The Phantom
I've come across this excellent dissection of Dick Cheney by Maureen Dowd, on Meet the Press the weekend after it became public that Cheney had shot a man in the face and delayed in releasing that information to the public. Dowd is explaining to Mary Matalin, who was rather ineptly defending Cheney, why Cheney's handling of the shooting was relevant:
The reason this story has evoked such fascination is because the vice
president is like the phantom. You know, we hear the creak of the door as he
passes, but we don't really know what he's up to. We don't know his schedule. We
don't always know where he is. We don't know what democratic institution he's
blowing off at any given minute, and so this allowed us to see how his behavior
and judgment operated pretty much in real time -- with the delay, but pretty
much in real time. ...
And it covered all the problems of the Bush/Cheney administration: secrecy
and stonewalling, then blowing off the rules that are at the heart of our
democracy, then using a filter to try and put the truth out in a way that would
most suit their political needs, and then bad political judgment in bungling a
crisis. I mean, if there's one thing the Republicans are great at since Reagan,
it's damage control. But he is such a control freak, you know, he doesn't even
care about the damage. ...
Mary, it isn't only the press. He blows off the FISA courts, he blows off
the Geneva Conventions, he blows off the U.N. to go to Iraq. He wants to blow
off everything. He's got a fever about presidential erosion just the way he had
a fever about going into Iraq.
If Cheney testifies for Libby, he won't be able to hide. It will all be out there.
I Wonder What Kind of Foot Wear Rudy Wears to the Beach?
Apparently the flip-flopping and pandering isn't just reserved to people from Massachusetts. Rudy has been trying to play up his steadfastness and resolve by emphasizing the resoluteness of his views.
However, Rudy's in a bit of box with the conservative base because of his liberal views on some social issues like abortion and gay rights. So watch what he said to Sean Hannity recently about partial birth abortion:
HANNITY: Partial birth?
GIULIANI: Partial birth abortion? I think that's going to be upheld. I
think that ban's gonna be upheld. I think it should be. I think as long as
there's a provision for the life of the mother then that's something that should
be done.
HANNITY: There's a misconception that you support a partial birth
abortion.
GIULIANI: Well, if it doesn't have provision for the mother then I wouldn't
support the legislation. If it has provision for the life of the mother then I
would support. And I do.
Hmm. So Rudy says, his position has been that he would support a ban on partial birth abortion so long as there is a provision for the life of the mother in the ban. Rewind to 1999 and 2000:
Here's what Rudy said about the issue on CNN on December 2, 1999, when
he was preparing a Senate run against Hillary Clinton (via Nexis):
[GARY] TUCHMAN: Giuliani was then asked whether he supports a ban on what
critics call partial-birth abortions, something Bush strongly supports.
GIULIANI: No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on
that changing.
Here's what Rudy said on CNN on February 6, 2000 (via
Nexis):
BLITZER: If you were in the Senate and [President Clinton] vetoed, once
again, the [ban on the] so-called partial-birth abortion procedure, you would
vote against sustaining that against the -- in favor of the veto in other words,
you would support the president on that.
GIULIANI: Yes. I said then that I support him, so I have no reason to
change my mind about it.
BLITZER: All right. So the bottom line is that on a lot of these very
sensitive issues whether on guns, abortion, patients' bill of rights, taxes, you
are more in line with the president and by association, with Mrs. Clinton, than
you are against them.
And here's what Rudy said on ABC News on February 6, 2000:
[GEORGE] WILL: Is your support of partial birth abortion firm?
Mayor GIULIANI: All of my positions are firm. I have strong viewpoints. I
express them. And I--I do not think that it makes sense to be changing your position....
Oh, and the ban that Rudy was questioned about in 1999 and 2000 had a provision that allow the procedure when the life of the mother was in question.
It's amazing what running for President can do for a "firm" position.
Two Questions...
on Romney and Rudy:
1. Why are conservatives who claimed that they couldn't support a flip-flopper from Massachusetts for President to handle something as important as the war on terror now willing to support another flip-flopper from Massachusetts for the same job?
2. People have constantly made a big deal out of a so-called "lack of experience" in foreign policy by Obama and Edwards, but no one ever raises a similar concern about Rudy, even though he has considerably less experience (unless you count trying to get U.N. diplomats to pay parking tickets) in that area than both Senators (one who served on the Intelligence Committee and one who is on the Foreign Relations Committee)?
Just wondering...
