other foot. Chelsea does NOT need permission from this administration to talk, so your comparision is not valid. Where is Chelsea while her mother is running for President, and why does the NYT not mention her absense? The usual answer applies.
D
Native Americans didn't believe in secure borders. Look what happened to them.
Well, now the shoe is on th
March 3, 2007 - 13:07 ET by SomerTeethWell, now the shoe is on the other foot. Chelsea does NOT need
permission from this administration to talk, so your comparision is not
valid. Where is Chelsea while her mother is running for President, and
why does the NYT not mention her absense? The usual answer applies.
Well, they're not mentioning her abscence, becasue she's NOT abscent (Hillary Clinton turns to Chelsea to soften her image). So, have no fear, you'll be seeing plenty of Chelsea over the next year.
I agree that the NYT piece was written in bad taste, and it reeks of tabloid journalism. At the same time, I also think people are interested in what role (if any) Rudy's kids will play in his campaign (especially since they had such a high profile part in his previous campaigns - - or at least they were props). Unfortunately, the NYT took it way too far.
I also agree that kids should be "off limits". Whether or not adult children are fair game depends on the role in which they play in the their parent's campaign. (If the kid is a minor, without question, they should be off limits). However, if they're adults, and they've chosen to take an active part in the campaign, then they're setting themselves up as targets (fairly or unfairly).
The Bush twins were adults, and they chose to actively campaign for their father in 2004. The same was true of Mary Cheney, and also true of Gore's daughter in 2000. By putting themselves on the front lines of the campaign, they have to realize they were going to take criticism. If you're an adult, you can't go around the campaign trail stumping for your father/mother and then complain that "kids" shouldn't get criticised by the opposition. If you want to remain low profile, then take a job on the campaign stuffing envelopes.
First, the comparison (whic
March 4, 2007 - 09:09 ET by sarcasmoFirst, the comparison (which is valid, like it or not) was made by the original blog poster, but I disagree, since even though Chelsea's in her mid 20s now we're talking about media behavior and her behavior when she wasn't. I stand by all my words, as usual. Chelsea, whether or not you like her mom, is a well-trained political kid. She's just-involved-enough in her mom's campaign to be in the literature, but just like before she knows how to shut-up about politics when the media's around, so you're not gonna see many political mistakes from her. Rudy's kids, whether or not you like their dad, aren't as politically-well-trained as Chelsea, apparently, despite having been raised in politics like her. When you're beat, you're beat, and so far Hillary's winning in this department.
Chelsea is far from "absent," IMO. She's doing what she can to be a NY investment banker, which probably means she's paid to eat nice meals & drink good wine with rich Democrats while telling them they should give money to her mom or her firm. (Should the NYT cover that? Sure, but that's a completely separate subject from any of the correct things I said.)
JMR
Native Americans believed big government would protect their rights. Look what happened to them...
As Giuliani becomes more an
March 3, 2007 - 09:58 ET by zhombreAs Giuliani becomes more and more a viable candidate the fear & loathing will seep out. This promises to be a scorched earth campaign. On the left Bushitler will morph into Mussogiuliani. All the accrued hatred for Bush will have to find some nominee as Bush gets closer to leaving office.
The Nice Thing About Giuliani Is...
March 3, 2007 - 10:04 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasThe nice thing about Rudy is that he has been here not just once but repeatedly. The New York Press is brutal...about as brutal as one can face. What causes a rhetorical meltdown for W., Kerry, Hillary and the Obamination is simply fuel that inspires Rudy. People will be thrilled to watch Giuliani handle the garbage unlike anyone they have seen before. His time has come and Rudy G will dazzle them.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
"the Obamination".N
March 3, 2007 - 10:07 ET by Blonde"the Obamination".
Nice.
May I use that?
It's free
March 3, 2007 - 10:13 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasIt's free and gladly I pass it on to you Blonde that you may spread the joy of the "Obamination" everywhere!
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
G.A.T.Thanks.That is a fine n
March 3, 2007 - 10:22 ET by BlondeG.A.T.
Thanks.
That is a fine name for him. Previously, I'd been using "B. Hussein Obama". Yours is easier to type, too!
reply to Guy Arthur Thomas
March 3, 2007 - 22:17 ET by JudithObamination, good one. I was using Obama Osama Rama Banana but I think I like Obamination much better!!
Mussogiuliani - nice! And y
March 3, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Chicago RepublicanMussogiuliani - nice! And you are 100% correct across the board.
**************
Support the Spread of Open Society and Capitalism around the World. Do it for the Children.
Rudy
March 3, 2007 - 10:04 ET by iveseenitallWhen they start flinging the mud, you know they're getting afraid. Where's Dan Rather and Mary Mapes? They must have a journalistic "hunch" on all this important news.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Hands off the kids, NYT swine!
March 3, 2007 - 10:48 ET by Dave RI would love to say that this is a new low for the NYT, but sadly, and as we are all too well aware, it isn't even close.
Still, I feel that a candidate's children, regardless of the office being sought, should be completely off-limits to the media. I felt that way about Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton and the Bush daughters.
Political campaigns have become damaging enough to the adults involved, so much so that many otherwise qualified people have shunned this once noble form of public service. With the tactics the the NYT has employed in Rudy's case, not to mention all the other intusions into the lives of candidates that go on, can you really blame good people for opting out of the process?
Another case of 'Do as We Say
March 3, 2007 - 11:36 ET by bigtimerAnother case of 'Do as We Say..... Not as We Do' by the treasonous NYT's....when it is convenient for their own agenda.
Nothing new here with these hypocrites....and to think, we've only just begun.
Bigtimer- It fits with their
March 3, 2007 - 12:02 ET by VT Con ManBigtimer- It fits with their left wing agenda to slam Guliani any way they can to bring him down and assist their lefty candidates(which they will allow only one lefty to remain standing later in the race).Simple as that. They can spout all their balance argument, but the facts and their actions just don't go with what they say to defend this crapola.
Can't wait until they start extracating Dems further along in the race to help their desired Pres dolt!
Like you said, nothing new here.
The media tried this with Rea
March 3, 2007 - 12:19 ET by midnight cowboyThe media tried this with Reagan in 1980 and throughout his presidency. Then they tried to drive a wedge between Reagan and his kids, They still use Ron jr as fodder to attack his father's policies. It didn't work then, and it won't work now. If Rudy wants to wrap himself up in Reagan, he should do the same and thumb his nose at the New York Times (aka bird cage liner)
Mudd Slinging Has Begun Early
March 3, 2007 - 12:33 ET by emjem24I think there's a deeper motivation than just trying to turn off Conservatives simply because Guiliani has a strained relationship with his kids. Doesn't that describe what many parents and blended families face at some point in life?
The bigger issue is that the libs like NYT are scared of how Guiliani could take it all and beat their idols Obama and Shrillary. This time they're not gonna wait for polite debate (not that I've seen anything like that between the libs this early). They're gonna sling that dirty hash all over the place until they get their man, Rudy Guiliani.
Are any of us surprised? These are the same libs who were outraged when Ann Coulter called Edwards a "faggot." I don't condone her comments but it was more of an indirect comment than anything. The man is also a panderer and hasn't turned down a permissive agenda (such as the gay agenda) that he didn't like.
The libs who said: "give peace a chance," have declared war on someone who they find a threat. They're praying that McCain (the biggest phoney who couldn't even make an appearance at the CPAC meeting) will get the nomination because the guy can't beat Shrillary or Obama. He's 72 and I think he's really out of touch with the American public and the Republican party in particular. This is the man who said our brave men and women's lives have been "wasted" in Iraq.
Who'd you rather have (MSM and libs) for the Republican presidential nomination: an overhill politican backstabber RINO or a younger more vibrant politician with proven leadership abilities?
The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer. Air Force Motto
emjem says: When your brain's stuck on liberalism it self-destructs.
Why is this a surprise?
March 3, 2007 - 13:47 ET by pbthinkerNews Busters is in business because of obvious media bias, so why would something like this be a surprise. When Bill Clinton ran for the Presidency, suddenly, the Vietnam War (and his draft dodging) were off the table. Then comes their bonafide war hero, John Kerry, and suddenly Vietnam was back on the table. Now comes another election, without the draft dodging Clinton, and they're looking into how Rudy got out of serving.
It's quite apparent the media feels Rudy is the man to beat right now so they'll be giving the Dems all the help they can, even if it means going after his children. You bring up Chelsea, in relation to Rudy's kids, what about the Bush twins? The press must have taken a whipping for their treatment of the twins because everything suddenly stopped. (Did Laura reign them in for the duration?).
We all know the press has a double standard and it's proven every single day. The treatment of Conservatives is different than the treatment of Liberals. Just imagine a Conservative getting an Oscar for global warming and then the Al Gore story coming out that same week. If Al Gore were a Conservative, his energy use would have been front page news in the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and LA Times. Instead, you're lucky if you can find an article on page 15a.
If you are getting into thi
March 3, 2007 - 14:26 ET by JDWIf you are getting into this game prepare for blood.
NYT's are Nazi's.
JDW
Wounded skier, beware of mistakes.
News media: Scoreboard for terrorists
It is quite interesting that
March 4, 2007 - 02:54 ET by security