Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

For Mrs. Giuliani, the NRA Can Wait

Giuliani and Judith Nathan at their wedding in May 2003. (AP).

When you get to your third marriage, you take your wife's call -- even if you're in the middle of a speech to the National Rifle Association.

Rudy Giuliani was giving what could be one of the most important speeches of his presidential candidacy this afternoon -- speaking to a skeptical NRA audience -- when his cell phone rang.

"Let's see now, this is my wife calling, I think," Giuliani said as he fished for his cell phone in his jacket pocket.

And answered it.

"Hello dear," he said, apparently talking to his wife, Judith Giuliani. "I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?"

While the audience waited -- and waited -- patiently, Giuliani continued to talk to his wife.

"I love you," he said, smiling as he listened to the answer. "I'll call you as soon as I'm finished. Have a safe trip. Talk to you later. I love you."

As he put the phone away, he turned to the audience and added: "It's better that way," apparently a reference to the alternative -- letting his wife's call go to voicemail.

And then, as if nothing had happened, he launched back into his speech, earning tepid applause as he attempted to justify his gun control efforts as mayor.

Update: Giuliani's forgotten about his cell phone's "silent" option before. Watch him answer a call at an event in Florida in June.

--Michael D. Shear

By Washington Post editors  |  September 21, 2007; 12:01 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Ushering in Obama
In Atlanta

Next: Clinton's Familiar Third Rail


She's just checking up on him. If you married a serial adulterer, you have to be always wondering if he is really at the NRA or is he working on #4, wouldn't you? He's such a jerk. Why is it that Republicans are constantly trying to distract voters from their pervasive adultery by pretending that gay marriage is the real threat to the stability of the family. Couldn't be crass politics and gross hypocrisy, could it?

Posted by: axobrewton | September 25, 2007 7:25 AM | Report abuse

"Hey, youse guys! It's my second or t'oid wife!"
You media machers & Hillarrhoids must be wetting your skivvies in hysterics passing on the Giulianista fraud that Republicans think Giuliani can beat the Senatrix! Remember he FLED from Ankleless Annie in the 2000 NY Senate race? (Dropped out "becauce of cansuh.") Could be the 2-headed 4-flatfooted Billary monster isn't so "forgetful" of the obvious as the media & the Giulianisti. DEPORT GIULIANI & TANCREDO!

Posted by: sawargos | September 24, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

Rudy's not a bad politician, although a bit supercilious and ineffectual as a family what?

As mayor of NY he knows much better than the NRA red-necks that gun ownership must be qualified.

One of the mysteries of political life is how the Republicans have been able to seduce the working class into thinking that the Democrats will steal their guns and eat their babies. These poor working stiffs owe everything they have to the Dems and yet they vote for Bush based on the lies of the NRA.

Posted by: JohnnyBoy1950 | September 24, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

What kind of jerk answers a phone call in the middle of a speech?

Rudy was in the middle of mangling the words of the Second Amendment (see the video clip) and used the phone gag as a way to deflect attention.

Rudy was a gun banner in NYC - now he claims to be pro-gun? What a phony!

Rudy is unqualified to be President.

Posted by: pmoog | September 24, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

The phone call in the middle of a speech is a great tactic. While speaking to a military group, Hillary could take a call from Gen. Petraeus. "You want believe who just called me," she exclaims.

While speaking to African-Americans, Obama could take a call from the Rev. Jackson. "Yo, bro, how's it hanging."

And the President, speaking to born agains, takes a call from God. "He tells me I'm doing a great job, to ignore the liberals and the democrats. They're wrong and I'm right."

I vote for Bob Newhart for President.

Posted by: jparks99 | September 23, 2007 10:43 AM | Report abuse

After how he treated his previous wife, publicly humiliating her. Trying to show what an adoring husband he is now, is deceptive and a not very good acting job. I had to laugh when I heard about it. These politicians will stoop to anything. And the sad part is most people fall for it. If people want to elect a president of high virtue and a long happy marriage they should look to Ron Paul. He's been married 50 years and has a happy well adjusted family that loves him and supports his campaign.

Posted by: Kurtis1 | September 22, 2007 9:40 PM | Report abuse

Still happily married after more than 30 years, I can honestly state that if DH were to answer my call during a speech he was making, I would give him an earful--but AFTER his speech, not during. How rude and inconsiderate even if it is staged.

If Rudy wants to prove he loves "this" wife, he needs to find a new method. In a solid relationship with supporive spouses, what wife wouldn't know her presidential candidate husband's schedule enough to know when he was making an important speech? His little routine actually hurts his image as a devoted husband with a loving wife. It is rude rather than funny, and you have to wonder about the logic behind pulling such a stunt in front of the NRA. I don't think this is a group of voters who puts a priority on whether or not Rudy really "loves" this wife. The fact is, it is a "given" that he loves her unless he proves otherwise ala Bill Clinton.

Posted by: lottapaws | September 22, 2007 8:49 PM | Report abuse

sigh. "It's better that way."???? Are you kidding me? Doesn't he realize this makes him look weak; his wife's need to have phone reassurance is urgent enough to interrupt one of his most important speeches of his primary race? First of all, is the woman really that selfish that she can't see her personal gratification is impacting her own bread and butter? Secondly, who wants a president who's at his wife's beck and call. Think about it -- fast forward: The state of the nation address, interrupted by a phone call from the wife. Or worse still, it's another national emergency public address -- interrupted by a phone call from the wife. YOu GOTTA be kidding me.

Posted by: julian4 | September 22, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

this is a tired schtick Rudy G has used before to show the public 1) he actually loves THIS wife (unlike those other ones) and 2) he's a spontaneous guy who 3) thinks the way to a happy marriage is feigning supplication

Posted by: tonysmith | September 22, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

If this is not staged, then Rudy just doesn't give his audience enough respect. He should have his phone turned off so the speech will not be interrupted. It's not like he does not have a team of assistance behind him to take and screen his phone calls. But then it's the NRA, who cares.

Posted by: Virginian1 | September 22, 2007 9:30 AM | Report abuse

If elected, President Giuliani's views may change back to what they were -- an election reversion.

Posted by: esch | September 21, 2007 11:51 PM | Report abuse

I believe Guiliani's "conversion" about as much as I believe Bloomberg is a Republican. It is so fitting that Guiliani's suit AGAINST gun makers/sellers/owners went before the appeals court on the day he spoke to the NRA.

I'm sure Guiliani would "discover" that licensing guns would be "reasonable" if he were elected and a gun "license" would top $1000 or $10000 a year very shortly.


Posted by: natkins | September 21, 2007 11:17 PM | Report abuse

How UNprofessional, rude and arrogant. But then, that's Rudy.

Posted by: morningglory51 | September 21, 2007 9:32 PM | Report abuse

You're on a slippery slope, gunsarebad. Start messing with the Constitution, and what's to stop other people chopping out YOUR favourite bits?

Plenty of people were being killed when the 2nd Amendment was passed. The Framers knew that but thought it a price worth paying.

I'm not sure what you mean by "rapid fire automatic weapon", but if you mean full-auto, that IS illegal. If you mean semi-auto civilian "assault rifles", practically nobody is ever killed with those in the US.

Posted by: Bud0 | September 21, 2007 9:02 PM | Report abuse

ECOSTARR - thank you for recognizing the issue of states rights, a lich-pin to our society - I even believe we fought as war over it...shame too many others (gunsarebad...mmkay) want to dictate our rights. BTW, can the fascists out there tell when they have ever seen a gun kill a person? I've gone so far as to place one of loaded .45's on the coffee table in front of me and call it names...guess never flinched...leave the law abiding permit carriers alone and go after the criminal element that get guns whether they are legal or not...

Fred 08

Posted by: rcaslow | September 21, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

I hope the Dem nominee adopts the same stance as many new progressive Democrats, such as Tester and Webb. Leave gun control to be dealt with at the local level. If people in rural areas don't want gun control, that's their business. If people in urban areas want it because of crime, that's their business too. Congress shouldn't be involved in it other than to create and manage informational databases that local jurisdictions can tap into. I hate the fact that NRA members vote Republican just because of the gun control issue, even among NRA voters who support Dems on many other issues.

Posted by: ecostarr | September 21, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

It's staged! He did the same thing in June!

Posted by: CLEFTASUNDER | September 21, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Not knowing who around him might have a gun might make a criminal think twice about whether or not he has a monopoly on force in a given situation.

Concealed weapons are even more of a deterrent than openly carried ones.

Hey, gunsarebad -- [sarcasm on] Maybe the Constitution was written to far back for some of it's free speech provisions to apply? And unreasonable search and seizures? So 18th century! tsk! That whole right to assemble thing? Oh, maybe back when there weren't so many people! [sarcasm off]

Posted by: philmon64 | September 21, 2007 5:32 PM | Report abuse

What maybe should be outlawed is concealed guns. Knowing all those around you who have guns could reduce a great deal of crime, gun oriented or not. If I'm going to insult someone I would like to know if they're "packin" beforehand. Ands just think of the boon to the fashion industry.

Posted by: Valjean1 | September 21, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

lol. well, they're not going to endorse you anyways, so why not show them how little you value their time. stick it to 'em rudy.

Posted by: enkidu1 | September 21, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

If this is all the Republicans have got in 2008, they're hurting.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | September 21, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Rudy's in about minute 12 of his 15, to know know know him is to loathe loathe loathe him...

Posted by: tonysmith | September 21, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I hope NRA realises they are supporting all criminals in this country who are using automatic weapons. What is wrong with you people? Why would anyone need to own a rapid fire automatic weapon?

The Constitution was written to far back for some of its gun friendly provision to still apply. You're acting like children who are going to be prevented from their candy.

Guns ARE bad!

Posted by: gunsarebad | September 21, 2007 2:18 PM | Report abuse

I hope Guiliani has enough sense to not back the NRA...

Posted by: 4tom2buy | September 21, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

I hope the NRA has enough sense not to back Giuliani.

Posted by: maryelizabeth_61 | September 21, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company