Democrat Rangel Rips Into Giuliani’s Personal Life
If you’re a Democrat, Republican or independent who wasn’t in a coma during Bill Clinton’s presidency you’ll remember that many of Clinton’s backers, Democrats and many other Americans argued that going after a politician’s private life was a way to “get” him when he couldn’t be gotten on the issues.
Republicans leaped not only over Clinton’s testimony but on talk-radio and in the press about the fact Clinton had an affair. It was NOT just about his testimony. And Democrats? They often decried it, saying it was the last refuge of those who could not engage Clinton on the political battlefield of issue debate.
Fast forward to 2007….and now a key backer of Senator Hillary Clinton has lashed out at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani in a highly-personal way…the same kind of way that Democrats decried and said had no place in politics when it was done by Republicans against Bill Clinton:
Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., the dean of the New York congressional delegation, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, longtime political booster of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and a member of the steering committee for “Veterans and Military Retirees For Hillary” has joined another co-chair of the Clinton campaign, former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, in attacking the personal life of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.
In a cover story on Giuliani in this week’s New York Observer, Rangel went after Giuliani in unusually personal ways, expressing confidence that Giuliani’s frontrunning status will fade either because of the former mayor’s liberal positions on social issues or the operatic drama of his personal life.
“Referring to Andrew Giuliani’s reportedly distant relationship with his father since the ugly bust-up of Mr. Giuliani’s marriage with Donna Hanover,” the article says, “Mr. Rangel said it was because ‘sons respect and admire their fathers, but they love their mothers against cheating goddamn husbands.’ … Rangel said he regretted that all the personal problems surfaced so soon in the electoral process. ‘I’m sorry this damned thing turned out so early because, really, just like [embattled former Giuliani aide Bernard] Kerik, it would have bombed his ass out.’”
Why is this a mistake?
Rangel has thus veered the debate into the septic tank and politically-rough waters since (1) there are more than enough statements by Giuliani and issues on which Democrats (and his Republican opponents) can engage him (2) Republicans could use this comment to again talk about Bill Clinton and his scandal’s impact on his family (3) Rangel has thrown the issue of personal conduct into a campaign in which he plays a prominent role for Ms. Clinton at a time when she needs to place her main focus on convincing that 50 percent of the voters who will not vote for her no matter what that she is not the Hillary Clinton they disliked during the Clinton years.
You also have to wonder about whether Rangel is guilty of political negligence.
His comment immediately gave the Giuliani campaign a chance to decry the issue being raised. And it clearly put the Clinton campaign in a tough spot:
The Giuliani campaign declined to comment to ABC News about the attack, referring a reporter to comments made in the story by Randy Mastro, a former Giuliani deputy mayor, who said of Rangel’s remarks, “Comments like that are not worthy of a response.”
Giuliani and Rangel have long had a contentious relationship.
Asked Saturday afternoon outside Oak Park Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa, if she had any comment on Rangel’s remarks, Clinton tersely said, “I don’t.” She added that she had not seen the story in question.
A Clinton campaign spokesman, Phil Singer, later told ABC News of Rangel’s remarks, “These kinds of comments have no place in the campaign.”
There is a segment of Americans that not only might not refrain from voting for a candidate because of divorces or affairs but might be so turned off by a clear effort to discredit versus debate that the camp of the candidate making the charge could be hurt. Rangel apparently forgot how impeachment proceedings did not destroy Bill Clinton’s poll numbers but seemingly strengthened them.
The fact Rangel had to latch onto Giuliani’s personal life as an issue suggests frustration at engaging Giuliani on substantive issues.
The question is whether this is a behind-the-curtain peek at what will unfold if Giuliani gets the nomination.
If so, Giuliani’s chances of winning are perhaps greater than some thought because if this is an “issue,” it suggests Giuliani will have plenty of chances to consolidate his standing on issues while Democrats raise the issue that many of them decried when it was used against Mrs. Clinton’s husband. It didn’t bring down Mr. Clinton’s poll numbers, it’s unlikely to do with Giuliani and it will give an opening for the Giuliani camp to raise the issue of the Monica Lewinsky scandal in response.
And directly into the gutter yet another political race will go…
UPDATE: And so it goes: Red State has a few choice things to say about Rangel..
opinions powered by SendLove.to
29 Responses to “Democrat Rangel Rips Into Giuliani’s Personal Life”
Joe – I agree with your overall thought on this issue. However, it seems like when the Republicans “swift-boat” or use negative personal attacks it seems to resonate with the electorate . When the Democrats try it, mostly it backfires.
I didn’t decry the information as personal, I decried the obssession with it leading to impeachment.
Also, keep in mind that Giuliani did tell his second wife AND CHILDREN that he was leaving them vis press conference.
Adultry is a moral failing…fighting a court order sought to keep your mistress out of the home of your wife AND CHILDREN with the argument that Gracie mansion is public property is something else.
If Giuliani is going to preach morality to the American public, then he ought to practice what he preaches.
If he chooses not to preach morality, then we should leave him alone.
Chris: that type of argument never appeals to me anyway, but in this case I don’t even see where it fits. When has Giuliani preached morality? That’s his main liability with social conservatives, that he hasn’t done so.
Given the fact that he’s put his wife “on the podium”, literally ( through a cell phone)- how does she not become fair game then?
He is a coward who puts other people in front so they can take the hit for him. That being said though, Rangel seems like he was cheap-shotting RG. They need to work the “righteous indignation” angle that the Far Right seems to have down pat.
The thing this country needs more than anyting is someone who stands strongly with integrity- I don’t care who’se side Rep or Dem- and the sad thing is there are candidates out their, they just don’t have the tremendous war chests to ride in to town like Disney’s Aladdin.
I’m not saying it does fit in this case
I’m just pointed out where I think it’s totally appropriate.
C Stanley. He doesn’t because he knows he can’t.
Though he did make a big stink about that ridiculous “Piss Christ” “art” in NYC when he was mayor.
I would like to ask him why he put the emergency command center in the WTC complex…the biggest terrorist target in the city.
There is a lack of judgement there,, that does have a direct bearing on his morals and lack of judgement.
Right. But that’s also why the standard line of “it’s fair game in this case to point out details from his personal life (even though we don’t approve of that when details of Democratic candidates’ lives are pointed out) because of the hypocrisy” doesn’t fit in this case. I thought that Chris was using that defense- apparently not, so no problem.
Then ask away, because obviously that is a different kind of issue than bringing up personal vices, and I haven’t seen anyone saying that his decisions regarding NYC security should be off limits to questioning.
C Stanley…well having followed RG’s career, one could argue that asking him why he put the CC in the WTC IS personal…but that’s NYC politics for you.
It’s when the personal interferes with the political or the security or making wise choices for the country I DO want to know.
Also, as I mentioned above…Rudi has used the media (ie public) to bring his personal life in…as in informing his family he was leaving them at the same time he told everyone else.
And my gosh, really..fighting a court order (again very public) to keep your mistress out of your family’s home…what does that say for his judgement…this is all public stuff.
The angel on one shoulder says: stay out of this mud fight
The devil on the other shoulders says: but at least Rangel is bringing up matters of more substance than a hair cut!
The devil won a long time ago, during Giuliani’s
NY days.
And Clinton having sexual escapades with an intern in the Oval Office wasn’t?
Look, I have mixed feelings all around on these issues, as I think most people do. Some degree of knowledge of private morals as they reflect the character and job performance, is valid. But there’s also no doubt that some stones are best left unturned, that everyone is human, and that many people are able to compartmentalize so that their private vices don’t necessarily affect their public service.
But the topic at hand is whether those who universally denied any relevance of Clinton’s escapades would now see it differently when Giuliani’s are put out for public consumption. For example, saying that Giuliani made this fair game by trying to portray a close relationship with his current wife through the cell phone calls- how does this differ from the Clintons’ 60 minutes interview where they displayed their strong marriage? Does that not make his continuing infidelities fair game?
[...] their credit, the Clinton campaign rejected these types of arguments in the campaign. Asked Saturday afternoon outside Oak Park Elementary School in Des Moines, Iowa, [...]
Was Clinton openly flouting Monica? Did he go to court to gight a court order or announce openly to the world that he was dumping his wife for her?
To “out” Clinton’s escapades, the US taxpayers spent 50+ million dollars..because in the end, after sifting through anything else..including Starr’s original brief about Whitewater…Monica Lewinsky was what they ended up with. Clinton wasn’t parading around NYC with his mistress.
[...] post by Joe Gandelman This was written by . Posted on Monday, October 22, 2007, at 10:33 am. Filed under [...]
Oh, for heaven’s sake, I wasn’t making a point by point comparison- just showing that the one point you made (how the affair was more than just a private one) doesn’t negate some public interest in the Lewinsky affair. I also said nothing in support of the impeachment of Clinton- and for the record, I don’t think the country was well served by it.
I wasn’t making a point by point either…but the fundamental difference.
Clinton was trying to hide his “affair” with Lewinsky..to the point of perjury.
Giuliani, on the other hand openly flouted it.
And the other point, we would not have known about Lewinsky if not for the 50,000,000 plus spent to ferret it out. Where as Nathan was common knowledge for years…so Giuliani can’t complain about it being personal when in fact it was very, very public.
I just think that comparing to the two men and their “private” lives is not correct..as Giuliani made no attempt to keep it private whereas Clinton did everything he could to do so.
Personally I don’t have a problem with Giulani’s “morals” ..marriages fail and adultery happens. It is how he PUBLICALLY treated his then wife AND CHILDREN that I find extremely distasteful.
I’m on the road now…driving TOWARDS LA and the fires…the skies are dusty.
The issue to me is never whether both sides do it. The issue is that any side that does it should be ashamed of themselves. And if people mention swiftboating, I ran into a LOT OF anger when that issue came up because both on my blog and when I was the weekend blogger on Dean’s world I made it clear that I felt it was an “issue” not worthy of coming up in the campaign, of being discussed or blogged. I did few posts on tmv on it except to say I felt it was political discredit garbage that did not belong in our national debate. So whether Democrats or Republicas veer into this area, they are cheapening the quality and substance of our national debate and making some independent voters more and more skeptical when they use double standards of outrage on issues like this being raised — that outrage is something that is selective. We have zillions of important issues in this country and we need to focus on THOSE. There was nothing wrong with many of the GOP zingers at last night’s debate, just as there is nothing wrong with the zingers Democrats hurl at Republicans. But Rangel’s comments are as repugnant as some of the comments Republicans (particularly on talk radio) made about Clinton. Satirists can do the same thing particularly if they use song parodies but that adds the dimension of cleverness and comedy. Rangel’s comments are as much political bilge as some of the stuff Republicans say about the Clintons. So to clarifiy: no side is “less worse” by indulging in this and this site did not feel the Swiftboats saga was more than a massive effort to discredit a candidate (a candidate that yours truly felt was as wooden as the dummies in my show).
Uh, maybe you should quit typing and keep your eyes on the road! Jeez, California drivers
Seriously though, great comment. The attempt by some to justify the attack because the differences in circumstance are telling.
People attacking RG over a divorce should be cognizant of the number of people who actually do get divorced. ISTM that alienating such people by moralizing about RG is not a particularly bright thing to do.
[...] Clark Democrat Rangel Rips Into Guiliani’s Personal Life » This Summary is from an article posted at The Moderate Voice » Domestic and international news [...]
Joe,
I still maintain that’s it’s justified when a politician is looking to legislate their version of morality. And only if their personal actions are relevant to that morality.
For example. It says this on Rudy’s website:
Rudy’s personal history shows that he has never shown any particular deference for the “sanctity” of marriage. That’s why he shouldn’t be lecturing anyone, straight or gay, on the subject.
Well Chris, one might argue that Bill Clinton is guilty of the same hypocrisy since he also supports the “sanctity” of marriage and went further than Rudy ever did by signing legislation to that effect.
Entropy,
Excellent point. They are both hypocrites.
I think there is an overriding resentment against those who claim to represent or pander to the ‘values’ vote. The very term ‘family values’ is an implied criticism of others: we have values, and you don’t.
Those who co-opt self congratultory slogans lay themselve open to extra criticism when there is a failure. So does Giuliani when he asks for endorsement from the ‘values’ voters.
It’s not fair, because killing the messenger is not a valid way to debate an issue. Human nature will out, however, The impkied slur in the ‘values’ title HURTS, and the reaction is inevitable, as invevitable as Monica’s name being ressurected regularly for the foreseeable future.
I think it would be best if we kept morals and religion out of political platforms altogether.
The next best thing to do, IMO, is to move on to other topcis as quickly as possible.
But I still don’t like Giuliani, for many other reasons.
This reminds me of a saying, “the first person to get angry in a negotiation loses”. The personal attack is akin to anger for me. Whichever camp has to resort to the personal attack has lost the debate, in this case, the, it would be the Clinton camp.
However, it was not said by Mrs. Clinton nor one of her close advisors, so it is really rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.
My first, & lasting, impression of a candidate comes from how clean or sleazy their campaign is. I always equate a sleazy campaign with a sleazy candidate, & later events usually prove me right. What Rangel said, though largely true, was pure sleaze. But I’m not surprised by his statement because he has a history of slinging slime rather than addressing real issues. That colors any thoughts I have about anything he may say about anything at any time.
Hillary had an excellent opportunity to respond in the same way, but chose to give no comment, a plus in my book.
I already didn’t like Rangel and this just lowers my opinion of him further. I don’t care what Giuliani’s personal life is like, my dislike is more based on what passes for his policy positions and his promises to the Religious Right to appoint Supreme Court justices they’ll like.
[...] Times, Macsmind and A Blog For All Right Voices and Riehl World View Des Moines Register, The Moderate Voice, Hot Air, Bark Bark Woof Woof, Fausta’s blog, Weasel Zippers and A Chequer-Board of Nights … [...]
And Clinton having sexual escapades with an intern in the Oval Office wasn’t?
Technically it wasn’t in the OO, it was in a side room, but that’s nit-picking
The whole issue of hypocrisy is a tricky one. Should a politician that smokes support anti-smoking legislation? Can a man who dodged service in Vietnam send the next generation to war? Should someone who is a multimillionaire stand up as a champion of the poor? Can a person who flies frequently on private jets lobby for the environment? For me the answer is yes—because the perfect person does not exist, and if they did they wouldn’t run for political office.
I think we were better off when reporters didn’t focus on the private lives of our leaders–now there seems to be an obsession with number of wives, affairs, messiness of divorces, etc. If the nominees end up being Hillary and Rudy, maybe the dirt in their respective private lives will cancel out, and we can actually hear about issues. More likely, judging from the interest in 400$ haircuts, it is all we will hear about.
Since most candidates try to cover up the flaws in their background, I’m hoping that all of the dirt on these two has already been exposed ad nauseum.