Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
That's No Way to Treat a (First) Lady
by Maggie Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who won Tuesday's presidential debate?


"That's no first lady, that's my wife!" -- Badabump. -- It's open season apparently on the wives and children of GOP presidential candidates.

In a display of judgment worthy of People magazine, Washington Post editors decided the fact that Mrs. Fred Thompson once had a boyfriend when she was single is big news. (Gee, did Michelle Obama? Would Elizabeth Edwards kiss on a first date?) Meanwhile, The New York Times ran a story on the Giulianis' response to Vanity Fair's nasty little gossipy profile of Judith Giuliani, Giuliani's Princess Bride."

OK, so the tiara was a bit much. And true, if, say, Rudy Giuliani is elected president of the United States, it would be a whole lot of cultural firsts: the first Italian, the first openly pro-abortion Republican, the first president of the United States to win the support of the American people without first winning the support of his own children. (Rudy Giuliani's 17-year-old daughter, Caroline, announced this week through her mother's spokesperson that her name on Barack Obama's Facebook page was not an endorsement, and that she would have no comment on the elections of 2008.)

Conventional punditry portrays Rudy's family woes as a potential problem for "conservative family values voters," i.e., the Republican base. But has his campaign yet contemplated the effects on that potent group of general-election swing voters: the so-called "soccer moms"?

Rudy needs the soccer moms to be security moms this election cycle. But these swing voters are less issue-driven than either side's base and more apt to make last-minute judgments based on intangible impressions, such as: Would you trust your children's safety to a man whose children don't trust him?

The Giulianis have apparently decided the best defense is a good romance.

For months, they refused to discuss how they first met (Rudy was still married and living with his wife and kids), calling it a "romantic little secret." But faced with negative press on Judith, they've decided to share all their intimate secrets with us. They met at a cigar bar on East 63rd Street in Manhattan. After chatting for an hour about her work in the pharmaceutical industry, Rudy asked for her phone number.

"One of our other romantic little secrets is: I've kept it all these years in my wallet," Rudy told The New York Times. Things heated up so quickly that when Judy won a trip to Hawaii for being a top sales manager, Rudy begged her not to go. 'You've already become too important to me,' Judith says he told her. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: pure hypocrisy
< < Those who judged the Clintons should be prepared to take the heat on the GOP candidates less than virtuous lives. > >

No, they should not. (What I mean is, they shouldn't have to take the heat, but I know they probably will get some heat anyway).

Anybody who said in the late 1990s that it was wrong for Clinton's private life to be pried into MUST NOW declare the same thing about Giuliani, Gingrich, and the others.

If it was wrong to do this to Clinton, it is wrong to do it now with the GOP candidates. The fact that Republicans went into Clinton's private life ANYWAY does not now justify doing the same to Republican candidates.

To do so would be pure hypocrisy.

Similarly, those who are dismayed at the prying into the private lives of Giuliani et al are engaging in hypocrisy if they cannot admit that Clinton deserved the same privacy back then.

Really, think about this: Even if we are leading good and productive lives, would we as private citizens want the intimate details of our lives — our failures and embarrassments in particular — plastered everywhere for all to see?

Just as the ACLU defended Rush Limbaugh, this is an issue that should bring Americans together. You can't be for privacy only when someone on *your* side is having it invaded.

no bs artist
BTW your Rush comment is a blatant lie. I just did a search of his archives. No Chelsea comments of any sort.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.