Posted on 11/04/2007 11:19:52 PM PST by Ol' Sparky
Its among the most well-known and often-implemented strategies in the universe of presidential politics: appeal to the partys base during the primaries and tack back towards the center during the run-up to the general election. This process doesnt necessarily dictate that the presidential candidate flip-flop on any of his or her positions. He or she merely emphasizes one set of policies for the partisans who will be voting in the presidential primaries and then, several months later, emphasizes a different set of policies for the American electorate at large.
However, in recent years, a somewhat different tactic has emerged as a favorite among presidential candidates: the art of flip-flopping by presidential candidates who staked out positions that were popular when running for statewide office but became politically inconvenient when faced with appealing to the party base in the run up to presidential primaries.
This has certainly been the case with Mitt Romney, who repeated advocated his support for abortion rights when governor of Massachusetts (a state in which voters are overwhelming pro-choice) but conveniently converted to the pro-life a couple of years before the Republican presidential primaries (which are dominated by a party base which is overwhelmingly pro-life). It was also trueto a certain extentwith John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, both of whom supported the 2002 resolution granting the president the authority to invade Iraq and began to backtrack from their positions as the 2004 and 2008 Democratic Presidential primaries approached.
In yet another example of a politician advocating one position while running for state or local office and a completely different one upon running for president, Rudy Giuliani has decided that he now supports a very strict interpretation of the Second Amendment. While Giulianis critics have been quick to point out Giulianis sudden change of heart with regards to gun control, Giulianis defenders have argued that Giulianis positions are consistent with the principle of federalismarguing that while he may have supported strict gun control laws for New York City, he believes that individual states have the right to reject such gun control laws.
Unfortunately for Giuliani and his supporters, Giulianis current federalist interpretation of the Second Amendment directly contradicts his gun control record as mayor of New York, a period during which he championed federal gun control laws:
In 1993, Giuliani supported the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and, as mayor-elect of New York City, worked with President Clintons justice department to implement further federal gun control measures.
In May of 1994, Mayor Giuliani spoke out in favor of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, arguing that assault weapons have no legitimate purpose.
In March of 1997, following an incident in which a Palestinian gunman opened fire within the Empire State Building, Mayor Giuliani issued a public address in which he argued:
We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictionsand really stronger onesthat exist for driving an automobile. The United States Congress needs to pass uniform licensing for everyone carrying a gun.
In June of 2000, Mayor Giuliani filed gun control manufacturers and distributors, alleging a number of illegal practices on the part of the gun manufacturers, including:
Deliberately manufacturing many more firearms than can be bought for legitimate purposes such as hunting and law enforcement, and knowingly targeting these excess guns to criminals, youths and other persons unqualified to buy firearms
Deliberately undermining New York Citys gun control laws by flooding other markets which have less stringent gun laws with firearms that the manufacturers know are destined to be illegally resold in New York City.
Ignoring the illegal practices of gun distributors, many of whom openly engage in the above practices.
Refusing to manufacture safer guns, with features such as trigger locks and personalization measures that allow only authorized persons to fire the weapon.
The most stark example in which Giuliani was called out on his flip-flopping on the gun control, surprisingly enough, came during a Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace on May 13, 2007:
WALLACE: One of the raps against you is that as mayor you did things that pleased your city but that werent necessarily good for the nation. Case in point: Gun control.
You now say that what works in New York doesnt necessarily work in Montana. But as mayor, you supported the nationwide Clinton weapons assault ban. You supported nationwide federal licensing.
And you actually joined a lawsuit to make gun manufacturers liable if someone used their gun to shoot somebody.
GIULIANI: I did everything I could as mayor of New York City to reduce crime. And the strategy against guns, both civil and criminal, was very aggressive.
WALLACE: But that wasnt just tough in New York City, it was tough around the nation.
GIULIANI: But so was the strategy I utilized in New York City on everything. I was criticized for being too aggressive about the enforcement of the laws, including the gun laws.
But the reality is I began with the city that was the crime capital of America. When I left, it was the safest large city in America.
I reduced homicides by 67 percent. I reduced overall crime by 57 percent. And you dont do that by not aggressively enforcing the laws.
The quote that I have from the time I was mayor is that the conditions in New York and the things you do in New York about guns may be different than Texas. And the reality is Ive always looked at it that way.
WALLACE: No, no, no, but at the time you said, in fact, that weak laws, weak gun laws, around in other states might actually end up producing guns on the streets of New York, so you needed nationwide laws.
GIULIANI: What we were doing was using civil remedies to try to help New York, as well as using criminal remedies to help New York.
The reality is as mayor of New York, I looked to do all the things that I could do to protect the people of my city. They were my responsibility. Thats the way I looked at it on September 11. Thats how I looked at it on the day that I became mayor of New York City.
Now, heres how I look at
WALLACE: And as president?
GIULIANI: As president, my interest is going to be how to protect the people of the United States of America. When I take that oath of office, itll be real clear to me who the people I have to protect are. Theyre the people of the United States of America.
Now, the reality is just as you asked me about line-item veto I told you Im a strict constructionist, or I try to be. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is about as clear as it can be.
It gives people the individual right to bear arms. I agree with that. I think that is a correct interpretation. That means that any restrictions have to be reasonable.
And those restrictions largely have to do with criminal background, background of mental illness, and they should basically be done on the state-by-state level. And thats the guidelines that I would use in dealing with it as president.
The issue here isnt that Giuliani changed his position on gun control. The issue is that he chose to do it just as he was preparing to run for president and that he offered little explanation for his change of heart other than the excuse that all too many Republicans fall back on when confronted by their flip-flops9/11. In a speech before the National Rifle Association in September of 2007, Giuliani argued that the attacks on New York and the Pentagon put a whole different emphasis on the things America needs to do to protect itself, and maybe even a renewed emphasis on the Second Amendment.
Its ironic that Giuliani would cite 9/11 as a reason for his renewed respect for the Second Amendment given that hes also used 9/11 as a reason for undermining other portions of the Bill of Rightsparticularly with regards to the USA PATRIOT Act and the NSAs warrantless wireless surveillance program. His new-found commitment to the concept of federalism is equally laughable given his staunch support for allowing the federal government to conduct raids on medical marijuana users in states in which medical marijuana is legal.
He is a lying puke. Him and Willard can kiss my a$$ if they think I’m buying this.
never..... if I get Hillary, at least I'll know where my enemy is. If we get Rudy or some other RINO I'll just take my ball and go home. Cause it will not matter anyway.
The RINO's will increase our taxes (but claim it's just temporary), limit guns (but claim it's for the safety of everybody), allow illegals to overwhelm and corrupt the election process (because it's just 'fair') and punish our soldiers for fighting and killing the enemy (cause they answer to politically correct lawyers instead of military officers).
screw Rudy and any other RINO. Romney reminds me of Governor "Good Hair" Perry. They not only look alike but probably share a lot of the same big government will fix all your problem attitude.
Hey, go ahead and sit out the general election.
Maybe Hillary will send you a Christmas card each year for your contribution to her winning the Presidency.
Taking your ball and going home = Hillary.
Julie-Yawnee is a gun-grabbing, baby-snuffing lib.
Reminds me of when Rusty Areias, a CA dem walked up to me and said “I was pro-gun a lot longer than I been anti-gun.” Honest. Unbelievable. Then invited me to go shoot skeet with him on his ranch. I declined.
>>He was for it before he was against it<<
Is he against it now?
Yep, Rudy & Mitt, same program, same liberals
....don't care. Last Clinton in office started the wave of Republican state houses, governorships, congress and senatorial candidates and majorities.
I made a bundle shorting all the drug stocks, Amgen, Mylan, Johnson and Johnson, Merck etc...then buying them back a couple of years later....then held on till Bush lowered cap gains taxes....
I'll never vote for a RINO. I want my enemy in front of me, not beside me with his arm around my shoulder and gun in my ribs like.... most of the RINO's including Perry.... or as I like to call him...Governor "Nice Hair"..
Read an article in Shotgun news similiar to this one, but it was on Romney. He was a big anti-gunner also. From Ohio here, all we get is RINO’s, sick of em all also.
DeWine was a RINO senator and lost to Demotax Sherrod Brown, DeWine had a “F” rating from the GOA. Rino Voinavich is the other one, the Demotax will beat him next time also. They just don’t get it!
Rudy RINO collector cards.....
most of Clintons Policies are very similar to most of mine... Rudy Giuliani 1996
On Gun Control ...This is an industry that is profiting from the suffering of innocent people. Whats worse, its profits rest on a number of illegal and immoral practices. This lawsuit is meant to end the free pass that the gun industry has so long enjoyed... Rudy Giuliani 2000 after filing suit against gun makers and distributors.
On Gun Control ....We need a federal law that bans all assault weapons, and if in fact you do need a handgun you should be subjected to at least the same restrictions-and really stronger ones-that exist for driving an automobile... Rudy Giuliani 1997 from 1995
"The NRA, for some reason, I think goes way overboard. It's almost what the extremists on the other side do. I think the extremists of the left and the extremists of the right have essentially the same tactic the slippery slope theory. `If you give one point, then your entire argument is going to fall apart,' and we kind of get destroyed by that," Giuliani said. From Sept. 2007
Tired lame a$$ argument.
The only thing worse than Hillary is another fraud republican, like Rudy or Mittens.
You’ll get everything Hillary wants but the pubs will roll right over for it without so much as a whimper.
Sometimes you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
4 years of Jimmah gave us 8 years of Reagan.
Quite equitable.
I respectfully disagree.
What I like is the civilized tone of your disagreement.
I wish our FRiends would avail themselves of a more civilized tone of discourse.
In the past few months I’ve been called an idiot, moron, a$$, etc.. just because I support one candidate over another.
Reminds me of DU four years ago. We all laughed at them.
# 14 applies to you too.
Grow up.
Youll get everything Hillary wants but the pubs will roll right over for it without so much as a whimper.
Hey mad, methinks the dude was politely thanking posters for civility, not whining
I agree that the 'lesser of two EVILS' would be the fugly one cause at least there may be a little fight against her policy...rooty or any other rino guarantees paint by numbers socialism...
If so I retract my statement.
1. I was thanking the cowboy for civil discourse.
2. I viewed your reply as a juxtaposition to that.
3. But you’re right, you called my idea tired and lame a$$, and not me personally.
4. I’ll try my best to grow up in the future - promise.
"Conservatives" dumb enough to vote for a liberal Republican truly deserve what they are going to get.
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.