Giuliani entered the fabled lion's den in a major address to an audience of Christian conservative activists, declaring (the New York Times reports), in pointed contrast to ex-social liberal Mitt Romney, "Isn't it better that I tell you what I really believe, instead of pretending to change all of my positions to fit the prevailing winds?" Moreover:
"Christians and Christianity is all about inclusiveness," he said. "It's built around the most profound act of love in human history, isn't it?"
Yes, it is-or should be. And it's good to see a GOP politician take that message to the religious right.
Fox News adds: "Giuliani did not mention the subject of gay marriage in his remarks. Gary Bauer, a Christian activist and former presidential candidate, said Giuliani should have addressed the issue." The fact that he didn't (even though, like Hillary and Obama, he opposes marriage equality and might have scored some points by stressing that) is telling.
21 Comments for “The Lion’s Den”
posted by John M. on
Don’t worry, there has been and will be plenty of other chances for Guiliani to show himself as the opportunist that he is. He is not a person guided by ideology as much as power hunger.
posted by ETJB on
It will be interesting to see what happens if he gets the GOP nod. Will Gary B and his folk bolt to the Constitution or Libertarian Party?
posted by Brian Miller on
Cheap shot, ETJB — our party, unlike yours, supports marriage equality. Yours would be a closer fit with Mr. Bauer.
As for Giuliani, we’re supposed to believe he’s brave for. . . bravely opposing marriage equality while making oblique references to abortion and other social positions in a conservative gathering?
That’s what goes for “leadership” these days?
No wonder the country is in such sorry shape.
posted by ETJB on
(1) No, it was not a ‘cheap shot’. People like Gary B. have been threating to bolt to a third political party for some time now. If Giuliani was the GOP candidate, it would be interesting to see whether or not the religious right would bolt the GOP.
(2) Given that much of the religious right leadership tends to be right-wing on social and economic policy, the Constitution Party would seem like a possible shift.
(3) The Libertarian Party is also a possiblity. The party has become more pro-life, is certainly right-wing and is willing to let its candidate wiggle when it comes to gay rights, especially when they oppose marriage as an institution.
Cheap shot, ETJB — our party, unlike yours, supports marriage equality. Yours would be a closer fit with Mr. Bauer.
As for Giuliani, we’re supposed to believe he’s brave for. . . bravely opposing marriage equality while making oblique references to abortion and other social positions in a conservative gathering?
That’s what goes for “leadership” these days?
No wonder the country is in such sorry shape.
posted by Brian Miller on
The Libertarian Party is also a possiblity.
About as much as the Green or Socialist Parties.
The party has become more pro-life
Wrong. All four Libertarian Party front-runners for the presidential nomination are pro-choice.
is certainly right-wing
A cheap and meaningless phrase, devoid of substance.
willing to let its candidate wiggle when it comes to gay rights, especially when they oppose marriage as an institution.
A total lie.
Individuals who are interested in what FEC-registered Libertarian candidates for president really think about gay issues are welcome to browse our Presidential scorecard of Libertarian, Republican and Democratic candidates.
As you can see, the three Libertarian candidates registered with the FEC all are unabashed supporters of marriage equality.
If anyone is “willing to allow candidates to wiggle” on marriage equality, it’s ETJB’s Democratic Party.
Check out the chart for yourself — it’s a handy-dandy resource for people who want the facts, and not ETJB’s malicious fiction.
posted by Brian Miller on
There are four presidential contenders for the Libertarian nomination who have serious campaigns. Three of them are FEC registered, and thus Outright publishes their responses on our scorecard. The fourth, Wayne Allyn Root, is in the process of registering and will be added shortly.
If you want to get an idea of how the left, as well as the right, thinks you’re stupid and can get away with bald-faced lies to you, contrast what these Libertarians are saying with what ETJB’s preferred Democrats are saying.
Christine Smith: I am for the immediate repeal of DOMA, and I oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Although I do not believe it is the business of government to be involved in granting marriage licenses, as long as the government issues marriage licenses and grants special privileges and benefits based on marital status, the same advantages must be granted equally to all married couples. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land protecting all citizens; no state shall supersede the U.S. Constitutionally guaranteed rights of American citizens, and all citizens must be provided “equal protection” of the laws.
George Phillies: DOMA is transparently unconstitutional, and I will work vigorously for its elimination. I will work vigorously to keep Uncle Sam out of your bedroom.
Steve Kubby: I support marriage freedom in general, and I find it particularly repugnant that the federal government would pass or enforce a law which violates the right of Americans to equal protection under the law — not just as a _side effect_, but as the stated intent! As president, I would hold DOMA to be prima facie unconstitutional, decline to enforce or implement it, and direct the Solicitor General of the United States to defend that interpretation vigorously if the Supreme Court cares to consider the question.
Wayne Root: I support overturning DOMA.
—-
Democrats should get back to me if they can get one of their top-tier candidates — Clinton, Edwards, or Obama — to take such strong stands on the issues important to gay people. Rather than lie about the Libertarian candidates, you should work to fix your own sorry lot of DOMA-supporting, gay-bashing people.
posted by ETJB on
“About as much as the Green or Socialist Parties.”
No, not really no. Ron Paul (the only libertarian elected to federal office) was endorsed by the 2004 Constitution Party candidate and would probably have little trouble winning the LP nod again.
The two minor parties are in basic agreements over economic issues, and would simply agree to a ‘state’s rights’ compromise on religious/civil liberties.
Yet, the religious right would not support the social or economic polices of the Green Party and certainly would not become Socialists.
The Libertarian Party HAS become more pro-life. Its recent platform was changed to reflect the growing power of pro-life libertarians.
The Libertarian Party IS right-wing. It is the right-wing of libertarianism.
“all are unabashed supporters of marriage equality.”
Translation: We want to abolish marriage as a legal institution and reduce it to a series of contracts.
We live in a two-party system. That means either a Demcorat or a Republican will be the next president.
You want to do something about that? Well why not contact your Representatives and Senators and ask them to support HR 3600? Why not get involved in a local IRV initaitive?
posted by Anon on
Ah yes, the Republican hero Giuliani, who’s such a coward that he can’t even come out and say it, so he has to say it behind closed doors:
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins claims that “Giuliani told him in a private meeting that if the Defense of Marriage Act appeared to be failing or if multiple states began to legalize same-sex marriages, then he would support the constitutional amendment.”
Giuliani neglected to mention marriage at all in his speech to the Values Voters Summit over the weekend, so Perkins said it was “nice to hear” an anti-gay pledge from the former NYC mayor.
posted by Brian Miller on
We live in a two-party system. That means either a Demcorat or a Republican will be the next president.
You’re batting an impressive average for how many throwaway clich
posted by ETJB on
The fact that we live in a two-party system is not a ‘cliche’. It is a fact.
The fact that our laws treat independent candidates and parties unfairly is a fact. I have a vocal supporter of voting rights, including the right to be a candidate. I have lobbied for bills, pushed for legislation, and been very outspoken in my views.
The Libertarian Party does not support gay marriage. Instead they seek to get government out of the marriage business — gay or straight.
As a stop gap measure, some Libertarians support civil unions (VT LP) or gay marriage. Others claim to be for gay marriage but endorose candidates who feel otherwise, as California did.
Their is a difference between left and right-wing libertarianism and the new libertarian center that has come from the Internet-South Park culture. It is an old split dealing mostly with economic-property theories.
The Libertarian Party is right-wing libertarianism. Its opposition to civil rights laws is one example of this.
I do not recall stating that Clinton’s or Obama’s support of civil unions, but oposition to gay marriage was ‘liberal’. They are not ‘liberal’ candidates.
Congressman Dennis K would be the liberal candidate, but he has no chance of winning the primary or general election.
posted by Jorge on
Well it doesn’t look like the gay thing is as a big a problem for Giuliani as the abortion thing. The right’s moved on gays, the left has moved on abortion, so on one of these issues he has something to prove, on the other he’s just a little uncomfortable.
posted by Brian Miller on
ETJB, your unwillingness to apologize for the flat-out falsehoods you’ve told are evidence of your dishonesty. Nobody should listen to you as a result.
Shall I chronicle them all again? Why not?
ETJB Lie #1: [The Libertarian Party is] willing to let its candidate wiggle when it comes to gay rights, especially when they oppose marriage.
Reality: All four Libertarian top-tier candidates for the Libertarian nomination are pro-gay marriage and opposed to DOMA. The four top-ranking Democratic Party nominees for president are opposed to marriage equality, and three of the four support DOMA.
Reality: The Libertarian Party platform has always been pro-choice and remains pro-choice. The platform’s policy position on abortion is “We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.” A much clearer position than the Democrats (who have far more anti-choice candidates in this election).
ETJB Lie #3: The Libertarian Party does not support gay marriage.
Reality: Most Libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage and overruling the rights of individuals to pursue the relationships they want. However, the Libertarian Party and its candidates call for marriage equality so long as marriage licenses and government bureaucracies make themselves final determiners of our relationships. Democrats neither call for marriage equality NOR call for the government out of our bedrooms. ETJB’s pro-segregation party says that gays aren’t good enough even for government marriage, and was instrumental in the passage of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, with key Democrats from Bill Clinton to Paul Wellstone providing active support and votes for that law.
Final analysis: Lying is not smart — especially when it comes to facts that can be easily checked.
posted by Brian Miller on
ETJB Lie #2: [The Libertarian Party] recent platform was changed to reflect the growing power of pro-life libertarians.
Reality: The Libertarian Party platform has always been pro-choice and remains pro-choice. The platform’s policy position on abortion is “We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control.” A much clearer position than the Democrats (who have far more anti-choice candidates in this election).
ETJB Lie #3: The Libertarian Party does not support gay marriage.
Reality: Most Libertarians want the government out of the business of defining marriage and overruling the rights of individuals to pursue the relationships they want. However, the Libertarian Party and its candidates call for marriage equality so long as marriage licenses and government bureaucracies make themselves final determiners of our relationships. Democrats neither call for marriage equality NOR call for the government out of our bedrooms. ETJB’s pro-segregation party says that gays aren’t good enough even for government marriage, and was instrumental in the passage of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, with key Democrats from Bill Clinton to Paul Wellstone providing active support and votes for that law.
Final analysis: Lying is not smart — especially when it comes to facts that can be easily checked.
posted by Bobby on
“The fact that our laws treat independent candidates and parties unfairly is a fact. ”
—Ever heard of Jesse Ventura? Third party candidates do win sometimes.
posted by ETJB on
Truth1: The Libertarian Party of California endorsed candidates who supported the state ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage. When I contacted the state party about this, I was told that the ‘party of principle’ cannot control what its candidates stand for.
Truth2: The Libertarian Party seeks to abolish government marriage. “Repeal any state or federal law assigning special benefits to people based on marital status”.
Truth3: The most successful Libertarian Party presidential candidate was in 1972. Until we change the electoral process, then an Independent or third party candidate is not viable.
Jesse Ventura is the rare exception, and occured because of fair election laws.
posted by ETJB on
Truth: The Libertarian Party has become more pro-life. Harry Browne (’96 & ’00) was prolife. Their is a pro-life libertarian wing. The only libertarian elected to federal office is pro-life.
The LP has added something in its platform to reflect the growing power of pro-life libertarians; “…abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides.”
The Libertarian Party oppose government marriages; gay and straight. Period. What they want to do in the interim depends on who you ask.
posted by Brian Miller on
The Libertarian Party of California endorsed candidates who supported the state ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage.
Another lie.
The Libertarian Party of California unanimously supported the passage of same-sex marriage legislation.
The Libertarian Party seeks to abolish government marriage.
The Libertarian Party seeks to get government out of the business of telling people who may or may not be married.
Of course, the Democratic Party supports government marriage as an institution that is eternally closed to gay people. Which you’re somehow arguing is superior.
The most successful Libertarian Party presidential candidate was in 1972.
Lie number 3. The Libertarian Party’s candidate in 1972, Hospers, received under 4,000 votes.
The Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate typically receives between 600,000 and a million votes based on the results from the mid 1990s onwards.
Only a liar like yourself would claim that under 4,000 is a “better” performance than 1 million.
The Libertarian Party has become more pro-life. Harry Browne (’96 & ’00) was prolife.
Yet another lie. Harry Browne was not supportive of laws to regulate a woman’s right to choose. He was personally opposed to abortion, but didn’t see fit to impose his view on others through government — that’s the job of Democrats.
The LP has added something in its platform to reflect the growing power of pro-life libertarians; “…abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on both sides.”
The Libertarian Party has *always* held that people disagree on this issue. It also has always held — and will continue to hold — that it’s an issue for individual conscience and not government.
Unlike Democrats, Libertarians don’t seek to abuse government power to impose our viewpoints on other people. So it’s quite possible for me to find abortion personally repugnant — while also fighting to the death to support a woman’s right to choose an abortion.
The same isn’t true for Democrats. Democrats have a far larger, more powerful anti-choice coalition within their party — including Senator Casey in Pennsylvania, who supports a constitutional ban on abortion — than the Libertarian Party.
Once again, these facts are easily verifiable.
The Libertarian Party oppose government marriages; gay and straight. Period.
Oh look — another lie.
The Libertarian Party supports getting government out of the marriage business — but understands that will take many many years. We support, today, equality under the law — same sex marriage equality under the present system.
Every single Libertarian top-tier candidate supports gay marriage equality.
Every single Democratic Party top-tier candidate opposes marriage equality.
Selling the Democrats as the answer is hilarious — even if you support the idea that government bureaucrats, and not you, should decide whether you’re married (and what the terms of that marriage should be), the Democrats support a system that permanently segregates gay people into a system of “never married.”
New challenge for ETJB: defend your own party’s record.
Second challenge for ETJB: Make an entire post that doesn’t contain a hilarious fabrication.
posted by Eva Young on
There is youtube footage of Giuliani saying what he was reported to say to Perkins:
posted by Eva Young on
Here’s the URL of the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YTCzvBc-CY
posted by ETJB on
You can spin all the Libertarian Propaganda that you want, but we both know the truth.
Fact: The Libertarian Party of California endorsed candidates who supported the state ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage. The fact that the party itself opposed the ballot issue and supports gay marriage, does not change the fact; they did not sanction their candidates who opposed it.
Fact: The Libertarian Party seeks to abolish government marriage. The Libertarian Party seeks to get government out of the business of telling people who may or may not be married. In other words; no marriage for anyone.
Fact: The most successful Libertarian Party presidential candidate was in 1972. In the United States of America, the populer vote does not matter for president. The only time that the party one an Electoral College vote was in 1972.
Only a complete liar and a fool, would claim that the president of the United States is elected by the popular vote, instead of the Electoral College.
Fact: The Libertarian Party has become more pro-life. Harry Browne (’96 & ’00) was prolife. They have also changed their platform. It will only be a matter of time before the party goes from being ‘personally pro-life’ to ‘politically pro-life.’
Fact: An Independent or third parvty candidate is not a viable choice under our current election law, especially in federal elections. If you want to change that, then you might want to consider backing certain campaign law reforms.
Fact: The only two viable choices are the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, under our current election law. What the Libertarians, Greens, Socialists, Communists, etc. do or do not say about gay rights does not really matter because they have zero chance of becoming a viable political choice…unless we change how elections occur.
posted by Brian Miller on
ETJB, I have provided comprehensive links disproving every single lie you’ve repeated in your prior post.
Repeating a lie, as I’ve noted dozens of times to you in the past, doesn’t make the lie true.
Either substantiate your claims with rigorous proofs, or apologize for your mendacity. Efforts to lie in such a transparent way are insulting less to Libertarians than to the intelligence of average readers of the forum, who can see that your efforts to spin a 4,000 vote campaign (versus as 1 million vote campaign) as “the most successful” of the two, etc. are transparent efforts to mislead.
I see these efforts on your part as further proof that Democrats in general have nothing to offer the queer voter this election cycle other than obvious lies, clumsy bullying and empty clich