A Stitch in Haste

All politicians are, by definition, moral defectives.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is no different:

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."

It's quite simple really: Fuck you, Giuliani. Fuck you.

I once asked:

How many radical Evangelical conservatives, or Republicans in general, know that Rudy Giuliani ran for Mayor of New York on the Liberal Party ticket and not just the Republican? How many do you think will know it by the time primary season rolls around? (Related: How many radical Evangelical conservatives know that Giuliani was married three times, including once to his second cousin, which he got annulled by the Roman Catholic Church after 14 years?)

Hopefully every Republican will learn that Giuliani is a miserable, decrepit flip-flopper.

Less profane thoughts at Gawker, Liberty Papers, Good As You, Hit & Run, Outright Libertarians, The Gist.


This picture will be displayed on this blog so long as Giuliani is a candidate.

---

UPDATE #1: No surprise here, but McCain too.

UPDATE #2: If you're going to sell your soul, at least get a good price --

Rudy Giuliani didn't score many points with social conservatives last week when he issued this impassioned endorsement of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a federal ban on "partial-birth" abortion: "I agree with it." He certainly didn't win over Richard Land, who has said he would never vote for Mr. Giuliani. When people ask the Southern Baptist Convention's representative in Washington why the former New York mayor's promise to appoint strict constructionist judges if he's elected president isn't enough, Mr. Land replies: "If he'll lie to two wives, what makes you think he wouldn't lie to you?"

Radical Evangelical theocrats may be misguided, anti-scientific, un-Christian bigots, but they're not stupid when it comes to politics.

Exact same news item, two very different headlines:

--Giuliani emerging as favorite of gays

--Giuliani's waffling worries Log Cabin GOP

Both headlines belie the text of their respective articles, but the first lede is far sloppier than the second: We are dealing not with gays here, but with gay Republicans — all 200 of them. So much for "winning hearts and minds" (or, as some very silly bloggers insist, "a million gays for Bush").

And this just days after Giuliani spit in the face of every gay (not to mention every believer in federalism, equal protection and basic human dignity). Did he offer an apology or a Romney-style "clarification" for his opposition to the New Hampshire civil union measure? Did the LCR demand one upon pain of un-inviting him?

(Not to mention Cardinal Giuliani's bizarre recent pronouncement that Saddam Hussein is indeed burning in Hell. Do you think he was directing that very un-Rudy remark to gays, or to some other constituency?)

When self-loathing gay Republicans prostrate themselves to GOP politicians, they are not "putting a face on the issue" or whatever other gobbledygook rationalizations they offer. Exactly the opposite: the only message the puny turnout and egoless posture that LCR sends to Giuliani, or any other Republican politician, is: "Gee, I really can shit all over them..."

---

"It would be okay to repeal it," he said. "It would be okay also if a strict constructionist viewed it as precedent."

Two hasty stitches:

--"Strict constructionist" is meaningless blather except in one context: code words to the radical social conservative base for a judge who has decided, in advance of any actual case, to overturn Roe. A "strict constructionist who respects precedent" is an insolent contradiction in terms. And "Giuliani the Politician" knows this full well.

--"Okay if you do; okay if you don't..." This is "leadership" or "acting like a president"?

As part of the next GOP presidential debate, Fox News is inviting people to submit questions to candidates.

Here's my question, for Rudy Giuliani:

"In 1989 and again in 1993, you ran for Mayor of New York City as the Liberal Party candidate as well as the Republican candidate. Why should conservatives entrust their party's presidential nomination to a candidate who has previously been a standard-bearer for the Liberal Party in New York?"

For Discussion: What questions would you submit?

"Integrity requires carefully developing and upholding a set of inviolable beliefs. People of integrity are not inflexible, but their decisions are made in the context of strongly held values. Principled leaders must not only set a moral compass, but also effectively communicate a code of conduct to those they lead. They are obligated to remain faithful to their core convictions in order to demand and inspire the same in others."
--Giuliani Partners website

So first Christopher Hitchens says:

Until 1978, the so-called Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was an officially racist organization. Mitt Romney was an adult in 1978. We need to know how he justified this to himself, and we need to hear his self-criticism, if he should chance to have one.

To which Andrew Sullivan concatenates:

The awful history of the LDS church's treatment of African-Americans requires an accounting by any leading Mormon, as Romney is, who didn't protest at the time.

To which I concatenate: Indeed. An "accounting" by Romney is definitely in order...

...right after we get an "accounting" from Rudy Giuliani on how he justifies to himself his continued participation in the Roman Catholic Church, which has been far more discriminatory and fundamentally unjust to women — for many many more centuries — than the Mormons ever were to blacks.

This is especially true given that the Mormons abandoned their racist policies. Seen any female Catholic priests recently?

This is double especially true given Giuliani's joke of an annulment — after 14 years of marriage — to his first of three wives, courtesy of the "uphold family values, defend traditional marriage" Catholic Church (as represented, incidentally, by an accused child molester and suspended monsignor later hired by — wait for it — Giuliani Partners). Any "accounting" required for all that?

Extreme skepticism toward organized religion and its assorted lunacies is a noble undertaking. So noble that it shouldn't be sullied (no pun intended) by insolent double-standards. The Catholics are hardly a sect with standing to damn the Mormons.

---

Speaking of Giuliani, women and accounting:

As New York mayor, Rudy Giuliani billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons, according to previously undisclosed government records.

The documents, obtained by Politico under New York's Freedom of Information Law, show that the mayoral costs had nothing to do with the functions of the little-known city offices that defrayed his tabs, including agencies responsible for regulating loft apartments, aiding the disabled and providing lawyers for indigent defendants.

Remember: "People of integrity are not inflexible" — especially when cooking the books and bilking the taxpayers.

America's Lecher Mayor responds:

Rudy Giuliani dismissed a report Wednesday that he expensed the cost of his security detail to obscure city offices for trips to a Long Island resort as the then-mayor began an extramarital affair with current wife Judith Nathan.

"First of all, it's not true," he said during a GOP debate hours after the story broke. "I had 24-hour security for the eight years that I was mayor. They followed me everyplace I went. It was because there were, you know, threats, threats that I don't generally talk about. Some have become public recently; most of them haven't.

Note the Slick Willy style word play: It is "not true" that he -- active voice -- wrongly allocated expenses to city agencies totally unconnected to mayoral security.

But that was never really the allegation. The Politico report -- which is based on government records and is ironclad and indisputable -- was passive voice: the expenses were wrongly allocated (i.e., by someone). It was not explicitly suggested that Giuliani personally crafted or approved the practice.

And in any case: So what?

Isn't Giuliani emphasizing his "executive experience," especially relative to Hillary Clinton? Well, "executives" deal with issues like this. At least the good ones do.

Also, even if Giuliani were not disingenuous in his wordsmithy denial of the undeniable -- again, so what? Regardless of how the expenses were allocated (or misallocated), since when is it a proper use of taxpayer funds to shuttle a mayor to an adulterous rendezvous? Someone living under 24-hour "threats" might, in the name of wizened "executive" prudence, not only keep his fly zipped but also keep it at home.