Giuliani continues his conservative shift

Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani continues to discard the moderate and liberal positions of his past. The latest is civil unions for same-sex couples, which the Republican presidential candidate has been backing away from in recent months.

A campaign aide told the Globe this weekend that Giuliani favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners than civil union laws in effect in four states offer.

Giuliani has described himself as a backer of civil unions and is frequently described that way in news reports. But he began distancing himself from civil unions in late April, when his campaign told The New York Sun that New Hampshire's new law goes too far because it is "the equivalent of marriage," which he has always opposed for gays.

Giuliani's aides offered little explanation of what specific rights he would support for same-sex couples.

In an interview and follow-up e-mails, Maria Comella, the campaign's deputy communications director, told the Globe that Giuliani supports domestic partnership laws similar to the one he initiated in New York in 1998.

The New York law primarily ensures benefits to partners of municipal employees. The law created a registry of partnerships that also helps city residents obtain partner benefits from private companies that extend them. However, most of the registrants are unmarried heterosexual couples.

Comella said Giuliani has always supported the New York model of domestic partnership laws but she did not explain what is widely viewed as an inconsistency in his position.

"It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions," said Joe Tarver, spokesman for the Empire State Pride Agenda, a group that advocates for gay rights in New York state that worked with and against Giuliani on a number of issues during his eight years as mayor.

Calling the former mayor's shifting stance "pretty un-Giuliani-like," Tarver said: "It's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."

Tarver has company. Representatives of New York groups who advocate for abortion rights, gun control, and rights for immigrants, also said Giuliani's actions on the presidential trail, presenting himself to a more conservative GOP electorate, bears little resemblance to the man they knew as the stand-up mayor of Gotham in the 1990s who was open to moderate and liberal arguments.

More than any candidate in the Republican presidential field, rival Mitt Romney has been tagged with the flip-flopper label. But Giuliani, with late shifts on civil unions and federal campaign finance laws, is a political makeover in progress.

Giuliani often cites a states' rights rationale as the basis of his new views, though his objection to states adopting civil unions is a notable exception. What was right for his city when he was mayor might not be for other states, he says frequently to explain changing stances. Of Giuliani's past assertions endorsing civil unions, Comella said the definition has changed over time beyond what Giuliani supports.

Giuliani has used the terms civil unions and domestic partnerships interchangeably, as in comments in 2004 to Fox News's Bill O'Reilly. "I'm in favor of . . . civil unions," Giuliani said. "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."

"It's about rights and benefits more than the title," Comella wrote in an e-mail to the Globe. "The mayor supports the benefits and rights as they are written in the domestic partnership law in New York City."

Like New Hampshire, civil union laws in Vermont, Connecticut, and New Jersey "confer upon same-sex couples all of the state (though none of the federal) rights, protections, and obligations afforded married spouses," according to the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, a national advocacy group.

Benefits of domestic partnerships can also be broader than those under the New York law.

Gay and lesbian voting power

Candidates should note that this is one group that knows how to get out the vote.

It's a perennial complaint: Too many Americans don't vote. But based on a massive new survey, one population segment -- gays -- surely must be excluded from this rebuke.

A recent study by San Francisco-based Community Marketing Inc. found an eye-popping 92.5% of gay men report they voted in the 2004 presidential race, and almost 84% said they cast ballots in the 2006 midterm election. Among lesbians, the results were almost as impressive; nearly 91% in 2004 and 78% in 2006.

By comparison, the Washington-based Committee for the Study of the American Electorate puts the turnout for all Americans eligible to vote at about 61% in 2004 and roughly 40% in 2006.

Consider that last statistic for a moment: a turnout rate among gay men more than twice that for the nation's voters as a whole.

The survey questioned more than 12,000 gay men and more than 10,000 lesbians, giving its results a minuscule error margin of plus or minus 1%.

The figures "demonstrate that the political parties would be smart to pay attention to the issues that mean the most to gay and lesbian voters," said Tom Roth, president of Community Marketing. "We have far more at stake than the average voter, and we're therefore far more engaged in the political process."

Indeed, the turnout results were released -- not coincidentally -- as the Democratic presidential contenders met in Los Angeles for the first candidate debate devoted to issues of particular interest to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.

In raw numbers, the survey estimates gay voters total nearly 9 million. In the 2004 election, about 122 million Americans went to the polls.

The study did not examine the partisan preferences among the gay constituency. But given the parties' respective positions on gay rights, one can assume the tilt is heavily Democratic.

So the candidate walks into a bar . . .
Now you know the presidential campaign is really underway.

The candidates are flocking to Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," many of them second-tier wannabes desperate for any TV exposure -- even if they get laughed at late at night by young people who probably don't vote.

Sen. Joe Biden, known for his hilarious backyard stand-up routine about the president being brain-dead, appeared Wednesday. He's pushing a new book, which presumably uses his own words this time. Next comes former GOP front-runner Sen. John McCain, who will make his 10th appearance on show on Thursday -- what's he got to lose these days? Former Gov. Tommy Thompson, who broke up audiences with his statistical PowerPoints as secretary of Health and Human Services, is scheduled for Aug. 20 -- unless he gives up before then.

On Aug. 22, Sen. Barack Obama, who made that recent funny joke about bombing Pakistan, will make his first "Daily Show" appearance as a candidate. Who knows which other American ally he might pick for the next attack? Sen. Chris Dodd and Gov. Bill Richardson have already appeared this political season -- and just look what it did for their poll numbers. Former Sen. John Edwards has also appeared, although his routine about poor people fell flat.

Hillary Clinton has never been on the "Daily Show" despite her genuine smile, warm charm and spontaneous wit. . .

Depends on your definition of lobbyist
Keeping true to his pledge not to take campaign funds from federal lobbyists, Barack Obama was raising bundles of money today way out in Sacramento, where, everybody knows, there are surely no lobbyists. Not unless you count the 1,032 registered California lobbyists who billed their clients $77.9 million in the first half of this year, according to The Times' Dan Morain.

Obama and John Edwards have been very critical of Hillary Clinton, and Obama wagged his finger at her at a Chicago forum for accepting campaign donations from lobbyists in Washington. She says they can represent "real Americans." Obama maintains lobbyist donations create special influence, which he says he is really, really against.

But apparently state lobbyists are something different because, everyone knows, none of them can have any connections in Washington. And, Obama claims, he would have no influence in Sacramento as president, no influence unless you include, say, holding executive authority over the Department of the Interior, which has final approval over all state gambling compacts with Indian tribes.

"It's not perfect," Obama explained to reporters. "I still have to raise money."

Hosts for Obama's fundraiser included former controller and failed Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly, who sent letters to the capital lobby corps inviting them to "an intimate fundraiser" for Obama. The cost: $1,000 for the lunch, $2,300 for lunch and reception.

California lobbyists aren't in the habit of donating to candidates. State law bars them from contributing to state lawmakers. That suits them fine. Of course, no law bars them from urging clients to donate, and they regularly do that and, you'll be surprised to learn, the clients readily respond with donations.

Parsing the polls
Hillary Clinton is rightfully pleased with a new national poll showing her extending a lead in the Democratic presidential race to where she's almost lapping the field. But she's also experienced enough not to get too excited.

The new USA Today/Gallup poll gives Clinton a 22-point advantage over Barack Obama, 48% to 26%, among Democratic-leaning voters, with John Edwards a distant third at 12%. The margin over Obama also is nearly double her lead in the same poll in mid-July, possible evidence their recent foreign policy spats worked to her advantage.

As we've noted, national polls at this stage can be illusory. They show trends and underscore general perceptions. But they also reflect lots of voters only vaguely paying attention to the campaign and whose allegiance remains malleable. The polls that matter more are in states that kick off the nomination process: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. Surveys there indicate a far more competitive Democratic race.

The new Gallup poll also tested the Republican race, and to an even greater degree than among Democrats, the results signify less than meets the eye.

Rudy Giuliani is ahead, at 33%, followed by the as-yet-unannounced Fred Thompson at 21% and John McCain at 16%. Running a distant fourth, with 8%, is the fellow leading in surveys of GOP-leaning voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, Mitt Romney.

Much more in line with the political world's view of Romney's prospects is a column by E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post that details the momentum the former governor is building. Dionne asserts: "Romney has the most comprehensive strategy not only to win the Republican presidential nomination but also to position himself for next year's election."

Excerpted from The Times' political blog, Top of the Ticket, at www.latimes.com/ topoftheticket.

Robinson criticized over Obama endorsement - Baldwin says she backs Clinton for president

A well-known gay bishop came out in support of a Democratic presidential candidate last week, much to the consternation of another religious leader who thinks the bishop is being used as a political tool.

In a statement issued Aug. 2, Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, president of the Interfaith Alliance, criticized New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson’s endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama, calling it a misuse of religious influence for political gain.

“While endorsements like today’s raise the possibility of legal action against religious leaders, our concerns are rooted more in the impact on the sanctity of religion and the integrity of government,” Gaddy said.

Robinson defended his endorsement of Obama in a teleconference by saying his decision was made as a private citizen, not as a religious leader. He told reporters that he has never endorsed a candidate before and that he will not use the pulpit to expound on his political views.

“For me as a citizen, Barack Obama represents, I think, our greatest hope,” he said. “I’m excited to be in on the ground, if you will, of this campaign because here in New Hampshire it’s important that we get involved early. We do have such an important impact on the future of the election.”

Robinson was the first openly gay priest to be elected a bishop in the Episcopal Church USA in 2004. Robinson, who has announced plans to commit to his partner in a civil union, supports gay marriage rights and disagrees with Obama’s support of civil unions instead of full same-sex marriage equality.

“At this moment we have no viable candidate who is where we would like them to be on these issues,” he said.

Robinson said he was unimpressed by the experience and track records of “other politicians,” but felt Obama’s experience as a community organizer could lead the United States in a better direction.

Sen. John Edwards’ campaign picked up 25 gay endorsements in April and another seven this week. Among them are: Kevin Jennings, founder and executive director of the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network; Gregory Simoncini, commissioner of the Illinois Human Rights Commission; Jeff Anderson, former co-chair of John Kerry’s LGBT Finance Committee; and Jeff Soukup, former president and chief operating officer of PlanetOut, Inc.

“As a first-generation college graduate from rural North Carolina, I come from a similar background to Senator Edwards,” Jennings said. “I believe he understands on a gut level issues of justice and equality.”

Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) announced her endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) for president and her appointment as co-chair of Clinton’s Wisconsin campaign the same day as Robinson made his announcement.

“Senator Clinton is supremely prepared and the candidate best able to ensure health care for all, reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and rule of law and re-establish our position of leadership in the world,” Baldwin said.

Baldwin, one of two openly gay members of Congress, was also named co-chair of the campaign’s LGBT steering committee and a member of its Health Care Policy Task Force.

“Tammy is such a strong voice on behalf of those who are too often left out of the political process,” Clinton said in a prepared statement. “I’m honored she’ll play a leading role in our national campaign and in Wisconsin.”

Baldwin said she has had contact with all but two of the Democratic campaigns but said she decided on Clinton because she wants to see full equal rights for gays at the federal level and because of Clinton’s views on health care.

“I am compelled by the health care issue,” she said. “We have 47 million uninsured people in the wealthiest nation on Earth.”

Baldwin said Clinton is “strong and vocal” in her support of the hate crimes and employment nondiscrimination bills and lends “just the type of visibility to help bring other senators along.”

Although Clinton is supportive on a number of gay issues, Baldwin admitted she differs with her about full marriage equality. Clinton supports civil unions and domestic partnerships, but does not support same-sex marriage.

Six Democrats at Candidate Forum Wear Shades of Gray on Gay Marriage

Six of the candidates seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination participated Thursday in a two-hour forum in Los Angeles devoted to issues of concern to gays and lesbians. The event — moderated by journalist Margaret Carlson and sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights activist group — was broadcast live by co-sponsor Logo, a lifestyle cable channel aimed at gay and lesbian viewers.

Taking questions separately in a talk-show-like setting were front-running candidates New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards. Also participating were New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

Connecticut Sen. Christopher Dodd and Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., did not attend, citing scheduling conflicts. Logo offered to hold a second forum for Republican candidates, but the leading candidates for the party’s nomination declined to participate, Carlson said.

Unlike several candidate debates held earlier this year, the Democrats never appeared on stage together, but took questions at 15-minute intervals from Carlson and a panel made up of Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese, singer Melissa Etheridge and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart. Candidates were questioned in the order in which they agreed to commit to the forum, with chief rivals Obama and Clinton book-ending the discussion as first and last, respectively.

The questions covered a mix of topics, including same-sex marriage, AIDS funding and employment rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender couples.

The following is a roundup of some of the forum’s key moments:

Most Discussed Issue: Debate about same-sex marriage dominated the forum. With only two candidates, Kucinich and Gravel, supporting full marriage rights for same-sex couples most of the scrutiny went to Obama, Edwards, Richardson and Clinton: All of them proclaimed their support for civil unions that provide many partnership rights to same-sex couples but do not constitute marriage under the law.

“The country isn’t there yet,” said Richardson of his opposition to gay marriage. “Civil unions with full marriage rights is achievable.”

Clinton described her opposition as “a personal position,” adding that marriage laws should be determined by state legislatures.

Obama, who served in the Illinois Senate for eight years prior to his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate, would not say if he would have voted for a bill to legalize gay marriage. “It depends on how the bill would’ve come up,” he said.

In one of the most direct moments of the night, Edwards backtracked on recent comments that his personal faith influenced his opposition to gay marriage. “I shouldn’t have said that,” Edwards said, adding, “My position on same-sex marriage has not changed. I believe strongly in civil unions.”

The discussion also focused heavily on the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, a 1996 statute that was crafted by a Republican-controlled Congress and signed by a Democrat, President Bill Clinton, who is married to Hillary Clinton. The law prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage.

Edwards went the farthest in calling for an outright repeal of the law. “We desperately need to get rid of DOMA,” Edwards said. Edwards has said he would not have voted for the bill if he had been in the Senate in 1996.

Richardson was a member of the U.S. House in 1996 and did vote for the DOMA bill. But he said he backed it as part of an effort to block conservatives from pushing through a more stringent measure, a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Richardson described DOMA as “a cheap political way to decimate a bad initiative.”

Clinton, whose husband was heavily criticized by gay rights groups for signing the law, gave a more defensive response, saying it helped Democratic candidates in 2004 deflect Republican efforts to brand them as pro-gay marriage.

“DOMA provided great protection against the Republican strategy to cynically use marriage as a political tool,” she said. But she expressed support for repealing the section of the law that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, leaving in place only the section that gives states jurisdiction over marriage laws.

Most Uncomfortable Moment: Capehart grilled Richardson for using the Spanish word for the anti-gay epithet “faggot” on the Don Imus radio show in March 2006, then asked Richardson pointedly if he believes being gay is a personal choice or an inherent biological trait.
Richardson voiced the most conservative view among the candidates. “It is a choice,” he said quickly, looking down. Etheridge repeated her question in a friendly tone, wondering aloud if Richardson did not understand her the first time.

“I’m not a scientist,” he answered. “I don’t see this as an issue of science or definition. I see gays and lesbians as people...I don’t like to answer definitions like that that are grounded in science or something else that I don’t understand.”

Most Impassioned Moment: Kucinich, one of the most vocal supporters of gay rights among the candidates, won high praise from the panel for his support of full marriage rights for homosexuals. Carlson joked that Kucinich is “so evolved” for a member of Congress and asked how he got that way. Kucinich said that, as mayor of Cleveland, he was attacked for hiring a police chief who was sympathetic to gay rights.

“To me, who cares? It really doesn’t matter,” he said, over cheers from the crowd. “Every one of us taking a stand has the potential to help any one of us evolve. That’s the gift we give to each other.”

Most Nuanced Response: For the candidates who don’t fully support legalizing same-sex marriage, the challenge at the forum was to explain their positions on issues in a way that made them palatable to the gay constituency, while not alienating the majority of voters who are not gay.

All the candidates endorsed repealing the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ ban on gays in the military, but Clinton had a little more to prove. She was first lady when the law was signed by President Clinton in 1993, and said she only came out against the policy in 1999.

Clinton said that at the time the law was enacted, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was meant to be a defensive bill designed to prevent more restrictive measures that moderates as well as conservatives might have been tempted to endorse.

Best Line: “Back then, mainstream media marginalized me. Oh, I was a maverick. Oh, I was ‘Kooky Gravel.’ Well, I tell you what, all you gotta do is live long enough that they look back and say, ‘My God, was he a courageous leader.’” — Gravel, who was initially not invited to the debate, playfully acknowledging his role as an outsider candidate in the race.

Top Point of Agreement: All the candidates agreed that federal marriage benefits should be extended to all couples, regardless of sexuality. The disagreements only b egan when candidates were asked what they would call such a union and why. While candidates who supported anything less than full marriage rights didn’t impress the moderators, they all agreed that homosexuals should be guaranteed equality under the law.

By Sara Lubbes, Josh Stager and Jesse Stanchak, CQ Staff