Liberal New York Times pundit Frank Rich is risking the wrath of the Kos crowd by opining, "No matter how you slice it, the Giuliani positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control remain indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton's."
Rich makes the case that Giuliani's status as the GOP front-runner reveals the religious right's "values czars' demise as a political force" and that:
"white evangelical Christians and a new generation of evangelical leaders have themselves steadily tacked a different course from the Dobson crowd. A CBS News poll this month parallels what the Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick found in his examination of evangelicals.... Like most other Americans, they are more interested in hearing from presidential candidates about the war in Iraq and health care than about any other issues."
That evangelical activists are still trying to push the gay hot button shows their disconnect with the people on whose behalf they claim to speak, says Rich. Let's hope so.
Two Rudys? There's a very different view of Rudy by liberal academic/historian David Greenburg, who writes with disdain in the Washington Post that Giuliani is no social issues liberal at all:
What's left of the case for Rudy's liberalism relies on three prongs: guns, gay rights and abortion. But even those positions, seen in context, don't render Giuliani a liberal or a moderate so much as an occasional and tepid dissenter from the GOP line...
Hmm. Maybe the Giuliani camp can disseminate the Rich column calling him socially liberal like Hillary among moderate independents, and the Greenburg op-ed labeling him "a confirmed right-winger" among the GOP's activist base-and hope they don't get the two mixed up!
15 Comments for “The Times They Are a-Changin’?”
posted by Southern Decency on
Hillary versus Rudy on Gay Rights:
DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL: Giuliani wants to keep it for now because we’re at war, Clinton unequivocally wants to repeal it now.
RECOGNIZING SAME-SEX RELATIONSHIPS: both oppose gay marrage. Clinton supports full-featured civil unions, Rudy once did but now only supports weak domestic partnerships. Clinton opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, Giuliani once did but told Perks he might support it under certain circumstances. Clinton also supports repeal of section 3 of DOMA, Giuliani does not.
“Indistinguishable”? Maybe of your analysis is as superficial as Frank Rich’s, but otherwise not. While it’s debatable how much Clinton would risk to make these things happen, it’s undeniable that at least on paper, Clinton is better, albeit not perfect, on gay rights.
posted by Rob on
Two points:
#1Miller did not analyze anything here; he simply was presenting two other analyses.
#2Despite what any of them say, what are tehy truly going to do? Tack another Domestic Partnership amendment onto another already doomed bill? woo-hoo. They don’t care about anything but themselves and getting re-elected.
posted by ETJB on
Giuliani might be a sign of the re-alignment of the Republican Party. It depends on how well he does in the primary and the general.
posted by Last Of The Moderate Gays on
Rudy is tilting to the right for now in order to get the nomination, just as Hillary is tilting to the center for now. That’s politics, folks . . . pure and simple.
That’s why it’s almost pointless to judge the candidates’ positions until after the conventions.
And Southern, your mindless allegiance to the Clintons is both sad and laughable. I’m sure good ole Hill will do to us what her svengali/husband did . . . Promise us the moon & the stars and shaft us once (God forbid!) she’s in. Sorry to confuse you with a little history . . .
posted by Southern Decency on
“Last of the Moderate Gays”:
My “mindless allegiance”? I merely contrasted her declared positions with Giuliani’s, and explicitly questioned her commitment to those positions. How could that be “mindless allegiance”?
You either fail to understand the meaning of that term, or you’re a liar. Either way, if that is what makes you “moderate”, then let’s better beware of “moderates” like you.
posted by Brian R. Miller on
Liberal New York Times pundit Frank Rich is risking the wrath of the Kos crowd by opining, “No matter how you slice it, the Giuliani positions on abortion, gay rights and gun control remain indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton’s.”
This isn’t news. We’ve been saying this for years.
On gay issues, Giuliani and Hillary both have an incredible ability to flip-flop on the issues. Giuliani, for instance, claimed to be in favor of civil unions “that approximate marriage” until NH’s came along — it “went too far” for some nebulous reason.
Hillary just loves DOMA. It’s “transitional policy,” as she describes it.
Perhaps funniest of all, people who vote for Hillary or Giuliani will get exactly who they voted for — and exactly what they deserve. 😉
posted by TJR on
I would have to disagree with Stephen Miller on this issue. Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Clinton are indeed quite different. Hillary Clinton has not flip flopped in her support for gay rights whereas Guiliani has done a complete 180 in a play for the support of the right wing extremists in the GOP. Ha… he is even flip flopping in his support for sports teams. God help us if this guy gets to the White House.
posted by Bobby on
Poor Rudy, to the conservatives he’s a left-winger and to the liberals a right-winger.
The truth is that Rudy is a liberal. He may be playing hte moderate card, saying that “oh we can disagree on gun control, and it’s ok to disagree.” The only difference is that while Rudy admits not everyone agrees with him, Hillary assumes that she’s right. That’s one reason I’d much rather have Rudy as presidents.
Liberals don’t like dissent. It’s “my way or the highway” for them.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t think terms like “gay rights” reduce to an easily definable position or cause by any stretch of the imagination. You have few if any candidates being explicitly against gay people or gay culture. Most at least try to claim they’re not out to take away people’s rights to make their own personal lifestyle choices. There’s very little distinction between Republicans and Democrats on this. The antidiscrimination bill rightly *should* pass, no one’s still complaining about Lawrence v. Texas, and the only controversy about anti-gay hate crimes is how to punish them.
“Gay rights” does mean just the issues Democrats or gay people are currently espousing. To me it has much more to do with respecting the most basic things, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
I don’t think there’s much doubt that Hillary Clinton is friendlier to gay organizations and adopts more sympathetic positions right now, but in terms of a pro-gay record, Giuliani wins hands down among any presidential candidate running, period. Unless he actually repudates New York’s domestic partnership law.
posted by ETJB on
…”Giuliani wins hands down among any presidential candidate running, period.”
Total and utter bunk. Giuliani supported a DP program, started by the preveious administration. He has since back tracked on most of his former positions. Not to mention the fact that the next president may be appointing some USSC judges.
posted by Brian Miller on
Hillary Clinton has not flip flopped in her support for gay rights
Sure she has. She’s just done it differently from St. Rudy. Just look up her statements on DOMA, marriage and gays in the military to see how she zigs and zags.
in terms of a pro-gay record, Giuliani wins hands down
That says more about the poor quality of the old-party candidates (and the duplicity of their queer supporters) than about Giuliani’s supposedly high quality.
posted by Jorge on
“Started by the previous administration?” That’s quite an embellishment. New York’s domestic partnership law was signed in 1998. That was Giuliani’s administration. It was an old idea at the time, and Giuliani’s support was instrumental to getting it passed. That’s his major pro-gay accomplishment. He is the only candidate I know of with a major pro-gay accomplishment (and he continues to defend it). He is by far the candidate with the best record of actually doing things that have helped gay people.
I’m not sure what you mean by your vague reference to Supreme Court judges.
posted by TJR on
Rudy Giuliani is doing what Republicans do plain and simple, thats run as far away from any sort of pro-gay policy as possible. Domestic Partnership…what an accomplishment, the good mayor dear not mention this on the campaign trail. His mention of appointing “strict constructionist” judges code words for “right wingers” to the supreme court is good for the campaign trail.
posted by ETJB on
The next President may appont USSC judges and Giuliani has made it clear that he supports right-wing judges.
Judges who would love to overturn Lawrence or Roe.
posted by John on
For the most part what Greenberg says does not contradict what Rich said. The Giuliani Greenberg describes is an urban law and order conservative who gives the police the benefit of the doubt whenever questions arise concerning police brutality and potential civil rights (and liberties) violations who generally doesn’t agree with the religious conservatives (school vouchers being an exception). The Giuliani Rich describes is secular moderate who supported abortion rights, gun control and gay rights. To the extent that they do contradict each other, it’s because Greenberg and the mayor have downplayed those differences he has with the religious conservatives.