New York gay rights group launches “the Giuliani files”
posted at 1:09 pm on November 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not the first time his former constituents have expressed their displeasure with his convenient campaign-season lurch to the right on civil unions. Ben Smith claims this page went live only today; just keep scrolling, as there’s plenty of material and video clips. The highlight is this portion of his speech to the group in October 2001 saluting Mark Bingham. It’s, er, fabulous in every way. Sad to think this might actually cost him votes somewhere.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
I wish gay groups were more strategic and nuanced. Instead, they tend towards victim mode and hence we get such counter-productive and silly attacks. Gay groups shouldn’t be in victim mode. Acceptance of gays during the Reagan presidency skyrocketed and hasn’t stopped advancing yet. Given the great news in the polls people under thirty think about gay people, there will be married gay Southern Baptist preachers within fifty years.
thuja on November 28, 2007 at 1:18 PM
So sad too bad, as the old saying goes…Oh what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive.
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Another dirty trick by that bastard Romney? sarc-off/>
We all know that Rudy loves teh gheys. And they really love him. Politics is soooo dirty!
thegreatbeast on November 28, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I’m not so sure. I’d venture to say many of his supporters already know about his stances on gay rights, like his stance on abortion.
amerpundit on November 28, 2007 at 1:21 PM
So lets see, was he a smoker? Did it matter whether or not this person was a smoker? No? Well then he must be in favor of smoker’s rights too, right? After all, like gays, smokers are defined by what they do.
Can you smoke in your office cubicle? Can you smoke in a government building? How dare the government infringe on the rights of smoker Americans? You can be gay in your cubicle or a government building. SMOKERS UNITE against the bigoted practices of government.
Oh please someone comment about the cancer risk.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 1:21 PM
I guess I don’t understand what the homosexuals gain by doing this. The American public’s views on their lifestyle choices isn’t going to change by virtue of who wins the Presidency. No POTUS is going to be able to push an agenda that gives legitimacy for a lifestyle that many consider a sin against God. All this group has done is to make the line between the pro and anti-sodomy camps all the more sharp. It would seem that letting Rudy lurch right would be a good thing (in the hopes that once elected he would work on the civil union thing).
The nuanced approach, and one most Americans would agree with, is some sort of legal/contractual recognition of same-sex partnerships without giving the lifestyle choice the same status as the covenant of marriage. If the pro-sodomy camp thinks that they can pressure political candidates to be full-throttle in favor of a lifestyle that is considered deviant by many, they will constantly be disappointed.
highhopes on November 28, 2007 at 1:28 PM
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 1:21 PM
The cancer risks.
VolMagic on November 28, 2007 at 1:29 PM
Sorry, couldn’t get past the “New York gay rights group”!! What a person does in thier own bedroom should NOT give any special RIGHTS or FREEDOMS. Gay rights? Don’t want to know, don’t care so just shut up about it.
ChrisIansNana on November 28, 2007 at 1:32 PM
I can never tell what the homosexuals are up to.
Alex K on November 28, 2007 at 1:33 PM
And why shouldn’t the cancer risk? What has it got to lose?
EVERLOVIN’ GO VOLS BABY! Season of Doom / Season of Destiny
y2church on November 28, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Exactly……….
doriangrey on November 28, 2007 at 1:41 PM
Boy is we only get fred thompson or mitt romney as the nominee they can end homosexuality forever!
geez, let’s attack the man for dealing with reality.
Vincenzo on November 28, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Wouldn’t it be great if we could focus on the war instead of this kind of stuff? So far, it’s quite unnerving how little attention the jihad has recieved in the campaign. All the other stuff will only matter once/if the jihad is crushed. Lots of eyes off the ball, seems to me…
Halley on November 28, 2007 at 1:44 PM
This Presidential election is so important, due to the way we communicate now(internet, etc), how quickly issues come to light, how much smaller the world is now(mass travel, spread of disease, long range weapons, nukes,etc), and the giant wrecking ball that is special interests(socialist policies that compartmentalize our population into minority groups vs. anglo saxon men).
We need a leader that is a realist, an economist, and a bully(you know what I mean). We don’t need to worry about wether he went on Saturday Night Live in drag or is freindly with some gay people(do we really need to define people by their sexual preference, and for that matter do we need to give them special privileges, or just ensure they are treated equal?).
Vincenzo on November 28, 2007 at 1:54 PM
Anything that costs Rudolfo votes brings joy to my beating heart.
Let the sun shine in!
MB4 on November 28, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Heh, thanks Vol. Well the risk of obtaining AIDS is greater for the homosexual than the risk of obtaining lung cancer is for the smoker. So, in the view of the public health, homosexuality should be considered more dangerous than smoking. . . a bleeding cut in communal bathrooms of an AIDS patient. . . etc. etc. etc.
So while the gay community likes to play the victim, their lifestyle puts the rest of the public at a greater risk than if their lifestyle wasn’t in existence.
ie. If you think smoking is bad for public health, being gay is much worse statistically. If the government can restrict smoking, they can restrict gaying.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I wouldn’t say he was smoking, but he certainly was flaming!
Snap!
saint kansas on November 28, 2007 at 1:58 PM
Why is it that Gay Rights Groups always seem to be mad - at everyone, and every thing?
Must be a hard life they live.
jake-the-goose on November 28, 2007 at 1:58 PM
I guess I should ad that I quit smoking about 10 years ago. But I recognize a person’s right to smoke.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 2:00 PM
LOL good one.
ThackerAgency on November 28, 2007 at 2:00 PM
The tendency of ideologues to have an all or nothing disposition is interesting.
a dispassionate analysis of the current Republican field should make Fred Thompson’s federalist approach very attractive to would be Ron Paul voters. But when talking to the more hardcore ideologues they tend to want to support Ron Paul to the demise of Fred campaign. the result of course be a candidate that has no similarities to Ron Paul.
Seems to be a similar situation here. If Giuliani is not going to run pro gay rights then he has suffer the consequences. If the gay rights peoiple distrusted Giuliani on gay rights as much as I do they’d be as pro-Giuliani as possible.
Theworldisnotenough on November 28, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Gays this, gays that, who gives a hopping hell about what people do in a public toilet stall?
I worry more about illegal immigrants ruining the country than the gays ruining it. No matter what the gays say, they aint changing my sexual orientation, where as the illegals treat me like they think they have changed my sexual orientation.
I’m tired of them trying to put it to me and the American people.
saiga on November 28, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Where they are asking for equal rights, they deserve not to be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
If any gay groups are asking for a preference like hiring quotas, that’s wrong.
dedalus on November 28, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Don’t ask, don’t tell…
maintenanceman on November 28, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Hell hath no greater fury than a drag queen scorned.
Here’s an example of a guy trying to be supportive of homosexual/gender confused, New Yorkers, and they are going to use that against him. Self centered, therapy seeking, victims support their own.
Hening on November 28, 2007 at 2:27 PM
So “gay bashing” goes both ways?
right2bright on November 28, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Sure. It’s a big country. No requirement to like or associate with everyone.
dedalus on November 28, 2007 at 2:53 PM
If someone wants to smoke or “smoke” I’m less concerned about that than hundreds of other things. If your point is anti-nanny state & keeping gov’t out of private lives, I agree. One point on the analogy–CDC attributes about 400,000 premature deaths every year to smoking, I think AIDS might be around 15,000.
dedalus on November 28, 2007 at 3:05 PM
This is much akin to the whole Muslims v. Muslim rights groups thing.
Several people I know professionally are openly gay. They don’t flaunt their sexuality at work (and neither do the straight workers, thank God!). They don’t demand I accept their lifestyle choice- no questions asked. A couple of them are even in long term same-sex relationships.
Compare that to the rainbow-painted idiot at the “gay pride” parade screaming that he’s queer and we should get over it. A moron who’s mad at the world because he doesn’t get 100% unquestioning approval for a lifestyle many consider deviant behavior. This kind of person tends to become an “activist” that ruins things for those seeking some kind of legitimate discussion of topics like civil unions or the ordination of practicing homosexuals into the clergy.
highhopes on November 28, 2007 at 4:24 PM
I am so sick of single issue voters, whomever they might be on both sides of the political spectrum. We need to look at the big picture, y’all.
If a candidate doesn’t do exactly what they want…they have a huge tantrum and then plot to exact revenge!
Is the perception that heterosexual Republicans who, say, oppose gay marriage are so narrow-minded that this speech should disqualify him? How close to reality is this perception?
I see no reason why this video should cost Rudy votes, and if anything it demonstrates his remarkable eloquence.
Buy Danish on November 28, 2007 at 7:58 PM