Wife makes strife (Rudy again)

"The good conservative candidates and politicians have proved not nasty enough to fight back visciously against the Klinton attack machine..."

You've got that right. I am sick and tired of Republicans always being gentlemen and letting the Democrats have the upper hand, even when we were the majority! Why is it we always force our guys to resign when we've got Teddy the Killer and Barney the...I won't say...and Robert Byrd the Klansman--for starters--Studds is gone. These men will be in office until the day they die--they have no shame. And we get pushed around--I for one am sick and tired of it--stand up and fight like men! Stand your ground, don't let the rats push us around.

One think I'm sure of--they won't push Rudy around--he will give it right back.

ShawTaylor, you need to push that line on every thread. And to those who say we shouldn't fight like the rats--we aren't going to survive unless we do--they are going to walk all over us.

I don't know what I'm doing up so late!

Donna Hanover was a local newswoman when she married Rudy. She had delusions that her stature was going to boost her career. When it did not, she became bitter. The last I saw her she was narrating a show about celebrity homes on The Travel Channel. There are always two sides to a story.

That's exactly right, Hildy! Donna Hanover was known as the Most Absent First Lady of New York City while she was married to Rudy (while he was Mayor, of course). She was always off chasing her "television career" dreams on the west coast rather than bothering with all that pesky First Lady stuff with her husband in NYC. I think beside the Travel Channel show, she ended up with some gig on the Food Network for all her troubles.

I don't know who raised their children or where they were raised: east or west coast. But in 1999-2000, the buzz in NYC at the time was that Ms. Hanover had had a few "affairs" of her own while married to the Mayor, but I admit I can't prove that...

Uh, sorry, the new "wife" is a home-wrecker. She started up with a married man, and took him away from his wife and kids. She is undeserving of respect from the man's children.

That home might have been wrecked long before the new wife came along.

Kids -- especially adult kids -- have no right to veto their parent's remarriage. If they can't show a decent level of respect to their father and at least tolerate their stepmother, then they don't deserve to have him at their events.

Over time, for their own sakes, they should try to figure out how to treat her with the cold civility due to any other criminal, but she is entitled to nothing else. At all.

The fact that you have decided this woman is a "criminal" -- based on a few media reports and with no detailed information as to the underlying reality -- proves that you have no intention of being fair or objective. I hope you never sit on a jury.

Dear You Dirty Rats,

"Kids -- especially adult kids -- have no right to veto their parent's remarriage. If they can't show a decent level of respect to their father and at least tolerate their stepmother, then they don't deserve to have him at their events."

I agree that children don't have a right to veto remarriage. But when a father is cheating on his wife, and then marries the "other woman," he doesn't have a right to force that "other woman" on his children, especially at their important events.

If they tolerate the floozy on a day-to-day basis, then they've shown maturity than he has. But it's uncouth, disgusting, and immoral to expect them to tolerate her presence at their special events.

I'm not suggesting that either of Mr. Giuliani's children should have been be able to prevent him from marrying the alleged "wife" #3. I'm merely saying that he had no right to bring the "other woman" to their important events.

I find it shocking that so-called conservatives would defend a man who publicly cheated on his wife, tried to throw her out of the marital home so that his floozy could move in - while his children still lived there, and informed his wife of their impending divorce through the news media.

I find it shocking that so-called conservatives would defend a woman who openly dated a married man, and participated in this charade.

"The fact that you have decided this woman is a 'criminal' -- based on a few media reports and with no detailed information as to the underlying reality -- proves that you have no intention of being fair or objective. I hope you never sit on a jury."

I base it on the whole saga as it played out in the media when it actually occurred. The behavior of Mr. Giuliani and his floozy, Ms. Nathan, was shocking and disgusting.

He showed himself to be a man of uncontrolled appetites, cruelty, and self-absorption. She showed herself to be a common, cheap gold-digger.

That it now turns out that he's a pathetic father, too, doesn't make me think better of him.

sitetest

That it now turns out that he's a pathetic father, too, doesn't make me think better of him.

That "pathetic father" had his son at press conferences, Yankees games, and other events while he was Mayor. He also provided well for his kids. What's pathetic is that you actually believe this attack will weaken support for him. In the real world, difficulty with college-age kids who have had all of their needs and then some provided is quite common for parents.

Dear You Dirty Rats,

"That "pathetic father" had his son at press conferences, Yankees games, and other events while he was Mayor..."

Yes, I remember all those things.

That he would abandon his own son once he took up with the new floozy is even worse in light of how he once treated him.

"What's pathetic is that you actually believe this attack will weaken support for him."

I don't think I made that claim.

I merely said that Mr. Giuliani shows himself to be a dirtbag through all this.

Mr. Clinton demonstrated that many folks are more than willing to vote for a dirtbag, if they think it's in their own selfish interests ("We care more about the DOW Jones than PAULA Jones.").

It's ironic how this web forum, so filled with outrage at Mr. Clinton's immorality, seems to have so many members so willing to embrace such a flawed, self-centered man of such uncontrolled appetites.

sitetest

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.