Rudy: I'd Happily Let Wife Judith Nathan Hang Out At Cabinet Meetings
Apologies to readers for the momentary slide into gossip -- we try to cover everything here, even things like ... Rudy's willingness as President to let his wife Judith Nathan attend cabinet meetings if she chooses.
Rudy has just revealed as much an interview with ABC News:
In an interview with Barbara Walters, former New York City Mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said that if elected president, he would have no problem allowing his wife Judith Giuliani to sit in on cabinet meetings, "If she wanted to. If they were relevant to something that she was interested in. I mean that would be something that I'd be very, very comfortable with," he said.He also tells Walters that he welcomes his wife's involvement in policy decisions during the campaign "to the extent she wants to be...I couldn't have a better adviser." When asked if she will sit in on policy meetings, Judith said: "if [Rudy] asks me to, yes. And certainly in the areas of health care."
From what I know about Judith Nathan -- I covered Rudy for some time at The New York Observer -- I suspect that Judith would be more than happy to take Rudy up on his offer.
The full interview airs on "20/20" tomorrow at 10 P.M.
Update: And since we're getting all salacious on you, don't miss this YouTube posted by Ben Smith wrapping up the Rudy-Judi saga.
Well, hell, why not? Donna Hanover can hang out in the Rose Garden too!
March 29, 2007 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just going to wait for the howls of outrage from the right over this. The right was so pleased when Hillary Clinton's behavior was in any way distinguishable from a doormat. I'm certain that Rudy will be held to the same standards as Bill. Right?
March 29, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should that read Current Wife Judith Nathan?
March 29, 2007 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Judith Nathan an R.N.? Its not like he's saying she'd be involved in foreign policy. You'd think any politician and spouse would have picked up on the contrast between Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush and which of the two was a huge political asset and which is "disliked" by a huge percentage of the public.
March 29, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, Laura being noncontroversial hasn't helped her husband escape being one of the worst presidents in American history, and Hillary being controversial didn't prevent her husband from leaving this country in better shape than when he found it.
March 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol.
March 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Because it's health care that she mentions, and not foreign policy, it's somehow less of an issue? Huh?
March 29, 2007 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Laura had any decency she would have divorced that monster decades ago. Of course she would have had hell to pay squeezing child support payments out of him.
March 29, 2007 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just think its kind of much ado about nothing unless we find out that Judith wants to run for the Senate and then the presidency like Hillary Clinton. He thinks her advice is valuable and maybe it is. I still find it hard to believe Giuliani can get nominated.
March 29, 2007 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, I'd turn that around. Bush would have been in far worse shape a lot sooner without Laura Bush being the kind of "First Lady" she is and if Hillary Clinton hadn't been as polarizing and antipathetic as she is, it might not have taken Democrats 12 years to win back the House, or they might even never have lost it in '94.
More people work for Laura Bush in the White House than worked for FDR. The taxpayers are making a huge political gift with that first ladyship. George W. Bush is a monster but his wife is the politically intelligent model for first ladies and thats not meant in a cynical way, like they should act dumb.
March 29, 2007 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats lost in 1994 because of Hillary Clinton? Interesting. Because she was the anti-Laura Bush. The Laura Bush who goes on national televisions and dismisses the daily violence in Iraq? Who has done exactly what for this country? Except help insulate the American public from her dangerously incompetent husband? Or, in your words, that "monster"? Why on earth is someone who is complicit in this a "politically intelligent model" for a first lady? It's desirable to aide and abet a morally repugnant human being?
March 29, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
No question about it the voters reacted to the "co-presidency" in '94. The American people didn't want the president's consort to have that kind of power.
She may have made a few missteps but Laura Bush is generally a Betty Crocker persona. In real life, she's probably nothing like that, sure. Its kind of like decorating the White House for Christmas or having nice flower gardens in public places - non controversial and pleasant and theres a place for that.
March 29, 2007 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right....because allowing unaccountable, unelected officials total free rein in the White House has worked so well for us in the past....
March 30, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nurse Nathan spent much of her nursing career as a medical supply salesperpon for US Surgical Corp. If people worried about a high priced female lawyer deciding health care, they can also have identical worries about a medical industry representative.
If Democratic Party member Hillary can be made into a b***h, Republican nurse Nathan can be made into the home-wrecking healthcare industry spokesperson from Hell.
March 30, 2007 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's a place for Stepford Wives, too. In the movies. Not in real life. While it may be politically savvy to appear as a Stepford Wife, it's truly sad that we Americans are so uncomfortable with a First Lady who behaves differently than a doormat.
March 30, 2007 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink