34 Comments

• 1. The Political News You Ne&hellip  |  December 1st, 2007 at 3:29 pm

  [...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

• 2. Brian Gregory  |  December 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm

  Why hasn’t this broken into a massive scandal yet?

• 3. sleepygene  |  December 1st, 2007 at 4:24 pm

  The article clearly states that the campaign may be pushing the envelope of violating FEC rules, but it is not clear rules were broken. I don’t think this will amount to much, Obama is too smart to do something stupid like say using tax payer money to drive his mistress around NYC. Now who would do that?

• 4. sleepygene  |  December 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pm

  Matt-

  Any response from the Clinton campaign on your FEC complaint. It has been 15 business day correct?

• 5. Ricorun  |  December 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pm

  By the way, what happened to your complaint with the FEC regarding Hillary and Chinatown, Matt and Mark?

• 6. Matt Margolis  |  December 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  I’ve received an acknowledgement and a case number regarding our FEC complaint. I’m hoping to get a response to the complaint within the next week.

• 7. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 5:01 pm

  Police guards and Secret Service are there to protect you. You’re not supposed to sacrifice your personal life to make it easier for them.

  But whatever, clearly since Clinton used government time and property you don’t care.

• 8. sleepygene  |  December 1st, 2007 at 5:27 pm

  Kahn-

  Are you defending Rudy’s use of police protection for his mistress? And is your rationale, it is okay because Clinton did it too?

  Nice

• 9. Ricorun  |  December 1st, 2007 at 5:45 pm

  <bPolice guards and Secret Service are there to protect you. You’re not supposed to sacrifice your personal life to make it easier for them.

  I suppose the operative word there is “you”. Not your mistress, and not your mistress’s family. The dogs, well… that’s negotiable. Lol!

• 10. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 5:50 pm

  No - not that Clinton did. That she deserved protection because she was his mistress the same as his wife and for the same reason. Because her life and liberty would be put at risk because of her personal relationship with someone in power. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  Actually - as I have stated before I don’t care where Clinton got his sex. Well, actually I do care that he used Police to have women state employees brought to him (crime). I hate that he smeared one (tort). And that he lied under oath when challenged with the tort (crime). That is the difference. Clinton’s acts were criminal. And he lost the tort case. And, he was disbarred for lying. I guess the Court disagreed with the Senate.

  If Clinton had a mistress outside the White House, well yes. I would expect the Secret Service to protect her. She would be in danger, would she not? Without the empolyer/employee thing and the lying under oath - I would say he had and has the right sleep with someone besides Hillary.

• 11. KCJ  |  December 1st, 2007 at 6:05 pm

  Bill Clinton had the secret service protect him while he was having affairs. He probably still does.

  But, let’s be honest here. If a particular person is being protected, if he or she is with another person at any given time, the rules don’t really change. The priority of the Secret Service or the police guards or whatever is to protect the person they’ve been charged with protecting.

• 12. winnowhead  |  December 1st, 2007 at 6:06 pm

  I doubt anything will come from this. I have friends who have worked for non-profit organizations with both PAC and non-partisan wings, and the rules are very clear on how time much be managed. Any employee’s “political time” gets billed to the PAC, and issue advocacy to the primary organization.

  I’m sure it’s roughly the same with political campaigns - the money is coming from different places, but no one mistakes that the purpose of a candidate’s PAC is essentially to raise their own profile. As long as funding from the campaign isn’t going toward that work, there’s no conflict. It’s a matter of separating out where the funding comes from and keeping good records.

  There’s nothing in the article to suggest any funny business accept some implied funny business.

• 13. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  KCJ and Winnowhead. But we’re not talking about charging their time. And, you have to remember that people are protected so they can’t be used as a weapon against the primary. So, the mistress would be protected against kidnap, so her life couldn’t be held over the mayor, governor, or president. Also, it is because of the public position that they are in jeopardy.

  No - a mistress deserves and requires protection as much as the family, and for the same reasons. Think about it. Why is the family protected? And isn’t EVERYTHING the family does private time?

• 14. winnowhead  |  December 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  Kahn, I don’t know if you misunderstood me or not. I was addressing the original post, not Giuliani.

  In any case, ultimately laws separating PACs from campaigns (or any other organization) are about money - ie, is the campaign using PAC money, or are non-political donations used to advance candidates the donor didn’t intend. That doesn’t seem to be the case here, and hence, I don’t see anything coming from it.

  In any case, I’m sure that won’t stop people from implying horrible wrong-doing.

• 15. liberalT  |  December 1st, 2007 at 7:03 pm

  in other words Kahn. Bill did it - he is a democrat so you will find some way to interpret his actions so that they are criminal. However - when Rudy does it he is a Republican so he cannot by definition by guilty of anything so make up some reason why its not a crime or even inappropriate.

  Nice . You, Mark, and Matt should get together and write a book “how to be a hopeless partisan hack in the face of all fact or reason” - you could just cut and paste your comments from here.

  WHY WHY WHY can’t you just admit that politicians in general do bad things and not ALWAYS have to turn it into REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS - pathetic

• 16. Gozer the Carpathian  |  December 1st, 2007 at 7:53 pm

  *Sighs*

  I’m not voting for Rudi so I could care less what he did with a mistress or not. I think we can all agree that politicians do far worse than that on the tax payers dime. Hell just getting paid for all that travel they do (and I’d question the need for much of it) means more to me than who’s being protected when.

  As for the original post, I doubt much will come of it. It’s too “politcal” for the common man to get. I mean seriously PAC? Campaign? Huh? The divisions and differences are confusing if you pay attention, how does it come across to those who don’t?

• 17. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 9:09 pm

  lib-T, No. If Bill had a mistress she would have deserved protection. But he used his position of authority to get sex from state employees whil in Arkansas. Actually, what he did in the White House was legal.

  But when he smeared an Arkansas state employee to keep her quiet it resulted in a law suit. In testimony for that law suit, he lied. Thats what got him impeached. He lost the law suit and was disbarred for lying. But the majority of the Senate ignored their oaths to vote on the facts and refused to convict him.

  It was not the BJ’s in the White House that were wrong. It was the sexual harassment while governor, the slander and libel of women he’d harassed, and the lying under oath to cover up his crimes.

  I wouldn’t have dragged Clinton into the discussion if I was you. But whatever.

  Do you see the difference? A mistress deserves the same protection as a family member and for the same reason.

• 18. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pm

  Winnow - yes, I missed what you were talking about. Apologies.

• 19. liberalT  |  December 1st, 2007 at 11:48 pm

  no - I am sorry I don’t. I am sorry but you neglect the fact that Rudi was married at the time to another woman. I might see your point it it was his girlfriend - but I am sorry Rudi was not correct
  to use tax payer money to shuttle around his whore

• 20. liberalT  |  December 1st, 2007 at 11:48 pm

  i meant if he was single and had a girlfriend

• 21. Kahn  |  December 1st, 2007 at 11:54 pm

  whore?

  What matters is, would a threat against her influence the mayor. It’s the same reason we protect their families. As citizens alone, they don’t deserve it. As people important to the office holder, they do?

  But, well obviously you have a hate thing going.

• 22. liberalT  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 am

  no - she was not his family member. So if Clinton shuttled women he had affairs around on Air Force one when they needed to travel you would be fine with that? using your tax money…

  no - no hate - just common sense.

• 23. Kahn  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 1:53 am

  um, whore? No hate?

  Air Force 1 is different than a Police limo.

  You don’t get it, I know. If she was important to him, she deserved protection. That would be true of a gay lover by the way. The protection goes with the relationship to the person with power. Not marital status. Protection of the loved one is protection of the elected official.

• 24. liberalT  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 3:21 am

  so now you are saying that a government official should be allowed to give special protection of the government to anybody who is important to that person? The difference between a limo and air force 1 is in cost not in principle..

  so you are saying that you would be fine with a married president send his gay lovers around the town in limos paid for by tax payers because they are important to him?

• 25. js  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 am

  Once upon a time, we expected morality from our elected officials to be above board, and unquestionalbe.

  Now, we accept thier immorality, and make excuses for them.

  What happened to America? Just because a pervert has a good idea, do we consider him/her to be leadership material?

  Things cant last like this, our government will eventually be undermined because of it.

• 26. Dittohead4Life  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 am

  Why hasn’t this broken into a massive scandal yet?

  It will, Brian, if Earbama’s momentum contiues at its current upward slope. ClintonInc., and their biggest PAC, the DBMD, will see to that.

• 27. Dittohead4Life  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 11:03 am

  WHY WHY WHY can’t you just admit that politicians in general do bad things and not ALWAYS have to turn it into REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS - pathetic

  liberetardT, don’t you ever think before you post your inanity? Do you aske the same of your fellow lemmings? Go read ANY lefty blog, or some of your buddies’ comments here, any time a Republican is caught up in a so-called scandal. Your tired-ass party is well-versed in the smear game, being that their issues are so far out of the mainstream that they don’t dare promote them. Get real, girlfriend, and think before you dive…

• 28. Dittohead4Life  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 11:05 am

  Whore? Now she’s a whore? Gee, libretardT, I didn’t realize you were Rudy’s ex-wife…

• 29. Dittohead4Life  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 am

  test post…

• 30. Dittohead4Life  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 am

  Mark/Matt,

  Why are the words we are required to type in the box below the comments sometimes unreadable? It’s making it very difficult for me to enter my profound posts…

• 31. Kahn  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 12:01 pm

  Ditto, hit the button that looks like the re-cycle sign (just abobe the speaker symbol) and it will give you new set.

  LibT - yes. Thats what I’m saying. The protection given is to protect the elected official. It is the official who would decide. If Barney Frank were elected president his “significant other”. would rate protection. You know, I think thats the key phrase - significant other.

  Incredible that I’m apparently more liberal than you are.

  The first family by the way doesn’t fly on AF1. Well, not alone. But I don’t think you really want to know how things work.

• 32. Dittohead4Life  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 12:10 pm

  But I don’t think you really want to know how things work.

  Gee, Kahn, ya think? Do you think any of these lemmings even care how things work, unless it benefits them?

  And thanks for the tip on the recycle button. Also, I’ve found that if you get one of the words correct, and are even close on the other, that it works, and your comment gets posted.

  Have a good Sunday, folks–it’s time for ol’ keef to get his domestic chores done…

• 33. Almiranta  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  Kahn, etc., the efforts to smear Rudy and his wife are just the opening salvo in the Left’s campaign of the Politics of Personal Destruction.

  According to them, a man who is in a failed marriage but who has yet to officially end it, who becomes involved in another relationship which is a committed and monogamous relationship resulting in marriage, is foul scum and unqualified to be dog catcher. (And that woman he marries is still, according to them, a WHORE.)

  Of course, we all know their position on a serial adulterer who boffs women whenever he can, with no claim of planning to end his marriage, with no commitment to any of the women—sometimes without even the consent of some of the women—in what appears to be unrestrained recreational sex over a period spanning decades, accompanied by an established plan to ridicule, attack, or destroy women who report his activities. They think he is absolutely wonderful, defend him to the max, and loudly proclaim that “Character is not necessary to be President”.

  See, if you are a radical Lib, you look at the letter after the guy’s name first, and if it is a D, he gets a free pass, while the R’s are never ever acceptable under any circumstances or for any reason. Different rules, Kahn.

  As for a scandal, don’t hold your breath. Remember how little attention the Bhuddist nun thing recieved? Anyone remember much of a scandal about Gore using federal resources to raise money for the Dems?

  It won’t happen. Wrong party.

  Just look at the lemming posts here—-to them, all they have to do when one of their own is caught with his hand in the cookie jar is try to divert attention to something, real or not, they can be outraged by on our side.

  AS IF a whole list of misdeeds by ANYONE ELSE could justify or cancel out misdeeds by Barack.

• 34. js  |  December 2nd, 2007 at 1:11 pm

  We find politicians all over who dont keep thier word. They swear an oath to serve and protect, but look what they did, they sold america down the river to foreign interests, for profit.

  Why should we pursue the same treck? We know Rudy doesnt keep his word in his personnal life. What makes anyone think he could or would as the president?