Quote :

"City taxpayers picked up tab for Judith Giuliani's visit to kin in Pennsylvania In the fall of 2001, city cops chauffeured Rudy Giuliani's then-mistress, Judith Nathan, to her parents' Pennsylvania home 130 miles away on the taxpayers' dime. Records show that city cops refueled at an ExxonMobil station down the road from Nathan's childhood home in Hazleton on Oct. 20, 2001, while Giuliani stayed behind in New York attending 9/11 funerals. A similar receipt pops up at a different Hazleton gas station two months later, when Nathan apparently went home for a pre-Christmas visit with her parents. The records show that - in addition to using City Hall funds to take Giuliani and Nathan to 11 secret trysts in the Hamptons, as has been previously reported - taxpayers were paying to ferry Nathan on long-distance trips without Giuliani, now a Republican contender for President."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/01/2007-12-01_city_taxpayers_picked_up_tab_for_judith_-1.html

Quote :

"The Shag Fund not only paid for the 11 tryst visits to Hamptons. -- It paid for hotel and other expenses for mayoral aides -- in addition to the security detail -- who also went with the mayor to the Hamptons on the tryst weekends. -- Nathan's NYPD-chauffeured trips (without Rudy) to visit her parents in Pennsylvania, 130 miles outside the city. -- NYPD detectives and city-owned undercover Dodge to drive Nathan around the city. -- NYPD detectives and city-owned undercover Dodge to drive Nathan's friends and family around the city even when she wasn't in the car. -- NYPD security detail for Nathan, personally approved by Bernard Kerik. -- NYPD cops to walk Nathan's dog. "

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/060009.php

It's bad enough that he was publicly cheating on his wife, but to do it on the taxpayer's dime? Is this what Republicans want in a president?

12/2/2007 11:49:47 AM

The also tried to hide the expenses, just to make it clear that what they were doing was wrong.

12/2/2007 12:02:35 PM

Was this what was asked of him in the debate the other night that he said he had no idea about?

12/2/2007 12:06:05 PM

these were dangerous times and the mistresses of politicians were in danger. It was the tax payers responsibilities to provide extra security for them.

12/2/2007 12:21:47 PM

And her dogs. Her dogs were in danger as well.

12/2/2007 12:32:05 PM

oh ... this is good

12/2/2007 12:49:25 PM

Quote :

"Is this what Republicans want in a president?"

nope

12/2/2007 1:23:11 PM

Quote :

"The Shag Fund"

12/2/2007 2:02:34 PM

Yet what do you want to bet that this will all somehow get swept under the rug and that slimy bastard won't receive an ounce of punishment?

12/2/2007 5:41:04 PM

clinton did it for years

12/2/2007 5:54:05 PM

This is great news. Hopefully Guiliani will lose a lot of steam in light of this.

The other front-runners are a joke. Both Thompson and McCain are old as shit and have health issues which make them less electable. Romney is a Republican version of John Kerry, only more slimy.

Huckabee and Paul could be serious contenders if Guiliani drops out of the lead.

12/2/2007 5:56:26 PM

Quote :

"Huckabee and Paul could be serious contenders if Guiliani drops out of the lead"

Huckabee, maybe -- but I don't think that's what any of us want. Ron Paul will not be a serious candidate in this election, and people like him will not be serious candidates for at least a couple after this.

If Giuliani goes then I fear terribly that Romney wins, and then we're fucked.

12/2/2007 6:01:27 PM

Quote :

"The Shag Fund"

12/2/2007 6:07:23 PM

Giuliani is a hateful immoral bastard. You think this is bad?

Check out the "cabinet" he has amassed of people he will put in power if he is elected. It is composed of vehemently and OPENLY anti-Muslim and anti-Arab racists and assholes.

12/2/2007 6:43:42 PM

well that seals the deal for me

im voting for guiliani

12/2/2007 7:07:26 PM

Good for you!!!! He will start more wars than Bush could even dream of, and will lead to the destruction of millions of lives all over the world.

12/2/2007 7:11:03 PM

more wars are always the answer

12/2/2007 7:17:15 PM

inorite!!!!111

12/2/2007 7:17:44 PM

This is unrelated, but it's about Giuliani, so...

Quote :

"Another day, another Rudy fib. The Washington Examiner reports today that Rudy is now saying that he actually wanted to deport all 400,000 illegal immigrants from New York when he was Mayor. “If they could, I would have turned all the people over," Rudy, who's trying to win over nativist GOP primary voters right now, told the paper. Rudy claimed that the Immigration and Naturalization Service wouldn't do it, however. "It would have helped me. I would have had a smaller population. I would have had fewer problems.” Rudy had a funny way of expressing this desire at the time, however. Back in 1994, he said (via Nexis): “Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens. If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair."

http://tinyurl.com/2zctpn

12/11/2007 10:12:55 PM

Guiliani's a twat.

12/11/2007 10:45:06 PM

didnt slick willie do the same thing

12/11/2007 10:58:52 PM

not sure if getting a BJ in the oval office counts as using "public money". he obviously didn't use it for dry cleaning.

either way.... what's your point? He's not running for president, much less running while trying to court the "family values" voters

12/11/2007 11:33:47 PM

im not supporting rudy, im just saying that dems seem to have selective outrage on shit like this. its only wrong when a repub does it cause they have morals, since dems and libs make no claim of having morals it therefore is ok because they havent violated anything

12/12/2007 12:03:27 AM

So Dems have no reason to be more angry when a Republican does it because they're so devious about courting the family values votes? I don't like it when Dems do it either, but it is worse when Republicans do it because they specifically attack this type of behavior.

12/12/2007 12:08:04 AM