Max Blumenthal

A few revealing facts on the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue…coming soon.

Here is a short history I prepared of Rudy Giuliani’s ongoing “evolution” on abortion, beginning with the “Giuliani Vulnerability Study,” a 450-page secret document penned by his mayoral campaign in 1993:

[Preface]

“In many ways Rudy Giuliani is a political contradiction…He doesn’t really fit with the Republicans. Too liberal. Giuliani has troubles with the Democrats, too.”

[P. 6]
“By the time Giuliani got it right on abortion, it may have been too late to win back the women voters offended by Giuliani’s earlier pro-life issue…

Giuliani’s answer to abortion questions should always be succinct and to the point. Giuliani is pro-choice. He supports public funding for abortion. He wil continue funding for abortions at city hospitals. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Giuliani speaking before the South Carolina GOP executive committee on 2/3/07:

“On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am… I think those are the kinds of justices I would appoint — Scalia, Alito and Roberts. If you can find anybody as good as that, you are very, very fortunate.”

Giuliani on Hannity and Colmes, 2/5/07:

HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, a Roberts, an Alito?

GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a really great judge. I mean, that would be — you’re never going to get somebody exactly the same. You’re never — and I don’t think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have sort of a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice, and I think a strict constructionist would be probably the way I’d describe it.

HANNITY: Is Roe bad?

GIULIANI: I think that’s up to the court to decide. I think that it’s been precedent for a very, very long time. There are questions about the way it was decided and some of the bases for it. At this point, it’s precedent. It’s going to be very interesting to see what Chief Justice Roberts and what Justices Scalia and Alito do with it.

I think probably they’re going to limit it rather than overturn it. In other words, they’ll accept some of the limitations that different states have placed on it or the federal government has placed on it.

HANNITY: Partial birth?

GIULIANI: Partial-birth abortion, I think that’s going to be upheld. I think that ban is going to be upheld. I think it should be. And I think, as long as there’s provision for the life of the mother, then that’s something that should be done.

Giuliani’s contorted explanations of his confusing positions on abortion don’t look good. If he declares, and unless he reverses course absolutely on abortion like Mitt Romney, he’ll slide to the bottom of the pack by the time the primaries reach South Carolina. Insinuating to social conservatives through codes that he will roll back abortion rights won’t be enough.

It’s kind of dismaying that the mainstream press is giving this stuff so little attention. I watched Hardball today, the day of Romney’s big announcement, and while there was ample discussion of Romney’s flip-flops on social issues, there was little mention of Romney’s rivals. In general, the Republican candidates have garnered much less coverage than Hillary or Obama. Ironically, Sean Hannity and the editors of National Review have been left with the role of taking Republican candidates to task for their contradictions.

With the national media salivating over diaper-clad astronauts and lobotomized slatterns overdosing on diet shakes, the sad saga of Ted Haggard has been all but forgotten. That’s too bad because the saga is ongoing and as scandalous as ever.

To begin with, after only three weeks of “therapy,” Haggard was pronounced “completely heterosexual” by his evangelical “overseers” (who included James Dobson’s first cousin, HB London, but not Massa Ames from Alex Haley’s “Roots”).

Then — this is the most salient part — Haggard signed a non-disclosure agreement with his former congregation, New Life Church, and received an unknown sum of what could only be described as hush money. The agreement included a clause that forbids either Haggard or New Life from stating how much his silence was worth.

Finally, Haggard decided at the urging of National Association of Evangelicals board members to leave Colorado Springs and, together with his very loyal wife, study for his masters in psychology. I’ll spare everyone the obvious joke here about lunatics running the asylum.

On February 18, Haggard’s “overseers” will appear before New Life Church for a “Day of Hope,” during which they will presumably declare a happy ending to the Haggard affair. New Life’s parishioners can wash their hands of the whole mess and be born again, again.

The clinical, even rushed handling of the affair suggests that Haggard’s so-called rehabilitation was actually an exercise in damage control by the image-obsessed Christian right. New Life and its allies waited patiently for the media circus to leave town, then promptly expelled Haggard into the wilderness. Now that Haggard is gone, Christian right leaders can breathe a sigh of relief. Even if he is caught taking skin flute lessons again, he can no longer taint their movement.

Haggard’s old allies can also take comfort in the fact that the national media has left him behind in a sleazy trail of politically irrelevant pseudo-scandals. The significance of the resignation of another pastor from New Life for “sexual misconduct” just weeks after Haggard’s dismissal has been completely overlooked. The amount of New Life’s payment to Haggard remains unknown. New Life’s motives for inducing Haggard’s silence are unexamined. Do Haggard’s former associates and allies have something to hide? What did they know and when did they know it?
The Haggard scandal may have been a factor in the GOP’s midterm losses last November, but until Haggard’s ex-allies are called to answer the hard questions about their handling of the scandal’s aftermath, he will fade into history like Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and hundreds of other forgotten faith-based hypocrites. And as in the past, the amorphous movement comprising the Christian right will move forward unscathed.

I’m back after a long hiatus during which I traversed the Americas, from the Pine Ridge reservation to Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs to Nicaragua to some places I don’t even want to remember. I worked during my travels, most recently, covering Daniel Ortega’s inauguration for the Nation. I shot video of Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales’s speeches there and had hoped to Youtube them along with some scenes from the Plaza da Fe where the ceremony took place, but sadly, my camera was swiped hours before my return flight. The inauguration was an incredible spectacle but I guess my words will have to suffice.

For the next year I will be covering the 2008 campaign from Washington, around the country, and from the narrow white box in Brooklyn otherwise known as my apartment. As always, I will maintain a special focus on Republican candidates and the conservative power brokers propelling their campaigns. I’ll also be writing for the Nation’s new campaign blog starting whenever it goes live. On Thursday, the Nation will run a piece I wrote on the backlash against John McCain by the right-wing of the Arizona GOP, a story that has been totally ignored by the national press corps. And in March, I’ll be filming a short video at CPAC, my favorite annual gathering of wingers. Last year, Ann Coulter mused about her fantasies of assassinating Bill Clinton and killing liberal Supreme Court justices. This year promises to be no less wholesome.

As the campaign heats up, there will be much more. I don’t know if anyone still reads my blog but that never stopped me in the past.