home

Giuliani's Son Admits Falling Out Over Judith Nathan

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:46:00 AM EST
Tags: Rudy Giuliani (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You gotta love kids. They are so honest. Andrew Giuliani, now a senior at Duke, spoke to a New York Times reporter the other day who was curious about his and his sister's absence from the campaign trail:

In a telephone interview yesterday, Andrew, a sophomore and member of the golf team at Duke University, acknowledged having had difficulties with Ms. Nathan, and said that he and his father had recently tried to reconcile after not speaking “for a decent amount of time.”

“There’s obviously a little problem that exists between me and his wife,” the younger Mr. Giuliani said. “And we’re trying to figure that out. But as of right now it’s not working as well as we would like.”

Does the thrice-married Giuliani think he's the teflon-man and all attacks on him will dissipate in honor of him being the 9/11 mayor? Surely, his 15 minutes of mayoral fame won't stretch that far.

More from Andrew, and then onto Caroline:

Andrew Giuliani said he would not participate in his father’s campaign, saying his devotion to becoming a professional golfer within three years allows no time for distraction.

While he would not say how long he had been estranged from his father, others close to the family said it appeared to have been for at least a year.

...Similarly, a distance appears to have developed between Mr. Giuliani and his daughter, now a high school senior who is to attend Harvard University in September.

Then there's Rudy the father, who apparently deserted his kids in spirit after his marriage to Nathan:

Mr. Giuliani once prided himself on attending all his children’s events and went to Andrew’s high school football games and Caroline’s plays. But he stopped at some point after his marriage to Ms. Nathan in 2003. He missed his son’s graduation, in 2005, and his daughter’s plays in the last 18 months, said people who attended those events.

Divorce is never fun for anyone, particularly kids. But, think about it. From the time Rudy met Judy, his life has been a whirlwind of high-flying, from building international security and investment companies, to public speaking, and traveling the globe (to get foreign affairs experience in case he wanted to move from Mayor to President in one fell swoop.) What time was left for his children?

Will he play Blame the Ex and claim Donna Hanover, his former wife, turned the children against him and did her best to make sure they didn't want him around?

The kids apparently turned out well -- Andrew is going to be a professional golfer and Caroline is about to enroll at Harvard. Surely during their teenage years they formed their own opinions of their father, separate and apart from those of their mother.

I think Rudy's arrogance knows no bounds. He thinks people will gloss over his three wives and inability to successfully integrate his children into his current domestic life. I think he's wrong.

< Libby Juror Note, Part 2: Late Night Tea Leaves | Weekend Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Giuliani's Son Admits Falling Out Over Judith Nathan | 37 comments (37 topical)
    Why? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 10:44:42 AM EST
     (And I'm not singling out you.)

      Do people do things like this? I see that the son evidently voluntarily spoke about his family issues but why is HE put in that position of either talking or declining to discuss it?

       He's a kid and should be left alone about his family regardless of what anyone thinks of his father-- especially if he's NOT campaigning. Is there no consideration that this type of thing might make his family situation worse? Do people not care about that if digging up some "dirt" either sells a few papers or scores a few political points?

      It's no wonder so many's  reaction to both politics and the media is just general disgust.

     

    the answer to the question (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:13:05 AM EST
    you pose:
    why is HE put in that position of either talking or declining to discuss it?

    is:

    "Because families of presidents and presidential candidates are public figures by virtue of the officeholding or candidacy.  That a son will neither talk to nor campaign for his father the candidate gives us a window into what kind of person the candidate is, one of the few windows through the huge fog of spin thrown up by the candidate and his supporters."

    FWIW, Andrew's devotion to his ambition to be a pro golfer is both commendable and noteworthy.  It's a rare talent and a difficult discipline.  That said, though, in a time of war when sacrifices are (kinda) demanded (but only of the poor, I guess), it would be far more seemly for the son of the ultimate tough guy (whose party is pushing the war) to take up a rifle instead of a putter.  Lead by example, and all that.  But, I won't hold my breath;  we're seeing the result of not leading by example in the horrific conditions at Walter Reed and I don't see any Repug making any difference in that.

    Parent

    but why do you... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:17:58 AM EST
     ...or should anyone else, want to look into THAT window.

      That's not a justification. It's an excuse.

    Parent

    Seemly? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    it would be far more seemly for the son of the ultimate tough guy (whose party is pushing the war) to take up a rifle instead of a putter.

    The son doesn't get to choose his own future because of his father's politics? Damn. I'm glad my parents didn't run for office.

    Parent

    Not exactly (none / 0) (#29)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    The son doesn't get to choose his own future because of his father's politics?

    The son can make his own decisions, and the decision to forgo his father's "ideals" and take up a safe career path shows the emptiness of his father's rhetoric.

    If Rudy's rhetoric is unconvincing TO HIS OWN FAMILY, who presumably know Rudy better than anyone else, why should I buy any of it?

    Parent

    Giuliani can't afford plane tickets for his kids? (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 10:55:01 AM EST
    Someone that gets $25-$50K for an appearance and can demand a Gulfstream IV and a suite of hotel suites can chunk out the dough for a few plane tickets for his kids to join him every now and then.

    But saying that Andrew is a kid?  Puhleaze!  He's a senior at Duke, almost certainly 21, and very eligible to join the Army (which could certainly use an college educated officer.)  Of course, it seems he has more important things to do than join up.  Someone should ask him his opinion of the war, and should give him Pat Tillman's biography.

    He ain't no Chelsea or Jenna or Barbara.

    the response to my post helps... (none / 0) (#4)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 10:58:40 AM EST
     show how quickly doing this leads from a unseelmly but factual report in NYT to a direct but nuanced and restrained story exploiting it on a political blog right down into the gutter.

      Can anyone feel good about starting or stoking this stuff knowing full well what will ensue?

     

    Parent

    Maybe you are right (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    Decon. The American people do not seem to care about a candidates Moral standing. Even though family values has been one of the core Republican  platforms for the last 25 year, it doesn't seem to make a difference at the polls.

    Bush was elected twice. Go figure.

    But to call time out, when family values moves from general to specific is not fair. This is not about digging up arcane dirt, this is about the man who would be President and how he has behaved toward his children and loved ones.

    which would tend to justify (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:13:17 AM EST
     ANYTHING no matter how low. Regardless of what their fathers seek or attain, politicians kids are people and they might not be people as thick-skinned and resilient as are the politicians in question. I don't see any point in reporting how the Clinton's problems made Chelsea feel or how Guiliani's  make his kids feel. I don't think that other than simply being a malicious gossip, anyone really sees any point beyond exploiting the kids to hurt the father's political standing.

       Can't we all just to agree to hurt the fathers in other ways?

     

    Parent

    Well yes (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:38:42 AM EST
    But, Giuliani is all about family values, other people's family values. He can't have it both ways.

    Parent
    that doesn't fly (none / 0) (#10)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:44:55 AM EST
     All politicians are for family values based on their words.

      No politician says "I think adultery, divorce, child neglect and general personal irresponsibility  are good things and government should promote them."

      After that it's all just a matter of degrees, isn't it? Given that, any politician is fair based on anyone's personal opinion as to  what degree of promotion of "family values" makes one a hyporrite for being less than perfect.

     

    Parent

    Wow. Parents and children got getting (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    along as well as they would like. Now that is news.

    Next thing we know someone will be explaining to us that BJ's aren't sex and that the vast right wing conspiracy... ooops sorry....wrong guy.

    Anyway, to each of you who have never had family problem's, congratulations and good luck.

    BTW - Squeaky, do you have children? I mean you seem to be so happy to dig now that it isn't your Prince Charming under the gate....

    Dig in? (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 11:48:06 AM EST
    Personally, I have no interest in Giuliani's kids. What is interesting to me is his party's reliance on Family Values as a sucker punch to coo voters. Hypocrisy central?

    Is Giuliani distancing himself from the Family Values platform? I think not.

    He is one nasty man as well. I do think he has bad character and his family shenanigans speak quite a bit about that. He is not remotely fit for office in my opinion. Yes, I suffered through all his BS in NYC.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#12)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:03:14 PM EST
      I think there are countless reasons to oppose Guiliani without need to bring his kids into it.

      My point is the efforts to justify bringing his or anyone else's kids into it permit no prinipled delineation beyond one's personal biases.

     Can we construct a diagram or matrix with private conduct as one axis and public statemtns on the other and fairly quantify what level of private "misconduct" is justifiably exploited (and to what extent) based what level of public lip service to "family values" is displayed?

      Does saying "we need to do more for kids" justify publicizing that a divorced father missed his kid's t-ball and calling up the kid to ask if it hurt his feelings?

     No? then does it justify he has yelled mean things at his kids more than once in anger?

      If not would a pronouncement that the failure of parents to responsibly raise their kids is a leading factor causing teen pregnancy and school drop-outs justify exposing those things?

      Would the parent's failure have to be just a little worse to be publicized if he had said that publicly?   A lot worse?

      Either one of us could find someone willing to start the slime machine rolling against a politician he didn't like and justify based on his perceived (or at least claimed) belief the politician's public words were not in sufficient harmony with his private actions.

      Then, inevitably, someone on the other side uses the same excuse.

      Then, just as inveitably a third person uses the first two to justify it against someone whose "dissonance factor" is less pronounced.

      Then, then  then then, you get pretty close to where we are heading today-- farther and farther in the wrong direction.

     No?

    Parent

    Qualifications (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    Apart from the utterly hypocritical Family Values BS a Presidential candidate, no less any person running for public office, should endure some scrutiny regarding his home and family.

    If the home is in order than there is a good chance that will reflect positively on the quality of public life.  Not that it is a 100% reliable litmus test, but it is often a clear indication of how someone will behave as a public official.

    Your benign examples are obviously trite to support your argument. The fact that his kids do not support him is not trite at all. In fact it speaks volumes as to why he is not fit for office.

    Parent

    So... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:25:25 PM EST
      ... you were one of the voices applauding the Starr investigation and all the other inquiries into Clinton because the information provided  was clear indication of how  he behaved as a public official and and spoke volumes as to why he was unfit for the office?

      In any event, (I need a macro for this) you miss the point that my trite examples were rhetorical to show how anyone can draw any line one they want based on the "dissonance" argument.

     

    Parent

    hahaha (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    ... you were one of the voices applauding the Starr investigation

    Quite a leap there Decon. I would call that empty rhetoric.

    Parent

    how is it a leap.. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:41:47 PM EST
     when it directly tracks what YOU wrote?

    Parent
    In case you forgot... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    a Presidential candidate, no less any person running for public office, should endure some scrutiny regarding his home and family.
    If the home is in order than there is a good chance that will reflect positively on the quality of public life.  Not that it is a 100% reliable litmus test, but it is often a clear indication of how someone will behave as a public official
    .

      Are YOUR words

    Parent

    As are (none / 0) (#22)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    The fact that his kids do not support him is not trite at all. In fact it speaks volumes as to why he is not fit for office.

       If one person's family difficulties provide clear indication and speak volumes about something would not the same hold true for any politician?

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#25)
    by wlgriffi on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:31:41 PM EST
    But Deconstructionist You seem to want to exclude Guiliani's on the basis that since everyone has problems with family members his is not the exception. But when you have nutcases like Coulter spewing vile comments on "liberal" candidates what makes you think there should be an exception to anyone?

    Parent
    because (none / 0) (#26)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:42:03 PM EST
      "She/he/they started it" is unacceptable from a six year old and even more so from adults.

      Regardless of who started it (and opinions will differ on that-- just as when your kids act up) the goal should be to stop it.

      do you tell your kid its OK to call her brother  a bad name as long as he called her one first, or do you tell both of them to behave?

    Parent

    Let's see (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    I think it is called a false syllogism. I will let you do the heavy lifting on that one though, since you pride yourself on your rhetorical skills.

    Parent
    Hypocrisy central. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Gabriel Malor on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:03:30 PM EST
    What is interesting to me is his party's reliance on Family Values as a sucker punch to coo voters. Hypocrisy central?

    What? People for "family values" are not allowed to have complicated relationships with their children? Jeez.

    Parent

    Family values? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:21:14 PM EST
    They should at least try to adhere to them don't you think?

    What does the word values mean to you?

    Preach what I do not practice?

    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    You really are an illogical person.

    The kid's feelings on hs father's affairs are as relevant, hell, more so, than BJs.

    Neither a re of course. But you insist that one is and the other is not.

    It is why people wonder about you soemtimes Jim. It's one thing to be disingenuous. It is another to do it in a way that is so easy to get called on.

    Parent

    But (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:23:10 PM EST
      Calling him on it is totally ineffective in a forum where so many also employ a double-standard based entirely on whose ox gets gored and abide by no principles either.

      It's amazing how this hypocricy thing works in so many contexts. It's just pathetic that so many people are hypocritical about hypocricy.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:21:40 PM EST
    Sigh......

    The BJ comment was mostly an attempt at some sarcastic humor.. But if you want to explore it, what do you say about a father that demonstrates it is okay to cheat on his wife, lie to the public and then parse the language to death... even worse, demonstrate to all young women that is proper to trade sexual favors for fame and fortune..

    My point was, is and will be. Leave the children out of it.

    I find it in poor taste at best.

    Parent

    Children and dogs (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 12:17:52 PM EST
    Everyone thinks their way is the only right way.

    I find it hard to believe J's unusual level of venom toward Rudy ("I think Rudy's arrogance knows no bounds.", etc.) is due to his family life.

    This sounds personal to me.

    If your grown children... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Dadler on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:48:41 PM EST
    ...are not speaking to you (and they aren't criminals or addicts or cult members, etc.), it is a fairly good indicator that the most important relationship in your life has fallen apart, and that you are largely to blame.  The only sane people I've known whose children don't speak to them fall basically into two categories: abusers and emotional incompetents.  

    There's a major difference between having differences with your kids, everyone does, and having your personal relationship with them essentially end.  This indicates a much more profound dysfunction at work, and a significant failure of personality.  Hell, word got out that Chelsea was pretty pissed at Bill over Monicagate, and who can blame her?  But they did not cease having a relationship as a result.  Why?  For all his faults, Clinton did not have trouble communicating in the realm of a feeling human being.  

    I think, politically, this speaks to an inability Rudy has to deal effectively with diverse personality types.  That's a bad trait in any leader, much less president of the U.S..  It's one of the myriad of Bush incompetencies.

    I mean, what did it say about Gingrich that while he was busy giving Clinton sh*t over Monica, he was himself diddling a staffer.  It all speaks to rank hypocrisy.  The "family values" talk from the right is exclusive in nature, not inclusive.  It sets out a conrete platform and says "these are famiuly values, these are not, there is no middle ground, because middle ground and ambiguity are liberal and we despise what is liberal."

    Parent

    Not Logical (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    a Presidential candidate, no less any person running for public office, should endure some scrutiny regarding his home and family.
    If the home is in order than there is a good chance that will reflect positively on the quality of public life.  Not that it is a 100% reliable litmus test, but it is often a clear indication of how someone will behave as a public official
    does not imply that
    ... [I was] one of the voices applauding the Starr investigation and all the other inquiries into Clinton because the information provided  was clear indication of how  he behaved as a public official and and spoke volumes as to why he was unfit for the office?

    How does the $70 million Starr witchhunt, reflect on how Clinton is with his family? And I would hardly call that some scrutiny. It was all about his public dealings, and if I remember correctly Starr came up empty handed.

    Clinton's family life seems really solid to me. And whether you like it or not most people agree.

    Giuliani on the other hand is a nasty guy that mistreated his wife and most likely his children.
    That is not someone who should be leading the US.

    Ouch! (none / 0) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 02:04:50 PM EST


    10 years of complaining about the clenis ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Sailor on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 04:54:37 PM EST
    ... and now rethugs, who run on the platform of 'family values' say it doesn't count when their candidate is involved.

    sailor (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 05:57:13 PM EST
    True. But the party of love and forgiveness has done nothing but try for payback....

    Parent
    sab (none / 0) (#36)
    by sab on Sun Mar 04, 2007 at 07:30:34 PM EST
    This kid sounds like a complete class act.

    Rudy is a scary guy (none / 0) (#40)
    by Jim Albertson on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 07:24:11 PM EST
    and he's a yankees fan....I remember his son use to join him at the yankees games - was obese and seemed  a bit troubled....maybe its payback time.  i

    Funny image of Giuliani and Michael Milken (none / 0) (#41)
    by Jim Albertson on Mon Mar 05, 2007 at 08:36:20 PM EST
    I just saw this on Fark.com, it is a fake campaign poster of the two of them running on the same ticket. Very inspired coupling. Giuliani will likely end his thoughts on running if this dirt storm continues to grow. Here is the link for those interested http://www.theweeklydonut.org/index.php/2007/03/05/bonding-for-a-greater-america/

    Giuliani's Son Admits Falling Out Over Judith Nathan | 37 comments (37 topical)