Shagblogging

Too much travel to be fully on top of the Giuliani "shag fund" story this weekend, but one thing I haven't seen remarked upon is the sheer irresponsibility of it all. This sort of petty corruption happens in politics (though the money sleaze and sex sleaze twofer is impressive) but normally one advantage of your hard-changing ruthless ambition types is that they have the self-restraint necessary to avoid these scandals. It's not good for your career and it's not good for your party. Serious politicians have their eyes on a bigger prize.

The question is where does this spirit of discipline come from. For some, it's a bona fide character trait that happens to be politically useful. Giuliani's shown plenty of discipline on the trail, but this sordid episode reminds us of how far it is from hizzoner's natural state. When he thought his political career was dead anyway, he was happy to pull this kind of stunt despite the death blow something like this could deliver to a "law and order" politician. And his career's always been marked by various outbursts, tantrums, and other episodes of responsibility. The discipline he's shown up until now in walking the ideological tightrope doesn't come naturally to him. As GFR says he's less the working class kid made good than someone like "the self-indulgent, troubled, well-to-do dads of Gossip Girl, right down to the bad relationships with his children and constant wheeling and dealing."

Meanwhile, one of Giuliani's core weakness as a politician -- he's an insane sadist -- has always also served as a kind of strength. The madness compels opponents to point out how deranged he is, but sometime's the electorate's in the mood for a man who's inclined to push the boundaries and err on the side of a hard line. New York in 1993 was certainly such a place, and the USA in 2008 might be. But nobody's ever in the mood for a hypocrite who preaches law and order and social stability while using city funds to chauffeur his mistress and her friends around town.

Comments

How do you write this post without reference to Bill Clinton--another "working class kid" made good--and the claims (from both sides) that his improprieties similarly demonstrated his hypocrisy and his lack of discipline?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | December 1, 2007 7:12 PM

The presidential elections of 2008 may resemble elections for US Senator from Massachusetts. Because it is a rather hopeless endavour to challenge a local Democratic demi-god, Republicans who decide to run are a colorful lot, but not particularly electable anywhere.

Now it seems that none of the "serious" Republican contenders is serious. Guliani's problems are described here, Romney is a flip-flopper who boldly goes where no flip-flopper went before (I mean, how many ex-governors base their message on bad-mouthing of their home states and attacking their own policies?), Huckabee has a Willy Horton problem, plus, while not much of a flip-flopper, he is an extremist who can well loose a big swath of battleground states. Bush was an extremist too, but first time he hid behind "compationate" slogan, and second time he rode a wave of paranoia which receded by now. And Americans are steadily becomming more tolerant.

For these reasons I thought that Fred Thompson or McCain would be best bets for GOP, but I guess they are just too old to be effective. It is an uphill slog, and it requires more stamina and clear thinking that some septuagenarians are capable of. Upon checking, Thompson should be spry at his 65, but he is not. Guliani, at 63, seems much more energetic, but even he seems to show age in some strange behaviors.

What I mean be showing age is a certain kind of inflexibility that progresses in declining years of a person. For example, it was reported that the staff could not prevail upon Guliani not to interrupt meetings whenever his Judith calls to his cellphone.

By the way, the fact that Judith Natan enjoyed the privileges that come with the role of "de-facto First Lady of New York" was reported by press as it was happening. The only new "sensation" is that the bookkeeping of that operation was unorthodox. Perhaps Guliani can turn it into his strength. Presumably, if there will be an invasion needed to be done, contrary to the wishes of Congress, Guliani will be able to siphon funds from Park Service, energy research, agricultural extension programs etc. (including donations from the private sector and a friendly sultan or two) and do the right thing. What other candidate has the relevant experience with such stunts?

Posted by piotr | December 1, 2007 7:28 PM

"similarly demonstrated his hypocricy and lack of discipline"

Please list the similarities. Particularly in two departments: (a) use of public funds, (b) publicity stunts humiliating folks for no good reason.

Posted by piotr | December 1, 2007 7:32 PM

Next revelation: He insisted on being called "Pasha" and have his concubine, wearing her tiara, trotted around NYC in sedan chairs carried by NYPD detectives.

All charged to the NYC smallpox eradication program.

Nice pic of her in a tiara at wedding time:
http://gothamist.com/2003/05/25/rudy_n_judi.php

Posted by blatherskite | December 1, 2007 7:43 PM

How do you write this post without reference to Bill Clinton

More to the point, how can anyone write anything without reference to Bill Clinton?

(I gave up on expecting Clinton Fatigue to hit anyone but me.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | December 1, 2007 8:19 PM

Giuliani never had plans for the Presidency so there was no need for discipline in this manner. Shifting funds to pay for banging your mistress on the public's dime isn't going to stop a moderately popular ex-Mayor from acquiring business connections which was all he seemed to be interested in, in fact it might appeal to the shady types he's always been most associated with. Even after 9/11 when he'd achieved national fame, he was too busy giving 5 figure speeches to even attend the 9/11 Commission's little gatherings. I don't think he ever had the intention of higher political office, just using his office and then, 9/11, to fatten his wallet. The possibility of the Presidency seemed to have dawned in him a year ago when media despite any basis in fact deemed him the Republican nominee. I still think he's running as a way to boost his speaking fees, win or lose he's going to make serious bank when it's all done regardless of how sleazy he was while Mayor.

Posted by Fred F. | December 1, 2007 8:46 PM

I didn't need this latest revelation to figure out that Giuliani was unfit for office. A fairly cursory review of his marriages, affairs, and attendant behavior should convince most people that he's not just a guy with a few character flaws or a wandering eye, but someone with deep psychological flaws. The current mess should help wake up people who are slow on the uptake, though, and that's a good thing.

Posted by bbartlog | December 1, 2007 9:02 PM

Shagblogging

The title shows, as I said on the other thread, the "scandal" is all about sex. Rudy had sex, and the prudish Left Wing hates it. Sex, sex, sex - if there's anything the Left hates, it's Republicans having sex.

Posted by Al | December 1, 2007 9:10 PM

Jeffrey, this is called instantiation (if I recall).

A holds for every x. (x is a free variable)
--------------------------------------------
A holdt for t. (t is a term, i.e. any description of an object, possibly with variables of its own).

Fred F.: is it possible that power, or even, relative power, has more attraction then money? In some sense, "commanding high speaking fees" or "absurdly high consulting fees" is about, well, commanding. "I have higher speaking fees than Ollie North at his peak, I am the top of the world".

Moreover, it is possible that the speaches, while financially rewarding, were slowly driving Rudi insane and that he had to spend some time doing something he enjoys. I read that he had speaches about "10 principles of success", principle number 4 (6? whatever) being "be faithful to you true self". Boring and insipid, even if combined with some great food and great golf, which probably it is not always the case. Now he can insult folk every single day, naay, he has to insult folks.

And if his run will not be utterly disastrous, and if he will fail to get the nomination and the nominee will loose in a landslide, Rudi will be automatically a top contender in 2012, and the whole fun can be repeated once more.

Moreover, the topics of the speaches following a presidential campaign could be more to his liking. Say, "How will we recover from the current liberal disaster".

Posted by piotr | December 1, 2007 9:25 PM

Speaking of Rudy's business connections, that, too, appears to be biting him in the butt.

Latest story is that his security consulting firm has contracts in Qatar which have to be approved by a particular individual who happens to be the guy who sheltered the 9/11 Al Qaeda planner...

Nice.

Funnier yet, a guy defending Rudy's contracts says that it's only a problem if you're a "demagogue" who thinks every Arab country is a "hotbed of terrorists".

Ahem - as if Rudy doesn't happen to be one of those "demagogues"...

As for Al and his "sex, sex, sex", I seem to recall a Presidential impeachment process initiated over some blowjobs in the Oval Office. Actually, of course, they were over perjury, and personally I think Clinton should have been impeached for that reason. They were not, however, over stealing taxpayer's funds for the benefit of getting laid. But the point stands that the Republicans get upset over sex far more than the Left does. Unless of course, it's gay sex in men's restrooms...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 1, 2007 11:00 PM

normally one advantage of your hard-changing ruthless ambition types is that they have the self-restraint necessary to avoid these scandals. It's not good for your career and it's not good for your party. Serious politicians have their eyes on a bigger prize.

But politicians as a class have a reputation for philandering--the horny politician is something of a stock figure in the movies. Sex has been viewed as one of the perks of power since time immemorial, e.g., Solomon and his thousands of concubines, Ghengis Khan, Henry VIII, Thomas Jefferson, and yes, Bill Clinton.

In another sense, serious politicians seem to be much like everybody else. Lots of non-politicians cheat or get divorced, and few people get so worked up about it. It's hypocritical of Americans to hold their politicians to higher standards than their friends, family, and themselves.

Posted by yave begnet | December 1, 2007 11:26 PM

Thanks for your concern, yave begnet. I'm pretty sure people are worked up about Mayor Napoleon because he had New York's finest walk his mistress' dogs. It's not because he was merely divorced like so many other Americans, but that he abused the powers of his office. One wonders why one bothers, since you are most certainly a troll (paid?), but it didn't set one too back, one reckons.

Posted by ed | December 2, 2007 12:22 AM

"But nobody's ever in the mood for a hypocrite who preaches law and order and social stability while using city funds to chauffeur his mistress and her friends around town."

I won't 9/11 take that 9/11 bet, but I won't 9/11 join you 9/11 in making it either 9/11.

Posted by aleks | December 2, 2007 1:15 AM

Shagblogging

The title shows, as I said on the other thread, the "scandal" is all about sex. Rudy had sex, and the prudish Left Wing hates it. Sex, sex, sex - if there's anything the Left hates, it's Republicans having sex.

Posted by Al
******************************

I admit I do find the thought horrifying. But as a grown up and a citizen of a free country, I can object to something without trying to use the government to crusade against it. So while I am personally opposed to Republicans having sex, I don't think there should be laws or constitutional amendments against it.

Now basing security and emergency considerations on how convenient they are for the sex, that's a bit of a problem. I don't expect you to see the difference.

Posted by aleks | December 2, 2007 4:00 AM

"In another sense, serious politicians seem to be much like everybody else. Lots of non-politicians cheat or get divorced, and few people get so worked up about it. It's hypocritical of Americans to hold their politicians to higher standards than their friends, family, and themselves."

How so? We shouldn't expect the President to be above average?

Posted by Doug T | December 2, 2007 7:27 AM

At this point average would be a huge gain.

Posted by aleks | December 2, 2007 11:16 AM

I am all for a more relax attitude about sex.

I would also postulate that the standards applied to military personel should not be more restrictive and punitive than those for politicians or clergy.

However, there is another aspect of the story, which was nicely conveyed by a mock title page once shown in Dilbert cartoons "Build better future by stealing office supplies". If a case can be made that some pencils, paper pads and printer supplies are used at home for the benefit of the job, OK. Otherwise, I see no reason to relax standards. Driving around your flame and her friends using the money of your employer (NYC in the discussed case) is wrong.

It is no better than padding your official mailing expenses, something that led to several prosecutions and ended political carriers. The purpose of questionable expenses is a good reason for chuckles, but the mere fact that they should not be made is enough to be outraged.

Posted by piotr | December 2, 2007 12:02 PM

Even more disgusting than the Giuliani/Nathan revelations will be the sight of our finest pundits continuing to pretend that Giuliani is anything other than a cheap, two-bit hustler and con artist. I admit that even until now I hadn't fully appreciated the ruthless, self-absorbed megalomania residing under the comb-over; what's really astounding is the arrogance and willful obliviousness of consequences. Rudy used MY taxpayer dollars to pay New York's Finest to walk his mistress' damn DOG?!?

Posted by dougR | December 2, 2007 12:11 PM

Link to Garance more. We like Garance.

Posted by roger | December 2, 2007 9:32 PM

Al: ... if there's anything the Left hates, it's Republicans having sex.

Well, yes, since the Republican idea of sex seems to be raping the American people.

Posted by Gene | December 2, 2007 10:52 PM