One would have to assume that the seventh one is free.
Although Judith Giuliani has long acknowledged her 1979 marriage to wallpaper salesman Bruce Nathan with whom she has a college-age daughter, her earlier marriage to Ross has been unrecorded in any of the many profiles written of her, and remained unmentioned by her.“He was a terrific guy,” Judith Giuliani told the News when asked about her first marriage yesterday. “He was my first husband.”
The revelation comes as Rudy Giuliani is soaring in Republican presidential polls and appears to be weathering doubts by conservatives and evangelicals who make up the base of the GOP.
The fact that the Giulianis have said “I do” six times between them is sure to increase the spotlight on Giuliani’s marital past, which includes a 14-year marriage to his second cousin, Regina Peruggi, and his very public and ugly split in 2000 with TV and radio personality Donna Hanover.
Just call ‘em Team “Family Values”.
Why drag his wife into this? i don’t think Guiliani’s marriages should be an issue for him either if it wasn’t for the shitty way he handled his divorce.
Bringing his wife in does seem a cheap tactic, especially when there’s already enough fodder on Rudy himself in this regard.
The “sanctity” of marriage indeed.
Kerry-
Married a RICHER woman
McGreevey- cheated with a man
Clinton- cheated with anything that moved
Remember when Democrats were against the politics of personal destruction?
Why drag his wife into this?
Because she was his mistress. Giuliani was banging Judi Nathan for years prior to their marriage. Hizzonor confessed to the affair by holding a press conference and telling the world he was cheating on his current wife (and mother of his children) Donna Hanover.
Kerry- Married a RICHER woman
And? Kerry started dating and later married Terese Heinz eight years after his first marriage ended. Does all-caps mean “pretend this is controversial” or something?
Remember when Democrats were against the politics of personal destruction?
Remember when Republicans weren’t moral hypocrites? Me neither.
Once again, Oliver becomes what he professes to oppose.
Kerry- Married a RICHER woman
Only in the world of conservative emasculation paranoia is this a huge controversy. Are men only allowed to marry women with smaller bank accounts? For that matter, if it had been the reverse, wouldn’t that make Teresa Heinz a Gold-Digga?
McGreevey- cheated with a man
True. And he was a weasel about it. Point to you.
Clinton- cheated with anything that moved
Hyperbole much? Prove that Clinton cheated on Hillary with anything but adult heterosexual human females. Prove that.
And by the way, there’s a reason Tom DeLay used to be called “Hot Tub” by his friends in the Texas Legislature.
Clinton, Arkansas, you do the math. Point is, there are cheaters on both sides. Oh, I forgot Teddy Kennedy, unfortunately his little tryst can no longer be reached for comment.
(rolls eyes)
Oh, right, I forgot about how all Arkansans are sheepshaggers. And yet I keep hearing about all the contempt us liberals have for the South.
The point is not that there are cheaters on both sides, the point is that one side makes a cottage industry out of being moral scolds and standing up for “family values.” Having a pack of adulterers tell you how gay marriage sullies the “sanctity” of the institution is the height of hypocrisy.
Hyperbole much? Prove that Clinton cheated on Hillary with anything but adult heterosexual human females. Prove that.
Rumor had it that when Bubba visited a friend of his that had a fish tank, they all stopped swimming when he came over…
or like Democrats vowing to end the “Culture of Corruption” and promptly giving Freezerburn Jefferson a seat on the Homeland Security Committee.
Democrats vowed to eend pork barrell politics, well, not so much:
$25 million for payments to spinach producers
$120 million to the shrimp industry
$74 million for peanut storage
$5 million for shellfish, oyster and clam producers
There’s another thread discussing the pork barrel spending. We’re talking about Rudy’s marriage(s) here. The fact that you can’t stay on topic reads to me that you concede the point.
Only in Jay’s house do they swim in the fish tank.
bath time Jay, better move the goldfish.
I was referring to the hypocrisy of the left you dolt
The hypocrisy of the left by pointing out that the moral scolds of the right don’t do as they say? Or that for years on end the press and the right have attacked the spouses and families of Democratic pols, especially Hillary and Chelsea Clinton but now that they’re up for scrutiny that’s off-base?
Right.
Nonetheless, you fail to refute my point that the issue isn’t even the cheating, it’s the tendency of the right-wing to make hay out of the issue whilst failing to notice the plank in their own eye.
Which isn’t to say, of course, that there’s nobody on the left who doesn’t fall into exactly that category–Gary Condit comes to mind. It’s just that you didn’t bother to think about your argument before you made it–you just made a lot of noise and presumed it would be taken as gospel, which is what passes for a reasonable debate tactic along the right these days.
And the name-calling, by the way? Also a sign of rock-solid debate foundation. Bravo.
Or that for years on end the press and the right have attacked the spouses and families of Democratic pols, especially Hillary and Chelsea Clinton
Oh brother. Break out the Kleenex…
Oliver the only exhibiting any double standard here is you. If you’re of the, “Who cares what they do in their private life?” variety, then why do constantly mention how many times Giuliani has been married?
So by your reasoning, it’s ok to cheat on your spouse if you don’t mention family values?
Also, thank you
Of course not. But nice use of meager rhetorical traps. Just about as good as the one where liberals criticize the war and are then accused of wanting America to burn and be taken over by terrorists.
If you cheat, you’re an adulterer and deserving of judgment akin to that. But if you cheat and then scold other people about their morality problems, then you’re a hypocrite as well.
What SpiderJ said. I don’t normally believe that what consenting adults do behind closed doors that’s legal is legit fodder for political talk - but the Republican party impeached a president over a sexual affair. I do not believe in unilateral disarmament so I can get a pat on the back?
Oliver, if you want to revisit why Clinton was impeached ad nauseum then please continue to say that was “impeached over a sexual affair.” Once again, when Democrats and Bill Clinton made sure there were provisions in the Violence Against Women act that accusers to question the accused in sexual haraassman suits about their sexual histories in court, Pandora’s box was opened.
Don’t bitch about it because it came back to bite Clinton in the ass. Maybe they should have listened to the ACLU instead of NOW when getting the legislation passed and signed into law.
If you’re going to say Republicans are “moral scolds” and this incident shows the hypocracy of that stance … then this post REALLY has no point what with Rudy G. being pro-abortion and pro-gay.
Jay: And it was the decision of the Republican congress to impeach President Clinton not for a high crime, or abuse of power but because he did something amazingly stupid with an intern. You guys lowered the bar and took the country into the mud. Let’s wrassle.
I think it’s great that Giuliani is pro-choice and pro-gay. But he’s part of a party that isn’t, and that is an inconvenient truth for him.
Let us also not lose sight of the fact that if Rudy was a Dem, like Clinton, these marriages and infidelities would be a non-story.
Why? Because we are talking about PRIMARIES here, and Dem Progressives who influence primaries could care less what people do in the privacy of their lives.
In Dem primaries, candidates are measured on where they stand on issues, not on phony “family values” and “moral character” litmus tests the Cons use as their standards.
Of course, last time, we fell all over ourselves in our deep desire to oust Bush. I don’t know HOW we bought the criteria of ELECTABILITY, with the glad and ready help of FOX news, Drudge, SwiftBoaters, and people in the “Liberal” media who happily went about the daily job of assasinating the character of every Dem who declared for the Candidacy.
I hope we learned from that experience, and now will select candidates based on how they stand up to what we believe, and not because we are afraid to lose.
I was unaware that divorce was considered a sin, especially by lots of protestants.
Be that as it may, either the left is saying that talking about “family values” is somehow incompatible with being divorced — it isn’t — or, the left is saying that it is hypocritical to disapprove of sinful behavior, if you sin.
This puts the left in the position of saying, “We don’t care what you do.” And that’s just ducky with you, Oliver?
BTW, that capcha thingy is about to get on my last nerve.
Jay: And it was the decision of the Republican congress to impeach President Clinton not for a high crime, or abuse of power but because he did something amazingly stupid with an intern.
Once again, it had nothing to do with what he did with an intern. It had to do with what he did when testifying under oath in a court of law - something he had to face because of legislation he signed into law. Why should he get a pass?
Clinton and all the people who defended him lowered the bar. Your rationale was, “Hey as long as I’m earning a 20% return on my dot.com mutual fund, who cares?”
None of that explains why you feel it is necessary to continually point out how many times Giuliani has been married.
No, Frank. You missed the point. AHHHgain.
Talking about “family values” is one thing. Talking about it while at the same time, behaving completely contrary to it is another. See Foley, Tom.
Or Haggart.
Or Swaggart.
Or Gingrich.
See what I mean?
duros: Apparently, you don’t “see what I mean”.
I’m not going to repeat myself for your benefit. But I made a statement about “family values” versus divorce, and I indicated that I felt there was no connection. Didn’t you get what I meant?
Because one of the sacred laws of the right is to peer into the underwear drawer of every liberal pol. Yet when they get the backlash from it - it’s beyond the pale. The proceedings against President Clinton were initiated by frustrated morality mullahs and it came back to bite them in the ass. My position was, while the behavior was horrible it was not worthy of trying to overturn an election and upend our system of laws. Almost 10 years later, it pales in comparison to human rights abuses, dead soldiers, and the other legacies of the Bush years.
Of course their should be morality, but don’t sit on the high horse if you’re just as guilty or worse.
So, in other words, liberals don’t care what people do.
Only 5 marriages. You can’t count the marriage that they share as two! Come on. And the Church doesn’t even consider Rudy’s first one to be a real marriage. He was just having sex with his cousin. So really only 4 between them.
Actually, rudy and judi have FIVE marriages between them, not six.
and as a liberal I take exception to the notion that all liberals were ok with Clinton’s humiliation of his family and his abuse of power with regard to his extramarital affair (s). The point is now: liberals are pointing out the adultery of Republican because of the HYPOCRISY of the republicans. What sticks in my craw about Giuliani is not so much his marital failures (50% of marriages do after all end in divorce), but the fact that he publicly humiliated his children over the whole Judi Nathan affair. If you are so intent on being vindictive toward your spouse that you don’t care about making your own children victims of your war, then I don’t trust the stability of your character. I need to be able to feel that the leader of my country is emotionally stable.
postscript: and there is so much other publically available evidence out there that Giuliani is not (emotionally stable, that is).
he’s one of those people who’s great in a crisis, but day to day is less consistent. I know those types: I’m one of them. A normally highly strung person (the nerves all vibrating with tension), the minute I have to deal with a crisis, I’m calm as a cucumber and right in there solving the problem, calming everyone down. That’s how Giuliani is. Just ask anybody who lived in NYC during his mayorality.
Fortunately, America is not in a perpetual state of crisis, even though people like giuliani would like us to believe we are.
Let’s not forget that Giuliani, AFTER the first WTC Bombing (the one with the truck) put the Command Centers in the complex. Sort of like putting the scorekeeper in the middle of the target.
He’s not a good choice. Nor has he made good choices: Bernie Kerik (sp?) ring a bell?
I was unaware that divorce was considered a sin, especially by lots of protestants.
There are some Protestant groups who hold to the Biblical teaching that divorce is only justified in cases of adultery,and not for such things as spousal abuse(either sex), financial shenanigans, child abuse, etc.
There are some Protestant groups
“All” - “lots” = “some”
since when do liberals give a shit about anyone’s family values anyways? You should be glad Rudy’s family life is dysfunctional. It makes him more like a Democrat.
Has anyone ever told you that you are blindly partisan? If not, consider it done. You are a partisan hack.
Many of the previous posters seem to me to be misrepresenting the views of liberals on private lives and public figures. Let me seem if I can make this quite clear:
1. Liberals do not believe that a citizen’s personal romantic and sexual relationships should be considered relevant to their qualification for office.
2. Liberals do not believe that a citizen forfeits any right of privacy in the personal romantic and sexual affairs merely by virtue of becoming a public figure.
3. Liberals DO believe, however, that private conduct becomes fair game when the individual in question uses their high public profile or public authority to condemn, vilify, or attack other for the same conduct. (For instance, if you engage in gay-bashing while personally pursuing gay sex; if you criticize another figure for adultery when you yourself are doing the same.) In such a case the yoking of hypocrisy and negative impacts on others in society out weighs privacy concerns. (An often-overlooked distinction is the negative impact part. Pretending to be happily married when you are not, is hypocritical, but is not enough to over-ride the “none of your business” privacy rule. Only when the official takes an act against others – condemning someone else for the same or quite nearly analogous behavior – does the hypocrisy override privacy.)
4. Liberals believe that reciprocal behavior and accountability are a necessary basis of civil government. If the Conservatives reserve the right to invade the privacy of Liberals and engage in “the politics of personal destruction,” Liberals must reserve the right to do the same. Yes, they are against it, but they cannot universally disarm. (Think of it this way: Many people are for a nuclear free world, that doesn’t necessarily mean they think the US should dismantle all its weapons and just let everyone else use them.) Only by reserving the same right themselves (and perhaps by teaching the Conservatives what it feels like) can they hope to negotiate again the kind of mutual understanding that we won’t go there that prevailed before the Conservatives decided to break the contract and engage in these tactics.
Now, what this means in the case of Giuliani is: (1) We are in favor of an agreement with Conservatives not to dragging in people’s private lives into politics. (2) That doesn’t mean we won’t if we do not have such an agreement. (3) Giuliani can help by making a high-profile public denunciation of the tactics used by his party against President Clinton and various other liberals in recent years and pairing this partisan mea culpa with an appeal for new understanding on this score.
Now, if doing the last would fatally handicap Giuliani’s bid among GOP elites (as I imagine would be argued) then clearly, we have no agreement. If, on the other hand, Giuliani finds himself joined, loudly or sheepishly, enthusiastically or resignedly, by the leading voices of Conservatism and the GOP, then we might be on the threshold of a more civil politics.
In the meantime, if Conservatives continue to pick through the trash of Liberals and follow them around and criticize (harshly or glibly) their personal lives – Liberals will have little choice but to give them back a taste of their own medicine.