And yes, I did not read the whole speech, as what I read was more than enough

That is why I don’t give your opinion much weight — you see only what you wish to see.

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.

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.

entagor on August 14, 2007 at 2:20 AM

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?

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.

entagor on August 14, 2007 at 2:20 AM

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?

As far as his principles go…populism unveiling itself?

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 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.

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

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

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

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.

Hey, thanks for linking to that speech. I happen to agree with him on most of it.

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

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.

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.

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.

MB4 on August 13, 2007 at 7:29 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

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?

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.

bingo

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.

Exit question: Whom do you trust more to stick to his newfound guns if elected, Mitt or Rudy?

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.

It appears Fred is opening up a fault line between himself and Rudy Giuliani with his commentary on “Sanctuary Cities”. While he never mentions Rudy by name, he does list New York City as one of the most prominent sanctuary cities in America.

Allahp…

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

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.

Exit question: Whom do you trust more to stick to his newfound guns if elected, Mitt or Rudy?

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.

Kill Islamic jihadists. Don’t take my money. You’ve got my vote.

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

Sorry my friend, gay conservatives need not apply…you don’t quite fit the “politically correct profile.”