Rudy's 'Hamptons-gate' Is Positively ... Clintonian
Usually, Jonathan is the high-brow, erudite blogger in this group, but with his latest post about Rudy Giuliani's Mistress Chauffeuring Service, he has sunk us to a level of ...
Well, never mind. I write not to condemn, but to pile on. I can't help note that Jonathan's crack about the NYPD being forced to drive "around" a certain Rudy-cutie reminds me of one of the many classic yo-mama jokes from Eddie Murphy's remake of "The Nutty Professor": "Yo mama so fat, when she sits around the house, she sits around the house!" (rimshot)
But to make a serious point -- if that's still possible -- I find a few things funny about this story:
1. A married man -- mayor of America's biggest, most important city, no less -- ditches his wife and family for a Long Island mistress. And all that troubles the PuffHos at HuffPo is how he paid for the transportation?2. If the PuffHos find this so outrageous, what do they think of all the times Bill Clinton was reportedly using Arkansas state troopers to help him pick up babes, or White House staff to arrange his important briefings (or perhaps we should say, "de-briefings") with interns?
Don't get me wrong: I'm not defending Rudy, not by a long shot. But it's amazing to see how heavily partisan interest here seems to stoke the moral outrage.
Chris,
I wanted to take the high road but Judith was in the middle of it, so instead of running her over, I went low.
I don't know that there is a double standard on adultery that skews liberal v conservative. Maybe there is no standard and it just doesn't count.
Liberals may believe it is not a sin, while conservatives may believe in repentance and forgiveness.
I also don't know if "we" have changed. Perhaps we only know more. Our old politicians were not paragons of moral rectitude. From Jefferson to Grant, from FDR to Eisenhower, from Kennedy to Clinton (and persistent rumors about Bush I). In olden days the press knew and didn't share. Now we know so much that we have lost some capacity to be shocked.
Once upon a time, a divorced man could not be elected. It counted heavily against Adlai Stevenson. Irony of ironies, that barrier was removed by Ronal Reagan.
Strangely, I have heard some conservatives defend Bill Clinton based on their antipathy for HIllary. Strange moral universe we inhabit.
Jonathan
Jonathan,
By all means, the partisan tilt to moral outrage cuts both ways. Conversely, many of the conservatives who were appalled by the Clinton "trooper-gate" stories a decade ago today yawn at Rudy's Hamptons adventures.
Funny how an offense always seems so much worse when someone on the "other side" is doing it ...
Cheers,
Chris
Chris
One add-on: Blame in not equal opportunity. It is often an issue of appearance v reality. We don't like to be fooled and thus feel foolish. Rudy is running on testosterone and as our macho protector. His indulgences are likely to fit our expectations. Were Huckabee caught up in anything even resembling this, he would be finished.
Harry Truman and LBJ could swear like sailors, but when Nixon was caught on tape being no more vulgar than LBJ, it was the end.
Clinton and Rudy were always bad boys, so it hurt them less. We don't feel as cheated when they cheat because it confirms how smart we are when they live down to our expectations.
Dear Jonathan,
I suspect that's all true, but what's interesting is that the scandal here isn't cheating -- we all knew that about Rudy a long time ago. It's the misuse of public funds for personal reasons, isn't it?
Best,
Chris