Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to have serious difficulty grasping what federalism is all about. First, he finds a right under the U.S. Constitution that requires government-funded (via taxpayers) abortions. Now, he's announced his opposition to New Hampshire's new civil unions law.
As columnist Ryan Sager writes in the New York Sun:
Mr. Giuliani's position on the New Hampshire law puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law....
Senator McCain of Arizona said the issue was one of states' rights and took no position on the New Hampshire law specifically....
Witnessing how politicos in both parties dance around gay issues, hinting at support one day, backing off the next (with none of the majors daring to favor ending the prohibitation on legal recognition of same-sex marriage) should rev up your distrust of government at all levels. To quote Ronald Reagan (admittedly in another context), "Government isn't the solution to our problems; government is the problem."
More. Writing on the New Republic's The Plank blog, Jamie Kirchick notes:
One of the reasons why Giuliani was so attractive to middle-of-the-road voters was because he did not seem-at least at first-to parrot the anti-gay agenda of the Republican party base. He always seemed genuinely comfortable around gay people....
But having gotten burned with an indefensible abortion position, he's apparently trying to make "amends" with the base via a little gay bashing. Note to Rudy: Flip-flopping on gays didn't help Mitt Romney, and it won't help you, either. You're not going to win over the social conservatives, but you will drive away independents and libertarian-leaners who are among the majority of Americans who favor civil unions (as long as they're not called "marriages") and who just might have voted for you.
More again. To be fair, Giuliani doesn't seem to have said that he would use federal power to reverse the state law, just his bully pulpit. Still, the lesson is clear: Place not your trust in politicians!
Still more. Right Side of the Rainbow offers some pertinent observations.
25 Comments for “McCain Looking Better?”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
(shrug) As I read it, Giuliani is fine with civil unions; he just doesn’t like the “equivalent to marriage” or “we recognize everyone else’s whatevers as the same in New Hampshire”.
That’s his prerogative. But what New Hampshire did is perfectly legal, and more than a bit applause-worthy; they simply said that they would exercise their choice to make civil unions what they wanted and what they would recognize.
The Democrat mantra for 2004 and again for 2008 is that no state should be forced to recognize the civil unions or same-sex marriages of another, and that is codified in DOMA. If they want to take potshots at Giuliani, let them change their own rhetoric first — which they won’t do, because telling other states that the Dems are going to force them to accept civil unions or same-sex marriages would go over like a sex tape of Hillary and Osama bin Laden.
posted by Chris on
Not so sure that McCain really IS looking better… I refer you to http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/04/exclusive-john-mccain-comes-out.html
posted by kyle on
Rudy Giuliani had no reason to sell out gays with the numbers he had. I’m dissapointed in his positions.
posted by Brian Miller on
Why waste time with the Republican party? None of their serious declared candidates are worth a second thought from gay people with a modicum of self-respect.
Rudy Giuliani had no reason to sell out gays with the numbers he had
He actually had a major reason: he’s a Republican. He wants power. His “positions on the issues” are as malleable as John McCain’s.
This is great news for me as a Libertarian. The front-runners for the Libertarian nomination are all strongly pro-gay (including on marriage). The Republican candidates are all pro-war, pro-big-government, pro-spending and anti-gay.
We should do quite nicely skimming off a few hundred thousand votes from the Republicans in this election. Mix in a Hillary or Obama candidacy, and we’ll get a few hundred thousand from the Democrats as well. 🙂
posted by Lori Heine on
Republican candidates are willing to ruin themselves morally just to pander to the bigot vote.
Sure there are people in their party who simply don’t understand gays, don’t think they know any, etc. And some of them may be fine people. But any really decent person wants to avoid harming other innocent people if at all possible. I think someday many Republicans are going to be angry that a lot of “their” candidates knew better all along and were afraid to speak up because they were sure the Republican rank and file were all bigots.
My own father was a lifelong conservative Republican, and he was cheated — cheated by those in his party who were perfectly willing to pander to his wrongheaded notions about gays. When he found out I was gay, he backed away from some of these folks rather quickly. He never did tell me exactly what he thought of them. But I’m guessing not much.
Why people like Giuliani don’t realize that moral people don’t like being lied to, I don’t know. (Isn’t allowing them to persist in harmful ignorance the same thing?) Someday the bill is going to come due.
posted by Todd on
All three major Democratic candidates support the NH law; all three Republican candidates oppose the law.
posted by Avee on
Republican candidates don’t support gays because the big gay fundraising lobbies only contribute to democrats. All politicians care about, really (sorry if you can’t see this) is who can best line their pockets. So it’s a vicious circle; republicans won’t support gays until we give them money, but we won’t give them money because they don’t support us.
But only supporting democrats ensures that democrats will do as little as they need to get our money — and it is indeed very little – a bit of rhetoric, on a good day. Period.
posted by Brian Miller on
All three major Democratic candidates support the NH law; all three Republican candidates oppose the law.
All three major Democratic candidates are also opposed to marriage equality and support the DOMA.
Gays choosing between Democrats and Republicans is the equivalent of blacks choosing between segregationists like Wallace (“separate but equal”) and KKK members (“they shouldn’t have any rights at all.”)
Why do that when you’ve got the Libertarian and Green parties, who have policies that a broad spectrum of gays can support and who are 100% pro-gay-equality?
If you like individual rights and personal social/economic freedom, the Libertarians will give you more of that than the tax-borrow-and-spend control freak GOP. If, on the other hand, you favor socialist policies like government health care and increased welfare spending, the Greens are far more committed to those goals than the Democrats.
posted by Clyde on
Avee | April 28, 2007, 7:40am | #
Republican candidates don’t support gays because the big gay fundraising lobbies ONLY contribute to democrats.
Assuming the poster considers HRC and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund to be “gay fundraising lobbies,” his post above is false because both groups contribute money to BOTH Democrats and Republicans, although most of it is given to Democrats. Avee, please get your facts straight.
posted by Todd on
The Gill PAC also gives to both Republicans and Democrats and is led by Guerrero, former head of the Log Cabin group.
posted by Clyde on
Accoring to Brian Miller’s comment above:
“Gays choosing between Democrats and Republicans is the equivalent of blacks choosing between segregationists like Wallace (‘separate but equal’) and KKK members (‘they shouldn’t have any rights at all.’)” This is a false analogy and hyperbole. The Republican party has not lynched gays, nor do they hide behind sheets, nor do they publicly use slurs for gays.
posted by Avee on
Clyde,
HRC and Victory fund almost exclusively fund democrats (one reason: you have to be completely pro choice on abortion to pass their litmus tests). HRC wouldn’t even support incumbent Pa. senator Arlen Specter, who favors ENDA and the rest of their agenda, because they said the democrat challenger would be “better.” So spare me the fantasy of HRC (especially) and Victory Fund being “bipartisan”!
posted by Pat on
I agree that Giuliani’s flip-flop is disappointing. I hear that Giuliani is also going to endorse that person’s who have had more than one marriage end in divorce (and/or phony annulment) should not be allowed to have a marriage or civil union that is “equivalent to marriage.” Yes, that was snarky, but why not? I would give a little more credibility to someone who at least also wants his own rights limited when they want it limited for others.
At first, I thought it was great that Giuliani entered the race. I thought it might move gay rights forward after the retreat in the 2006 elections. Having a mainstream Republican whose record on gay rights was on par with, or even better than some of the Democratic candidates would have been a help, and keep the Democratics from having to become more anti-gay.
However, I had a feeling that Giuliani was going to flip-flop to help his standing in the Republican Party, like Mitt Romney did when he first had presidential aspirations. Now I fear the Democratic Party is going to follow suit somewhat. In fact, they have already, when we see that Hillary Clinton couldn’t even show a shred of leadership (like President Bush) and answer “is homosexuality a sin” question. Note to Hillary and George: when you are ready to grow up and show leadership, you can answer “no” to that question.
Yes, clearly the Democrats are generally less anti-gay than the Republicans. And for years, in my view, we saw improvement in gay rights, even incrementally. But the Democrats have regressed in the past four years. So being better is not good enough any more.
Although I don’t quite agree with Brian Miller’s analogy, he made a good point. I would like to see a strong showing by a third party candidate in the election. In fact, it’s starting to look like I will add to that strength in next year’s vote.
As for HRC, and other gay organizations, I don’t have much trouble with them supporting mostly Democrats, since Democrats have demonstrated a clear stronger record on gay rights in general. But one of the problems with HRC, even when endorsing a candidate, they also clearly need to state where the candidate falls short. And now they also need to state that the Democrats also have shown they have regressed in terms of gay rights.
posted by inahandbasket on
Brian Miller said, “All three major Democratic candidates are also opposed to marriage equality and support the DOMA.”
Not true. Obama has stated his opposition to DOMA and supports it’s repeal:
“For the record, I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. ”
http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=4018
posted by Clyde on
Avee, thank you for your clarification. There is a difference between writing “only” contributes to Democrats and “almost exclusively” contributes to Democrats. Let’s be as accurate as possible and represent all groups, even those with which we disagree, as accurately as possible.
posted by Drew on
If gays want the political parties to respond, they need to mention they are gay when donating. This alerts the staff about what their candidate’s appeal actually is.
posted by Drew on
You can keep an eye on what all the candidates are saying at the link below:
http://impact.myspace.com/
posted by Brian Miller on
The Republican party has not lynched gays, nor do they hide behind sheets, nor do they publicly use slurs for gays.
LOL!
Good to see that the Republicans continue to boast about their “high standards of conduct.”
Obama has stated his opposition to DOMA and supports it’s repeal
Yes, and he’s also stated that he opposes gay marriage and would not support a federal policy recognizing same-sex marriage.
So he claims to “oppose DOMA” and “calls for its repeal” while at the same time continuing to advocate the conditions that DOMA created. A perfect politician’s position per se, but one that anyone with a shred of logic can see through quite easily.
posted by ETJB on
“Why do that when you’ve got the Libertarian and Green parties, who have policies that a broad spectrum of gays can support and who are 100% pro-gay-equality?”
(1) Third party candidates are not meaningful choices until we have campaign law reform. That is why we need to support groups such as Fair Vote and Ballot Access News.
(2) The Libertarian Party opposes certain civil rights laws, as the term has been defined by most people.
posted by Brian Miller on
Third party candidates are not meaningful choices until we have campaign law reform
That’s not true. Both the Libertarian and Green parties will be on the ballot in every state in the country in 2008.
The Libertarian Party opposes certain civil rights laws, as the term has been defined by most people.
The Libertarian Party merely opposes handouts defined as “civil rights laws” by certain people who value being paid for not working as a “civil right.”
Democrats such as yourself are the ones calling for a perpetual state of legal inequality and then attacking others for “not supporting civil rights.” You want the Democrats to create an entire bevy of special rights that only gays have, whereas I just want the same rights that everyone else already has (as the Constitution requires).
You prioritize special rights over equal rights, I prioritize equal rights over special rights. It’s an ongoing debate that won’t be easily resolved, but I certainly do take issue with the notion that Democrats who insist that marriage equality must be “opposed” will then lecture me — a Libertarian — on “rights” of any sort.
posted by ETJB on
“That’s not true.”
Yes, it is. No third party presidential candidate will be a meaningful choice.
Getting on the ballot is one step and I dont think that either third party has been their candidate on the ballot in all 50.
Then you have (1) exclusion in the major debates. (2) Being ignored by the mainstream media (3) How electoral college votes are cast.
“The Libertarian Party merely opposes handouts.”
Equal opportunity a handout? Well, that is a new one. The LP seeks to get rid of most civil rights laws.
“Democrats such as yourself”
Did I claim to be a Democrat?
“You want the Democrats to create an entire bevy of special rights that only gays have.”
Um no. Equal opportunity would not just apply to gay people.
“You prioritize special rights over equal rights.”
Um no. Equal opportunity is hardly a ‘special right.’
“I certainly do take issue with the notion that Democrats…”
Again, I do not recall calling myself a Democrat. I also do not recall agreeing with Democrats or Republicans that opposed marriage equality.
Just admit it; you would prefer a economy back to what things were say in the late 19th century.
posted by Brian Miller on
No third party presidential candidate will be a meaningful choice
Democrats are hilarious. They swing from blaming Nader’s large vote for their loss to describing third party voters as “meaningless” overnight. Make up your minds! 🙂
I dont think that either third party has been their candidate on the ballot in all 50.
We’re fully on track to do so and the Greens will probably be on 45 ballots — more than enough to win the presidency.
Equal opportunity a handout?
I’m all for equal opportunity — you’re for special opportunity.
I think that gay people should be judged not on our sexual orientation, but on our capabilities. The free market agrees, which is why most major employers have nondiscrimination clauses already.
You want a special step up for people who are gay, which I simply cannot support.
Equal opportunity would not just apply to gay people.
What you’re calling “equal opportunity” isn’t equal opportunity. We have equal opportunity today — you’re calling for laws that elevate gay people above other people. That ain’t equal.
Democrats have a particularly bad sense of what “equality” is. “Equality” isn’t a series of laws designed to make gay people “legally special,” nor is it “separate but equal” status in marriage.
I do not recall calling myself a Democrat.
You must have changed parties since I last encountered you on another message board then. I’ll revise my statement to “Democratic party supporters such as yourself.”
you would prefer a economy back to what things were say in the late 19th century
That would actually be the Democrats and Republicans. Just look at Enron and Global Crossing — both of which gave large sums to the Dems and Reps. And have a look at unions who strike regularly and have driven once mighty industrial enterprises like GM, Ford and Chrysler to the brink of collapse.
posted by ETJB on
“Democrats are hilarious.”
Yeah and Republicans are evil. Well, now that you got that our of our system, lets try and have an intelligent debate.
We have a two-party system. No third party candidate is a meaningful choice until you look at the assortment of campaign laws and change them. We can get into a longer discussion about some of these issues; ballot access law, campaign finance law, SMDPV, IRV, PR, etc.
I take issue with the concept of “your minds.” I am not the DNC chairman. I do not interesting in talking points or partsian jabs. I not too interested in what other Democrats or Republicans have said. I am interested in the truth.
Ballot access law is indeed the first step into being a meaningful alternative or choice (a pro-choice issue we can all agree on?). However, getting on the ballot does not make you a meaningful choice.
“I think that gay people should be judged not on our sexual orientation, but on our capabilities.”
Agreed.
“The free market agrees, which is why most major employers have nondiscrimination clauses already.”
No, not really no. It might help make a company appear to be gay-friendly or help out employers in a very high demand market.
I do not want to “a special step up for people who are gay.” That is not what civil rights laws are about.
“What you’re calling “equal opportunity” isn’t equal opportunity.”
Um. Yes, it is. Equal opportunity; to be judged on merit and not race, color, creed… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that you want to abolish…
“You’re calling for laws that elevate gay people above other people.”
No, not really no. You seem to have no idea what equal opportunity is or you are just squirming. Everyone has a sexual orientation. So a civil rights law that includes sexual orientation is not elevating gay people above straight people.
Their were almost no government regulations on the economy in teh 18th and 19th century. So, that must be a Libertarian Paradise right?
posted by dalea on
‘Um. Yes, it is. Equal opportunity; to be judged on merit and not race, color, creed… The Civil Rights Act of 1964 that you want to abolish…’
Yes, this law does help provide equal opportunity.
‘Their were almost no government regulations on the economy in teh 18th and 19th century. ‘
Untrue. The great growth of American industry occurred behind an enormous tariff wall. The dems were the party of free trade; the Federalists, Whigs and Republicans were pro tariff.
The states were forever regulating and meddling in commerce. For building railroads, many states lent their right of eminent domain to entrepreneurs. Who then basically grabbed land at bargain prices from unwilling sellers. In the West, the federal government gave large areas of land to the railroads. They then sold these lands to settlers, using the proceeds to build their railroads. Which then overcharged the settlers for shipping. Leading to the populists and progressives.
The states also loaned their ability to issue bonds to entrepreneurs. Who then issued state bonds, took the money to build their factories or railroads and kept all the profits. Sometimes the states then paid off the loans from taxes.
Over a long period of time, I have come to see that the right libertarian view of economic history is simply false. It does not correspond with actual events. And it covers over or falsifies actual issues.
There is an interesting study by Mike Davis entitled: Victorian Holocausts. This is a history of the disasters implementing laizzes faire produced in British India. I have never seen any Libertarian bring up this subject. In India, the classical liberals had a free hand to advance their program. Which they did. And which promptly produced disaster after disaster, killing tens of thousands of people. Which lead thinking Liberals to abandon laizzes faire. We forget that the CL’s had the colonies to play with.
And no right Libertarian even seems to be aware of this.
posted by Tim Hulsey on
This is a history of the disasters implementing laizzes [sic] faire produced in British India. I have never seen any Libertarian bring up this subject.
Probably because colonialism and libertarianism represent two opposing philosophies of government. Colonial governments always create planned, centralized economies, which libertarians oppose.