To be sure, most everyone consults their spouse at some point on sensitive work-related matters. But there’s a difference between a private, personal conversation between a husband and wife, and a "two-for-one" proclamation to the American public that the spouse could be injecting her opinions into the mix along with members of the president’s cabinet. Those of us with business partners can appreciate that the partner’s spouse is a likely confidant and advisor to him or her. But I don’t think that anyone would want that spouse attending our board meetings and shaping policy. That’s taking the spousal consultative role a bit too far. And there’s no place for it in Washington either.
Elected officials are just that: elected. Americans don’t vote for the spouses. They vote for who they believe to be the most experienced, capable candidates, and that’s who they expect to make policy. Not only is involving one’s spouse in presidential politics setting a dangerous precedent, such souped up involvement, as we saw with Hillary Clinton back in 1992 and ’93, can serve to undermine the president and the party’s overall agenda, weakening its position against the opposition. It can be a major distraction, and provide much needed fodder for the other party to go on the offensive.
We need to get back to the good old days in Washington where the president is the one who wears the pants in the White House. George Bush gave unprecedented power to VP Dick Cheney and the result was an unjust war and a raping of the Constitution. Bill Clinton gave unprecedented power to Hillary and it turned what should’ve been his presidential honeymoon into an embarrassing and exhausting battlefield with Republicans. There's so many reasons why we don't want Rudy Giuliani in the White House. Telling us now that his wife would be "his best advisor" is just the icing on the cake.