i just love how all the bush supporters go around calling others feminine and thinking that bush is such a man's man. just bring up gannon and they plug up their ears and scream "NO NO NO". total denial of reality. i know what his favorite album must be... although im pretty sure trader lives in a log cabin.
Yeah, but ya gotta figure taking down the bosses from each of the Five Families kinda makes up for it.
Bringing up stuff like this is why we hear people complain about the politics of personal destruction. Ironically its Giuliani's party that pioneered those politics.
No but he moved in with a gay man when she kicked him out. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
No, that was Thomas Jefferson's Party. Read up on the Adams-Jefferson race. The Democrats claim lineage from that party, but it really no longer exists.
I don't really know if this is "the politics of personal destruction". Rudy has lived his personal life on the public stage to the extreme (the Nathan-Hanover thing being the primary example) and seemingly relished the attention as bizarre as that may seem. He's leveraged this to his advantage at times in his personal life. Andrew his son was a prominent feature of his mayoral campaign. They even did SNL skits about it back in the day. I mean I guess you can ignore the 800-pound gorilla in the room but it won't make it go away.
^^^ I was reading something along those lines yesterday. An excerpt from the article...-- Why Rudy Giuliani Really Shouldn’t be President By Jim Sleeper
Not true IMHO. When Giuliani's children that he has used throughout his political life in ad campaigns etc. suddenly refuse to speak on his behalf (or speak to him at all) it is newsworthy. This estrangement speaks to a major character flaw in Giuliani.
I would call bringing up things in his personal life qualify as the politics of personal destruction. Its the same as bringing up Edward's house. That he has used them himself doesn't change the fact that this is a using his personal life as a negative issue. My comment though is not to say this is out of bounds as both parties have done it and it is common practice just calling it what it is.
That's not what it is. It's called reporting the facts on a news item. Whether it is used against him and by who is a different matter.
Maybe. Quite honestly his public family squabbles (again, voluntarily made public in order to leverage publicity to his advantage over his family members) do reveal a lot about him being mean and vindictive and petty - which is the way he treated a lot of people as mayor. Closing your eyes and chanting "no politics of personal destruction" isn't going to change the way he acts or acted. What do you call it then when they reported on his son mugging for the cameras during his inagauration? Was that the politics of personal destruction?
Every politician uses their family for political gain. If you think then it is fair to go after your family then it applies both ways. Did you think that it was fair to go after Bill Clinton's infidelities when he was campaigning with Hillary? Or now if Obama talks about his family history it is fair to point out that on his mother side they owned slaves?
I know but I just wanted to get a better definition of the politics of personal destruction - I think the definition you were use is a bit loose. In this example, nobody's going after anybody's family. Rather it's his family going after him. And you've got the example reversed. It's not about Rudy using his family for political gain - the crux of the dispute is Rudy using his political gain against his family. Simple Ground rule that anybody of any political affiliation should be able to adhere to: when you divorce your wife via press conference because you're running off with another woman, don't say it's a low blow when your estranged family responds in the public arena.
