Hmmm… avoiding Justice… kinda like Rudi and his sanctuary city?

Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 11:26 AM

The sanctuary city meme is yet another myth. NYC was not a sanctuary city. NYC under Rudy reported many more illegal aliens to the feds each year than the feds were willing to deport. Rudy would report thousands of illegals involved in criminal conduct, and the feds would deport a few hundred if Rudy was lucky. Rudy begged the feds to send the criminals back, but the feds did little or nothing. Rudy fought the feds on immigration because he knew the feds had no intention of deporting illegals but wantted NYC to go through the useless procedure of reporting all undocumented aliens seeking city services — a bureaucratic nightmare for a city with 400,000 illegals, that were not going to get deported even if reported and who would merely be forced into the shadows, increasing crime and the spread of communicable diseases.

It is easy to feed red meat platitudes in a pod cast. It is much more difficult when you have to actually make decisions and run a city of 8 million souls, 400,000 of which were undocumented.

tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 12:32 PM

Exit question:
If Rudy is as great as tommyBoy and csd say he is, why can’t he get over 33% in any poll?

omnipotent on October 17, 2007 at 1:09 PM

Rudy also didn’t become a Repulican until he was 36 years old.

What took him so long????

omnipotent on October 17, 2007 at 1:17 PM

I think Rudy is tough, principled, and fearless. I respect him for that — and suspect he’s widely seen as the “Hillary dragon slayer” because his resoluteness contrasts so sharply with Hillary’s waffling and crudely-implemented Clintonian triangulating on the war and other important issues. But ultimately, those basic character traits are not enough to win. We really need to probe Mitt and Fred and decide whether either of them are (i) more conservative than Rudy and (ii) just as likely as Rudy to display the same resoluteness and confidence Rudy does to generate the “dragon slaying” effect. If either of those two candidates meets both criteria, I think we need to go with them over Rudy because Rudy is a half step above a RINO.

But if the Republican field doesn’t have another candidate who meets those criteria, then we MUST back Rudy and rely on lobbying Rudy hard to make “real” conservative cabinet appointments and pick a “real” conservative VP in order to round out the ticket. I don’t think there is any other outcome that works.

Outlander on October 17, 2007 at 1:44 PM

The sanctuary city meme is yet another myth. NYC was not a sanctuary city.
tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 12:32 PM

You are again being dishonest. No matter how many illegals the feds did or did not deport, the fact remains that the policy Rudy re-implemented and strongly supported prevented city employees from reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities.

His excuses for his sanctuary city activism were the same exact excuses used in other sancturary cities. The only way NYC wasn’t a “sanctuary city” is if you are of the opinion that no such thing exists.

Rudy didn’t fight the federal government to deport more illegals, he fought the federal government to prevent more from being reported when he sued to try and keep his santuary city policy.

And of course there’s 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.”

He’s also on record stating that illegal immigration isn’t and shouldn’t be a crime, and that he supports amnesty. Whatever postive qualities Rudy has, being tough on illegal immigration certainly isn’t one of them.

Hollowpoint on October 17, 2007 at 1:57 PM

Will see how “smart” Hillary is when she’s actually challenged by someone with experience and authority.

EDIT: We’ll see…

eanax on October 17, 2007 at 2:00 PM

Sigh, he instructed his police, by policy to NOT inform the Feds. I blame the Feds as well, but Rudi did not even try to get them deported… an in fact, welcomed them to his city in numerous speeches. So how, if he put the policy in place, can you say he did not run a sanctuary city?

SPIN.. spin… spin… dam gettin dizzy…

Actually the policy was put in place by Koch and continued by Dinkins. Dinkins expanded it by instructing the police to not inquire into the residency status of those arrested or suspected of criminal conduct. Rudy, as soon as he became mayor, reversed that portion of the policy. Those arrested or suspected of crimes while Rudy was mayor were reported (just not deported). No spin, just facts busting your myth.

Its like your “view” that he was not to blame for appointing liberal judes at an 8:1 rate… you say he was only given that choice by an independent board… what you fail to mention is that HE PICKED THE F”N BOARD!!!
spin… spin… spin…
Romeo13 on October 17, 2007 at 12:54 PM

Actually, I have never made a comment on that issue. But since you asked, I did find this info:

The mayor of New York appoints judges to three of the state’s lowest courts, the Criminal Court and Family Court, which deal with lower-grade crimes than the state’s Supreme Court, the main trial court and the Civil Court, which deals in relatively small financial disputes.

hardly policy making decisions, more like paper pushers.

When Giuliani took office in 1994, he inherited a system of judicial appointments created by one of his predecessors, Ed Koch, and designed to insulate the courts from political influence. Under the system, the mayor appoints members of an independent panel. Aspiring judges apply to the panel, which recommends three candidates for each vacancy. The mayor chooses among the three.

Assuming the overwhelming political makeup of the qualified lawyers in NYC, who do you think applied? What were their political affiliations? Who did Rudy get to choose from?

Though at least 50 of his 75 appointees were registered Democrats (only six were registered Republicans), Giuliani also won praise for, some say, appointing fewer judges with ties to local Democratic politics than his predecessors.

So, Rudy appointed these minor little judgettes in overwhelming Democratic NYC and shock of shocks more were Democrats, but Rudy apparently avoided the politically active Democrats. You do what you can do.

BTW, the crime rate in LA went down almost as much as New York City’s did during the same timeframe.

I guess if you read Freakanomics it was Giuliani’s support for abortion that led to the national decrease in crime. But if you look at that chart, LA’s crime rate started going back up whereas NYC continued to go down and Rudy reduced crime in NYC far more than the national average.

Rudy also didn’t become a Repulican (sic) until he was 36 years old.

I’m older than that, and I’m still not one, you guys are crazy!

tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 2:10 PM

Rudy also didn’t become a Repulican (sic) until he was 36 years old.
I’m older than that, and I’m still not one, you guys are crazy!

tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 2:10 PM

That explains much. Perhaps you should stay out of discussions about the Republican nominee if you aren’t a Republican.

Hollowpoint on October 17, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Hollowpoint on October 17, 2007 at 1:57 PM

I guess it depends on your definition of sancuary city. I live in a sancuary city. If the LAPD arrests a Mexican gang banger they do not inquire into his residency status, they don’t report him and the feds don’t deport him.

If that same Mexican gang banger was arrested in Rudy’s NYC, the NYPD would check his residency status, if illegal he would be reported and NYC would ask the feds to deport him (which request the feds would promptly ignore)

There is no practical difference between a sanctuary city, a non-sanctuary city, and Rudy’s NYC, the gang banger never gets deported by the Feds, but in my mind there is a method to Rudy’s madness.

If the feds are going to deport anyone, he wanted the bad guys deported — not the hot Swedish nanny that over stayed a tourist visa!!!

So tell me, what is Freddie’s position on illegal immigration? Does he think it is a crime? Will he deport all 12 to 20 million? What would he have done if he were the mayor of a Lynchburg overrun with illegals?

tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 2:25 PM

Perhaps you should stay out of discussions about the Republican nominee if you aren’t a Republican.

Hollowpoint on October 17, 2007 at 2:17 PM

Perhaps you should stay out of conversations about Mitt or Rudy since you’re a FredHead.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 2:40 PM

And ms billy clinton’s friends in the media haven’t defended her yet…GO RUDY…YOU NAILED ms pants suit BIG TIME…GOD BLESS…

areseaoh on October 17, 2007 at 2:49 PM

He switched to Republican right after Reagan won the election. Now that’s polical expediency!
omnipotent on October 17, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Either that or he bought into the big idea as did millions of other people. Which I think is why they call Reagan the great communicator.

Spirit of 1776 on October 17, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Hillary is such a paragon of virtue and integrity, I’m sure she’s delighted to know that you are a fan.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 2:38 PM

I’m not a fan of Hillary. I just wish a CONSERVATIVE could oppose her on something other than ‘I’m not as bad as Hillary’. There are fundamental problems with her positions and any conservative can defeat her. But the current crop of candidates are nothing but Democrats who have an R in front of their name. This race is Democrat vs. Democrat. Yes, all 4 Republican front runners are Democrats.

If it’s Democrat vs. Democrat, at least I’m going to vote for the most experienced Democrat (Hillary). The only problem I have with her positions is her desire to tax everybody. The reason it is a political winner for her is because the way our democracy works today, there are a whole lot more votes out there who pay ZERO taxes than those that pay taxes. . . so tax and spend resonates.

Other than the tax issue, Hillary is identical to Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.

ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Classic Rudy.

omnipotent on October 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM

tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM

He.is.a.waste. Anyone ignorant enough to claim that there isn’t a whit of difference between Hillary and the top 4 reps, except on taxes, has a serious problem with reality.

csdeven on October 17, 2007 at 6:54 PM

If it’s Democrat vs. Democrat, at least I’m going to vote for the most experienced Democrat (Hillary). The only problem I have with her positions is her desire to tax everybody. The reason it is a political winner for her is because the way our democracy works today, there are a whole lot more votes out there who pay ZERO taxes than those that pay taxes. . . so tax and spend resonates.
Other than the tax issue, Hillary is identical to Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.

ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Hillary wants to do more than tax everybody – she wants to tell you how to live your life. She’s not interested in your freedom; she’s interested in maintaining her political power – and the power of the Democratic Socialists of America.

By the way, our tax policy has zero to do with how our democracy Republic works. It’s easy for her and other Democratic Socialists to demonize those who actually create jobs in the United States, confiscate their gains, and spread it around to buy votes in the form of ‘entitlements’ and other such projects. That’s easy to do when there’s a ‘Progressive’ tax system in place to benefit those politicians that engage in class warfare politics.

eanax on October 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM

gah… that should read:

“…and assuming that Bernstein’s evaluation of the role Christianity plays in Hillary’s life is accurate, this presents…”

Edit function, please!

Harpazo on October 17, 2007 at 7:14 PM

But the current crop of candidates are nothing but Democrats who have an R in front of their name…Other than the tax issue, Hillary is identical to Rudy, Mitt, and McCain.

ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM

That is utter baloney.

Let me guess. You’re a one issue (or maybe two issue) voter and your issue is abortion first, gun rights second, and if the candidates don’t walk in lockstep with your views they are RINOs.

I lived in Maine and I know what a RINO is - it’s defined by Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe. I also lived in NYC and it is most certainly not Rudy Guiliani. It is also not defined by Mitt Romney.

Speaking of Rudy the Republican, I meant to thank Allah for reminding us all of this earlier.

See the Chocolate Jesus thread for reference.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Are you implying that Tommylotto is a Leftist???

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 7:19 PM

No, but he’s certainly not a Republican or a conservative. Beyond that I don’t know what he is besides someone who thinks the problem with the Republican party is that they’re too far right.

Hollowpoint on October 17, 2007 at 7:32 PM

Yeah, like Bernstein is an expert on that topic.

Which topic? Christianity in general? or the centrality of Hillary’s personal faith in her life?

I’ll agree with you on the former but not on the latter. All it takes to make one qualified to comment on Hillary’s faith is keen and patient observation. As a seasoned reporter, I should think Bernstein is more than capable of that.

Of course there are far Left Christians. That’s what the National Council of Churches, Jesse Jackson and others are all about. Their idea is that Socialism is the perfect embodiment of Christianity. Share and share alike…by government fiat.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2007 at 8:03 PM

I don’t disagree. It would not surprise me to learn that Hillary’s socialism is motivated primarily by her Methodist upbringing and tenets. The social ethic was a significant part of the Wesley brothers’ movement. The difference between Wesley and Hillary, however, is that Hillary can read the Bible (and Wesley’s work) through the lens of Marx, a lens John Wesley never had.

But my point was that Hillary’s devout Christian faith (assuming Bernstein’s observations were accurate) would absolutely be used by her campaign against a Republican of nominal or questionable Christian conviction. And if you don’t think that it would have an effect, you’re not familiar enough with the “religious Right”. Abortion may be the 800-lb gorilla issue, but divorce/sanctity of marriage is certainly in the top 3, and running a candidate who has one (or more) divorces under his belt puts the GOP at a disadvantage.

I’m not saying she’d suddenly steal the Christian vote, but I think it would definitely make her more attractive to similarly-minded (theologically-liberal) Christians who see their Christianity as necessitating social(ist) policies. Yeah, her stance on abortion will probably stick in the craw of most of those voters, but I do believe she would be able to get a good percentage of those religious-Christian centrist voters who had voted Republican in recent years because the Democrats appeared so anti-Christian.

As I said, she could make (well, she plus a weak/questionably-Christian Repub candidate) the GOP vulnerable on a front they haven’t been for the last few cycles.

Harpazo on October 17, 2007 at 9:30 PM

ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Have you ever thought that YOU might not be a Republican. If none of the Republican candidates represent you, maybe you are not a Republican. Maybe you are something else, maybe you’re a Republican in name only. Hey, that makes you a RINO!!!!

tommylotto on October 17, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Funny that you assume I am a ‘Republican’ anyway. How can I be a ‘Republican’ if I don’t have an R in front of my name? That’s the only designator, right?

I am a CONSERVATIVE. The Republicans USED TO BE conservative too so they WERE more attractive to me.

I’m not a RINO because I don’t pretend to be a REPUBLICAN, friend. That party left conservatives a long time ago. Larry Craig, Mike Foley are wonderful examples of ‘real Republicans’ these days.

Who needs conservatives anymore when you are ‘Republicans’?

ThackerAgency on October 17, 2007 at 9:56 PM

Since this is a thread about Rudy’s take on Hillery, this is a good read at The American Specator:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12169

Texas Nick 77 on October 18, 2007 at 9:05 AM