Dec. 10, 2007
EDITORIAL: Giuliani Dodges Question About Taxpayer Paid Escorts for Mistress
Yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Tim Russert did his level best to get an answer from
former NYC Mayor and GOP Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani about his decision to
provide taxpayer-paid security escorts for his then-mistress, now third wife, Judith Nathan.
Giuilani gave an elaborate "explanation" of this decision, how sometimes loved ones are caught up in the death threats to public officials and need protection, too. He also put the responsibility for the decision on the New York City police force, whose professionals analyze whether a loved one needs protection or not, even, apparently, a mistress.
But one thing Giuiliani never explained, didn't even try to rationalize is why the taxpayers had to pay for the protection provided Ms. Nathan. He never went near that part of Russert's question.
If a public official is carrying on an illicit relationship, shouldn't he at least pay for the security protection for the mistress himself? Why should taxpayers be responsible for this?
When Russert asked if it would be appropriate for American taxpayers to pay for the security detail of a President's mistress, suddenly Giuliani was righteous, saying that no, that wouldn't be appropriate.
Well, which is it, Rudy?
These little lapses in character and judgment may not mean that Giuliani doesn't have generally good judgment on big policy decisions, but after awhile, they add up. How many lapses in judgment can Giuliani sustain before his boat starts to take on serious water? First Bernard Kerik, Mayor Giuliani's friend, police commissioner and nominee for Homeland Security Director, comes under a 16 count indictment. Then it is revealed that NYC taxpayers were helping to support his mistress's personal security detail.
Americans may already be asking questions about Giuliani, based on his dropping poll numbers. This is a crucial time frame for "America's Mayor" as Republican voters eyeball whether they really want him to be "America's President" or not.
EDITORIAL: Giuliani Dodges Question About Taxpayer Paid Escorts for Mistress
Yesterday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Tim Russert did his level best to get an answer from
former NYC Mayor and GOP Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani about his decision to
provide taxpayer-paid security escorts for his then-mistress, now third wife, Judith Nathan.
Giuilani gave an elaborate "explanation" of this decision, how sometimes loved ones are caught up in the death threats to public officials and need protection, too. He also put the responsibility for the decision on the New York City police force, whose professionals analyze whether a loved one needs protection or not, even, apparently, a mistress.
But one thing Giuiliani never explained, didn't even try to rationalize is why the taxpayers had to pay for the protection provided Ms. Nathan. He never went near that part of Russert's question.
If a public official is carrying on an illicit relationship, shouldn't he at least pay for the security protection for the mistress himself? Why should taxpayers be responsible for this?
When Russert asked if it would be appropriate for American taxpayers to pay for the security detail of a President's mistress, suddenly Giuliani was righteous, saying that no, that wouldn't be appropriate.
Well, which is it, Rudy?
These little lapses in character and judgment may not mean that Giuliani doesn't have generally good judgment on big policy decisions, but after awhile, they add up. How many lapses in judgment can Giuliani sustain before his boat starts to take on serious water? First Bernard Kerik, Mayor Giuliani's friend, police commissioner and nominee for Homeland Security Director, comes under a 16 count indictment. Then it is revealed that NYC taxpayers were helping to support his mistress's personal security detail.
Americans may already be asking questions about Giuliani, based on his dropping poll numbers. This is a crucial time frame for "America's Mayor" as Republican voters eyeball whether they really want him to be "America's President" or not.
