Rudy on immigration, civil unions: I’m a conservative too!
posted at 5:28 pm on August 13, 2007 by Allahpundit
Uh huh. McCain is the best thing that ever happened to him insofar as he’s become a lightning rod for all the abuse Rudy would have and should have taken for statements like this:
“Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens,” Giuliani said at the time. “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
Mitt rattled his cage last week so today his campaign put this out. Immigration, abortion, civil unions, abortion — all issues which, in one way or another, Rudy’s inched right notwithstanding his image as the iron man whose commitment to principle admits no pandering. I wonder why his myriad reversals seem to have cost him less than Mitt’s flip-flop on abortion. Presumably it’s because Rudy’s basically a one-issue candidate and on that one issue he really has been resolute. Mitt’s sort of one-issue too insofar as he’s running very consciously as the social con candidate, but on his one issue that isn’t really one issue he’s very noticeably changed his mind.
Exit question: Whom do you trust more to stick to his newfound guns if elected, Mitt or Rudy?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Give it a break, Allah. Don’t be so scared of Rudy. He’s a man of conviction and leadership. Our country is much better off with him then so many of the other options.
Vincenzo on August 13, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Fred.
Theworldisnotenough on August 13, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Yeah? Pray tell, what conviction is it that has him reversing field on every major policy except terrorism?
Allahpundit on August 13, 2007 at 5:37 PM
None of the above. Not even Fred.
Valiant on August 13, 2007 at 5:38 PM
I would suggest that Mitt changes his mind LESS than Rudy. And therefor would be more likely to remain committed to his positions.
How do I know this?
Mitt has been married less times.
heh
dc84123 on August 13, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Reagan. Oh, never mind.
amerpundit on August 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM
So, then, your answer is “Hillary”?
someone on August 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Hmmm… lets see…
Pro gun control?
Pro Abortion?
Pro Sanctuary Cities?
Hmmm… and over 80% of the Judges he appointed in New Yawk were DEMOCRATS!!!!
His ONLY claim to fame is that he was in a city that got HIT on 9/11, and he looked good in front of the cameras.
Oh, and the 9/11 first responders HATE him…
Oh, and even though they knew most of the problems with the radios and such pre 9/11, he did nothing…
If this is the best the Repubs have, this country is really in trouble… time for a real third party…
Romeo13 on August 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Seriously, they’ve all flip-flopped. Take a look at politicians in general. They flip-flop. Sam Switchback? Fred who supported abortion “in all cases” in 1994? Waffles. All the same.
Sad state of affairs when we have to elect the best of the worst.
amerpundit on August 13, 2007 at 5:43 PM
I thought Mitt wasn’t going to take away our guns. Isn’t he the hunter? Mitt Nimrod Romney.
pedestrian on August 13, 2007 at 5:43 PM
That’s like saying “Time for Hillary”. A third-party candidate won’t win in ’08. Not enough funding. Not enough votes. Not enough to beat the Clinton Machine.
amerpundit on August 13, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Newt.
lorien1973 on August 13, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Rudy has lost his luster. Mitt is a bit to smooth for me at times.
I keep reading that Newt is unelectable. But I think he is the name behind the most definitive conservative surge in recent political history. Are his negatives worse than Hillary’s?
I don’t know. But he is a very clear thinker and has his finger on the pulse of the people. He is an effective conduit between conservatism and the masses.
The Race Card on August 13, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Mitt. Rudy just doesn’t currently seem convincing as having changed his politics. Maybe my opinion will change if he keeps it up.
Esthier on August 13, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Rudy by a shade, I think, based mostly on his tortured explanations earlier this year regarding his abortion position.
Spirit of 1776 on August 13, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Funny how Rudy forgets to mention his anti-gambling stance while listing his socially conservative credentials.
see-dubya on August 13, 2007 at 5:54 PM
I agree. I still believe that Clinton was President because Perot ran. I voted for Perot (and I am not sorry) because I just hate politicians. We really do not have a good Republican to vote for. I am still waiting for a true conservative to step forward.
On-my-soap-box on August 13, 2007 at 5:55 PM
I kinda thought Mitt was pandering to get elected in liberal MA, so I actually trust him more now by assuming past dishonesty.
That’s politics.
frankj on August 13, 2007 at 5:59 PM
If I have to choose between Mitt and Rudy, I’m going with Rudy because I think “I’ll leave it to the states” is gonna hurt us less than Mitt’s “I support the Spooky Lookin’ Weapons Ban”. I think everyone is worrying about the Pro-Lifers at the cost of ignoring the gun rights people, and that will bite us in the ass.
Gun control is an issue that even the Dems are backing away from, but if they win big in 08, they’ll go right back to it, because they’ll have the political capital to do so. Its a winner for us, and a reliable turnout because gunowners are getting antsy because Hillary and Barack are both gungrabbers. You give them a solid pro-2nd candidate, and pound them with friendly reminders of what Hillary and Obama are, they’ll turn out in big numbers.
Bad Candy on August 13, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Exit answer: I prefer Mitt because he’s not a gun grabber. I can’t vote for anybody who isn’t at least a modest supporter of the 2nd amendment. Let me know if Rudy ever insults my intelligence by deciding to start supporting the second amendment so that I can be appropriately offended.
I’m leaning toward Newt, Tancredo and Hunter or possibly Fred or Huck.
FloatingRock on August 13, 2007 at 6:10 PM
Uh, FloatingRock, Mitt has it on the record in a debate that he supports the AWB. Rudy has promised to leave it to the states. You might wanna rethink that.
Bad Candy on August 13, 2007 at 6:12 PM
LOL!! I needed a good laugh today. And I’m not laughing about Mitt or Rudy being elected. And I’m not laughing about Mitt or Rudy sticking to their guns. This is the part I’m laughing about: Whom do you trust more
jaime on August 13, 2007 at 6:15 PM
Bad Candy, the AWB is ridiculous but I survived it before and I can survive it again. But when Rudy says that he wants to leave it up to the states, he isn’t referring to the AWB, he’s referring to the 2nd amendment itself.
FloatingRock on August 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
I do not see any change whatsoever in his position on immigration. He has always been opposed to illegal immigration, but he always recognized this as a federal responsibility. His realistic approach to the problem as mayor (not as the federal government) is in no way inconsistent with how he would approach the problem when he does become the federal government with authority to act
If you read what the campaign put out, it is clear that Rudy has a long history of complaining about the federal government not addressing our open boarders. He wanted illegal immigration stopped and he wanted criminal illegal aliens deported, but he could not get the federal government to do either. So, he was mayor of a city with a huge illegal population. He cannot deport them himself — that is the federal governments job, which it refused to do. So, Rudy was put on the horns of a dilemma. He had a huge illegal population that he can’t get rid of and the federal government refuses to deport. He can have the immigrant communities descend into lawlessness — each with their own version of Omerta — or he could agree not to inquire of immigration status when dealing with the city government. How he addressed the problem when he was without jurisdiction to act is not relevant to determine how he would act if he was given proper jurisdiction to act.
tommylotto on August 13, 2007 at 6:20 PM
They all suk. They just suk much much less than their Democrat counterparts whose suk factor is multiplied to the power of 10 on a daily basis. I’d trust not a one. However I’d vote for, Rudy, Mitt or Fred.
Griz on August 13, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Rudy seems to have had actual flip-flops on policy he controlled. (didn’t he run a sanctuary city?) I’m tired of people refering to Romney’s flip-flops that occured entirely in the realm of sound bites as if they are just as bad. One does not equal the other.
Resolute on August 13, 2007 at 6:24 PM
I will pull the lever for any Republican nominee over any Democratic nominee. Because I don’t hate America enough to punish her with a Democratic Socialist President.
Stormy70 on August 13, 2007 at 6:25 PM
I usually try to defend Rudy. Not this time. My opinion means very little, so why waste my time. Instead I would like to find out what others think a conservative candidate should look like. What are the main issues that should shape the next Republican nominee? Do we even have a potential candidate that can meet these standards? What are the most important issues facing our country? What exactly is a conservative? Should we stay at home next year because the nominee does not meet our standards? Would Hillary really be that bad for our country?
chief on August 13, 2007 at 6:32 PM
I understand the sentiment but speaking for myself, voting against the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to high a price to pay merely to protest another candidate because they have a different letter next to their name.
FloatingRock on August 13, 2007 at 6:36 PM
Mitt, I believe he is the most electable, more conservative than Bush candidate out there.
MarkB on August 13, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Frankly, I don’t care about any other major policy except terrorism.
Abortion? It’s settled. Get over it.
Immigration? Won’t ever be settled, though Rudy, et al, benefit from the hindsight of this year’s legislative fiasco and the comfortable knowledge that the country does not — and I mean does not — want amnesty until the borders are secured.
Gun rights? It’s in the Constitution, in pretty plain language. I feel quite secure that I’m keepin’ my guns, and so far the federal courts agree with me. And if I’m wrong? Well…you know the part about prying them from my dead, cold hands.
Civil Unions? I’ll acknowledge the ongoing culture war, but admit that I could not care less about this issue. Gay rights is 100% about advancing a leftist agenda. I get that. Enough said.
Terrorism? Now you’ve got my attention. I’ll vote for the guy who believes in killing terrorists. It’s really that simple. The only culture war I’m currently engaged in is the one seeking to normalize Islamic radicalism under the guise of multiculturalism. Moreover, this issue directly relates to all those other issues I just listed, as we lose all of our freedoms under sharia law. Tell me you intend to kill the Islamic jihadists who want to kill and enslave me and my family, and you’ve got my vote. Hell, just say “Islamic jihadists” and you’ll probably get my vote.
I’m not sure Rudy or Mitt or Fred is that guy, but there is not a single candidate on the other side who even comes close. Hillary, Obama, and Silky just don’t get it. I don’t know if they lack the intellect to get it, or if they really believe their twisted alliance with the jihadists will help them gain power, but they just don’t get it at all.
Call me myopic, but post-9/11, it’s a one issue world for me.
Rational Thought on August 13, 2007 at 6:43 PM
Even in Mitt’s latest incarnation he’s practically an ideological twin to Bush- in favor of the AWB, expanded medicare spending, an expanded federal role in education, etc. Even if one believes he was misrepresenting his views running for governor and not misrepresenting his views now, he’s still just another Big Government Conservative.
Not that I trust Rudy either. I don’t want him to be the nominee and will not vote for him if he is, but at least I respected him for being fairly consistant on positions unpopular with the Republican base, unlike FlipFlop Mitt. Now he’s losing even that modest respect.
That’s OK, Mr. One Trick Pony will just keep reciting anecdotes from 9/11 to try and distract everyone from the fact he’s a complete RINO.
Hollowpoint on August 13, 2007 at 6:51 PM
Allah- I like that exit question. I hope that the newly elected POTUS, a Republican, will not be so ridgid,so as to appear that they can’t compromise. I am not talking about compromising on immigration, or the economy, or the GWOT,or budgets, or education. I’ve got to say, abortion and civil unions are the least of the problems facing this country, yet at the same time, I see either man going along with the party.
Pam on August 13, 2007 at 6:55 PM
Because the electorate is salivating for someone more conservative than Bush?
Big S on August 13, 2007 at 6:57 PM
Did the gays invite the Republicans to a debate? I have been missing those secret gay meetings lately.
SouthernGent on August 13, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I’m with ya. Beautifully said.
nyrofan on August 13, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Who do I trust more to stick to their new found and latest convictions…… neither. They’re politicians and like used car salesmen they’ll tell you whatever you need to hear to vote for them. Of course their agenda will revert to their true form once they get in office.
Come November 2008 I’ll vote for whatever Republican is nominated because even the worst (with one very unlikely exception) is way better than Hillary Obama Edwards, but neither Mitt nor Rudy is going to get my primary vote.
Buzzy on August 13, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Neither of them. Don’t trust them at all. Perhaps Bush hardened me on that note. In fact I am having a hard time finding a real conservative out of any of them right now.
conservnut on August 13, 2007 at 7:26 PM
Rudy Giuliani speech when he was NYC mayor – “Two days ago I announced that the City of New York has filed suit against the federal government. We are challenging a provision of the recently enacted federal Welfare and Immigration law. This new federal law is part of an anti-immigration movement that can be seen throughout the United States, unfortunately.
Here in New York City we know the value of immigration. New York the greatest city in the world was built by the hands of immigrants and it continues to be built and strengthened by immigrants. New Yorkers know that any effort to eliminate immigration or unfairly burden immigrants could destroy the very process that is the key to New York and America’s success.
That’s why the City of New York has filed suit in federal court. Our lawsuit contends that the new federal law violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by invalidating New York City’s Executive Order 124. For those who may not know, Executive Order 124″ is New York City’s policy regarding undocumented immigrants. This order was issued seven years ago by Mayor Ed Koch and then later reissued by Mayor Dinkins and then by me. Executive Order 124 protects undocumented immigrants in New York City from being reported to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service while they are using City services that are crucial for their health and safety, and critical for the health and safety of the entire city.
Joining me in defense of fair treatment for immigrants is a coalition of well-known individuals and organizations who oppose the anti-immigration forces in Washington and elsewhere.
MB4 on August 13, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Give me a break. He ran into one of the towers and almost died. He showed character and leadership, helped Bush to regain his composure (read The Right Man by David Frum) before his famous megaphone address. Compared to the nervous breakdown Mayor Nagin had during Katrina things could have been so much worse.
Someone on another post said that FDR and Reagan understood that people need leadership and reassurance. Rudy’s reaction to 9/11 is on a par to FDR’s speeches after the Wall Street Crash and Pearl Harbour and Reagan’s speech after the Challenger disaster. They also looked good in front of the cameras.
As for his achievements he told a Saudi prince to take his petrodollars and stick them where the sun don’t shine, rare moment of anti-dhimmitude towards the Saudis in US history. He took down the Mafia families when he was D.A. He turned New York from a crime-ridden cesspool into a low-crime livable city.
That said I think Mitt is sound on abortion, moreso than Guiliani.
aengus on August 13, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Rudy can be President of Mexico or CEO of Tyson Foods.
MB4 on August 13, 2007 at 7:30 PM
I have been missing those secret gay meetings lately.
SouthernGent on August 13, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Well, that will happen when you are busy corrupting the youth of America!
Chances are they never told you where the meeting was. I still don’t get to go to the world wide atheist conspiracy meetings, nor am I in on where the powerful white guys meet, so there you go.
Did you give them your phone number?
Krydor on August 13, 2007 at 7:32 PM
Yes, at least a certain segment of the electorate is.
They’re called Republicans and conservatives. They’re having a primary early next year; perhaps you’ve heard about it.
Hollowpoint on August 13, 2007 at 7:35 PM
I agree with Rational Thought. All those other issues pale in comparison to terrorism. I’ll add one more issue that is near and dear to my heart: taxes. Any candidate who expressly denounces tax increases will get my vote. I pay enough already, thank you very much. The federal government should exhibit financial restraint just like the rest of us. The tax issue and the terrorism issue are the reasons why I can never be a democrat.
pullingmyhairout on August 13, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Sorry my friend, gay conservatives need not apply…you don’t quite fit the “politically correct profile.”
pullingmyhairout on August 13, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Yikes! pullingmyhairout is right. I forgot…
Kill Islamic jihadists. Don’t take my money. You’ve got my vote.
Rational Thought on August 13, 2007 at 7:42 PM
I intend to vote for Rudy, in part because I think he has the best chance of stopping Hillary. And when it comes to running the war and nominating judges, I’ll take Rudy over Hillary any day.
But once the decision is taken, I’ll vote for whomever we all pick as the nominee.
paul006 on August 13, 2007 at 8:11 PM
They’re somewhat less than 1/3rd of registered voters, and among that minority, only a certain subset (half?) are looking for someone more conservative than Bush. I’m afraid that in Nov. 2008, “electable” and “more conservative than Bush” are mutually exclusive arguments.
Big S on August 13, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Rudy. Simply because I think he means it about his stand on what type of judges he will select. This pushes much of the ethical/moral debates back to the states and voters to deal with. If an amendment is in order (for abortion for example) it would have to start at that level anyway.
Bradky on August 13, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Rudy.
At this point, I have no reason to believe one over the other… I will, like most people, go with the gut, and Rudy seems less slick.
Lehosh on August 13, 2007 at 8:57 PM
bingo
Bodhi on August 13, 2007 at 9:08 PM
Allah,
Rudy put out his version of his record on illegal immigration today. You charge him with inconsistency in this area. Can you provide specific examples to the contrary?
Big S on August 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Look at Rudolf’s own speech as NYC Mayor. tells you all you need to know.
MB4 on August 13, 2007 at 9:43 PM
Rudy is a leader. He made in a difference in ultra-liberal New York while Mitt crowd surfed his was through ultra-liberal Massachusetts.
Hening on August 13, 2007 at 9:45 PM
For a little context check the full text of the speech (2800 total words), given on September 30, 1996 that you quoted from (263 words of the speech) is at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/96/immig.html
Bradky on August 13, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Those immigrants came to be Americans and live the American dream. They in no way resemble the criminals that live in their own cultures, do not learn English and do not wish to be part of building America. They are parasites and need to be sent back where they came from. New Yorkers have lost their way and in no way represent the City and citizens that were once the greatest in the world.
Rudy inherited a real dump from Kotch and brought it back to a glimmer of its former glory. Brooklyn and the Bronx have gone from once being beautiful cities to hell holes and until there is no need for all the billboards being in Spanish, so they will remain.
Hening on August 13, 2007 at 10:00 PM
Why is this so hard to understand?
For a political site there are a ton of people here who seem to have no idea of how politics works.
JackStraw on August 13, 2007 at 11:25 PM
Bradky on August 13, 2007 at 9:59 PM
Hey, thanks for linking to that speech. I happen to agree with him on most of it.
Big S on August 13, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Let’s see…
Candidates state their positions, and then people vote for who they like best. There seems to be a contingent here that thinks the best way to win in 2008 is to nominate a candidate who will be “more conservative” than GWB, a position I think is extremely foolish. Fortunately, I don’t think they have enough influence in the party for us to go down that road.
Big S on August 13, 2007 at 11:35 PM
Terrorism is a big issue for me, as well. However, I think it’s pointless to be fighting terrorists abroad, while leaving our borders wide open for invasion. Secure the borders now!!
BeachBaby on August 14, 2007 at 12:23 AM
I do not buy that argument. If this was Guiliani’s rationale he had no need to make pandering speeches supporting the illegals. He had no need to join the legal actions supporting sanctuary cities. He had no reason in one of the first debates to make his joking ‘God love ‘em’ statement that if they paid taxes we need more illegals.
I will not criticize Guiliani on 911, despite the complaints about the radios. No government funds everything perfectly but Guiliani showed leadership and manliness to the public better than I have seen recently except for Bush’s unforgettable impromptu at Ground Zero which hit me like Shakespeare’s St Crispin’s Day speech from Henry V because it was absolutely sincere and true
There is one person who did stick to his guns when elected: Newt. He fought for the Contract with America like a pit bull. The missing link on Newt is: the SPP, the so called Prosperity Partnership, the superhighway to Mexico. This is the 8000 lb gorilla that somehow Congress funded even though no one seems to know it exists. it runs without treaty and without any clear origin of power. While the SPP site says it was created in 2005, when was it really created, and what is Newt’s history on this subject?
If Newt has clean hands on the SPP, then he is the only one to pass my integrity test so far. He looses points on my dumb-ass meter for his comments about being swept up by Clinton charisma. That bothers me because snake oil is highly recognizable to the clear-eyed
entagor on August 14, 2007 at 2:20 AM
For a little context check the full text of the speech (2800 total words), given on September 30, 1996 that you quoted from (263 words of the speech) is at
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/96/immig.html
Bradky on August 13, 2007 at 9:59 PM
The rather lengthy part of Rudolf’s speech that I quoted was more than enough to damn him to anyone who is not pro illegal. That would not change even if he cured cancer in the rest of his speech.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 2:44 AM
That is your opinion of course but at least be honest enough to acknowledge this speech was given 11 years ago. I also sense you didn’t read the entire speech either.
Bradky on August 14, 2007 at 3:45 AM
On some issues I can understand if Rudy takes a different stance as Mayor versus President.
As a matter of fact he *should* take a different stance.
As far as his principles go…populism unveiling itself?
DavidM on August 14, 2007 at 9:32 AM
tommylotto on August 14, 2007 at 10:54 AM
CORRECTION
Unless of course that was the best thing to do to run a city overrun with illegals who the federal government refuses to deport. Rudy was given lemons by the federal government and he made lemonade. No matter what Rudy’s position might be on the boarder, he had a city to run that had hundreds of thousands of illegals. He was stuck with them. He could have them refusing to talk to cops and not paying taxes or cooperating with authorities and paying their fair share — as mayor (not as POTUS) what would you choose?
tommylotto on August 14, 2007 at 10:55 AM
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 2:44 AM
That is your opinion of course but at least be honest enough to acknowledge this speech was given 11 years ago. I also sense you didn’t read the entire speech either.
Bradky on August 14, 2007 at 3:45 AM
My opinion? It was his speech, not mine!!!
Honest? What the hell are you talking about? I said the speech was made when Rudy Giuliani was NYC mayor. He would have been somewhere in his fifties then, not going through adolescence.
And yes, I did not read the whole speech, as what I read was more than enough. Why would I read the whole speech? If I comment on some speech by Hillary will you insist that I read the whole speech?
Your attempts to direct the spotlight on me makes your inability to defend Rudolf very transparent.
MB4 on August 14, 2007 at 4:01 PM
That is why I don’t give your opinion much weight — you see only what you wish to see.
Bradky on August 15, 2007 at 10:26 PM