Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Judi Nathan Makes Teresa Heinz Kerry Seem Like A Campaign Asset
April 2, 2007 -- Judith Giuliani once demonstrated surgical products for a controversial medical-supply company that used dogs - which were later killed - in operations whose only purpose was to sell equipment to doctors, The Post has learned.
"It was a horribly cruel, outrageous program," Friends of Animals President Priscilla Feral said about the demonstrations of medical staplers on dogs conducted by U.S. Surgical Corp. employees during Giuliani's tenure there in the late 1970s.
Feral said U.S. Surgical's demonstrations on hundreds of dogs each year through the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s were done to boost sales, not for medical re search or testing.
The dogs were "either put to death following the sales demonstrations because they can't re cover from them, or they die during them," Feral said.
"I'm not going to characterize her, but I hope she regrets it for what it was - a money-grubbing effort," said Feral, whose Darien, Conn.-based activist group waged a heated public-relations battle with the Norwalk-based company for more than a decade.
"I guess the question would be, how does she justify this now? What is her conscience at this stage?" Feral asked about Giuliani's association with U.S. Surgical.
"There's no ethical justification for this."
In Sunday's Post, Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign spokesman, Michael McKeon, said of Judi Giuliani's work with U.S. Surgical, "She was in the operating room hundreds of times, using her nursing skills and training doctors in the stapling technique."
Asked yesterday about the procedure being performed on dogs, McKeon said, "I've never heard any of this before."
Then McKeon said he would have to ask Judi.
Finally, he said only that Judi had not been involved in procuring dogs for sales demonstrations - but did not comment on whether she participated in demonstrations involving dogs.
The silence of the Giuliani campaign on that question speaks volumes.
So, did Judi Nathan Giuliani participate in medical sales demonstrations involving dogs?
Judi Nathan Giuliani - dog killer?
That'll make a helluva negative ad, eh?
UPDATE: I should note that this Hit piece" on dog killer Judi Nathan Giuliani was published by the noted commie pinko tree hugging flag burners at Rupert Murdoch's NY Post.
What does that say about who Rupert and the other wingers at News Corporation want to win the GOP nomination?
That's what we really need to focus on.
So while I agree that most of the focus should be on the candidate, Repubs made the spouse a target for attack and now they will have to deal with the fall-out for their own.
She was NOT a campaign asset for JK in 2004. The Kerry campaign was always waiting for her to say something off message or something that Rove and the Bush/Cheney '04 thugs could use against the Kerry campaign. More than once she gave Drudge and the other fuckers on the right ammunition to take Kerry/Edwards off message and have to defend her (think the NEWSWEEK article that portrayed her as crazy and angry.) You may see that as genuineness. I saw it as one more piece of baggage Kerry had to carry that helped him lose the campaign. I am sure she is a nice person with a good heart. Nonetheless, as a campaign wife in a country full of misogynistic xenophobes, she was NOT an asset.
There are many ways to criticize Teresa Heinz.
She was born in Portugal and lived with her parents -- her father was a doctor -- in Mozambique, then a colony of Portugal. Civil unrest led Portugal to abandon Mozambique almost overnight. The sudden departure of Portugal marked the start of a civil war in Mozambique that lasted 20 years.
When that war ended, which occurred in the 1990s, Mozambique was in a state of devastation. Probably 2 million people died during the war.
In other words, Teresa, more than anyone else campaigning in 2004, knew first-hand what it means when an external but stablizing force leaves a country.
Iraq may yet become a slaughterhouse like Mozambique despite our presence. But in 2004, the future looked good for Iraqi democracy. Her silence on Mozambique is all you need to know about her and her personal ambitions, which once included becoming First Lady.
She thought John Heinz would carry her over the White House thresh-hold. She saw that hope end when he was killed in a plane crash. Kerry revived her hopes. But she was disappointed a second time in 2004. In the aftermath of his loss, I believe she cut his allowance.
"Repubs ARE concerned about Rudy's spouse problem because they have used the spouses of Dems in the past for underhanded attacks (think HRC in 1992 and Teresa in 2004)..."
I see. You're claiming Gennifer Flowers was a Republican plant who wasn't Bill's mistress.
I don't recall attacks on Hillary in 1992. But I do recall the bimbo eruptions that plagued Bill's campaign. Moreover, he paid Paula Jones at least $700,000 to settle her harrassment case against him.
Hillary's history became more problematic during the White Water issue, which, I admit, was a tempest in a teapot. Not that there weren't plenty of shenigans underway at the Rose Law firm.
Worse were Hillary's lies about her profits from futures trading. Or the disappearance and re-appearance of certain Rose Law Firm files.
Meanwhile, Hillary is an ambitious politician, which was not unknown to observers of the political scene in 1992 when she arrived in Washington. Hence, she received a fair dose of coverage for her activities, which included her healthcare initiatives she undertook while practicing for bigger roles she hopes to obtain.
Rudy's Judy isn't in that category. Meanwhile, her role at US Surgical is hardly scandalous. She was an employee of a hugely successful company selling a product that improved the lives of surgical patients around the world. For years the US Surgical stapler was the leading product in its field. I believe the company was acquired by Johnson & Johnson.
If she had spent years trapping dogs and killing them in her basement for fun she might qualify for attacks. But she worked for a company that improved life for humans. It really isn't significant that some dogs died for the benefit of humans.
"You'll note, n_s, that it was the hippies at the NY Post launching the baseless attack against poor Judi."
The Post wrote what it considered to be news. As editorial decisions go, the decision to attack Judi was unfortunate. But when it's possible to stick somebody for killing animals that might have been children's pets, the decision becomes a no-brainer.
"What does that say about who Rupert and the other wingers at News Corporation want to win the GOP nomination?"
It says little. Though Rudy won his re-election as mayor by a huge margin, he'll probably suffer the same fate every Republican presidential candidate faces in New York -- a trouncing. Especially if Hillary is his opponent.
But I have no expectations of seeing Rudy's name on the ballot in November 2008.
"The Post only publishes negative "news" that damages people it wants to damage and positive news that helps people it wants to help. That the NY Post editors and Rupert Murdoch decided to publish that article says they do NOT want Rudy as the GOP nominee."
Yeah. Right. Like the Murdoch expects to sway the outcome of the Republican primaries by publishing stories that attempt, but fail, to smear Rudy's wife in a paper that's only read in New York City.
If anything, he's doing Rudy a favor. Murdoch is getting every last little iota of bad news out now. By getting it out early, these tidbits will have zero impact on primary voting.
What works against Rudy is the fact that his positions on hot-button issues give him the look of a Democrat rather than a Republican. That his wife killed dogs when demonstrating the efficacy of surgical staplers will have lost all its zing long before primary voting begins. In fact, I'd say the dog-stapling episode has already lost whatever tiny bit of sting it had.
In Murdoch's papers and on his network, the news sections and the editorial sections are the same. It's all propaganda designed to help Murdoch's candidates/party/favored companies and cronies.