Originally Posted By imadisneygal To tell you the truth, it amazes me how many people were outraged by Clinton's infidelity (a very big deal, I can't stand infidelity) and yet very few, or at least fewer it seems, people are outraged by Giuliani's very public infidelity and divorce. Even if I like his politics, and for the most part I do, I am having a hard time getting past his weasely way to announce to his wife that he wants a divorce and carrying on with another woman while still living in Gracie Mansion. I get that every family has its issues as he has said recently, but to me he didn't do much to really protect his kids in that situation. It was tacky and classless. So I guess it's mostly about his personal morals and I'm surprised there isn't more outrage about it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh First, a lot of people were more outraged by President Clinton's lies about his affair and the way he obstructed justice than about the affair itself. Second, there's also a difference between carrying on with an employee just because you can and starting to see someone else when your marriage is falling apart. I definitely have less respect for someone who constantly cheats on his wife than someone who leaves his wife for another woman.
Originally Posted By jonvn Moral relativism. Somehow anything a republican does is ok. If a democrat does nearly the exact same thing, it's an outrage. Totally transparent.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Somehow anything a republican does is ok. If a democrat does nearly the exact same thing, it's an outrage.> That's not true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < I definitely have less respect for someone who constantly cheats on his wife than someone who leaves his wife for another woman.> First, Rudy cheated with at least one other woman, whom his ex named, and who was an open secret in New York. Rudy denies it to this day, but I can say with some confidence (I personally know a woman who worked with this woman in question) that he's lying here. Second, the way Rudy treated his wife (and still-minor kids, really) was quite humiliating. Not just the way he announced the divorce, but the months of carrying on publically with Judith while still married to Donna. It was unclassy in the extreme, if nothing else.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Really? That's not in the original link. In fact the original link said he would "push for a constitutional ammendment.">> <Well, this is CNN we're talking about. It's not inconceivable that they would leave out a qualifier that would make a conservative seem more reasonable.. But you have no evidence to that effect, right? Didn't think so. <<So did you read elsewhere that he doesn't favor one now?>> <Yes. The official word from his campaign is "Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." > But that's not quite what it at issue here. This was referring not to an ammendment to ban gay marriage entirely (in all 50 states), but to make it so states that do not recognize it don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in OTHER states. Which is already the case. The article said Thompson would push for THAT ammendment. <<And if that IS so, then why even bring it up?>> <I don't know. Maybe because he was asked a question. I hear that happens to candidates, on occasion.> That's possible. It's equally possible he issued that statement on his own. It would be interesting to discover which.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <First, Rudy cheated with at least one other woman, whom his ex named, and who was an open secret in New York. Rudy denies it to this day, but I can say with some confidence (I personally know a woman who worked with this woman in question) that he's lying here. Second, the way Rudy treated his wife (and still-minor kids, really) was quite humiliating. Not just the way he announced the divorce, but the months of carrying on publically with Judith while still married to Donna. It was unclassy in the extreme, if nothing else.> Neither of those two points, even if true, negates my statement.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal Giuliani is a weasel and he treated his wife and children disrespectfully. It is completely irrelevant how anyone else EVER treats their family. He's sneaky and weasely and I can't get past it. I don't like the fact that Clinton cheated on his wife, either. It's sad and horrible. But it is my opinion that Giuliani is slimy. And lacks class. He cheated on at least one wife and I don't think he'd hesitate to do it again. And you know what, he'd probably lie to Judith about it - at least at first. Just my guess...
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But you have no evidence to that effect, right?> Of course I do. None that you would accept as conclusive, of course. <This was referring not to an ammendment to ban gay marriage entirely (in all 50 states), but to make it so states that do not recognize it don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in OTHER states. Which is already the case. The article said Thompson would push for THAT ammendment.> Here's the official word from the Thompson non-campaign campaign: "In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear. Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens. He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that. If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states. Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." <It's equally possible he issued that statement on his own.> Considering this was an interview, I doubt it was equally possible.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Neither of those two points, even if true, negates my statement.> They are true; I didn't bring them up to "negate" your statement, which was an opinion to begin with and therefore can't be "negated" (who you have more respect for), but to point out some of Rudy's history that non-New Yorkers may not be familiar with.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Giuliani is a weasel and he treated his wife and children disrespectfully.> I'm sure his wife and children think so, along with almost everybody that dislikes Mr Giuliani's political stances. And it's even quite possible that Mr Giuliani recognizes he could have done better. But I'm going to take these accusations with a grain of salt.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal He announced his decision to leave his wife for another woman at a press conference without botifying his wife or children first. You don't find that weasely?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But you have no evidence to that effect, right?>> <Of course I do. None that you would accept as conclusive, of course.> You have evidence that CNN left out a qualifier? That would be interesting to see, if indeed you could provide it. <<This was referring not to an ammendment to ban gay marriage entirely (in all 50 states), but to make it so states that do not recognize it don't have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in OTHER states. Which is already the case. The article said Thompson would push for THAT ammendment.>> <Here's the official word from the Thompson non-campaign campaign: "In an interview with CNN today, former Senator Fred Thompson’s position on constitutional amendments concerning gay marriage was unclear.> Wait... you didn't provide a link. This is from Thompson's campaign?? If so, that might not be entirely objective either, to say the least. <Thompson believes that states should be able to adopt their own laws on marriage consistent with the views of their citizens. He does not believe that one state should be able to impose its marriage laws on other states, or that activist judges should construe the constitution to require that. If necessary, he would support a constitutional amendment prohibiting states from imposing their laws on marriage on other states. Fred Thompson does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage."> Gee... that's what I said. That he doesn't support an ammendment to ban it entirely, but does support one that would enable states that don't recognize it to not recognize other states' same-sex marriages. So are we arguing over "push for" (from CNN) and "if necessary" (an ambiguous term from - I guess, since there was no link - Thompson's campaign itself)? <<It's equally possible he issued that statement on his own.>> <Considering this was an interview, I doubt it was equally possible. . Again, without a link and knowing which came first - the CNN piece or the campaign piece (i.e. was CNN commenting on the official statement or was the official statement a response to the CNN piece) - it's hard to say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He announced his decision to leave his wife for another woman at a press conference without botifying his wife or children first. You don't find that weasely?> If it's true, then yes, it is weasely. Does it automatically preclude me from voting for him for President? No.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 At any rate, wherever the statement comes from, I do find it pandering. Even if it was in response to a question, it still seems like pandering to the religious right, because he's essentially arguing for a constitutional ammendment to enshrine what already exists (i.e. states that don't recognize same-sex marriage don't have to recognize other states' marriages.) It seems an unncessary "bone" to throw to the religious right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <If it's true, then yes, it is weasely. > There's absolutely no question that it's true. AFAIK, even Rudy doesn't dispute it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You have evidence that CNN left out a qualifier?> They have a record of it. <If so, that might not be entirely objective either, to say the least.> Are you accusing them of lying about their position? <So are we arguing over "push for" (from CNN) and "if necessary" (an ambiguous term from - I guess, since there was no link - Thompson's campaign itself)?> I'm just stating what the Thompson campaign said. You appear to be arguing. <Again, without a link and knowing which came first - the CNN piece or the campaign piece (i.e. was CNN commenting on the official statement or was the official statement a response to the CNN piece) - it's hard to say.> Since the response mentions that it's a response to the interview, and the report of the interview mentions that its from an interview, it's not hard for me to say.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Even if it was in response to a question, it still seems like pandering to the religious right, because he's essentially arguing for a constitutional ammendment to enshrine what already exists (i.e. states that don't recognize same-sex marriage don't have to recognize other states' marriages.)> He's letting everyone know that he doesn't think a handful of federal judges should be able to tell everyone in the Nation that they have to recognize gay marriages. You don't have to be on the religious right to believe that some things should be decided by the voters, and not by judges.
