« Well, That Was Fast | Main | Mike Huckabee's FairTax Proposal Is Crazy »
November 29, 2007
Giuliani, Misappropriation, Sex And The Press
by Stephen of the Thinkery
Rudy Giuliani has not only been married three times, and he not only was forced out of the Mayor's Residence by his then-wife because of his affair with his now-wife, apparently used New York City funds to pay for his romantic getaways with his then-mistress/now-wife in the Hamptons. He used his security detail to help cover things up and tried to hide the public financing of his private affair by using the budgets of fairly obscure city departments like the Office for People with Disabilities.
I'm sure everyone reading this blog already knows about this. You knew about it yesterday. The question is, what about the rest of the country? My recent Google News search for "Giuliani" brought up over 1,000 articles relating to the debate last night and how Rudy and Mitt went after each other. There were approximately 250 articles on Giuliani's misappropriation of city funds.
Drudge led with the story for a while, and even Fox News has paid some attention to it, although "Special Report with Brit Hume," for example, spent most of their time blathering about Bill Clinton and managed to squeeze in only a hurried reference to the Giuliani story at the end.
That, I think, is the real problem with the story: it's not about Bill Clinton. Or to put it another way, it doesn't fit established storylines and narratives. It has the potential to be treated as a Big Deal, but there's no guarantee at this point that it'll really go anywhere in the press. Giuliani was a pretty rotten mayor. When he left most New Yorkers hated him, none more than the FDNY because of how Giuliani's decisions regarding their radio system led to many of the Fire Department's losses on 9/11. His BFF Bernie Kerik is a complete crook. Almost everything he's said about his record in NYC has been not only false but easily demonstrated as such.
Yet he still has managed to sit atop polls and receive good press, not only from Roger Ailes but other media outlets as well. They've crafted a narrative around him, one that a bunch of the country seems to accept, and that's what will make it hard for the news media to turn on him now rather than just dismiss this story.
Nothing shows the news media's dysfunction more than how loyal they are to the myths they construct. It's why everything is good news for Republicans, why people are concerned about Bill Clinton's potential for infidelity in the White House and not Giuliani's, why it keeps getting reported that the Democrats' FISA bill would have required court approval for President Bush's bathroom breaks (as opposed to Condi's) or whatever it is Joe Klein made up.
The danger we face in trying to pressure the media to report stories like the US Attorney purge or Giuliani's criminal misuse of NYC money is that we'll only be able to change the prevailing narrative rather than actual journalistic practice. Broder is mythologically committed to his perverted "centrism" rather than ideologically committed, and the same is true for the rest of them. We can change the myth; the GOP has the route all mapped out, and that destination is easier to reach with all of the technological tools available to us now. But all that means is someday the tide will turn against us again. I want a media that reports facts, that doesn't consider the horserace to be the only side of a campaign that exists, that doesn't mistake he said/she said articles with false equivalence as balance. If we can get them to report on the Giuliani story because it's about criminal activity and breach of the public's trust and not because Giuliani was having The Sex, then we'll have a real accomplishment under our belt.
I'm not holding my breath for either the possibility that the press will really run with it or, if they do, that they'll put the focus where it belongs.
November 29, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Geeze, if Barney Frank can keep his job while a homosexual whore house was being run out of his HOME, I think Rudy can overcome this.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 29, 2007 3:13:06 PM
If the media were not going to sweep this all under the rug, which they will do because Guiliani is a Republican, then this would pretty much be it for him. However, because he is a Republican, the media will decide that one news story is enough and that the public doesn't need to be looking into the dirty laundry of their corporate master's favorite candidate.
This is why journalists are scum. They aren't informers of the public, but manipulators of it.
Posted by: soullite | Nov 29, 2007 4:35:40 PM
El Viagra--
You don't actually understand how the two situations are not in the least equivalent do you? But then, few Republicans understand the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law.
Posted by: calling all toasters | Nov 29, 2007 4:44:08 PM
The only problem is that is WASN'T mis-appropriation of city funds; Guiliani, as mayor, had a right to a security detail.
The possibly-illegal and certainly-unethical issue was hiding the use of city funds.
Posted by: SamChevre | Nov 29, 2007 4:57:01 PM
The possibly-illegal and certainly-unethical issue was hiding the use of city funds.
Posted by: SamChevre
Exactly. Plus stonewalling the city controller, by shouting 'security' when they tried to look into the matter.
Posted by: flory | Nov 29, 2007 5:06:02 PM
> The only problem is that is WASN'T
> mis-appropriation of city funds; Guiliani,
> as mayor, had a right to a security detail.
Using the security detail (1) to transport his mistress (2) to transport himself to meetings with his mistress, was a proper use of city funds? Really? That's quite a, er, broad interpretation of mayoral duties doncha think? Did Giuliani have droit du seigneur over the entire city as well?
Cranky
Posted by: Cranky Observer | Nov 29, 2007 5:12:36 PM
I suspect that the Mayor's wife was entitled to security. I wonder if the law allows for security for wife and mistress at the same time?
Posted by: CParis | Nov 29, 2007 5:23:21 PM
Sam-- I would suggest that you look into the specific allegations. There is no doubt that allowing his mistress to use NYPD cars as taxi's was an illegal use of city funds.
Posted by: Soullite | Nov 29, 2007 5:31:00 PM
The left-wing blogosphere often overestimates the importance of the media narrative. Bill Clinton had a hostile press, but he was over 60% his whole second term and is now regarded with approval by 65% of the public. Bush has gotten mostly favorable press and he's at 30%. Guilani is favored by about 28% of Republican voters, who make up about 7.5% of the electorate. My guess is he won't even be the nominee.
Posted by: Jose Padilla | Nov 29, 2007 5:31:49 PM
tried to hide the public financing of his private affair by using the budgets of fairly obscure city departments like the Office for People with Disabilities.
In Giuliani's defense, he is a person with a disability. He's morally crippled.
Posted by: SDM | Nov 29, 2007 5:32:07 PM
But then, few Republicans understand the difference between breaking the law and not breaking the law.
I'll remind you of this when we next discuss the law and illegal immigrants.
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 29, 2007 6:55:21 PM
face it.. Guiliani could be a serial rapist and still be doing about the same. The ONLY reason hes running at all is because he is Bush's mini me as far as 9/11 recognition. Conservatives are gripping onto the hope that they can control the next administration to solidify the policies that they enacted under this one.
Get him outside of his little clique based politics in NYC and hell be a weak president, overpowered by his advisors and lobbyists.
Posted by: david b | Nov 29, 2007 7:10:38 PM
Wasn't Rudy behind a program or two to help illegal immigrants not too long ago? I seem to remember charges of him being soft on illegal immigration.
But true to form, the wingnuts seize on anyone--anyone--they (wrongly) think can beat Teh Little Woman. I mean, look upthread a couple of comments, and it's all
Fred and Rudy, sitting in a tree;
K-I-S-S-I-N-G...
Posted by: litbrit | Nov 29, 2007 7:30:54 PM
They've crafted a narrative around him, one that a bunch of the country seems to accept, and that's what will make it hard for the news media to turn on him now rather than just dismiss this story.
On the tombstone of the Republic will be the epitaph "Killed By A Story Arc".
Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Nov 29, 2007 10:10:30 PM
I suspect that the Mayor's wife was entitled to security. I wonder if the law allows for security for wife and mistress at the same time?
CParis
Appropriately enough, C, only if you are the Mayor of Paris. In NYC, non. In Salt Lake, maybe two wives -- no on the mistress.
Posted by: Klein's tiny left nut | Nov 29, 2007 10:59:30 PM
Man, this guy will get creamed if he's the nominee.
Posted by: Anthony Damiani | Nov 30, 2007 2:54:06 AM
Rudy be toast. He can finesse having a security detail when visiting his mistress. He maybe kinda can finesse the bogus accounting that charged $400k against the public defender's office (though that is blowing up - see various TPM sites). But supplying a city car and a cop driver for his mistress's private use? Sorry me Rudio, that crosses the line into serious criminality. At this point Rudy's chances for moving into the White House are beginning to approach those of moving into the Big House. Maybe he can share a cell with Bernie K.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | Nov 30, 2007 1:00:30 PM
I really should read who is posting.
El Viajero
Barney Frank kept a job as a congressman. The prostitution ring was a straight prostitution ring (female employees and male clients). There is no evidence that Frank was running it or aware of the operation. He was busy legislating. Franks "valet" stephen Gobie (who was pimping the prostitutes) confirms that Frank's only fault, in his view, was not being rich enough to be a sugar daddy (IIRC he used the phrase "sweet and low".
I assume that Mr Gobies duties as "valet" included activities which can not legally be compensated and Frank definitely did not pay his social security tax.
I am sorry to say that congressman Frank is not likely to be elected President, so what's the relevance.
(warning all Frank facts from my memory of contemporary news articles)
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | Nov 30, 2007 1:53:26 PM
I have now googled. Gobie claimed that Frank knew of his prostitution operation, but did not claim that Frank profited from it. I believe Gobie was lying about Frank'salleged knowledge
Posted by: Robert Waldmann | Nov 30, 2007 1:58:23 PM
I believe Gobie was lying about Frank'salleged knowledge
And what evidence do you have for that?
Let's face it, you're certainly willing to believe that Frankenfurter didn't know, and now when you find out different, you can't bring yourself to understand that he probably did and is probably a bad person. Why? Probably because you would have to rethink your views....so you choose not to believe for no other reason. How partisan (and emotional)of you!!
Posted by: El viajero | Nov 30, 2007 2:26:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.



