The conservative National Review and others on the right have voiced serious doubts about (or outright opposition to) Rudy Giuliani, who is now clearly in the 2008 presidential race, owing in part to his too accommodating stance on gay unions and abortion. In fact, Rudy's position (supports civil unions but opposes same-sex marriage; opposes a federal amendment against same-sex marriage) is the same as Hillary's and Obama's. But more significantly, Rudy would be the first GOP presidential nominee who has marched in Pride parades, addressed Log Cabin events, criticized "don't ask, don't tell" and, in an Odd Couple twist, moved in with two gay guys (a long-term couple) after his divorce. (Southern Voice has a nice wrap-up on all the leading candidates' positions.)
But I doubt that will stop the Human Rights Campaign, now essentially the gay lobby of the Democratic Party, from endorsing their gal sometime during the primary season (in 2000, they endorsed Gore before it was clear whether the GOP candidate would be Bush or, in a possible upset, McCain). If/when they do so, their message to the GOP could be summarized as: "You could nominate the ghost of Harvey Milk and we'd still be loyal Democrats. So don't even bother trying to reach out to us. After all, we favor securing patronage positions for our key activists in a Clinton adminstration much more than we care about moderating anti-gay views in the other party."
36 Comments for “Rudy’s Run.”
posted by Brian on
Amen. The current Democratic party (at the national level) is doing very little for GLBT equality. It frustrates me that GLBT voters continue to fling their support at a party who fails to deliver any real results for them. I am of course not advocating support for the Bush administration, but when we refuse to consider any alternatives besides the DNC partyline, we are allowing the Dems to take us for granted. And then there is no reason for them look out for us.
posted by SteveW on
If Giuliana and Clinton are the two candidates in the general election, I don’t know who I would vote for. On the one hand, I think Giuliana would nominate more conservative judges than Clinton. On the other hand, I think Clinton would be less likely than Giuliana to use the bully pulpit to advance gay rights.
posted by SteveW on
The HRC spokesperson said this in the Southern Voice article: “But the truth is, if you look at her record in its entirety, she has done a lot to help GLBT Americans as a senator.”
Can anybody enlighten me on what Clinton has done as a Senator for GLBT Americans. I know that she voted against the anti-marriage amendment. Anything else?
posted by Dan on
Of course, Rudy has committed to nominating “strict constructionists” who would overturn Romer and Lawrence to the court, so if his roommates ever had to move to Texas they could be thrown in jail (but at least their taxes would be low!). While Rudy would be a great improvement over the bigots that Republicans normally run, any of the current Democrats would still be better for gays, and HRC, etc would be fully justified in endorsing the Democratic candidate.
posted by jimG on
“Of course, Rudy has committed to nominating “strict constructionists” who would overturn Romer and Lawrence to the court.”
posted by jimG on
“Can anybody enlighten me on what Clinton has done as a Senator for GLBT Americans.”
Hillary voted against the federal marriage amendment, but remained silent, choosing not to speak against it during the floor debate. That’s better than John Edwards, I guess, who skipped the vote altogether. Hail the Democrats!
posted by Avee on
It’s in HRC’s fundraising interest if the GOP remains in the control of anti-gay boogymen. But what’s good for HRC isn’t necessarily good for you and me.
posted by Rebecca Brannon on
I know we get frustrated. But in politics, you have to dance with the one that brung’ ya’. And if a Republican wins, they will have to dance at least some with the base, who brought them. And therefore, I have severe hesitation about voting for any Republican for President under those conditions.
posted by Matt on
I live in New York and don’t see what Hillary has done for me or any other gay citizen besides her silent vote against the marriage amendment. As well, Romer and Lawrence, like Roe, seem to be settled law to me. If Guiliani were to make it through the primaries, by some stroke of luck, I’d give him more than a second look.
posted by ETJB on
Well, you seem to love to bash the HRC (sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly).
In 2000, neither Bush or McCain endorsed any sort of equal rights platform and it was clearly from the get-go that Bush was going to be the GOP nomination (dirty tricks aside).
In 2008, the question becomes (for HRC) which of the major party candidates have the best record on equal rights. Will Mr. G. keep up his views on abortion and gay rights or will he try to flip flop by saying that he will not endorse ‘activst judges’?
posted by ETJB on
“Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy.”
Mostly by accident. It was not his first choice and he was shooting for a judge that will not be an ‘activist judge’ or rule that the Constitution applies to gay Americans. Most of his appointments went that way as could bee seen with Bowers v. Hardwick.
Remember; Reagan supported state sodomy laws, opposed civil rights legislation for gays and basically let the religious right handle AIDS policy until it became clear that was not going to work.
Chief Justice Roberts has not ruled on a case directly dealing with gay rights — the University campus banning ROTC was more about Freedom of Speech vs the right of Congress to raise an army.
Again, he was not Bush’s first choice and we should wait and see how he rules on upcoming gay rights cases. Although I doubt too many will be forthcoming to the high court for awhile.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
ETJB, I hate to confuse you with the facts, but here goes:
http://liberalvalues.org.nz/index.php?action=view_journal&journal_id=72
. . . This is in contrast to (your presumably beloved) Clinton, who kissed our asses at every turn on order to line the DNC’s coffers, and then turned around and enacted policies like DADT. Perhaps you should support John Edwards (yet another dimwitted, hypocritical Democrat who is cut from the same filthy cloth as the Clintons). At least most of the Republicans are open and honest about their opposition to gay rights.
The Republicans need a candidate like Giuliani. He’s in the Goldwater mold, and God knows, the Republicans need as many of them as they can get! Now, if only the Democrats could wake up & nominate solid (not flashy & fluffy) candidates like Vilsack, instead of the Clintons, Obamas & Edwardses they always seem to revert to.
posted by Tim on
One of the first things in Office Clinton tried to do was lift the ban on gay service people by executive order.
He got crusified. DADT was the best he could get and was better than it was before.
posted by Brian on
“But in politics, you have to dance with the one that brung’ ya'”
Terrific point. I whole-heartedly agree with you. Right now, the Religious Right is the only one asking the GOP to the dance. And the GLBT community is to shy to speak up while its Dem-Date leaves it to dance with others.
WE need to take someone to the dance and not just settle for whatever will apatheticly have us.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
SteveW, to see the votes on which HRC judges members of Congress, see their congressional scorecards at:
http://www.hrc.org/Content/NavigationMenu/HRC/Get_Informed/Congress_and_Scorecard/Index.htm
posted by ETJB on
It is the gay Republicans that have tried to revise history to fit their own lies and falsehoods.
Yes, Reagan did not create the ‘religious right’ any more then the junior Senator from Wisconsin created the fear of Communists taking over America.
However, he exploited this fear to get elected and to stay in power. He may or may not have really believed in it, but he still exploited the fear of gays for his own political ends.
He went on record — during the 1980s — as supporting state sodomy laws and sought federal judges that opposed gay rights. Bowers v. Hardwick was his parting shot to gay Americans, that and his indifference to the AIDS pandemic.
He opposed the Equal Rights Amendment. He opposed civil rights legislation that included sexual orientation.
He let religious conservatives in his administration set anti-gay domestic polices and silence the Surgeon General when it came to AIDS.
posted by ETJB on
President Clinton was certainly not perfect when it game to gay rights — no president is going to be.
However, under Clinton gay rights became a more mainstream issue. He supported the ENDA and HCPA — both of which were shot down by the Republican controlled Congress.
It was his judges that created a majority that made Romers and Lawerence possible. Had Bush sr. been relected (or Ross Perot gotten the nod) it is likely those cases would have turned out very, very differently.
He established a non-discrimination policy in federal civilian employment and in the FBI. He fully funded AIDS education and research.
DADT (anti-harassment/hate crime provisions were later added) is an improvement over the original policy. A policy Reagan supported and over saw become draconian.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
ETJB, I think about the only fact you stated that really stands out is that no president is perfect when it comes to gay rights. This includes Reagan AND Clinton.
My point is that while you completely demonize Reagan with a few facts and far too much emotion, you seem to only begrudgingly acknowledge that Clinton might have just a tad of tarnish on that shining armor you and others have long adorned him with.
You give him FAR too much credit for his supposed role furthering the gay rights cause. I’d argue that, sadly, the AIDS crisis (as just one example) has done far more to raise the issue than any president has done, including Clinton.
Clinton has a nauseatingly strong gift in telling people what they want to hear and then turning around and putting the screws to them. His tenure was defined by being long on empty rhetoric and good feelings and short on real, substantive action, often only responding when his political back was against the wall. Did he do some good things? Sure. But, the Mafia often takes care of people in their neighborhood while still forging ahead with their mission . . .
And, sorry, but check the record . . . he zeroed AIDS funding in his submitted budgets (which, BTW was added back in, due in large parts to the efforts of Coburn and Specter), he signed DOMA, and, again, DADT — all while sucking up to the HRC (and presumably people like you) for big donations.
It seems that many like you are content to be lied to and consistently betrayed as long as he’s “your man” and tells you what you want to hear.
Was Reagan the best thing to the gay rights cause since sliced bread? Hardly. Neither was Carter, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Eisenhower or any other preceding president. But, neither was he the “antichrist” many in the gay community have tried to portray him as. Given the fact that pre-AIDS, gay rights was a novelty at best, he did the best he could given the societal climate at that time, while never promising more than he was either willing or able to do — unlike Clinton.
My point is that BOTH parties have failed. Most Republicans are openly hostile to gays, and most Democrats are willing to kiss up to us to get our $$, make a lot of worthless speeches and pass a few minor laws that make some feel like their $$ was well spent.
At least up to this point, Giuliani has backed his words with action. He’s far from perfect, but he’s about the best the Republicans have to offer, and he beats the “three Democratic Stooges” by a mile.
posted by Rob Power on
“Let’s all support the Democrat. The Republicans suck.”
“No, let’s all support the Republican. The Democrats suck.”
Oh, for goodness sake, could someone please tell me what the I in IGF stands for? It looks like everyone here is already bound and determined two years before the 2008 Presidential election to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican, and not consider any alternative, despite the fact that the front-runners in both parties are nearly identical on LGBT rights — which is to say, identically bad.
If even IGF readers can’t see past this false choice, then our community is in big trouble.
posted by thom on
To Last of the Moderate Gays ~
Nice nickname, but I have my doubts given comments like “the ‘three Democratic Stooges'”. I don’t think anyone refers to Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama as stooges or idiots, no matter how much they may dislike them.
Since I am a moderate, and belong to a party, I’d like to ask you this: From a gay person’s point of view, what are the pros and cons of Guiliani, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama as candidates? I’m looking for substance, not the usual sweeping generalizations, vitriol and partisanship that characterizes political discussions. This is your chance to convince me with facts and substance.
Looking forward to being enlightened.
posted by thom on
I meant to say: “and belong to no party.”
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Thom:
Well, from reading some of your other posts, I could deduce that you are far from moderate, as well. And for the record, I am an independent, as well. Nevertheless, I used the term “Three Demorcatic Stooges” tongue-in-cheek. I don’t think Obama is an idiot; just way too inexperienced for such an important office. I also suspect that once his stand on the issues is fully vetted, he will be found to be a “liberal wolf in moderate’s clothing.” After all, both parties seem completely incapable at this point of running a true moderate.
As far as Clinton and Edwards (whom you curiously didn’t mention), well . . . I could be here all day. For the sake of brevity, though, since you ask for facts, I’ll give you two . . .
Hillary seems to have learned well at the feet of the master. She is becoming quite adept at telling people what they want to hear while plunging the knife into their backs. Just look at the congressional renewal of the Ryan White bill this past summer:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/22/AR2006082201161.html
And as for Edwards, well . . . He makes the hypocrisy of the Clinton years seem almost quaint. He LOVES to talk about the “Two Americas” out on the campaign trail . . . Now, when he’s tired from regurgitating all of that claptrap, he can retreat to his modest little home in the country:
http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1149193128470&path=!localnews&s=1037645509099
Well, at least Edwards isn’t totally hypocritical. In this article, his annoying wife states that this new palace is ” . . . energy efficient.” Whew! What a relief! I feel much better now! Maybe Saddam could have picked up some building tips from Edwards on how to build an eco-friendly palace when he was still in power . . .
Well, I guess all of us “little people” can relate . . . Thom, when am I going to get my invitation to visit your mansion? I’d extend you an invitation to visit mine, but I guess the deed got lost in the mail . . . My point is that if he’s this blatantly, unapologetically hypocritical, what makes you think he won’t be the same way when it comes to gay rights? After all, it worked for Bill . . .
As far as Giuliani, he: 1) pushed for domestic partnership rights for gays & lesbians in NYC; 2) in 1998, he granted domestic partnership rights to city employees; 3) he had many gays & lesbians serve in his administration; 4) he marched in several gay pride parades as mayor (did Bill ever do this? Maybe he got lost on the way . . .). More important, he has a strong record of backing his words with substantive action. If he were to run “as-is” right now, I think he’d be a pretty darn good candidate. However, I suspect that in order to make a viable shot at the Republican nomination, he will sacrifice these accomplishments to the evangelical “gods.”
Rob Power: Actually, I totally agree with you! I’m so unbelievably sick and tired of the two parties! If the Dems run one of the “Three Stooges” (sorry, Thom!), and if the Republicans run yet another candidate with the “evangelical seal of approval,” I’m voting Libertarian!!!
posted by Trey on
Anyone else notice that Human Rights Campaign and Hillary Rodham Clinton both share the initials HRC?
posted by Trey on
Okay, my previous post was just frivolity. My main point though is that I’m sick of people confusing correlation with causation regarding the 90’s and CLinton’s presidency with increased visibility and awareness of gay rights. Sure, things got better for gays in the 90’s but they’re still getting better. Is this due to the President? Or the media? I’d argue that the Internet and Hollywood were far more influential in gay rights and awareness than Clinton ever was. He just took the credit because he happened to be in office at the time. Any achievements gays made in the 90’s should not be credited to Clinton.
posted by ETJB on
No United States president is going to be ‘perfect’ on gay rights issues. However, Reagan never tried to be anything but a total asshole on the subject.
President Clinton made some key improvements and at least tried to carry the day on some gay rights issues.
I do not demonize any president, nor do I hold them up as divine saints that need to be protected. I do not put presidents into magical suits of armor. Reagan’s record on gay rights issues is crystal clear; it sucked.
The only think that he did policy wise that was decent was opposing the Briggs Initiative in 1978, but even then it was mostly out of fear of hurting innocent heterosexuals.
(1) Clinton supported strong federal funding for AIDS.
(2) He enacted DODTA which is a small step in the right direction.
(3) He signed DOMA into law at the peddling mostly of the Republican Party and its presidential candidate; Bob Dole.
(4) He supported the ENDA & the HCPA, even going as far as to call for their support in a state of the union address.
(5) He enacted anti-discrimination polices in federal civilian employment
(6) He appointed openly gay people and supportive federal judges.
Gay rights started to become a national issue in the 1970’s. Carter was not perfect but he made some important advances. I have mentioned many of them here before.
Reagan never tried to do much about AIDS or gay rights because his rise to office had come from connecting the religious right to the GOP.
“Giuliani has backed his words with action.”
Yes, but he has had very little action to take and is already trying to back peddle his beliefs.
“he beats the “three Democratic Stooges” by a mile.”
Um no. You seem to want to lionize Republicans. When you wake up to reality please give me a call.
posted by RichB on
This is perfect example of the perverse need of gay folks to be “outside the mainstream” and argue against accepted wisdom, even if doing so leads to all sorts of self-inflicted harm. You have to be a completely deluded masochistic idiot (or just a hack political writer/activist trying to define a niche for yourself) to argue that the Republican Party is going to do more for gay people than the Democrats — end of story. To criticize HRC for doing what they obviously should be doing is ridiculous and petty, and, frankly, I wish the author would be a bit more honest to himself about his motives in writing a piece like this.
posted by Perm Dude on
If Rudy’s stance is the same as Clinton’s or Obama’s, that in itself doesn’t appear to be enough to warrant an endorsement.
Is the author seriously suggesting the HRC should have held off their 200 endorsement because McCain had a chance to beat Bush in the primary?
I believe the author is correct that the positions of the HRC map to the Clinton’s, but given the outright hatred of gays by the Republican Party the fact that HRC commits to Democrats only should not be a surprise. The party’s are not equal on the issue of gay rights.
posted by Perm Dude on
Sorry for the typos above. Pre-coffee post.
posted by Mike on
It’s always strange how something that hasn’t yet occurred is still thrown out as a strawman to denounce what hasn’t occurred. Of course, this is a favorite GOP / Rovian rhetorical device.
posted by HappyExDemocrat on
I love this line, “I do not demonize any president”… followed instantly by what? By an unthinking, 100% predictable demonization of Reagan.
LOL 🙂
posted by BobN on
Let me get this straight (ahem). The HRC is a branch of the Democratic Party because it hasn’t even considered endorsing a GOP candidate for president in the last several elections and isn’t likely to do so in 2008??? Uh… DUH! What a dishonest argument. LOOK at the GOP candidates and maybe you’ll understand why none of them are worthy of support the HRC or any gay person. Maybe some of you find solace in finding fault with the HRC — don’t let their endorsement of several Republicans for Congress and state offices deter you from your stereotypes — because it distracts you from reflecting on the hollow shell that the GOP has become.
And for those hoping for a moderate GOP presidential candidate, who do you suppose he’ll fill his administration with? Is there an army of moderates to fill the appointments? Will the party shake off two decades of “Christian values” to become a competent, moderate, secular government? What are you guys smoking?
posted by Elliot Reed on
Has HRC endorsed anyone of either party for 2008? No. Even if Guliani were the right choice, what obligation do they have to issue an endorsement a year before the primaries? In any case, Guliani is running away from his pro-gay past as fast as he can.
And don’t give me this nonsense about Reagan. Yes, Reagan appointed Kennedy, author of Lawrence v. Texas and in the majority on Romer v. Evans. But he only nominated Kennedy as a compromise candidate after the vehemently anti-gay Robert Bork crashed and burned. And he did what else for gay people?
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
My, my . . . I thought this was the INDEPENDENT Gay Forum, but it seems like there are quite a few hardcore liberal Democrats who must have gotten lost on their way to the DNC webpage . . .
ETJB, first, I think you need to come out of the closet . . . It’s OK to admit you’re a liberal Democrat. FYI, I voted for more Democrats and Libertarians than Republicans this past election. I vote for the PERSON; NOT party affiliation. Even though this is the IGF, I am also not a single-issue voter. That’s what a TRUE moderate is all about. When was the last time you voted for someone other than a Democrat?
Second, if you carefully reread my posts, I have said positive comments about one Republican — Giuliani. I simply said that if you take a dispassionate look at the facts, Reagan was not the great Satan you, RichB, Mike, Elliot Reed, and all your other liberal Democrat buddies here have made him out to be. I certainly never claimed he was a “gay saviour.” I’ve also said (several times) that most Republicans are anti-gay. The ones who aren’t (and need to be encouraged) are the Goldwateresque-types like the (current) Giuliani. I’ll say it again — if the Democrats could run a TRUE moderate like Vilsack, he’d get my vote in a heartbeat. But, somehow, I don’t think a moderate Democrat would be to your (and the others I’ve mentioned here) liking.
I guess I just prefer intolerant politicians to be upfront and honest, instead of whispering sweet nothings in my ear, screwing me hard, robbing me blind, and ignoring me the morning after the election. But, if you’re content to be consistently told what you want to hear, only to be screwed in the end (no pun intended!), then enjoy.
You keep regurgitating the same claptrap about your beloved Bill, except in your last post, you’ve even gone further in fabricating downright laughable excuses for his sham of a presidency (Bob Dole??? Who’s next? The ghost of Benjamin Harrison, perhaps??).
I’m sorry I’m not the typical gay lemming who lets the RNC, DNC, or the HRC do all of my thinking for me. Well, on second thought, no, I’m not really . . .
posted by Brian Miller on
If Rudy needs to do a Mitt Romney and change his positions on social issues to get the GOP nomination, he will do so. Neither Guiliani nor Hillary, even handed a majority in both houses and the presidency, will do anything significant for gay rights.
posted by ETJB on
I am some what curious as to what the minor political parties will stand on gay rights issues, even through they have no chance of winning.
I suspect (based on very early polls) that the respective major party loyalists will make it McCain v. Hillary.
posted by ETJB on
Independent Gay Forum should be open to discuss and debate from LGBT people on the political left, right and center.
I certainly do not ‘need to come out of the closet.’ I have not claimed to be a liberal Democrat and do not intend to start now.
I am also not a ‘single issue voter’, and would not encourage people to do so. However, if you are gay one would hope that a candidates views on the subject were more important then thier views on say; pizza toppings.
The Libertarian Party is certainly not a ‘moderate’ party by any definition of the term. ‘Moderate’ does not mean the same thing as bi or poly-partisan. I have voted for candidates of major and minor political parties.
If you take a look at the facts then you know that Reagan had a horrible record on gay rights. Period. The attempt to revise history and lie is (as a historian) painful and scary to watch unfold.
Again, a libertarian or Barry Goldwater Republican is NOT A MODERATE. No political scientest worth their weight in gold would tell you otherwise.
“But, if you’re content to be consistently told what you want to hear, only to be screwed in the end (no pun intended!), then enjoy.”
It is interesting how you make sooo many assumptions about me and my background and political values. Sounds more like GOP spin, then the work of a true moderate.
“You keep regurgitating the same claptrap about your beloved Bill..”
I do not think I would call any President ‘beloved’. I look at a Presidents polices and valuse objectivily. I certainly would not apply it to President Clinton.
The reality is that he was a much better President in just about every single public policy issue then Perot or Bush sr or later on Bob Dole (1996). Clinton was hardly a liberal Democrat.
This is especially the case with gay rights, which is not a odd focus to have while talking about politics at a gay message board.