June 5th, 2007
08:50 PM ET
11 years ago

Huffington: Giuliani dancing around gays in military

WASHINGTON (CNN) - On CNN's Pipeline, political analysts Republican Michael Murphy and Democrat Arianna Huffington have found common ground once again - this time at former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's expense.

"That was a weak, weak answer." Huffington pointed out in response to Giuliani's answer on gays in the military.

"It was certainly a soft answer," quickly added Murphy.

"He's dancing around the question," Huffington responded.

Murphy declined to respond but concluded, "Romney is on his game tonight, I'll say that."

No such kudos for Giuliani from the Republican strategist.

–CNN contributor Josh Lipsky

Filed under: Race to '08 • Rudy Giuliani • Uncategorized
soundoff (9 Responses)
  1. Mark, Baton Rouge , LA

    RNC from the LGBT community

    et tu Miss Rudy?

    June 5, 2007 09:06 pm at 9:06 pm |


    June 5, 2007 09:18 pm at 9:18 pm |
  3. Nick S., Scranton, PA

    If someone is willing to die for our country, why should their sexuality matter? I am completely against the war, but I still honor the service of all military men and women, regardless of their sexuality. And, seriously folks, isn't there a practical issue in play here? The military misses many of it's recruiting quotas, is stretched almost to the breaking point, and you're actually going to discharge someone for being gay? How does that make any sense at all?

    June 5, 2007 09:24 pm at 9:24 pm |
  4. John Gamble, New York, NY

    He parsed it as a matter of states
    rights, but I swear I just heard
    Fred Thompson say he was pro-choice
    during his interview with Sean Hannity
    a moment ago.

    June 5, 2007 09:33 pm at 9:33 pm |
  5. Spencer H, Exton PA

    Oh, everything is so PC these days, it will be nice when people are born with a spine again. So its ok to have gays in the military? Well, if that was the case, I wouldn't sign up. I guess they should have three different armies; one for gays and those who don't like straights, another for for straights who don't like gays, and one more for people who are indifferent. Then everyone would just be so happy, wouldn't that be cute.

    June 5, 2007 09:41 pm at 9:41 pm |
  6. Haley B, Kenosha, WI

    I agree with the other comments! What does it matter your sexuality... as long as your willing to risk your lif for your country, that is not selfish what so ever! Saying Gay people aren't allowed to be in the Militery is like sayibg someone can't joing the army because they are black, or Irish!!!! It is an outrage, and they should not ban Gays out of the military... they already aren't allowed to gt married, but that is a different story.

    June 5, 2007 10:33 pm at 10:33 pm |
  7. Mark, Baton Rouge , LA

    McCain mentioned the Hispanic
    names on the Viet Nam memorial, there are thousands of gays/lesbians on that memorial too! And on every other war memorial.
    Republicans spit on every one of them.

    June 5, 2007 10:35 pm at 10:35 pm |
  8. Chris G, League City, TX

    It was disheartening to see so many candidates side-stepping their questions and running with canned mumbo-jumbo.

    I really wish Wolf would have done a better job of keeping candidates on-topic instead of letting them ramble on and on about the same stuff they mentioned 2 questions earlier.

    Annoying. Sad that the 'little guys' didn't get fair treatment either. WAY too much time afforded McCain, Romney and Giuliani.

    June 5, 2007 10:44 pm at 10:44 pm |
  9. Brett Huebner, Hillsboro, KS

    The comments here are interesting. Given the way gays are treated legally in the U.S., it is inconsistent to keep them out of the military. No good defense was given to do so. Ron Paul's comments, logically followed, say to me that the current policy should change. Yet, oddly, he did not make that logical jump.
    Spencer's comment revealed to me what was likely the root of not having gays serve longer ago. In the not so distant past, homosexuality was considered a disease or at least a social deviation, probalby not unlike how we would view a drug addiction today. And so, it was seen as a natural character deficiency. If a candidate still believed this, I guess it would make sense to not have them serve. But if that's the case, they SHOULDN'T serve, and we'd better FIND OUT if they're gay. It's either wrong or it's right; and if it's wrong, we shouldn't keep it secret. This policy was bad, and HIllary should have admitted as much the other night. It's 'transitional', sure, but much that is politically expedient is transitional yet carries another wrong, that of 'inconsistecy.' If the militaryis to be consistent with regular hiring regulations in this country, it has NO business discriminating on the basis of sexual preerence. This should be a non-issue!

    June 6, 2007 02:36 am at 2:36 am |