Wash. Post's Balz asserted Giuliani "[a]t odds" with GOP "on abortion, guns and gays," despite moving to the right on those issues
SUMMARY: A Washington Post article by Dan Balz described Rudy Giuliani as "[a]t odds with the majority of his party on abortion, guns and gays," but failed to note that Giuliani has shifted his position on these issues, moving toward more conservative stances on them, since launching his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
In a December 16 article, Washington Post staff writer Dan Balz asserted that "[f]ormer New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani has defied political gravity. At odds with the majority of his [Republican] party on abortion, guns and gays, he has nonetheless led in national polls all year. But as 2008 nears, the question is whether his luck can hold." At no point in the article did Balz describe Giuliani's positions on "abortion, guns and gays," nor did Balz point out that, since launching his 2008 presidential campaign, Giuliani has shifted his position on these three issues, moving toward more conservative stances on them. As Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, and here) Giuliani has shifted his stance on abortion, going so far as to say "[i]t would be OK to repeal" Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision finding that the Constitution protects a women's right to an abortion. In addition, Giuliani has changed his position on gun control, backing away from his support of federal gun laws. Further, an August 13 Boston Globe article reported that "Giuliani continues to discard the moderate and liberal positions of his past. The latest is civil unions for same-sex couples, which the Republican presidential candidate has been backing away from in recent months."
Abortion
While media figures like Balz often report that Giuliani supports abortion rights, as Media Matters has repeatedly documented, Giuliani has said on several occasions that if elected president, he would appoint "strict constructionist" judges and has specifically "pledge[d] to use ... as model appointments" Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, both of whom have declared their support for overturning Roe v. Wade. Indeed, during the May 3 Republican presidential debate Giuliani said that "[i]t would be OK to repeal" Roe v. Wade, but that "[i]t would be also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision," as Media Matters documented.
Gun control
On June 26, the issues section of Giuliani's website (accessed through the Internet Archive) read, "Rudy Giuliani is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. When he was Mayor of a city suffering an average of almost 2000 murders a year, he protected people by getting illegal handguns out of the hands of criminals. As a result, shootings fell by 72% and the murder rate was cut by two-thirds. But Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana." By contrast, as mayor, Giuliani supported federal gun control laws that affected all 50 states, as Media Matters documented. Indeed, Giuliani supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and the national assault weapons ban signed by President Clinton in 1994, which has since expired. Further, on the February 6, 2000, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Giuliani voiced his support for the uniform licensing of handguns, saying: "[A] person who wants to possess a handgun should pass a written test, should be able to pass a physical test in the actual use of the gun, and should have to demonstrate good moral character and a reason to have the gun. ... [E]ssentially, there should be a uniform law passed by Congress that says that every state has to administer that, the way we say that we're not going to let you drive an automobile if you're too young." More recently, in the November 28 CNN/YouTube Republican presidential candidate debate, Giuliani claimed that the "states can have a little bit of leeway" in establishing gun control regulations" while claiming that the federal government "can impose reasonable regulations ... about criminal background, background of mental instability. ... And if those regulations go beyond that, then those are unconstitutional."
Gay rights
Giuliani has also reportedly shifted his stance on civil unions for gay couples. An April 27 New York Sun article reported:
In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.
"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."
The Sun further reported, "Despite Mr. Giuliani's long history of supporting gay rights -- or rather, because of it -- yesterday's statement is likely to lead many observers to question whether the former mayor is concerned that his socially liberal record and positions aren't flying in the Republican primary."
what? "mayor guiliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman"? oh i got it, one at a time.
The media deliberately cloud the issue over Rudys stance on gays, abortion and guns. He's totally at odds with the party brethren on these, their bedrock issues.
Nevermind the material difference between Roe v. Wade and the issue of whether abortion should be legal. Nevermind the difference between Brady and the Second Amendment. Some people are intelligent enough to decipher between substantive issues and constitutional issues. This people who run this site, apparently, are not among them.
Well, you got me. I thought Constitutional Issues WERE Substantive Issues. But then, I'm having a hard time deciphering your entire post.
Not if your a card carrying GOP'er. Bush has been wiping his backside with the Bill of Rights since before 9/11 -- so, why should they care.
What the hell do these differences have to do with anything? The fact that Giuliani has shifted his positions on these issues has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.
If you can show where Guiliani had once been in favor of Roe v. Wade and gay marriage then you may have a point. But Media Matters didn't show anything to that effect. You can support abortion rights but believe that Roe should be overturned and that people should vote on it at the state level.
Didn't Rudy make six donations to Planned Parenthood in the 1990s? Hasn't he always supported abortion rights? Isn't his new found constitutional argument kind of a "flip-flop"?
That argument has never made any sense. If Roe is overturned and it's decided on the state level, then there's any number of women who will be denied abortion rights. To say "I support abortion rights, but I'm also supporting an action that will take abortion rights away", that doesn't really fly too well. I think you would have to call that "abstaining" on the issue, where abortion rights don't bother you, but you don't think that people should necessarily have them. That's hardly "support".
Sure it is. There's lots of liberal, pro choice people who realize that Roe v. Wade was total B.S. and took the issue away from the people. Anybody who supports Roe v. Wade is simply anti-democratic. They want the courts to force the American people to accept something that the Constitution is silent on. There are many abortion supporters who oppose the shameful Roe v. Wade decision.
It's also nonsense that states decide rights that are not specified in Constitution.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, the fact that the Constitution lists a number of rights should not be interpreted as meaning that people don't have other ones. So the Constitution is not "silent" on anything here, it addresses any number of things.
And "rights" is the whole issue. If you support abortion "rights", then you support something that can't be legitimately taken away from people. That's what makes it a right. Again, you can't support a right and exclude people from it at the same time.
Going by your definition everything should be a right. A judge could simply say that anything they favor is a right and not allow the people to vote on it. Drug use and prostitution could be considered privacy rights as well. Are these constitutional rights that shouldn't be voted on?
Theoretically, yes. Why doesn't either fall under privacy rights, since they involve one's own body?
On a more pragmatic level, there are some differences. Some have argued that they are bad for society (although the laws against them seem ineffective at best and dangerous at worst), which would be a valid basis for making them illegal. On the other hand, the social benefits to abortion are undeniable. It cuts down on overpopulation, poverty, and crime.
Also, laws against abortion carry high stakes, considering that a woman has to live with the results of it forever, or flood the orphanage system. What's more, something that the three things have in common is that laws against them don't prevent people from doing them. For drugs and prostitution, that ban doesn't change the nature of the behavior very much. For abortion, however, since it's forced underground, it becomes more dangerous.
So while moral concerns do sometimes wrongfully create laws, for abortion there are overriding concerns that dictate why that right should be protected. If and when people are able to comprehend that supporting legalization for prostitution and drugs does not mean that people think those things are right or good, but rather that they are health problems instead of legal ones, then maybe there will be an atmosphere that makes the overturning of those laws politically feasible.
Of course, anything that actually does harm other people or society is not a right, so I'm not sure you could come up with too many other examples. Saying that "everything" would be a right under my definition is an overstatement of galactic proportions.
Yeah, I mean what's the big deal, it's just a piece of paper right?
Moron.
Since the media has seen fit to mention every time a Democratic candidate has switch for "Coke to Pepsi" it is very to the point to mention a GOP candidate changing his "beliefs" on these major GOP issue. And before you say they aren't major planks for the GOP just look at elections at least since the 80's. They (the Republic, especially the right-wing fundies) have made these issues bedrock for the party and now they have to live with them.
Simce Rudy has pulled such a major reversal it should be noted in every story. Since I am getting such snappy attacks from the media on everything from preferences coffee, to possibly being a super-secret Muslim (gasp) -- which there is no basis for, and cost of haircuts.
In the GENERAL ELECTION, Rudy's record of being "LIBERAL" on several "key" issues to the rightwing base will be a PLUS. So, his earlier stances on THOSE issues must not be abandoned: He'll need them to try to shed his "I'm A Republican" stigma. Republicans will be trounced this election, and everybody knows it. The Less Republican Rudy can appear, the better.
BUT ... to win the NOMINATION, he has to communicate to the rightwing Republican BASE that he's not really a supporter of his previous positions. Those were "pragmatic" decisions that went against his root principles, he will tell them. He MUST tell them this, in order to have a shot at running for president at all.
But this is a mess. Rudy is all over the place on issues, too damn Liberal for the gun nuts and evangelicals, too conservative for the anti-IRAQ-war majority of Americans. About all the MEDIA can do is keep his earlier record alive for the General Election, meanwhile Rudy courts the rightwing base with copious winks and nods, reversals, contradictions, and weasels.
No principles, flip flops galore, a Media that is hard pressed to figure out which RUDY to report, the best to give him advantage at any given moment. This carnival of acrobatics is not lost on the voting public, as "FRONT-RUNNER" Rudy sinks ever lower in the polls ... his candidacy all but dead. And it cannot be revived, because it simply cannot survive a head-to-head run against ANY of the fine Democratic field. He's toast.
Meanwhile, McCain gets the nod from Lieberman. Whoo-boy! If ever there were a "kiss of death", this is it! So long, McCain.
Meanwhile, Romney gets WEEPY, so now the rightwing media is turning backflips telling us such "emotional displays" are a GOOD thing, violating decades of harsh, hopefully FATAL criticism of ANY Democrat who dared show emotion. "TOO WEAK TO LEAD!" was the resounding critique. Ah, what a difference a day makes.
While you make a great talking-point writer, comments like:
"Meanwhile, McCain gets the nod from Lieberman. Whoo-boy! If ever there were a "kiss of death", this is it! So long, McCain."
show how very little reality you're familiar with. If Hannity has a darling, Lieberman is definitely it. Lieberman was a huge endorsement for McCain, especially for the NH primary.
DEX:
Interesting. If "Hannity's Darling" endorses you, it's good for your prospects in New Hampshire.
Upon what is this curious formula based? Does Hannity have a lock on NH primary voters?
Considering Hannity has been pontificating for YEARS, and in 2006 New Hampshire went entirely DEMOCRATIC in its voting, I'd say that Lieberman has company in the "kiss of death" category.
But, maybe you know something we regular folks do not. WHY would a Lieberman endorsement HELP anyone? Why would a "Hannity Darling" make the difference in NH?
I was not implying that Hannity's endorsement would help McCain in NH. I was implying that Lieberman's endorsement would help him.
I fail to see any substance to your "kiss of death" statement. Lieberman won a Senate seat in Conn. as an independent after the progressive candidate won the dem nomination. NH and Connecticut are very similar demographically, and Lieberman polls well in NH, so why would a popular politician's endorsement, who gains votes cross-party, be worse for McCain?
I don't know what to make of this story other than to think it says, “Do you want to believe the Rudy before his presidential run or after the start of it?” - and that one would think that The Washington Post would probably be the last newspaper to paint Giuliani as “at odds” with the GOP.
To me, the most remarkable thing about the Republican Party is their hypocrisy. To Republicans, Democrats "have no platform" or "are in total disarray" whenever there is an open discussion on an issue where there is no general consensus. On the other hand, Republicans hide their differences by masking them, shoving them "in the closet", or clouding the issue in whatever manner necessary to show an appearance of "unity". The big difference between Democrats and Republicans is that while Democrats take pride in our diversity and promotion of free-thinking - Republicans, by the very definition of conservatism, are stuck with everyone having to "toe the line". The problems that this causes are being made very evident in this election.
The big questions for Republicans this election seems to be, "Does our religion allow converts?”.
PJ,
What you seem to be missing is the fact that there is a remarkable diversity amongst the Republican candidates. A Mormon ex-Governor of Massachusetts, an Evangelical ex-Governor of Arkansas, a liberal ex-mayor of NYC, an over the hill tv-actor/ex-senator for Tennesse, and a rather independent ex pow and senator from Arizona among the leaders.
I think your analysis needs some updating. :-)
AnotherA...
Yes that "remarkable diversity amongst the Republican candidates" is truly something... It runs the gamut all the way from pale, pasty late-middle-aged white male to ruddy late-middle-aged white male.
Touche' (although McCain hardly qualifies as middle aged anymore.) :-)
Will you agree with me that diversity is not only skin color, and gender, but also can include heritage, location, religion, age, experience and political philosophy (to name but a few)?
"...but also can include heritage, location, religion, age, experience and political philosophy (to name but a few)?"
Hell, why not throw "DNA" in there? Hair color, eye color, height, weight...diversity! And they do have different names, does that count?
It seems like the only way that Republican candidates couldn't be diverse is if they all were from the same family backgrounds, all in the same area, all the same denomination (they're all Christians anyway), all born at the same time, all entering public service at the same time (having the same job as well), and all having the exact same political philosophy. They would pretty much have to be a litter.
I have noticed that the republican candidates are, at least, putting forth stances and ideas. Something that has not come from any of the democrat candidates. They are too busy bickering between and amongst each other to actually tell the people of the US what their plans are to save the nation. No diversity from the side that demands diversity, only whining and bickering. They are making it very easy for the American people to choose who to vote for, well, at least who NOT to vote for.
I thought Hillary and Obama were duking it out as to whose health-care plan was better?
I'm not sure there's any real advantage for Republicans here. Romney and Huckabee are bickering over who is more Christian, as well as who supports Bush more. Giuliani's stance seems to be "9/11! 9/11!". Thompson flat-out refused to answer a question on global warming. Ideas? Stances? I think the same argument can be made that Republicans are alienating voters, with equal merit.
Another lib who thinks that diversity is only represented in some one's skin color. Ken, If you want someone with not so pallid a skin tone to run for repub pres then you should push affirmative action for the presidential nominations.
While you guys are patting yourselves on the back for having a Mormon candidate, why don't you ask yourself who the highest ranking Mormon is? Oh, that's right, it's Harry Reid. Funny, I don't remember Harry Reid having to give a "Mormon" speech to be chosen by his party. I don't remember him having to deal with any of the questions Romney is.
Anotheramerican - This "remarkable diversity" is the reason for the rollercoaster popularity of Republican candidates and proves the point of my post which is that unless candidates "toe the line" on Republican isssues across the board there will be no "unity" as a party. Republicans divided are the death of the party - Democrats divided are just another day at the office.
Rudy has flip-flopped on so many issues I'd think he'd be bruised from head to toe by now.
I bet even he's so confused that he doesn't know what his positions on the issues are ;-)
"I bet even he's so confused that he doesn't know what his positions on the issues are ;-)"
Thank goodness for cue cards and campaign strategists, huh? It can be so hard for politicians of any stripe these days to keep their "fundamental convictions" straight.
"Thank goodness for cue cards and campaign strategists, huh?"
If cue cards and strategists are the key, then the final 2 will be hilary and rudy.
God, we need a 3rd party!
The main reason that the Repubs will lose the general election is that the rifts between social conservatism, neocons and moderates are ever-widening, thus making members of one group look like flip-floppers if they reach out to the other. Giuliani is a neocon who is trying to pander to the social conservatives, Romney is trying as well, but they're both fakes. MMfA shouldn't go as far as saying that Giuliani isn't at odds with "the GOP", whose grassroots workers and legislators tend to be mainly social conservatives.
media matters is a joke.... this is not even a story. rudy is at odds with conservatives because of his record on social issues. he may have ventured to the 'right' for the primary but the fact still remains he is not the 'pro-life' 'pro-traditional family' candidate by any means. therefore, the statement is correct. where the hell is the story? i swear you guys won't be happy until mmfa reporters are writing all the stories
KJK,
psst... Don't tell anyone but MMFA seldom sticks to it's stated purpose. :-)
Not that I mind. If they did, there would be little to discuss.
kjkretsc1008: You admit Romney “ventured to the 'right' for the primary”. So he’s a fraud, phony, and flip-flopper! – or do these more accurate adjectives only apply to Democrats who “venture”?
As for your distain for MM - To borrow a typical conservative's reaction to anyone speaking out against the ills of America, all I can say is - if you don't like it here, go somewhere else.
It troubles me far greater that candidate Giuliani is taking advice from WWIV Norman Podhoretz than any of his stances on the typical god/gays/guns issues. Romney has Cofer Black(water) whispering in his ear. Both of these candidates should be required to spend an embedded week in the Korengal Valley in Afghanistan before they advocate for more overseas military engagements at the expense of every domestic program imaginable.
Giuliani appeals to two types of Republicans: those who are looking for the fastest way to bring Armageddon to the Earth so that they can be beamed up to Heaven, and ultra-imperial fascists of the Podharetz variety. Their agendas are intertwined; if Giuliani is elected prez expect new wars and fewer individual liberties.