Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Giuliani's Gay Marriage Flip Flop

1

I'm not surprised.

People's memories are short. Without September 11, this a-hole was a mayor who believed in treating people like crap, having a nazi-esque police force and cavorting with known jackasses like Bernard Kerik. He's taken the aftereffects of September 11th and turned it into a business for himself.

Giuliani mastered being an opportunist long ago. This is just one more example.

Posted by Dave Coffman | April 27, 2007 7:46 AM
2

What do you expect from this clown?
He also wanted to appoint his mafia police commisioner to head Homeland Security. As mayor he backed the most brutal actions of that same mafia dominated department. After the first attack on the WTC in 1993 he wanted to placed the emergency operations center...in the WTC! The remains of some victims of 9/11 have ended up as material to fill city potholes becuse of his lack of concern.
"America's Mayor" is actually an American shame.

Posted by MIchael | April 27, 2007 7:57 AM
3

Sickening, and predictable. I was just waiting for this one, really.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | April 27, 2007 8:05 AM
4

First McCain, then Romney. Now Giuliani is fellating the religious right. The only real surprise is that he waited this long to back stab teh gays.

He needed teh gays to get elected mayor. He needed teh gays when his wife tossed him out on the street. Now he wants to be preznit, and some flunky advisor told him he needs to kick teh gays to the curb to attain his goal.

Thanks for standing up for us, you fucker. Nice job with that personal integrity you spineless hypocrite.

Until now, I sort of felt that Giuliani was the least offensive of the Republican candidates. Like, if the Democrats self destruct, again, and we got stuck with yet another Republican, he might not be completely horrible. Now? Not so much...

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 27, 2007 8:07 AM
5

If he wins (God help us) it would bring the mob closer to power than anytime since JFK.

Posted by Thomas | April 27, 2007 8:08 AM
6

I think that the couple that gave hin shelter after he was evicted from Gracie Mansion should come forward and make a statement.

But they're probably Republicans, or "A-List Gay" or some such nonsense, and will keep their traps shut.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | April 27, 2007 8:09 AM
7

Interesting that folks like SDA in SEA @4 saw Giuliani as a viable Republican candidate before this turnaround. Those of us who are black AND queer cannot ignore the fact that he allowed his police force to terrorize our neighborhoods and kill our family members. It is too bad that it has taken Giuliani being anti-gay rights for people to see that he is anti-civil rights. He has always been "not so much."

Posted by Papayas | April 27, 2007 8:34 AM
8

Is it time to do a "santorum" on his name? Maybe too many innocents with that name.

giuliani: a bacteria once thought to be benign later discoverd to be quite
virulent.

Posted by Ed | April 27, 2007 8:40 AM
9

Papayas, to be honest, I didn't really know much about Giuliani. I live in Seattle. I have only visited NY once, almost 20 years ago. I had barely heard of Giuliani before 9/11, and of course he has been portrayed as a media darling since then. Compared to Bush, he sounded brilliant (as would pretty much anyone with a pulse). I'd heard he was okay with teh gays, and the whole living with a gay couple after his separation thing, and thought that sounded pretty cool, for a Republican.

And I wasn't saying I liked Giuliani. Just that I disliked him less than I disliked, say, Newt Gingrich. But the more I hear about him (like your comments) the less I like him, er, more. Or the more I dislike him. Or whatever.

Ugh. Can some democrat, really any of them, please win this time?

Posted by SDA in SEA | April 27, 2007 9:11 AM
10

Here is a Rudy Fun Fact!

When he was mayor of NYC he put the NYC Police Terrorist Response Center in...World Trade Center AFTER the first attack on the WTC in 1993.

While he was mayor of NYC he did nothing to prepare for another terrorist attack for a period of 8 years.

While he was mayor of NYC he refused to fund the police & firefighters new radios that could communicate through various forms of debris. This lead to many more of them to die after the towers collapsed.

And he is "America's Mayor"??? Good lord, if he is elected President we will all die.

Posted by Just Me | April 27, 2007 9:19 AM
11

incest?

Posted by sniggles | April 27, 2007 9:23 AM
12

catalina vel-duray @ 6,

Don’t even bother trying to reason with gay Republicans.

They’re about the most insane, pathetic boot-lickers this country has to offer.

It must be drain bamage.

Posted by Original Andrew | April 27, 2007 9:23 AM
13

SDA in SEA @9: Yeah, I totally get it. It is hard to find out the bad (real) shit about a pol when listening to national news. And I can see how Giuliani may have looked not as bad as the others from the West Coast.

Posted by Papayas | April 27, 2007 9:44 AM
14

Okay, so which Republican candidate do you want the Democrats to (risk) lose(ing) to this time?

Isn’t it at least theoretically possible that he may be telling the religious right what they want to hear and not what he believes, that he may be willing to use any opportunity to seize power and then turn the Republican Party away from the Christianist forces that dominate it today and back to a more truly conservative (maybe Goldwater-esk) path? I don’t believe for a minute that he personally gives a rats ass who does what with their penis with whom, while all the rest of the Republican candidates truly do.

Why should we give this flip flop any more credence than those made by prominent Democrats?

To Point:

At the outset of his Congressional career in 1976, Gore called homosexuality "abnormal." In 1980 he voted for an amendment prohibiting the Legal Services Corp. from assisting homosexuals whose rights were denied because of their sexual orientation. As a senator, Gore repeatedly backed anti-gay measures devised by Jesse Helms that sought to deny legal protections for gay people, and supported an amendment to use HIV tests to discriminate against immigrants and people seeking health insurance. Even worse, Gore voted with Helms to restore the anti-gay sodomy law in the District of Columbia after the local city council tried to repeal it.

In 1993, Liberman voted to prohibit HIV positive people from immigrating to the United States and to kill a domestic partners law that had passed in the District of Columbia. And, going back to 1989, he voted to prevent schools from using educational materials that "promote homosexuality" or portray homosexuality as "normal, natural, or healthy."

Ralph Nader refused to denounce the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that forbade the federal government from recognizing gay unions. As the bill was snaking its way through Congress, Nader infamously dismissed concern for the rights of gays as mere "gonadal politics" that would be beneath his dignity as a true progressive to comment upon.

Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law and gave us Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (and remember, this was in partnership with Hillary in his “two for the price of one” presidency.)

Site to me one instance where Rudy has been as blatantly homophobic as these sacred cows of Liberalism who seem to have been given a pass when they started saying what they thought the Secular Left needed to hear instead of what they clearly believed…

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 10:15 AM
15

@14: You're correct. Democratic hands are not clean. But Giuliani is not electable as a republican. The Deep South will stay home if he's the candidate.

I would argue that within the Democratic party us gay folk can have a voice. There is no real voice for the GLBT community in Republican circles (including the Log Cabin people, who in the last election didn't endorse Bush and who have been ostracized by the R's on many an occasion).

As a teen I was a liberal republican. That lasted about 5 years. In the 90's I worked for a republican senator who was actually more liberal than the dem Senator from my state. He lasted one term before getting fed up. While the Dems can be as hypocritical as the R's, at least I feel as though I can make my points and that they'll at least listen.

As for Giuliani: He's an opportunistic fuckwit. This case is just one more instance of that.

Posted by Dave Coffman | April 27, 2007 10:30 AM
16

@14 -- I feel so much worse now about my fantasy of cuddling with Al Gore.

Posted by Mark Mitchell | April 27, 2007 10:39 AM
17

Okay, but here’s the question. If not Rudy, then who? I’m talking about who would you prefer to have in place as the Republican candidate if the Democrat melted down and self destructed in an eleventh hour scandal, or just pulled a Kerry… or a Gore… In other words, if you did get stuck with another Conservative, who would you prefer? (This is how I approach the Liberal field.)

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 10:40 AM
18

Who is the lesser evil?

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 10:43 AM
19

Honestly, I think I prefer McCain to Rudy. McCain is also guilty of pandering to the Religious Right. I also don't think McCain REALLY means it. So there Rudy and McCain are even. The difference is their positions re: civil liberties. McCain actually cares about (some) of them. Rudy wouldn't care if we did away with the Bill of Rights.

Posted by arduous | April 27, 2007 11:42 AM
20

Personally, (today at least) I would prefer Rudy over McCain and Obama over Hillary, but could probably stomach any of those four.

I try to listen to see who sounds least shrill when it comes to Morality (gay rights, abortion) on the right and Human Ecology (global warming, redistribution of wealth) on the left. These seem to be each side’s red meat, and I want someone who will behave moderately in each case.

On an equal scale though, I think the potential harm from unintended consequences is very much greater in the case of the Liberal cause du jour. So overall I lean Conservative.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 12:11 PM
21

And besides, I haven’t seen any of the other major candidates (other that Hillary) in drag (yet). Although I hear that Fred Thompson is fetching in a backless ball gown, and that Obama has legs that go for miles in stilettos.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 12:17 PM
22
On an equal scale though, I think the potential harm from unintended consequences is very much greater in the case of the Liberal cause du jour.

Exactly, because the intended consequences of conservative policies are always bad. Liberals actually try to do good, even if it frequently blows up in their faces.

Posted by keshmeshi | April 27, 2007 12:19 PM
23

I do not agree that the intended consequences of conservative policies are always bad. But regardless, it is always easier to stop bad policy because of its intended consequences then because of its unintended consequences, which frequently are not apparent early enough to be avoided.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 12:43 PM
24

Well, as a gay man, I can tell you that the Republican Party and the Talibangelical Christians are the biggest threats to me, my family and our rights and civil liberties. They don’t even treat us like human beings let alone citizens of the same country.

I hope the terrorists blow these neo-Nazis straight to hell.

Posted by Original Andrew | April 27, 2007 1:27 PM
25

And keshmeshi, I missed the "do good" clause in the constitution. Could you point that out to me? Thanks.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 1:29 PM
26

Okay Original Andrew, hysteria aside, realizing that once you get to the actual ticket, there is about a 50/50 chance for each party to win the Presidency, which Republican candidate would you like to have on that ticket to defer risk? Which is the lesser of all evils?

And, I’ll point out to you that the most anti-gay legislation in years (DOMA & Don’t Ask Don’t Tell) was put into place by Democrats and it was the “conservative” Supreme Court that repealed the Sodomy laws. So, who is actually doing what for (to) gays…

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 1:45 PM
27

i second sniggles, incest???

Posted by megan w | April 27, 2007 3:17 PM
28

You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me @ 26,

Honestly, they’re all awful. The Dems are slightly better than the Repubs, but none of them are inspiring in the least.

Mc Cain, Romney, Giuliani, Brownback, Huckabee et al – I wouldn’t brake if I saw them crossing the street.

Hillary “Triangulation Nation” Clinton, Barack “Hot Air” Obama, John “I’m Just Not There Yet” Edwards, etc. Yick.

And you’re right, Bill Clinton was a son of a bitch for stabbing us in the back with DADT and DOMA. He knew those policies were wrong and he signed ‘em anyway because he’s a power hungry pandering pig. And I say that as someone who grew up in Arkansas with him as governor for 12 years then voted for him twice for President. You should also mention that he told John Kerry to come out in favor of an anti-gay Federal Constitutional Amendment in the final days of the 2004 election. What a sleazy fuck. John Kerry refused, to his eternal credit.

I think that it’s important to remember that we’re not just electing a President; we’re also installing a cabinet and a policy apparatus (or lack thereof). One of the reasons our country is such a mess is that everyone running the government now under Bush is the worst of worst – totally corrupt and incompetent. So to answer your question, none of the Repubs are acceptable because we’ll just get more of the same.

To paraphrase Salon’s Glenn Greenwald, the conservative movement has no positive agenda. They only know that they hate the poor, negroes, ragheads, faggots, feminists, intellectuals and most of all liberals, and want to exterminate them.

Posted by Original Andrew | April 27, 2007 3:50 PM
29

Again, Original Andrew, lots of interesting thoughts there, but realizing that once you get to the actual ticket, there is about a 50/50 chance for each party to win the Presidency, which Republican candidate would you like to have on that ticket to defer risk? Which is the lesser of all evils? It's a simple question. (My answer (right now) to the equivalent, as a Conservative, is Obama. What's yours?)

You will note that I have not selected the Candidate that I think would be the most beatable (go Kucinich!) but the one I think I could most easily live with because his position on what I see as the most dangerous (damning) Liberal red meat issue (Human Ecology) is the least shrill and hysterical.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 4:17 PM
30

Megan, it took forever to find, but apparently his first marriage of 14 years was to his second cousin.

Posted by sniggles | April 27, 2007 5:05 PM
31

Worked for FDR.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | April 27, 2007 5:20 PM
32

"Operation Two-Faced Gay-Traitor"

well stated. there's nothing that infuriates me more than treason. i don't forgive it.

Posted by Fendi | April 30, 2007 12:51 AM
33

attorney defense angeles los airport criminal http://criminal-defense.da.cx >criminal attorney airport los defense angeles

Posted by airport attorney defense criminal angeles los | May 5, 2007 4:39 PM
34

Hello everyone, wanna be part of some kind of community, possible here? anyone here?

Posted by Buy antivirus | May 10, 2007 1:46 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).