Comments on: Papa Giuliani

By: 2008 Presidential Election » Papa Giuliani

2008 Presidential Election » Papa Giuliani — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:31:43 +0000

[...] Bookworm added an interesting post today on Papa GiulianiHere’s a small reading [...]

By: Here come the Weasel results « Bookworm Room

Here come the Weasel results « Bookworm Room — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:39:29 +0000

[...] Papa Giuliani Bookworm Room [...]

By: The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council

The Glittering Eye » Blog Archive » Eye on the Watcher’s Council — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 19:57:49 +0000

[...] Bookworm Room, “Papa Giuliani” [...]

By: soccer dad

soccer dad — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 03:22:22 +0000

Isn’t it a bit ironic that the one major Republican candidate who’s been married to the same woman is a Mormon?

By: Mike Devx

Mike Devx — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 13:33:07 +0000

Well, the divorces are a factor. The estranged children are a factor. Even children who do not support their father (or mother), who go out of their way to politically oppose them… these are all factors.

Part of making our choice for President is that we choose a man or woman whom we intrinsically admire and trust. Making a good first choice for spouse is an important indicator of wisdom and good decision-making. For many, sticking through the bad times is an indicator of religious faith and moral conviction. Raising your children well and teaching them to be respectful, and earning their devotion, is another strong positive.

So, yes, I think these factors exist, and are important. We appear to be able to factor in many other aspects of our favorite candidate, as well, however.

By: ymarsakar

ymarsakar — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 18:38:41 +0000

Reagan’s biological child wasn’t behind him, since his politics weren’t Reagan based. Though Reagan’s adopted child, Michael, was behind Reagan.

These things… happen to the best of us.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:18:08 +0000

So what if Guiliani’s children are not behind him? The one thing I appreciate about Rudy is his upfrontness about who he is (and isn’t). Why would we expect that the President would have some kind of “Father Knows Best” family dynamic? It is pretty common for over-achieving fathers — be they pastors, therapists, performing artists or leaders of industry — to have off-spring who hate their father’s guts. I think this comes from the single minded drive that made “success” (however defined) for the father the most important thing is his life — more important than his family (or his faith). This all consuming drive also wrecks marriages.

By: Bookworm

Bookworm — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:16:07 +0000

Zabrina, as you can see, I said that in the update I added. It’s not just the religious faith, though, that matters. I think what matters is how that faith views marriage — and Mormons still hew to the old-fashioned idea that marriage is a patriarchy, not a partnership. From that, I concluded that it’s possible that Romney’s public and private leadership abilities don’t diverge much.

As for your excellent comment, Francis, it is true that Hillary seems divorced in everything but name only. However, the fact remains that she didn’t actually divorce. I suspect her decision was about power and politics, and not about religion or commitment, but the fact is that, for political purposes, she is still married.

By: Zabrina

Zabrina — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:43:26 +0000

You said, “Of the leading names on the Republican side, only Mitt Romney has a clean marital record, having been married to the same woman for 38 years (a commitment that may well have been helped by the fact that, just as he is an extremely handsome man, so too is his wife a very beautiful woman).”

I thought you were going to say, “a commitment that may well have been helped by the fact that they take their religious faith seriously.” That seems to me the much more obvious, important, and self-evidently outstanding fact here in this crowd of people you examine, not the Romneys’ physical attractiveness.

By: Francis W. Porretto

Francis W. Porretto — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 10:11:39 +0000

“Hillary Clinton’s marriage, despite its manifest peculiarities, has lasted 32 years. One can wonder what kept her with a compulsive womanizer for so long, but the fact is that she took her marriage vows seriously, and she and Bill are still together.”

Are they? Indeed, were they ever? Bill has behaved as if he were a bachelor, pretty much throughout his marriage, while Hillary has behaved as if her husband were a tactical political asset rather than a spouse of the usual sort.

There’s pretty good evidence that the Clintons haven’t slept together for several years now. Well, they’re both in their sixties, so perhaps that’s not as significant as it would have been thirty years ago. But how much time have they spent together since Bill left the Oval Office and Hillary joined the Senate? How much time did they spend together during the Clinton Administration — when the cameras weren’t rolling? How often does the Clinton nuclear family get together for any reason?

Conservatives might divorce as frequently as liberals, but that has no bearing on their attitudes toward their marriages, nor toward marriage in general. As a rule, one ought not to form generalizations from high profile individuals of any description; they tend to be off-axis in many ways.