IN THE COMMENTS: Comments are piling up quickly, and I keep seeing liberals pop in to say the social conservatives won't accept Rudy, and then responses like this:
I'm a social conservative, but becoming more pragmatic [or is it 'live-and-let-live'?] as I age. I'd vote for Rudy in a New York minute over almost anybody else. I might vote ideology in the primaries, but if Rudy's the nominee, I'll happily vote for him.
Posts
67 comments:
C-SPAN is making it hard to link to clips lately, but assuming that this works, you can see recent speeches by Clinton and Giulliani here; Rudy starts at 57.32 if you want to jump ahead, but I think he comes over much better if you watch Clinton first. ;)
Rudy's da man.
I still don't understand how he can win the Republican primary, though.
Twice divorced, cheated on his wife, supports abortion rights and gay marriage, in favor of gun control, etc. Oh, and he likes Jews too. No way the conservative activists will vote for him in the primaries.
Watch the video at the link for the YouTube politics post above. It has a long Rudy in drag segment. Quite charming, in my view.
Well, us righty Christians love Jewish people, so maybe that last one is a plus.
Trey
Dave,
He can win the primary because there are only two Republicans who can win by significant margins in 2008, and the other one is John McCain, who the base loathes and mistrusts. Moreover, and I realize that I keep banging this drum and everyone's thoroughly bored of it by now, in a race for the Presidency of the United States, it matters less what Giulliani thinks about abortion, gay marriage, etc., than whether he thinks that the Constitution leaves such matters to be decided at the state level, and will appoint judges and Justices who also take that position.
(And re the implication that the right is hostile to jews - WTF?! Are you kidding?)
As for the Rudy in drag video that Ann posted - I agree with the voiceover. It doesn't hurt him, it just shows he's got a sense of humor. Then again, I'm not really a social conservative, so who knows how they'll take it.
I actually look forward to seeing Rudy and Hillary square off in a debate. The hardest thing she's ever done is manage Bill, he's managed a city of 7 million people. Granted mananging Bill Clinton is a huge task but who do you think is better qualified?
Is Quite Charming the same thing as Presidential?
Twice divorced, cheated on his wife, supports abortion rights and gay marriage, in favor of gun control, etc. Oh, and he likes Jews too. No way the conservative activists will vote for him in the primaries.
Baby, you're late to the Conservative Jew-Love Party.
If there is any one group that loves Jews, and thereto Israel, today, are the Republican lobbies.
You can say many things about paleo-cons of old, of the John Birch societies, of the country club sets, about Mel Gibson rants, but please, in 2007, we're all about the Jews.
(Disregard this reply, if you were just being funny)
BTW, I have always found this idea that Repubs won't vote for Rudy because he's a social liberal, ridiculous.
I'd vote for him in a jiff, and so would my über-Catlick mum.
This entire argument is further-proof that MSM have a near fetish about the religious-angle.
Go out there, and talk to people, real people, instead of taking polls you toner-stained hacks.
Cheers,
Victoria
OK, my comments about the right not liking Jews was a joke. It's a kind of wry New York joke that I guess you can only appreciate if you're a Jewish New Yorker (as am I).
Relax.
Simon, as for the question of Giuliani's respect for the Constitution being a deciding factor for the party's activists--I'll believe it when I see it. You may be correct about that, but I remain skeptical.
I'm a social conservative, but becoming more pragmatic [or is it 'live-and-let-live'?] as I age. I'd vote for Rudy in a New York minute over almost anybody else. I might vote ideology in the primaries, but if Rudy's the nominee, I'll happily vote for him.
I kinda' wish Jeb Bush were named Jeb Jones, but that's just me.
dnMike,
John Edwards is charming? He comes across as the poster-child for why trial lawyers are regarded by many ordinary Americans as oleaginous scum, only one step up the ladder from members of Congress. Pace Dave, here's another New York joke: what do you call 15 lawyers at the bottom of the Hudson River? A start. People like John Edwards are what perpetuates jokes like that. He's always struck me as utterly facile, and the only man in politics who can make Hillary look sincere.
I am a social conservative in Rudy's corner. I don't think Roe will ever be overturned, believe if Columbine and other such incidents did not push us towards gun control, nothing will, and don't care if gays get married, so Rudy being pro choice, pro-gun control, and in favor of civil unions means nothing to me.
Sure I would rather have someone with stronger rightwing credentials, but i am a realist and like most everyone else, i do not so much vote for one candidate as much as against the other.
>Eye of Polyphemusmx
Rudy comes off quite well. I agree too that Christians love Jews. We're buddies.
I wonder if Rudy is the Howard Dean of the Republicans. You know, he looks good to a certain array of neo-conservatives who can no longer put up with the mindless sentimentality of the Democrats (Henry VIth felt that Richard III really liked him!),
But Rudy has strong clear arguments and a quick mind. Perhaps the far right will go for him on that basis.
It would be great if the Democrats could come up with someone who was at least sentient, but I don't think they are going to do that. It'll just be ankle-biting and testing the wind again: no vision.
Is there anybody at the top of that party that even has a principle any longer? I mean, a principle that they will stand by, even if it won't get them elected. Oleaginous is a good word.
Perhaps Simon is right about the constitutional thing: but it will have to be explained to the groundlings in simple terms. I think I know what he means but just barely.
It is uncanny how the "Rudy is too liberal" meme comes almost exclusively from liberals. But as long as he's a viable candidate, the media will do everything it can to rub "Twice divorced, cheated on his wife, supports abortion rights and gay marriage, in favor of gun control, etc." in the face of the social right, praying (if that's what you can call it) that he'll be rejected on that basis.
Liberals fear Rudy more than any other Reep candidate. A Rudy run will demonstrate that if you take the stupid social issues off the table, there is a substantial majority in this country in favor of a realistic approach to the jihad being waged against the developed, non-Muslim world.
Maybe after 4 or 8 years of a Guiliani presidency, the GOP base will turn on him. But as long as he's non-PC on the war, I suspect right-wing Republicans will not just "set aside" their differences, but will openly embrace Guiliani.
To underscore that point, I think the right has basically rejected Sam Brownback's presidential candidacy--even though he is the closest to the right on all their issues--because he's come out against Bush on the war. If it came down to Guiliani v. Brownback (which it won't, but just for argument's sake), I believe the right would choose Rudy.
It is uncanny how the "Rudy is too liberal" meme comes almost exclusively from liberals.
Yes, Ann pointed this out "in comments" as well. The only problem there aren't any liberals on this thread that said anything close to that. In fact, have any liberals posted yet?
I'm somewhat of a social conservative, but taking the GWOT seriously is my litmus test issue.
McCain and Giuliani are both sound on this issue, but I worry about whether McCain is temperamentally suited for the Presidency. Plus I feel like Giuliani is the real straight-shooter, whereas McCain's 'straight-talk' reputation is just an MSM meme.
On the Democratic side I don't see anyone right now who can be trusted with our most basic security (given that Lieberman isn't likely to run again).
The only problem there aren't any liberals on this thread that said anything close to that.
I was referring to the world beyond this thread...yes, such a place exists!...where I have heard and seen the "social conservatives won't stand for Rudy" comment many times, but have yet to see or hear any actual social conservative validate it.
What??? You can make a case that liberals like McCain, but Giulliani???
Um, what? Why on Earth would ANY liberal like McCain more than Giuliani? The only area in which McCain is to Giuliani's left is hatred of George Bush.
Gore defeated Bush by about 80% to 15% in New York in the 2000 race. That same city had relected Giuliani with 59% of the vote. It is quite obvious that the man can appeal to liberals. It is completely impossible to win office in New York if you can't. There aren't enough conservatives and moderates in the city to elect anybody at all.
1) oleaginous! I love it when I find a cool new word!
2) I'm a social conservative and would vote for Rudy in a heartbeat.
Guns? I expect I will have more guns after Rudy than before.
Gays? I don't care.
God? At least Rudy doesn't think he is God, unlike Hillary.
"if Columbine and other such incidents did not push us towards gun control, nothing will"
Columbine happened with a Republican Congress. A Republican Congress will never rile the base by passing comprehensive gun-grabbing legislation like they have in virtually ever other industrialized country in the world.
Maybe I am just paranoid, but I think all that keeps America from joining the rest of the countries in the world which prevent their citizens from arming themselves in self-defense is having a conservative Republican President or a Republican congress.
To me Rudy as President and energized Democratic run Congress = gun-grabbing legislation, no doubt. It is just the kind of across-the-isle, contrarian move Rudy would love to make.
From my cold dead hands, indeed.
Kirby - the argument is that the Constitution reserves questions on such matters to the states, and that conservatives of all people should support the Constitution as it's written, if not out of fidelity to certain legal principles, and even if unpersuaded by its normative merits, then at least on Burkeian grounds.
Although to be sure, quite apart from the formalist case for adherence to federalism, Federalism should have particular normative resonance for conservatives. To borrow from our hostess' canon, "Federalism doctrine, when articulated by [conservatives] ... begins with a presumption that things will work best if the States and their institutions are left free to perform their separate functions in their separate ways. Intrusions on the states must be justified, and exceptions to the general rule must rebut the presumption," A. Althouse, The Alden Trilogy: Still Searching for a Way to Enforce Federalism, 31 Rutgers L.J. 631, 635 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); moreover, "state and local government autonomy can exert pressure on the federal government to moderate its efforts and take care not to offend constitutional rights ... [and thus] can work as a safeguard for the rights of the people," A. Althouse, The Vigor of the Anti-Comandeering Doctrine in Times of Terror, 69 Brook. L. Rev. 1231, 1274 (2004), and above all else (from a strictly normative perspective), "the Constitution preserves federalism, not simply to pay respect to the states, but to protect the people. States do not retain power [only] for their own sake, but for the sake of their citizens ... States are valuable alternative governments which have power because it benefits the people to diffuse power," A. Althouse, Variations on a Theory of Normative Federalism, 42 Duke L.J. 979, 980 (1993). And historically, for right or wrong, "Conservatives have tended to ... oppos[e] the national government's intervention and extolling the benefits of state and local control ... [and] decision at a lower level of government tends to maximize overall satisfaction, by permitting diversity instead of submerging large regional majorities beneath a narrow national vote," A. Scalia, Two Faces of Federalism, 6 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 19 (1982) (cf. A. Althouse, Vanguard States, Laggard States: Federalism & Constitutional Rights, 152 U. Penn. L. Rev. 1745, 1747, 1772-5 (2004) (noting that federalism can protect not only innovation by some states but adherence to tradition by others)).
johnstodder said...
"It is uncanny how the 'Rudy is too liberal' meme comes almost exclusively from liberals."
Predominantly - but not exclusively, as Michael Litscher's comment demonstrates. To whom, of course, I suggest that the Republican Party is a political party, not a suicide pact, and I just don't accept that there is a credible argument that whatever Giulliani's shortcomings might be as a President (or McCain's, for that matter), that they would be worse for those with a generally conservative worldview than President Clinton or President Obama. It simply doesn't comport with reality; it's like the Nader voters in 2000 who sincerely said that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. A President with whom you disagree on seven things out of ten is better than a President with whom you disagree with on ten things out of ten.
Adam L said...
"To me Rudy as President and energized Democratic run Congress = gun-grabbing legislation, no doubt."
Why are you so ready to concede that there will be a Democratic Congress after the 2008 election? One of the arguments for nominating a candidate who can not only win but win big is precisely that such a nominee will develop the coattails we need to regain control of the Senate, as for example happened in 1980. We need to be sure that on January 21st, 2009, we have a Republican-controlled Senate and a Republican-controlled White House, otherwise it is deeply worrying what will happen to the Supreme Court.
Funny how Ann accuses "the liberals" of commenting on this thread about how Rudy won't appeal to social conservatives. Seems I'm the only one who has made that claim, and I ain't even a liberal.
Seven Machos said...
"Guiliani can say "leave abortion and similar issues to the states."
Yes, and it wouldn't just be posturing to overcome his pro-choice position, either. I would want to hear the same things even if the nominee were someone with an absolutely rock-solid pro-life record, since I maintain that the federal government has a very limited (although non-zero) role to play in abortion policy.
Obviously Ann's reader's are not the typical Republican primary voter. Just check out National Review's The Corner if you want to see what they think about Giuliani.
They are horrified that he dressed in drag and consider it a show-stopper.
Giuliani not only is in favor of gay rights, but he actually doesn't hate them.
When the Republicans find out that Giuliani lived with two gay people - he's done. Because we all know that issue number one for the bigots is to make gay people feel like scum. Issue number two is abortion.
Giuliani can't win the primary. All the moderates have left the party and will not be voting for him.
Obviously Ann's reader's are not the typical Republican primary voter. Just check out National Review's The Corner if you want to see what they think about Giuliani
"At some point Rudy skeptics are going to have to come to grips with the fact that Republican primary voters seem to want to choose him" -- John Podhoretz, The Corner, this afternoon.
Well he does hate black people. That should help him with Republicans.
NRO mostly likes Rudy but still is unsure as to whether he can win over the base. They haven't had an issue with the drag skit. I've seen some commenters harp on his abortion position, but they've claimed to be Romney supporters, and he's uh "evolved" rather dramatically recently on that position which doesn't bother them any.
In public with real names attached (i.e. not random commenters) I haven't seen any social conservative say that they can't handle Giuliani. I've seen liberals claim that soc. cons won't accept him and I've seen soc. cons say that they don't think other soc. cons will accept him.
What I've seen from every meeting Rudy's been to is that people love him. No matter what type of conservative, they LOVE Rudy. He has problems, but he has such a tremendous record of accomplishments. He's actually a little too socially conservative for me (the crusade against strip joints) but he has the south-park conservative vote down.
Finally, a presidential candidate with some heft. First time that I can remember. Please, someone sneeze and blow wispy Mit away. So much energy expended on him. What a joke. I hope Rudy doesn't pick him as a running mate. Ugh.
They haven't had an issue with the drag skit????
Then why did they put that picture on the cover of their magazine a year ago? Because they thought it was cool????
Rudy Giuliani became “America’s Mayor” when he confidently took charge after the terrorist attacks of September 11. In the political-leadership sweepstakes, Giuliani is A-number-one, top of the list, king of the hill. But Sinatra’s catchy claim is turned on its head in the presidential sweepstakes: When it comes to winning over GOP primary voters, if you can make it in New York, you can’t make it anywhere. By Kate O’Beirne.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/?q=MjAwNjA4MDc=
Larry:
"Because we all know that issue number one for the bigots is to make gay people feel like scum. Issue number two is abortion."
Althousians may not be the typical GOP primary voter, but you are certainly the typical liberal irritant. Entirely predictable, out on a limb, and entirely unsupported by evidence. I'm sure you won't mind providing some links to back up your claims about the regulars at The Corner and their view of Giulliani.
Um Simon - I just provided a front page cover story by National Review that lambasts Giuliani for his stand on gay rights.
But you can't blame Giuliani for what he did to his wife. She was a major b%itch. He treated her like scum, and she DESERVED to be treated like scum. That's a positive for him in my book.
I am a social conservative in Rudy's corner. I don't think Roe will ever be overturned, believe if Columbine and other such incidents did not push us towards gun control, nothing will, and don't care if gays get married
Um, someone remind me: how is a social conservative defined?
I want the Old Times Square Back. I'll take hookers over tacky tourists any day of the week.
Let's see Seven - your bigoted president STILL favors putting gay people in jail for having sex in the privacy of their own home.
It's you psycho conservatives who are obsessed with gay people. Not the rest of the country.
Fibs.
Let's see, it's the self-delusional conservatives who have problems with FACTS who are the ones who are telling fibs.
Bush favors imprisoning gay people who have sex. He advocated it publicly in 1994 when he ran for governor of Texas. He was on the wrong side of Lawrence V. Texas, and in his most recent public statement in the election of 2004, he reiterated his belief that government should be able to lock up gay people for having sex.
You are the one fibbing Seven. And since you FAVOR this president - you're obviously obsessed with gay people. Irrational paranoia - look in the mirror.
"Gubernatorial candidate George W. Bush on Friday promised he would veto any attempt by the Texas Legislature to remove from the state penal code a controversial statute outlawing homosexual sodomy. Bush, a Republican, was asked about the sodomy statute shortly after speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and Ladies Auxiliary.
" 'I think it's a symbolic gesture of traditional values,' he said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer
Yup - some fib. Spin that seven.
It's not just about gay marriage. It's about gay people having basic freedoms. Bush opposes those basic freedoms and it helped him to win election. Giuliani favors those freedom, and that will be the end of his career.
Seven - You obviously have amnesia.
If you don't think the most important issue in the 2004 elections was gay marriage, then Karl Rove has a lot to teach you. The only reason Bush won in 2004 Ohio was because of the bigots in rural Ohio who hate them faggots.
Gayness and gay marriage are the most pressing issues of our times.
Well Bush and the Republicans clearly think so. What was their main focus in the summer of 2006? Social Security? Iraq? Catching Osama? Runaway federal spending?
Nope.
It was pretty much gay marriage, as Congress found time to vote on the Federal Marriage Amendment, but didn't have any time to actually bother with those other items listed above. Heck - they didn't even have time to fund the government in 2007. They punted that to the Democrats.
But gay marriage - heck yeah - they had time to vote for that.
Republicans - obsessed with gay people. Just like Seven. Sure - talk about gay issues alot too. But then again - I'M GAY!!!
But seven - why is he so obsessed with gays???? Makes you wonder.
And if you want info of what hardcore Republicans think about Giuliani, check out this Powerline thread:
http://www.plnewsforum.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/15681/
Money quote:
"But he’s been divorced!”
So had Reagan… and so has a significant portion of the voting public. 1980 proved that a likable conservative can overcome a divorce. I wouldn’t be surprised if 2008 proved that a likable conservative can overcome two.
“But he’s pro-abortion!”
So? What has *any* Republican president done to overturn Roe v Wade? If we really want to change the laws on abortion we’ve got to, as the President said, change the hearts of the people. Giuliani’s ideas on fatherhood would go a long way.
The biggest stumbling block towards that vision, IMHO, is his position on gay marriage.
The idea that a marriage certificate is nothing more than an entitlement to health insurance coverage, survivorship benefits, and discounted rates on rental cars (all arguments for gay marriage) demeans marriage and increases the number of children born out of wedlock. The impact is even greater when it’s imposed against the will of the people. Calling it a civil union doesn’t help.
And people call me delusional for saying that the gay issue is at the top of the conservative agenda. The above quote proves that I'm right.
However, Giuliani does have one powerful factor that will help him in the South. He married his cousin.
http://www.nndb.com/people/587/000024515/
Rudy was just on Hannity & Colmes and pledged to pick Supreme Court justices like Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.
"Please, let's discuss Rudy."
Well, sure, as Giuliani starts with "G," as does "Gay," I suppose its all the same thing, especially with that photo of the gay lovin' cross-dressin' Giuliani on the cover of National Review.
As a pro-life, anti-gun control, and otherwise social conservative voter, if these were somewhat normal times, yeah, I'd vote for someone other than Giuliani.
But these aren't somewhat normal times, (well, "normal" as in pre-'68) what with the Senate majority doing all they can to pass a resolution in support of defeat in Iraq, so Rudy is my man. I don't care much about Downtown Lad's rage, let alone his assessment that us bigoted gay-hatin', cousin-marryin' NASCAR watchin' rednecks are gonna care more about relative trivialities like gay rights when there's a war to be won. Giuliani wants to win the war, and so do I.
Downtown Lad can think all the elections have been about gays and their marriages or whatever all he wants, but us voters have more important things to worry about.
I don't understand religious people suggesting that someone who has had marital/family problems is disqualified. We all have problems in our personal lives. Reagan was divorced and allegedly had some problems as a father. I thought the Christian view was that we are all flawed, we're all sinners, etc.
If someone doesn't think Rudy is a good person of good character, you shouldn't vote for him. I take the character issue seriously, because you don't know what issues are gonna come up when someone is in the White House. But I think there's plenty of evidence that backs up that he's a good man, and I try not to be judgmental about another person's family troubles.
I'm really excited by his candidacy (he wouldn't even be a "lesser evil"!) and believe he's the right person for this moment in American history, particularly because of the war (and how good a communicator he'd be on the war, unlike Bush), and because I think he would unite the country more due to the fact that he's so highly regarded across party lines.
Sean Hannity asked him about the gun control issue and he handled it expertly. He basically said that he used the laws in New York to reduce crime in NYC - which was crime-ridden and densely populated - but NYC is not the rest of the country and he respects federalism and the 2nd Amendment. I don't know if his gun policies in NYC really reduced crime or not - I haven't studied it. But it was pretty clear he won't be out to take gun rights away.
He also didn't open his eyes as wide tonight, compared with when I saw him on TV after Bush's SOTU speech. I know that's superficial, but I worry that little things like that make a difference!
Given that he's pledging to appoint strict constructionalists to the Supreme Court, I don't see why social conservatives would oppose him over the abortion issue, unless they just cannot tolerate anyone who disagrees with them at a personal morality level.
LoafingOaf - Heh. Quoth Rudy: "I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am [one myself] ... I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint – Scalia, Alito and Roberts." Quoth Justice Scalia: "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be." That's okay. I get that it's used in political discourse as a term of art signifying something other than what it means in legal discourse.
Ruth Anne wrote:
I kinda' wish Jeb Bush were named Jeb Jones, but that's just me.
Jeb Bush could well turn out to be the best US President we never had.
To date, he's possibly the best Florida governor, ever, which I don't see his milquetoast successor, the super elegant Republican Charlie Crist, doing much to override.
Seriously, JEB is Dubya with more brains, more eloquence (like that's hard) and possibly more cojones.
Cheers,
Victoria
I don't understand religious people suggesting that someone who has had marital/family problems is disqualified. We all have problems in our personal lives. Reagan was divorced and allegedly had some problems as a father. I thought the Christian view was that we are all flawed, we're all sinners, etc.
It's not that. It's that Republicans like to nominate "solid" men.
Reagan, for all his flaws, was solid. Rudy is seen as a bit of a loose cannon.
That's the difference.
I say, who cares?
McCain is an egotist, and has a HORRIBLE temper, and there is something dubious about Mitt Romney that I can't quite put my finger on (oily Joe Bidenness, I think...).
I'll take the Prince of New York.
Cheers,
Victoria
I just read some of the comments on this thread...sigh.
You know, most people could care less about gay people (all people, not just Americans), except very hard-core bigots, religious or not.
Lots of people have homosexuals in their family, and as time goes on, it's less and less of a big deal.
The Fred Phelps of this world are as creepy to me, as they are to gay people, and I'm sure I am not alone in this stance. He's utterly deranged and who wants to associate with that kind of scum?
But sometimes, when you deal with this topic, it's like staring at the mirror image of Phelps, on the gay side.
There is a creepy self-centredness, as if everything hinged on the gay angle in life, that is very off-putting to most people.
Rudy is not a doctrinaire guy. People who like Bush, like him for rather the same reasons actually -- he is up front about who he is, and what he believes in, even if it goes against a lot of what we personally believe in.
He also seems like a down-to-earth guy, and of course, the "Eyeties" have next, since the Irish have already gotten into 1600.
This is not the way I think necessarily, but I know it's the way a lot of normal, average Americans do.
If Rudy runs, and wins the nomination, barring any horrible revelation, he wins.
Cheers,
Victoria
"I find it funny that Ann dismisses Bill Clinton as a feminist, yet thinks Rudy is quite delightful."
Are there stories about Rudy and sexual harassment? Adultery is different from that. Having a bad marriage and taking up with another person, in a consensual, egalitarian relationship is NOT the same as hitting on women you encounter in the workplace and taking advantage of the power differential in an effort to satisfy transitory sexual yearnings. You're mixing up feminism and social conservatism.
Could someone provide a link showing the facts of what exactly Giuliani did in transgressing sexual norms?
Ann Althouse said...
Could someone provide a link showing the facts of what exactly Giuliani did in transgressing sexual norms?"
I don't have westlaw access here but i think a trangression of sexual norms kinda starts with him bringing his mistress into gracie mansion for the purposes of sex while his kid was in the house. i think that does pretty good for starters. i mean its not having sex with my pet goat but it is sexual and it isn't normal.
So it is now the position of the left that bringing someone you are having an affair with into your own home and having sex is deviant?
The relevant fact you probably have intentionally overlooked is that his kid was home. I think that pushes the action over into the skeevy Clintonesque category. It may be that the house is large enough that the Mayor knew his kids wouldn't stumble in on them. Maybe his kids don't wander the house, being curious. Maybe the door was locked. Still...
hdhouse: There's nothing "abnormal" about it (or about sexual harassment). No one is talking about perversion here. It's that there are different kinds of bad behavior. I stand by my point that, from a feminist perspective, sexual harassment in the workplace is different from starting to live with a new partner before your broken marriage is legally terminated. I am asking if there are stories about sexual misdeeds other than switching partners? Was he a serial adulterer with short, meaningless relationships?
I do think it is bad for kids to see that you've rejected their mother and replaced her. But that is what happens in a divorce, and I don't think the legal step of getting the divorce is what matters to children. So if you want to denounce him for moving his new partner into the house, you should denounce everyone who brings a new partner into the house where there are children.
The fact is, you don't know how it was handled with the children. I am going to guess that it was handled well.
Are there stories about Rudy and sexual harassment? Adultery is different from that. Having a bad marriage and taking up with another person, in a consensual, egalitarian relationship is NOT the same as hitting on women you encounter in the workplace and taking advantage of the power differential in an effort to satisfy transitory sexual yearnings. You're mixing up feminism and social conservatism.
LOL. Ok Ann. Never has your contempt for non-Republicans been more clear, and your double standards more revealing.
I'd like to know if Ann believes in the stories of the "Clinton Body Count" too. Or drug smuggling. Or Troopergate. After all, these are "stories".
Naked Lunch, if you're seriously contending that you don't know the difference between sexual harrasment (a fortiori when involving superiors and subordinates) and consensual sexual relationships between peers, you're going to have a really tough time in the workplace. I don't think you're that dumb, though, which makes that comment a cheap (and terribly boring) shot.
Simon,
Wha?
I didn't take any shots at Giuliani whatsoever. I don't think divorce involving kids is funny on any level. But since when does a "story" of sexual harrassment equal sexual harrassment? There are dozens of stories involving Clinton, from drug smuggling to murder. Where do the rumors end, and the truth begin? There is scant evidence he forced himself on anybody, and it's my contention that any of them could have simply told him to zip it up and put it away. But it seems Ann's brand of feminism tells her these were all poor helpless women uncapable of making a decision about their own lives. Without some help, presumably.
Do you honestly believe Clinton's accusers were sexually abused, then posed and sold their stories to cheap men magazines? It is what it is Simon.
Naked Lunch: "But it seems Ann's brand of feminism tells her these were all poor helpless women uncapable of making a decision about their own lives."
You are wrong about that. I've written elsewhere that I though Monica Lewinsky was doing what she wanted to do. The problem with sexual harassment is not limited to the woman who consents. You fail to consider the harm done to other people in the workplace who don't get favors and the women who don't respond, but are discriminated against by having the conditions of the workplace made different for them than it is for the men. Moreover, Clinton lied to protect himself from the civil suit brought by Paula Jones, who was an unwilling target of his sexual advances. She did not consent, and she went into a situation where she was hoping to advance in her career only to find it sexual. That is the problem, not any denial of Lewinsky's agency.
NL - you took a shot at Ann for drawing a distinction that to mostly everyone but you is completely obvious. It isn't a double standard to say that "[h]aving a bad marriage and taking up with another person, in a consensual, egalitarian relationship is NOT the same as hitting on women you encounter in the workplace and taking advantage of the power differential in an effort to satisfy transitory sexual yearnings," it's identifying that those are two completely separate issues.
Simon
Tell me how boinking Wife #3 where Wife #2 and kids reside in the Governor's Mansion is somehow more noble than a couple one-offs by Clinton? Adultery is adultery. You stop and report sexual harrassment, you don't participate in it.
I also don't accept that women are just lumps of clay so easily manipulated under some power spell to give voluntary sex. Or they shouldn't be anyway. Otherwise you're excusing "sleeping your way to the top".
It isn't more "noble," but while adultery is adultery, adultery is not the same as sexual harassment, and consensual relations between peers is also a very different situation towards even prima facie consensual encounters between employer and employee.
Moreover, Clinton lied to protect himself from the civil suit brought by Paula Jones, who was an unwilling target of his sexual advances. She did not consent, and she went into a situation where she was hoping to advance in her career only to find it sexual. That is the problem, not any denial of Lewinsky's agency.
It's funny how we all readily, and easily dismissed the plaintiff in the Duke case, but somehow Paula Jones' word is gospel. The same Paula Jones that boxed Tonya Harding, and posed for Penthouse.
All we know is she willingly went up to his room. And that's about it. And I still do not get how portraying Paula Jones other than a totally powerless women against a man helps feminism.
Seven Machos, are you trying to excuse or somehow mitigate Giuliani's behavior by saying Clinton did the same, or worse?
You sound like a seven-year-old. I'm glad my kids grew out of the "Well he/she did it too" stage.
MadisonMan - I thought his point wasn't to excuse what Giuliani did, but rather, to point out that one can't attack Giuliani while also defending Clinton.
Tell me how boinking Wife #3 where Wife #2 and kids reside in the Governor's Mansion is somehow more noble than a couple one-offs by Clinton?
Both men had sex with other women in the house that their wife and children lived in.
Rudy did it with one woman he was in a consensual romantic relationship with.
Clinton did it with a series of women, some coerced, some consensual, all treated like toilet paper and condemned by his flunkies when the story broke, and none of them people he was romantically involved with.
Rudy cheated on his wife. Clinton treats women like worthless whores. That's why a feminist can support the former and not the latter.
Revenant, my bible doesn't have different degress of adultery. Maybe if Bill left Hillary for Monica this all would be justifiable, huh.
You should stick to facts, to say there was coercion, is to say there was coercion with in the Duke case.
Premise #1 of the Left: Bill Clinton is good despite the fact he is a coercive adulterer who allegedly had sex with women while his kid and wife were somewhere nearby.
Wrong. You have zero evidence he coerced anybody. I don't know anyone that is saying it was "good" thing he did.
Conclusion: Neither good. And should not be a career killer for either.
Post a Comment