Video: We can end illegal immigration, says Rudy ‘07; no, we can’t, says Rudy ‘96; Update: Rudy’s camp responds
posted at 6:05 pm on August 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Credit where credit is due — this is some nice work by TPM. Reminiscent of the shamnesty debacle too insofar as the left and right are united in loathing the immigration squishes in the middle, albeit for completely different reasons.
Interesting that Rudy feels obliged to stick to his guns on abortion but will pander shamelessly on this issue. Is that a testament to its relative importance? Or to the depth of his own pro-choice convictions?
Update: I should be more specific. This is some nice work by whichever campaign handed this to TPM.
Update (bp): Let’s speculate a second about Allah’s inference above. Now who could have passed the old Rudy soundbite off to TPM? Who has a) perfect access to New York politicos and burial grounds, b) has an interest in destroying Giuliani early so that a (theoretically) weaker candidate emerges from the GOP and c) would think to pass it off to TPM rather than, say, a conservative blog, since Giuliani is in fact battling it out in the GOP primary at the moment? Hm?
Yeah. Red handed.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
From the same speech:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4bn-1h885_k
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Rudy talks tough on border enforcement and deporting illegal aliens who’ve committed felonies, but he’s made it pretty clear that he’s pro-amnesty- both by recent statements and his history as a Sanctuary City mayor who had the warm fuzzies for illegals. I guess Rudy’s only tough on some crimes.
When the Shamnesty bill came out, it wasn’t the amnesty he criticized; instead he nitpicked the ID and recordkeeping provisions that were pretty similar to what he himself is proposing.
I’ve said it before- I just don’t get how a pro-amnesty, pro-gun control, pro-abortion candidate who thinks it would be “OK” if Roe v Wade were upheld could possibly be leading the polls, but he is. Is it that the general public just isn’t familiar with his record and are just backing the front-runner? It’s the only thing that makes sense to me.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 6:13 PM
This too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=W8Y2RJBIza8
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 6:15 PM
I wish there was a Republican candidate with a chance of winning other than Rudy.
Please explain Newt’s negatives to me. Why is he so unelectable?
Gingrich / Rice v Clinton / Obama
The Race Card on August 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Total Control =/= Ending illegal immigration.
Ending Illegal Immigration =/= total control over all borders, commerce, shipping, etc.
I love how we on the right side of issues and policies seem to be hell bent on discrediting our guys with almost laughable juxtapositions of their speeches on issues ignoring detail and context.
Guess nuance only exists on the liberal side of things.
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM
Zap!!
You got ‘em big time!
Rudy said something 11 years ago that contradicts what he says now!
Labamigo on August 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM
People running for office are not allowed to change their opinion on any issue, ever! Didn’t you know that? They cannot learn anything else beyond what they already know nor admit their previous opinion was wrong. Geesh. Come on, man. Get with it.
Newt is so right on this. Remember the video a few days ago where he mentioned this very same thing?
lorien1973 on August 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM
Gotcha. I’ll be making a note of your comment for future reference for when Hillary’s caught contradicting something she said during the Clinton presidency.
Make sure your comment whenever that happens is as dismissive as this one.
Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM
His time is past. He is -so- 10 years ago. Besides, he carries the same clinton baggage as well. Plus, the media hates him. Remember the “whither on the vine” thing from 1997 or 1998 or something? They harped on it totally out of context and never let it go. That’d be newt’s campaign if he ever declared. He knows it too.
lorien1973 on August 15, 2007 at 6:24 PM
It does not contradict at all.
If you listen to the speech, and other speeches, he has given illegal immigration is always seen as an issue. In fact the link in the comments here to another part of the speech makes it even more clear: he likes immigration, lots of it, thinks it is healthy and we should bring more motivated people here. But we have to address ILLEGAL immigration and solve that problem.
So basically 11 years ago he was saying what a lot of us are saying now: open the borders to legal people that WANT to be here, shut them down for illegal invasion by people that just want to leech off this country.
And I am not a Rudy backer, Mitt is my choice out of the current group.
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM
He’s obviously referring to both legal and illegal immigration in the second clip. Do you honestly mean to suggest that he’s saying we can’t control LEGAL immigration but we can control ILLEGAL immigration in the second clip? Get real.
Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 6:27 PM
And only when taken out of context! He’s been making the point about the differences between federal, state, and local priorities and responsibilities for years. As mayor, he emphasized the local priorities, now he’s emphasizing what he would do as President. No surprise they’re different, although the fair weather “federalists” here at HotAir can’t seem to grasp it.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 6:27 PM
If she’s changed her opinion on something, then fine. However, if we’re unaware of her position on something, and it comes up she said something 11 years ago, then that’s different.
Yeah, I know. Some Republican that could potentially be running, supported McCain-Feingold.
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 6:27 PM
9/11 changed everything. It was 11 years ago. The world was very different and the scale of the problem has exploded since then (or so it seems).
You either believe he’ll stop illegal immigration as President or you believe he’s lying to you. If you think he’s lying, don’t vote for him.
You took the words right out of my mouth. It’ll be a cold day in He11 when I help the Left and do anything to hurt any of our candidates (Ron Paul excluded).
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Correct. 11 years ago, our top priority wasn’t making sure some Islamic extremist was smuggling a small nuke into a major city. 9/11 showed us how vulnerable we are.
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 6:30 PM
Most of us aren’t neutral observers from Uranus. We care who wins. Some of us think the future of our families depends on the outcome. If you’re going to turn this into a game of gotcha then let us know and game on.
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 6:36 PM
And only when taken out of context! He’s been making the point about the differences between federal, state, and local priorities and responsibilities for years. As mayor, he emphasized the local priorities, now he’s emphasizing what he would do as President. No surprise they’re different, although the fair weather “federalists” here at HotAir can’t seem to grasp it.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 6:27 PM
OK, for the moment let’s completely ignore what he said as a Sanctuary City supporting mayor, and focus on what he said yesterday:
There’s no practical way to completely end illegal immigration- you can’t build a wall or post a guard along every inch of the border and coastline. There are ways of significantly reducing it though. Sending the message that if you do get through and stay long enough without getting caught you’ll be granted amnesty is not one of those ways.
Hollowpoint on August 15, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Obviously he is referring to both, who said otherwise? Opening up immigration to legal people by its vary nature requires control in order to determine who is legal and who is not. Assumed that much would go without saying.
But the point is still the same: TOTAL CONTROL means more than just people. If people fail to see that I cannot help them. There are billions of items, boats, trucks, planes, etc. that come into and out of our borders each year. There is no way for the Federal Government to have TOTAL CONTROL of all of that.
However, it is totally possible to gain control of immigration of people both legal and illegal. Ending Illegal Immigration does not require total control of every event that occurs on all of our borders.
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 6:40 PM
“We can end illegal immigration.”
“We’re never going to be able to totally control immigration.”
This passes for good research?
gabriel sutherland on August 15, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Here’s the entire text of the Kennedy School speech, courtesy of the NYC government website.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/96/ken.html
A teaser:
“Illegal immigration is a different matter. I do not defend it. No one should break the law. But preventing illegal immigration is the job of the federal government. The United States has to do a lot better job of patrolling our borders. If we can’t stop illegal immigration, then we can’t stop drugs and weapons from entering the country, either.”
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Absolutely not. All of his speeches involve the introduction of new, well thought out policies, to tackle issues now. Not years from now, but now.
The media is going to hate any republican candidate.
That comment, specifically, is a good reason for conservatives to look at him as a very good, conservative, candidate. There are many federal services that should wither on the vine. Don’t get me wrong, Newt would have trouble, but I don’t think that it would be much more than any other candidates. And the more these kinds of videos surface, then more it will appear that they have as much if not more of the baggage as Newt. THe diff. however, is that these Rudy, and Mitt, and Fred, clips come, usually, as a surprise, but all that you have mentioned in terms of Newt’s baggage has been dealt with, and everyone would be expecting it. I still think, even with Fred in the race, that there is a place for Newt.
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Woopididoo. If you find a clip of him in the past 5 years saying we can’t control immigration let me know.
BadgerHawk on August 15, 2007 at 6:53 PM
It’s not a game of gotcha; it’s a case of a guy pandering to win votes when he’s said something different his entire career and now he’s being called on it.
TLet me repeat what I said the other day: this is not a site where I’m going to ignore or downplay obvious garbage being peddled by our own side, especially on an issue as important to Michelle as immigration. If you want a waterboy for the right, you go ahead and e-mail Michelle about it and tell her that. If she gets enough of those e-mails, she’ll act.
Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 6:54 PM
The point of all of this is to downplay the impact of immigration that its boosters deny–wages, schools, etc–while sounding as tough as possible on the one concern they’ll admit tp–national security–and hope people wrap all the things up together in their mind. “Ending” illegal immigraton means nothing if it just means you’re going to make unlimited immigration legal.
By the way, here’s another old Rudy quote:
As other anti-immigration movements spread across the country in 1990s, Mr. Giuliani consistently pushed back. “The anti-immigration issue that’s now sweeping the country in my view is no different than the movements that swept the country in the past,” he said in 1996. “You look back at the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement–these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different, and to stop immigration.”
Sound like he’s distinguishing legal and illegal there?
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 6:57 PM
“Pandermonium”
Amazing so many people have forgotten 9-11.
Capitalist Infidel on August 15, 2007 at 6:59 PM
Let me be clear on how I see it:
He refers to total control of immigration as impossible in ‘96, saying he does not see any way it could be done.
In the now he says that we can end illegal immigration.
This does not come across as contradiction to me at all. He now believes that we can end illegal immigration. So in 11 years time he has been able to see a way to end illegal immigration. Congrats to him.
To me total control still includes every plane, boat, train , and vehicle that crosses our borders with people inside. Could some of them be illegal? Yes, but if we have terminated all reasons for illegals to come, and opened up the borders to more legal ones the numbers can be reduced to almost nothing.
If being here illegally means you have zero access to employment or services, and that you are deported immediately upon discovery but gaining legal status would allow you to come (and gaining said status is corrected to be less of a life burden) it would take no time at all before people would stop trying to invade.
I just do not see the speeches as a big GOTCHA at all.
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 7:00 PM
The thing about Rudy changing his mind is that he’s said why he was wrong in the past. He’s GWB, except intelligent, so he can do more damage. If he gets the nomination, I’ll stay home.
PRCalDude on August 15, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Yes, and the question for each of us now is, “Do I believe he’s telling the truth? Or do I believe this is a naked pander to the right by a guy who desperately needs to burnish his right-wing credentials to have a chance at winning?”
Remember when I was bashing Hillary for skipping the DLC meeting to attend Yearly Kos? Sure seemed to me like a pander — although in theory, I suppose it could be that she “changed her mind” and had come around to the conclusion that the Kossacks were peachy keen and the DLC a bunch of tools. Did even one person here challenge my interpretation that she was pandering for electoral gain?
Allahpundit on August 15, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Seems to me the only thing Rudy has going for him is 9-11. Sorry, I can’t support the guy for a whole host of reasons, immigration being one of them. Remember, he made NYC a sanctuary city.
jdawg on August 15, 2007 at 7:04 PM
I think the longstanding high profile nature of abortion as an issue and Giuliani’s own longstanding well-known social liberalism made him figure that flipping just wasn’t credible. Whereas almost no one in the Republican establishment of the mainstream media are interested in parcing the details of immigration beyond, is he sounding nice and welcoming or mean and exclusive? By that measure, Rudy has moved from “nice” comparisons of immigration control to the Chinese Exclusion Act over to “mean” calls to end illegal immigraton. So they call that a flip. But his position has changed only the absolute barest it has had to in order to convince voters that he’s their man on the border. So far it seems to be working. Cause that’s another group that for whatever reason doesn’t think in detail about immigration–voters. They take it seriously but they seem to be satisfied by calls to “secure the border” or “end illegal immigration” which allows politicians to slip away from addressing the impact of immigration beyond it’s illegality and national security implciations.
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 7:04 PM
The only reasonable way to do it, besides better border security, is to get tighter control over employment, so people don’t come here seeking jobs. If you restrict services, you risk having an even greater divide between an underclass of immigrants and the rest of society than you have now, which was one of Giuliani’s points if you care to read his speeches and interviews on the issue. If people are here, and are not being deported, it is in the interest of society to assimilate them as much as possible.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 7:05 PM
I wasn’t talking about Rudy. You obviously missed what I was reacting to:
You’re too quick to get overly defensive and play the email Michelle card AP. Like I said, it’s your blog, you run it the way you want. I am going to continue to speak my mind and let the chips fall where they may.
TheBigOldDog on August 15, 2007 at 7:05 PM
AP, at the risk of being called a Kiss-A$$, you are absolutely right in pointing out this video, both in terms of timing and in substance. Yes, people can change their minds, but if they really changed their mind over the years, then both their previous position and their reasons for changing should be fresh in their minds. This, then, should be information they provide at the beginning, when stating their current position, rather than trying to do so only after a video clip surfaces.
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 7:06 PM
How long before we get the video of Bush saying he was against nation building? I suppose we are set to lose 2008 now that many nominal Republicans have forgotten that little incident when a couple of planes hit the world trade centers, one hit the pentagon and one went down in a field in Pennsylvania. Can someone help me out?……when was that?……oh yeah, 9-11. I wonder if anyone recalls that little remembered event changed many many things.
Capitalist Infidel on August 15, 2007 at 7:12 PM
To be honest I did not read that post at all. If I had and believed that she was not contradicting herself I would have said as much. But I think you raise a good point in your question.
The point is that the person we are talking about matters. I will not try to beat up on one person, in this case Rudy, because there has been attacks on Hillary. The character, or lack thereof, of Hillary has been put on display many times before along with many videos of her pandering to the people she is speaking to; going so far to change how she speaks adopting a drawl/dialect.
Now we jump to Rudy talking about illegal immigration, something he has been against for over 11 years. The videos we have show as much. He states now that we can end illegal immigration. I believe it can be done, as such accept the statement.
If I did not think it was possible, or believed that he did not think so, it would strike me as pandering. I do not think that he believes it is impossible to stop illegal immigration.
How we go about it may be something to debate, but do not see the comment as pandering at all.
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 7:16 PM
I hope free agency does not apply to Hot Air bloggers. If it does apply, then I will be the first to call MM and demand that she fork over that iphone immediately.
ColtsFan on August 15, 2007 at 7:20 PM
Actually the WTC bombing in 1993 showed how vulnerable we were before 9/11. The Clinton Administration was asleep at the time, remember?
kiakjones on August 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM
What makes you think Giuliani changed his mind because of 9/11? The entire mass-immigration establishment didn’t change their mind, why should he have? How come he’s only talking like this now, in the wake of the Senate bill’s defeat, a bill he objected to only on the grounds that it didn’t have his biometric card?
When he keeps saying “We can end illegal immigration,” sometimes using the phrase almost in direct repitition, he’s claiming a position that absolutely every body who ever runs for high office claims to hold, much like we’re all in favor of a good economy and family values, and trying to coast on the tough-sounding broadness of the phrase.
What’s contraversial is, if we end illegal immigration what do we do about the huge demand to replace it versus the huge demand to digest what immigration we’ve already had?
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 7:24 PM
I do agree that IF we are not enforcing our laws and deporting illegals we have to do what we can to assimilate them. But ending illegal immigration requires that we enforce our laws.
Illegals, by their very nature, should have zero ability to claim services or funds from governments. One of the major issues that needs to resolved is the issue of anchor babies. The 14th amendment of the Constitution states:
Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore their children should not be granted citizenship just because an illegal was on US soil at the time of birth.
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 7:27 PM
This is the problem with Republican’s that come from leftist states (Giuliani, Romney). They have to show that they have some progressive credentials to get elected in the state, then they have to claim to be conservative to get elected in a national election. Were they fudging then or now?
Harpoon on August 15, 2007 at 7:28 PM
Rudy campaign will “whither on the vine” when Fred! or Newt! jump in.
You can’t only run on 9-11 issues(to republicans).
I like your unbiased refereeing AP, keep it up on ALL candidates regardless of party (including Fred! and Newt! of course).
omnipotent on August 15, 2007 at 7:30 PM
That’s the $25,000 question my friend.
omnipotent on August 15, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Oh yeah, what makes you think that the constitution has anything to do with constitutionality?
Harpoon on August 15, 2007 at 7:30 PM
You know even if the borders in general were totally shut down this doesnt mean all trade is stopped. It is possible to set up commodity trading zones at the border without allowing free access to the country. This isn’t a new concept. It is a proven workable concept which the Chinese used for hundreds of years when they were (correctly) fearful of European invasions. Now I’m not saying this radical solution is really the awnser just pointing out I’m sick of hearing this BS that some kind of border enforcement means the economy shuts down.
Resolute on August 15, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Let’s hear him talk about visas too. That’s half of all illegal immigration and much of the bad legal kind. What would his bioemetric ID card have done for the 9/11 hijackers when their half-blank applications were stamped? Maybe they couldn’t have gotten licenses (but they got those illegally so I’m not sure how the bio card thing factors in) but couldn’t they have boarded a plane if they were stll in the country legally?
What “technology” is going to improve the ability of USCIS beauracrats to know when to stamp a visa and when not to? The only policy I’ve heard Giuliani mention that’s relevant here is his brilliant plan to massively increase the beauracrats’ work load with increased legal immigration.
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 7:33 PM
o.0
Voidseeker on August 15, 2007 at 7:33 PM
First, one was a few days earlier. This video was 11 years ago. 11 years ago, my wife was a far-left Liberal. She’s a Conservative now. 11 years, and 11 days, are two different things. If she had said she wouldn’t attend 11 years ago, and decided to now, then fine. Rudy hasn’t even been mayor for 6 years.
As to whether he’s telling the truth, as sad as it is, every politician lies in one way or another. The last politician I actually believe when he looked me in the eyes, was Reagan.
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 7:33 PM
No surprise here…Fruity Tootie Rudy is the “Sanctuary Mayor of the Century”. Mitt is the only one who I now believe has a chance against the dims. Mitt and Tancredo will get the job done. If Mitt won do you really believe the Christian vote would stay home and not vote when the alternative is a Billary or a Osama..No they will vote and vote bigtime,,trust me. Hot Air should dig up Laura Ingrahams radio interview she did with Mitt a Few weeks ago, Man he was tough as nails on this border issue and he sounded like a Tancredo..
Legions on August 15, 2007 at 7:34 PM
If you’re basing that on politicians changing their minds, you might want to remove Fred. You know, Fred, who supported McCain-Feingold, but now is opposed to it. Fred, who supported abortion “in all cases”, in 1994, but now wants to allow the states to decide if it is even allowed.
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 7:37 PM
This I totally agree with. I’m still on the fence about who to vote for so I want to hear ALL about ALL potential candidates. I am open to listening on all fronts.
hollygolightly on August 15, 2007 at 7:44 PM
The border control technology didn’t exist in 1996?
Somebody better tell the Chinese that their Great Wall didn’t work for those 2000 years, since 221 B.C.
profitsbeard on August 15, 2007 at 7:44 PM
profitsbeard, invading armies cannot pass through walls but if the majority of entrants are coming to feed their families and do the jobs Americans arent doing and achieve the American dream they become endowed with a supernatural ability to pass through any physical barrier.
However, I understand they can be easily monitored as long as they have legal work visas.
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 7:49 PM
They don’t need to be told, they know. The wall suffered breaches, attacks, and over-runnings. On top of that, we don’t have the benefit of tall, mountainous regions, slaves, and the ability to just kill who every approaches the wall.
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 7:50 PM
who every= whoever
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 7:51 PM
What’s the Italian term for stinking hypocrite?
corona on August 15, 2007 at 7:54 PM
*never said why he was wrong in the past.
PRCalDude on August 15, 2007 at 7:56 PM
His position has been that he wasn’t wrong. He stands by his sanctuary policy because immigration is a fed responsibility and his goal was to reduce crime, so he didn’t want to scare illegals away from reporting any.
Also, this new, ridiculous we-didn’t-have-the-technology twist.
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 8:04 PM
amerpundit on August 15, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Unfortunately, I think that’s what some of the more zealous anti-immigration folks want.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 8:10 PM
I’d feel better if he just came out and said he was wrong in 96 and that the new national security situation has changed his mind.
bj1126 on August 15, 2007 at 8:15 PM
I discovered this article eliminated any remaining tepid support I had for Rudy. If Rudy has the same ideas as Democrats (amnesty, “path to USA citizenship”, border control) then why am I voting in the GOP primary?
The article states, “Mr. Giuliani said the rest of the 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens already here can gain a path to citizenship after a waiting period if they register and learn English.”
And Rudy’s idea of “path to citizenship” is given as a reward for illegal aliens, many of which have not committed a violent crime, but whom the majority still have committed some form of identity theft, SSN theft, document fraud?
Ask the victims of document fraud:
Should US citizenship be given to the perpetuators of document fraud?
ColtsFan on August 15, 2007 at 8:29 PM
I’d feel better if he wasn’t another big government run by big business RINO, but maybe that’s just me.
Buzzy on August 15, 2007 at 8:31 PM
This really is weak. It assumes that the our problem of illegal immigration turns on technology. Does anyone her think that the technology of 1996 was too inept to allow Rudy to state that we should, as a nation, stop illegal immigration? It would have been better for his team to simply state that he has changed his mind due to the homeland security issues that have manifested themselves in a post 9/11 world. To say that he was waiting for technology to catch up with what he really wanted to do is…well…like I said, weak. But, who knows, it may not make that much of a difference to some voters. Time will tell.
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 8:36 PM
I think he was talking about network technology for his “technological fence.” I wrote about it on my blog back in ‘94.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 8:45 PM
Wow! I am way behind on this thread. Most everyone already made the points I made in my post. Oh well, at least I know I am on the same page as the cream of the crop of political discourse.
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Does your link provide that info, if I were to click on it? If it does I’ll check it out.
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 8:47 PM
.
Rudy has a very mixed record on illegal immigrations as do many big city mayors. They actually had to live with the problem and make the cities work unlike bloviating senators, some who have even more dubious records (cough, Fred, Brownback, McCain). Rudy’s record is very clear, he complained about illegals commiting crime but instructed city workers who were giving benefits like schooling, healthcare, etc. not to report them to the feds. He’s not pure. Not a single candidate is, not even 4 times Jesus Brownback. Not everything is a flip flop when you put the issue in context and stop with the youtube sound bites.
Bottom line is illegal immigration is a federal issue. I’m more interested in how he would lead the federal gov’t on the issue than how he led NYC.
JackStraw on August 15, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Weight of Glory on August 15, 2007 at 8:47 PM
No.
Big S on August 15, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Alex K.-
“Legal” immigration works.
The illegal variety is the end of sovereignty, which means the dissolution of the nation.
ameripundit-
Not advocating the Chinese solution, just pointing out the Rudy “no can do” 1996 fallacy.
Controlling who comes in makes as much sense in your house as your country.
profitsbeard on August 15, 2007 at 9:04 PM
I have a question for Rudy regarding “tamper-proof biometric ID cards”:
If we can make documents “tamper-proof”, why haven’t we started with our U.S. currency?
Boo-Yah!!
omnipotent on August 15, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Its all relevant. Why we need to have a conservative debate forum so we can hammer all of our candidates with good questions.
If rudy cant answer these questions and Fred cant stand up and answer questions then they have no right to demand we support them.
William Amos on August 15, 2007 at 9:25 PM
The hell you say; I guess 911 didn’t change everything.
Sounds to damn much like Bush*t to me.
If that’s not enough, there’s this from Michelle’s site:
Fool me once Rudy Bush.
Speakup on August 15, 2007 at 9:53 PM
Left out the link to the Wash. Times article that was in the we pickem you clickem
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070815/NATION/108150042/1002
Speakup on August 15, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Heh. Lone Wacko:
Alex K on August 15, 2007 at 9:58 PM
With the advances in technology and after 9/11, the need and ability to secure our borders is paramount.
This is a non issue and anyone who sees this as a chink in Rudy’s armor, must have been living under a rock for 11 years.
csdeven on August 15, 2007 at 10:24 PM
Eh, Bush was pro-immigration in 1999 and he never hid it. He never betrayed his campaign promises its just that everyone assumed he was faking it.
As for Allahpundit it seems he can’t even post anything anymore without being attacked. It’s getting really old. I don’t mind partisan discussions but does everything from a helicopter crash to a nuance in Guiliani’s immigration policy have to be a life-and-death issue?
aengus on August 15, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Ding! Ding! Ding! Give that man a cigar! (Cohiba OK?)
jaime on August 15, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Um….well…..cause of 9-11.
Capitalist Infidel on August 16, 2007 at 12:13 AM
I think Rudy is the best candidate to keep illegal immigrants from urinating all over the streets That’s really the issue here, isn’t it?
Big S on August 16, 2007 at 12:22 AM
Sure.
Speakup on August 16, 2007 at 12:34 AM
Allah, you must have known I had slipped off to a meeting, so I didn’t get a chance to comment.
Vincenzo on August 16, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Big surprise.
Everybody’s favorite pander bear has escaped the NYC ZOO.
CAGE THAT BEAST, already.
seejanemom on August 16, 2007 at 9:39 AM
Then we’d have to ship real dollars to N. Korea instead of letting Kim just print em.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2007 at 10:17 AM
Newt’s a pointy-headed, arrogant intellectual know-it-all SOB.
Rudy’s an authoritarian, arrogant, steamrolling, tenacious SOB.
Hilary is a devious socialist pig.
B.O. is a boy.
Don’t know much about the inner Romney or Thomas. Until I do, can’t consider them.
I’ll probably be voting for an SOB.
JiangxiDad on August 16, 2007 at 10:28 AM
Newt is just to academic, he won’t talk in sound bites and he doesn’t quote like a bumper sticker. The MSM hates him because of his Contract with America, which ended up being embraced by the left (although they called it by everything else), I think only one point was not passed by the dem congress. He got so much negative press that was so biased and proven to be unfounded, that the negative sticks. That is when the Dems really found out that a constant stream of negative statements (true or false doesn’t matter), just as long as one may have a shadow of truth. The negative sticks with them, and they can always go back with the line “and he was once accused of…”. To keep harping on the lies and give them credibility.
right2bright on August 16, 2007 at 11:34 AM
I think a point should be made, that I glommed from Evangelicals for Mitt. Romney is crucified for his alleged flip-flop on abortion. Fred! has abortion and McCain-Feingold he’s now against. Rudy has a ton of things, this being one of them, that he’s changed positions on.
So all the candidates have changed positions, as did Reagan. The difference is, who’s admitted it, and come up with reasons why? Romney has his story on when he had a change of heart–which at least to me sounds plausible. It may not convince others, but he at least has laid out his story and rationale for changing his mind. The rest try to sweep their changes under the rug, or lame excuses like “the tech wasn’t there.”
And I’m sorry, Rudy–what, precisely, would you do different than Hillary?
Vanceone on August 16, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Comment pages: