Posted on 04/27/2007 3:10:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
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 Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.
On a February 2004 edition of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor," Mr. Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, "I'm in favor of … civil unions."
He also said, "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Asked by Mr. O'Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's why you have civil partnerships. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn't have." In 1998, as mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani signed into law a domestic partnership bill that a gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, hailed as setting "a new national benchmark for domestic partner recognition."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
You're talkng to a guy who believes Rudy doesn't support abortion rights. In other words, he's engaging in projection as he hectors us about his supposed lack of objectivity.
Mr. zook,
You overlooked dirtboy's full context quote (#55 on this thread) from Fox news which also makes you complicit in pulling things out of context, just like your friend Veronica. Intentional or a lie? Even a casual observer might say the latter.
[From post #55] Nice job lifting a quote out of context, Veronica. Now, let’s go to the transacript:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258222,00.html
WALLACE: Gay rights.
THOMPSON: Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody.
And I’m for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You’re against. THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don’t believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there’s real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
But we shouldn’t set up special categories for anybody.
Whereas Rudy pushed for gay hate crimes legislation. There is NO COMPARISON between Fred and Rudy once the details are presented. Just as there is NO COMPARISON between Fred and Rudy on abortion. And guns. And global warming. And...
The quote looks accurate to me. Like it or not, it's a Newsmax article questioning Thompson's conservative credentials.
Does Fred Thompson Have the Right Stuff?
John Mercurio
Thursday, April 26, 2007Does Fred Thompson believe in conservative principles? And, perhaps more importantly, do conservative principals believe in Fred Thompson?
Those two questions -- widely discussed, but largely unanswered -- stand at the core of Thompson's widely anticipated decision to join the GOP presidential campaign as a sorely needed savior for the Right.
After seven years of love-hate relations with President Bush, polls show conservative activists are increasingly anxious about a lackluster field of Republican candidates and are eager to recruit a viable conservative candidate who would more comfortably carry their mantle.
It might seem as though Thompson, 64, fits the bill. While his position on abortion has wavered somewhat, he became a pro-life diehard recently while preparing for the birth of his two young children. "I have seen the sonograms of my babies," he told Bloomberg News in mid-April.
He's a vocal supporter of President Bush's troop surge in Iraq and he considers himself a staunch hawk on Iran. He opposes gay marriage and supports Bush's tax cuts. And, in a piece of red meat for Bush/Cheney loyalists, he says he'd pardon his close friend, former Cheney aide Scooter Libby, who was convicted this year of perjury in the CIA leak case.
For 2002, Thompson received an 86 percent lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), by comparison, received an 82 percent lifetime rating in 2006. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), a darling of social conservatives who so far remains in the second tier of GOP presidential candidates, received a 94 percent rating that year.
"[Thompson] is a hard-core conservative, a consistent and non-threatening conservative, who can communicate like no other candidate in this race with the average American," said former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a fellow Tennessean, who briefly considered a 2008 presidential bid of his own but now is helping to organize a possible Thompson campaign. "He has broad appeal with conservatives and with moderates. This is what's important: Every individual listening believes that he's speaking just to them. It's not artificial, it's the real Fred. His genuineness comes across."
Still, conservatives' concerns about Thompson persist: In the Senate during the 1990s, he served as a chief backer of campaign-finance legislation, which conservatives say diminishes their influence in politics. He also called last month for "a tolerant nation" on gay rights.
And, perhaps most concerning, the longtime actor who currently plays a regular role on NBC's hugely popular "Law & Order" is a longtime fixture in a town conservatives openly revile and frequently deride (Hollywood). He remains a close friend and self-described "fan" of McCain, a conservative nemesis.
As part of a concerted effort to court conservative leaders, Thompson made a carefully choreographed visit to Capitol Hill in mid-April to huddle with more than 50 House Republicans. During the "Tour de Fred," Thompson and lawmakers discussed abortion rights, immigration, his first marriage (which ended in divorce) and the war in Iraq. Participants said five of the seven members of the party's House leadership attended.
"I just wanted to come over and see some of my old friends and make some new friends, and tell them what we on my mind and listen to see what was on their minds. We had a good talk. I enjoyed it and we'll be seeing more of each other, I'm sure," said a decidedly non-committal Thompson, before disappearing into a gray GMC Envoy and leaving lawmakers to promote his conservative creds.
And promote him, they did.
"The conservatives say he checks the boxes but he also transcends our party," said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN), a co-chairman of the Draft Thompson committee. "But he also reaches out to the middle. He brings Reagan Democrats back to our party. He has appeal that other candidates simply don't have."
Indeed, one top Republican strategist said Thompson possesses a unique blend of attributes that could offer Republicans a quick fix for their 2008 doldrums.
"The perception of Thompson is that he's right on the war, right on taxes, and right on immigration, he's pro-life, and anti-gay marriage and has generally been seen as a good guy by the religious right elements of the party," said Tony Fabrizio, a prominent GOP pollster. "He's not necessarily their favorite, but he's someone who can be a consensus conservative. He's someone the foreign policy-wing, the economic wing and the social/moral wing could rally around."
Ultimately, however, Frist acknowledged that Thompson's mission, if he runs, will be larger than appealing to conservatives. "Fred certainly understands that Republicans of all stripes want a candidate who can capture the hopes and aspirations of the American people. The candidates out there now have not yet done that," he said. "Barack Obama has done this on the Democratic side, but no one has done it for us."
Check the actual transcrip in post #55.
I am not attacking Fred Thompson BTW. I am pointing out that Rudy's positions on certain issues are not all that different, when you get to the nitty-gritty, than some of the other GOP candidates or possible candidates.
The problem isn't really Rudy's positions on the issues, but the fact that those positions seem to vary wildly based on his audience.
I don't expect every candidate to have the exact same set of principles that I do. I merely require a candidate to have any principles at all, and I have seen nothing from Rudy to indicate that he does.
Scratch that - he does have one core principle. He loves power. He will do anything to get it, anything to keep it. He loves power more than he loves freedom, which disqualifies him in my book.
But, as we have already established, the quote within the story is out of context (what a surprise from someone whom Google turns up as "CNN Political Editor"!), and that the full transcript, known to the poster paints a very different picture.
The poster, therefore, used a bogus quote from a bogus story to prop up her bogus candidate by attempting to create a false equivalency.
I don't know where you grew up, but from where I did, that's called "lying".
A month of "rehearsals". That's a lot more than a rehearsal.
It is my understanding that Rudy rehearsed one appearance for a full MONTH prior to appearing.
You and zook are either intentionally trying to divert attention from Rudy's full on pro-homosexual position or you are trying to obfuscate Mr. Thompson's position on civil unions.
Stop wasting our time and the bandwidth of FR.
Bush is at least staunchly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.
Were you here two hours ago? Yes, she accurately quoted that article. I defended her for it. That article inaccurately reports Thompson’s position, as seen in the Fox news transcript where the “statement” was made.
I defended her for not knowing that the article she quoted was lying about Thompson.
Then she came back and said that she KNEW the actual quote, she had read it, and had previously linked it.
So she admitted to posting the line out of the newsmax article KNOWING that it was a lie about what Thompson really said.
If you quote a known liar and pretend it’s the truth, you are lying.
Thompson SAID he didn’t believe in “gay rights”. Veronica ignored that and posted a false article line that said he thought we should be “tolerant” of gay rights. IN fact he was saying that, WHILE we should be a tolerant nation, we should NOT tolerate “gay rights”.
She abused my belief in her honesty, and my willingness to stand up for people I disagree with.
By all means post what you want to post and my apologies for my incivility.
Then FR is populated by an awful lot of liars. Quotes are copied piecemeal all the time, though not in this case, the cut was the sources. Which is why many sources are banned here. Newsmax isn't, nor do I think it should be. You might disagree.
The issue is supressing critical opinions, which is perfectly legitimate in the context of controlling the flow of the discusssion. I don't think that's a secret.
Were that not the case, Newsmax would be banned.
You phrase that as though it's an order.
Sorry bozo, I'll ignore you.
Go hit the abuse button or whine to JR.
Sorry, but most freepers, upon being notified that the article they are citing has lifted a quote out of context, will quit parroting the premise of the article.
I looked, but could not find the law passed by the new york city legislature that gives the mayor the right to ban Arafat from a public building.
But let me ask, if he was a flaming liberal who hated the war, and he threw Prime Minister Howard of Australia out of the theater, would you be praising it as the act of a strong leader?
The issue is refusing to allow Rudy boosters to use FR as a means to falsely attack conservative candidates (which veronica was doing here).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts, however.
The case we had here is that a particular poster:
You can't just blame the "source" when the person using the source knows that it is bogus but uses it to bolster her argument anyway.
You forgot "baby-killer."
“The issue is supressing critical opinions, which is perfectly legitimate in the context of controlling the flow of the discusssion. I don’t think that’s a secret.”
Veronica, knowingly used a quote selectively, leaving out parts that clearly diverged from what Veronica was claiming about Thompson. A lie by omission is a lie. Smearing a conservative candidates’ position to prop up a liberal Giulani...Those are rules the owner made clear would result in zotting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.