Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: af_vet_rr

OK... fair enough:

#1. No, it’s not OK. Does it disqualify him from the Presidency? No. I don’t really care that much. It’s a negative, but a small one.

#2. I don’t quite accept the premise. Need more info. I don’t see that anything was all that “hidden”, and none of the charges seem all that out of line.

#3. If it were Bill Clinton, I’d say what I said then when it was Bill Clinton. I don’t really care. I only really cared about his affairs when he was doing it in the Oval Office. That’s my business because it’s a huge security and blackmail risk.

That said, there’s light years of difference between the kind of sleazeball that Clinton is, and the affair that Rudy had. Really... Nobody in NYC *didn’t* know that his marriage was all but over and that they rarely even spoke to each other any more. That he was seeing someone else was hardly a secret let alone a surprise. Should he have gotten the divorce first? Yes. That would’ve been better, but it was slow documentation of a forgone marriage.

Bill is just a sleazy poon-hound. He’s chasing skirts whenever anybody isn’t looking. Or maybe even when they are. Different critter, that.


76 posted on 11/28/2007 5:07:27 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: Ramius

Question for First Lady Judy: When is it OK to cheat on your husband? Is it when you both know it’s over or when you decide you want it to be over?


81 posted on 11/28/2007 6:21:06 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

To: Ramius
#1. No, it’s not OK. Does it disqualify him from the Presidency? No. I don’t really care that much. It’s a negative, but a small one.

I'll admit, I'm old and old fashioned and I believe character counts and that if you can't stay faithful to a sacred oath you took, you probably aren't trustworthy enough to take an oath that gets you the keys to the White House. Clinton, Kennedy, FDR, etc., all proved that.

#2. I don’t quite accept the premise. Need more info. I don’t see that anything was all that “hidden”, and none of the charges seem all that out of line.

If they weren't out of line, then why are Giuliani's aides unable to explain why the expenses were billed to offices that had nothing to do with his security?

If you say that it was just some idiot on Giuliani's staff that made huge mistakes over and over, then would you want a man in the White House who is capable of hiring such idiots?

To be honest though, I think you should file some requests using New York's Freedom of Information laws to get the records and judge for yourself, because I think that is the only way you will come to the same conclusion that many of us already have.
83 posted on 11/28/2007 6:33:29 PM PST by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson