Obama launches press campaign to push Paterson out of NY governor race
posted at 11:00 am on September 20, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
What do party leaders do when an incumbent insists on running for re-election even when he’s polling just above ACORN a year before the election? Usually, they quietly signal a lack of support or find another job for them to take as an incentive to withdrawing and allowing a better candidate to sail through a primary without taking intra-party damage that could give the opposing party an advantage in the general election. And when that party leader is the current President of the United States, quietly usually becomes sub-audible.
Not for this President, however, as New York Governor David Paterson discovered when he opened his New York Times this morning:
President Obama has sent a request to Gov. David A. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.
The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.
“Is there concern about the situation in New York? Absolutely,” the second administration official said Saturday evening. “Has that concern been conveyed to the governor? Yes.”
The administration officials and the Democratic operative spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions with the governor were intended to be confidential.
Confidential! That must be why it wound up on the front page of the Paper of Record, right? The White House idea of “confidential” must be “leaking to everyone who has a pen and a piece of paper,” because several of “knowledgeable Democrats” also ran to Jake Tapper at ABC News with the same story. By the time you read this, several “knowledgeable Democrats” will have contacted the Podunk News Recycler and the West Sticks Free Times to let them know about this “confidential” missive to Paterson, too.
Other than the insulting manner in which this was handled, it’s really not much of a surprise, as Jazz Shaw points out:
The Paper of Record refers to this as “an extraordinary intervention into a state political race by the president,” and it certainly caught me by surprise, but I’m not sure it’s entirely out of line. After all, the moment a person takes a seat in the Oval Office, they become, in effect, the titular head of their party, and the Democrats may have plenty to worry about in New York next year. Absent a major sea change, a Giuliani – Paterson matchup would be a bloodbath with the GOP taking back the governor’s mansion.
Clearly, the Democratic leadership would rather see Cuomo in the election against Giuliani than Paterson, and for very good reason. Paterson has no support in New York and would lose a general election against anyone but Donald Trump — and I wouldn’t count The Donald out entirely. Paterson would likely lose handily in a primary against Cuomo, but it would force Cuomo to spend money early and split the party when it is already in enough trouble.
Under those circumstances, it’s not unusual for a President to ask a governor of his own party to step aside. Usually, a President would find an appointment for the governor as a face-saving inducement, rather than send his minions to the press in a campaign of humiliation to make his point. Either Paterson didn’t respond to earlier nudges from the Oval Office, or the White House just decided to make themselves look incompetent and completely self-absorbed. In fact, those two options are not mutually exclusive.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
I’m sure it’s happened, but the leaks that make it into blogs instantly?
That’s new.
AnninCA on September 20, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Rudy Guiliani will go after ACORN like the Organized Crime outfit it is. This is how he made his name: RICO trial of the Mafia Commission.
In that way, he is a true Republican as corruption of the Public trust is a great evil that needs to be stamped out.
If Rudy gets the Governorship he is going to go after ACORN with the entire power of the State Government. And it may very well make New York a Republican state.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 1:28 PM
This pleases me greatly.
faraway on September 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Just great!
Obama is making me feel sorry for Paterson…
patch on September 20, 2009 at 1:34 PM
It’s called manipulation. If that doesn’t work, it’s called persuasion. If none of these work, it will be rightly called threats. What a bunch of shameless political touts these WH denizens are….in fact, the whole Dem. Party. I watch the political machinations going on about Kennedy’s seat in MA and can’t help but wonder what kind of voter, actually puppet, remains complacent about their Party affiliations after that.
jeanie on September 20, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Where’s Hillary
this would be a great first step for her Pres bid in 2012
bluegrass on September 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM
David Patterson (The accidental Governor)
Andrew Cuomo (son of Mario the Pius)
Hillary Clinton
Elliot Spitzer (aka Client No.9)
Not much choice.
diogenes on September 20, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Well at least if Hillary steps down it will bring the media in to the picture. Isn’t that what bambi wants?
bluegrass on September 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
You mean something like THIS
mrt721 on September 20, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Why does Barack Obama hate black, blind adulterers?
JohnGalt23 on September 20, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Here’s a way to kill two birds with one stone. Make Patterson the ambassador to Poland. He’ll be the equivalent of the nascent Polish missile defense shield: Can’t see a damn thing.
EMD on September 20, 2009 at 1:58 PM
No, Obama does not want Hillary running for New York Governor. It turns a quiet but lively Governor race into a televized battle between two high profile national candidates, both of whom were running for President in the last election, with political corruption as a top issue on the ballot and Guiliani’s record on the matter of political corruption is rather unimpeachable.
Hillary is going to get flack just from being involved with the Pimp in Chief, Barrack Obama.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 2:03 PM
I’ve been saying this for the more than three years I’ve been posting here:
RUDY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Janos Hunyadi on September 20, 2009 at 2:04 PM
Maybe the Republican press on czars forestalled that path for Obama. Can’t make another czar, but the bus has plenty of whorepower.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Rudy is pro-choice. He will not get my vote.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 2:08 PM
Infact, I’d expect Barrack Obama would back whoever Hillary is challenging just because he and that wing of Liberalism hates the Clintons and he does not want a Governor Hillary challening him in 2012, especially if she knows his skeletons.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 2:09 PM
UPDATE: Patterson defiant, from the Times
rob verdi on September 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Since leaving office, Rudy has enjoyed a very successful private life, making some very good money. He is a good man, who served in public service for many years making a gov’t wage, but now it would be very difficult to walk away from millions to get back in the rat race.
I would completely understand and accept the fact that he wants to live the good life and be a voice from the outside for future change.
tatersalad on September 20, 2009 at 2:16 PM
He’s pro-amnesty. He can piss up a rope. He won’t get my vote.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Cuomo? What about Hillary for Governor? Is this a signal from the White House to her to stay put and keep her mouth shut as usual? Are they scorching the earth ahead of her? She’d obviously handily win versus Paterson and I don’t know how she’d fare against Cuomo but this could be a signal from the White House that this is a boat the POTUS doesn’t want rocked right now and that Mr. Obama is willing to wade into it and keep it that way.
Either way, interesting.
ted c on September 20, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Single Issue voter? That is the height of irresponsibility.
We can turn New York Red. And if we capitalize on it we can introduce Conservativism to the voters in the flesh with Candidates. We can put the Liberals on the defensive. New York ACORN will be more concerned with surviving the RICO investigations and not going ot jail than engaging in GOTV operations in 2012 which means New York’s electoral votes may very well go to a Republican.
Vote for a Pro-Choice candidate now to deny the enemy a states’ electoral votes which means they gotta win several of ours, which they will not.
This fight against Liberalism is not something we can win in one election. We are an Insurgency, we gotta fight like it. Play dirty, think long term.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Guiliani if he runs could be instrumental in getting New York’s electoral votes to go to Sarah Palin.
I am prolife but I will vote for a pro-choice candidate if it serves the purpose of the Revolution.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 2:22 PM
I despise abortion. But not supporting a move to the right, because it does not go far enough, is just asinine.
darktood on September 20, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Having said what I said, I think the perfect role for Rudy would be a VP slot for Palin on 2012. He can cut you up in a million pieces with a smile. Mean as hell, but with integrity. As Palin is flying high, Rudy can cut ‘em up down low.
Not a bad team.
tatersalad on September 20, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Rudy Giuliani will NOT run for governor. While he would have defeated Patterson so would Donald Duck. Rudy cannot bear losing a statewide race in NY. If he runs for anything it will be for Kirsten Gillibrand’s Senate seat. Given her incompetence he’d have a good chance at that, but he doesn’t come close to beating Cuomo. He knows it too.
xkaydet65 on September 20, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Few folks here in New York would ever consider supporting Paterson, not even those on his staff. Not many more will support Cuomo. Back in the day, Andrew made serious enemies with Democratic pols in his fathers cabinet. Later, as secretary of HUD, he continued to tick people off with his arrogance and unbridled incompetence. Our memories are long. We haven’t forgotten who Andrew really is.
Rudy, while somewhat irascible, will clean Andrews clock in 2010. If he decides to run, Rudy will most certainly have my support.
anXdem on September 20, 2009 at 2:32 PM
It’s the Chicago Way.
Is anyone really surprised at this point by the ham-fisted thug-lifery oozing from the White House?
Didnt think so.
Mike D. on September 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Operation Chaos 3: Blind Man’s Bluff
Oh, we totally need a massive lib feud in NY. It’ll keep ‘em too busy to screw things up even further.
Iblis on September 20, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I’m not from NY, so thank you for that info…it was good, with that, the name Cuomo has always made me throw up a little in my mouth…..
Now, your analysis was good, but we need to discuss the amnesty angle here….pro-choice/pro-life is not going to mean a fig if we allow thirty to forty million more leaches to be added to the democratic voting rolls…….they will be in power forever, or until the money runs out and we all move elsewhere from the third world heap that once was the great USA.
ILLEGAL Immigration is the key to all-social/entitlement programs, healthcare, social security…….it kills all.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
This gives cover to all the white dems in NY who don’t want to go down with the sinking Patterson ship. Now they are not racist. When he puts his hand out for donations to wall street, now they can refuse. Yes, as Morrissey says, it is all about the $$$. Also,black pols who might want to defend Patterson based on racial solidarity have been told by Number One to shut up.
The democratic party machine is pretty good at using top down management to preserve their power. (Remember Torricelli?) The other way the democrat-media complex excels at remaining in power is “macaca-ing” opponents.
chris999 on September 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
We also really need an anti-corruption Republican to spearhead a Republican take over in New York just in time to give the state’s electoral votes to the Republican we want in 2012.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 2:39 PM
Paterson seemed like an angry and bitter guy after the “racism” accusations he made. He’s got some fire in him. I hope he fires right back at Obama, refusing to roll over for “the Man”
thebrokenrattle on September 20, 2009 at 2:43 PM
Why does Barack Obama hate Black people? I bet he wouldn’t be trying to get rid of Paterson if he was white.
MB4 on September 20, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Comrade Zero and his “Thug Thizzle” have got to go!
Fuzzlenutter on September 20, 2009 at 2:45 PM
I feel like it would be easier for Rudy to with Hillary’s senate seat if Patterson is out.
marmaran on September 20, 2009 at 2:46 PM
BS, but I’ve seen your posts. Anyone but Tom Tancredo is pro-amnesty to you.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 2:48 PM
And Michelle Malkin. Have a problem with the law, BS?
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Everything makes it to blogs before the drive-by media, and if this happened before, then link it.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I lived in Canada for two years, because I abide by the law so strictly. Any reason you call Rudy “pro-amnesty” despite any substantiative evidence?
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 2:51 PM
It’d be Obama’s singular accomplishment to turn the Tri-state area Red come January 2011.
Iblis on September 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 2:38 PM
That yack taste must be contagious because loads of New Yorkers also have it.
You’re right, illegals are the Dems scale tippers. While the problem hits hardest in border states, NY also has a gigantic problem, which will only be exacerbated if Cuomo becomes Gov.
anXdem on September 20, 2009 at 2:52 PM
We seem to have some difference of opinions on whether Andrew Cuomo can defeat Guiliani. Just because he stepped on some toes and offended people will not disqualify Cuomo. It’s all about the interest groups for the dems in NY – teachers’ unions, public employee unions, blacks, liberal feminist women, liberal Jews who contribute the big bucks. I’m sure Cuomo will make big promises to the unions. Do the rest of new yorkers understand that the game is to soak the dwindling private sector with taxes to feed the unions and government beneficiaries? As the private sector contracts in the state, how long can this game go on?
In a normal society the democratic party would be completely discredited by now, but I guess in new york hope (and change) springs eternal.
chris999 on September 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Maybe because NY was a sanctuary city while he was Mayor? That might be one reason…..
The reason I might be so ‘rabid’, as you say, is because my husband protects that line between you and those sh*tbag cartels that want to sell drugs to your children, bring illegals to steal their jobs, and cut your head off if you get in the way. You could say it is a very ‘important’ issue for me.
So, Canada, bully for you.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Obviously Barry’s white side has taken over in this case.
Annie on September 20, 2009 at 2:56 PM
FIFY, Annie. :)
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Go ahead, make perfect the enemy of good.
The problem with single issue voting is that you risk staying in the political wilderness.
Ronald Reagan said that he’d rather regard people as 70% friends than 30% enemies.
rokemronnie on September 20, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Michelle Malkin: “When Rudy denies he crusaded for illegal alien sanctuary policies, that’s
B.S.an unmitigated bald faced lie!“Rudy Giuliani speech – “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 (Now since there is no anti-legal-immigration movement, to speak of anyway, you already KNOW that he is talking about ILLEGALS) 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(Yes. Everyone knows that we native born Americans couldn’t do anything without illegals to show us how to do it or more likely have to do it for us as we are so lazy. Without them we would probably be living in the dark ages.)
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 (Again, you know he means ILLEGALS) is a coalition of well-known individuals and organizations (I wonder who that would include? LaRaza? CARE? Ted Kennedy? Vicente Fox? Trysons Foods CEO?) who oppose the anti-immigration (You know that he is talking about ILLEGAL immigrants) forces in Washington (That would be a majority of Republicans in the Congress, not just Tancredo and Hunter) and elsewhere (That would be us bad nasty nativist lazy rednecks, I would “assume”)
MB4 on September 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Two issues. He claims to be Catholic. As a co-religionist, I have expectations of Catholics that non-Catholics may not have, and Rudy, Nancy, Teddy, and Diane (Watson) don’t meet them.
Famous Rudy quotes that gall me:
You might prefer it, Rudy, but we Catholic voters have a say, too.
Translation: He’s Catholic, but he’s not.
Rudy will die the death of a thousand cuts should he run for President, because my crew is in the majority here, just as the anti-slavery crew was in the majority here 150 years ago. A pro-slavery Lincoln would never have rallied that party the way the anti-slavery Lincoln did, and Rudy doesn’t stand a chance on the most polarizing political issue of the times. The Democrats won’t vote for him because he’s a Republican, and nearly half of the Republicans won’t vote for him because he’s pro-abortion…
Things are good from my side; Rudy doesn’t stand a chance, just as he didn’t the last time around. This is good — very good.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 3:04 PM
Just as John Corzine in New Jersey! He’s way down in the polls, too…hmmmmmm!
SouthernGent on September 20, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Not to mention Hillary is too enamored of the accoutrements power and rides the coattails of powerful men to have a seat at the table. First, she stayed with Bill, then she folded for Obama. She’d rather f*ck Obama with Michelle’s dick than live in Albany. As we’ve seen with Sarah Palin, nobody cares about actual experience, like being Governor of a state. Hillary had more experience than Obama in 2008, and look where it got her. She doesn’t want to be Governor.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Patterson tells Obama no
William Amos on September 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Interesting pattern – I know nothing/I’m not following it, but I’ll give an opinion.
PatMac on September 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
The powers have figured out that the blogs are the ultimate viral way of getting the message out — and the ACORN thing cements it for them. ACORN has shown them the readership power of the blogs, and the blog ability to overcome even deliberate silence on the part of the MSM.
If they give the message solely to the MSM, it takes hours to a day before the message is out, while if they give it to a blogger, it’s less than an hour — especially since the major bloggers watch each other’s feeds and act as amplifiers.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
So, Giuliani was mayor of a sanctuary city. In other news, the sky is blue. It’s not as if he hired illegals to work for him, or moved to get their children tuition. He simply refused to organize ICE raids and start shutting down down Manhattan bistros, thus freaking out his constituents while the economy was quite good.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Thank you, MB4….Facts have a tendency to get in the way….
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM
You forgot the Puckerbrush Daily and the Boondock Tribune…
classicaliberal on September 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Facts just get in the way.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM
But Rudy is 100% enemy, as Obama is. He would deny a right to life purely for political expediency. As I’ve mentioned above, voting for Giuliani would be like having been a Republican voting for a pro-slavery Lincoln 150 (actually 160) years ago.
It calls into question your own priorities and objectives when you suppress key moral issues in the interests of the sum of a lesser set. I’m sure many Germans voted for Hitler because he promised to make the trains run on time, to bring Germany out of its depression, to put a new car in every garage,… And they did so ignoring the Kristallnicht, the harbinger of what was to come.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Rudy took great strides in dismantling organized crime in NY and going after drug dealers. I know as someone who lived in the East Village while he was mayor and saw more narcs in Washington Square Park and Tompkins Square Park, saw Bryant Park transformed from a needle park to the host of Fashion Week, and recognized that even installing the cabaret license was a way to bring oversight onto the after hours and superclubs, where most of the drug dealing to children was going on. And as I said, unemployment was low, the economy was booming, and there were not enough unskilled workers to fill the grunt jobs in abundance in NYC. Your husband had a job, but Rudy didn’t give him a full caseload, the housing bubble and preexisting laws did. “Bully” for me, too, because — I’ll say it again — I complied with the law, even if it meant completely disrupting my life, because I love my Canadian husband.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
My HOA president got this email today.
Dear Joe,
You’re out as prez next month. Tommie will be taking over.
Yours truly,
BHO
angryed on September 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Rudy is good enough for left wing New York. Its his stand on the WOT that I back and want in the US senate. Him and Libermann would stand up to durban and Reid.
William Amos on September 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Many people have different opinions on this issue. I disagree that being pro-choice is compatible with Catholicism, but I don’t see Rudy as an activist for Planned Parenthood or raking in contributions from Emily’s List. He goes to mass on holidays, but doesn’t want to interfere with the Supreme Court’s Roe decision. That position is slightly to the right of Obama, and is compatible with the thinking of most who live in NY.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
David A. Paterson , meet the underside of the B.O. bus.
Underside of the B.O. bus, meet David A. Paterson.
pilamaye on September 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM
LOL!
PatMac on September 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
So, according to you, if we are in a ‘good’ ecomony, it is okay to ‘break’ the law……?
And, I don’t care.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
He’s so dead, even with all his Goldman Sachs buddies. I hope Michael Steele doesn’t choke in 2010.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Patterson just replied to B.O. with a great big wet Bronx cheer.
pilamaye on September 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM
Well, it seems the law is very important to you, so it should be gratifying to you knowing that some people are abiding by it. Oh, but if they disagree with your politics, then they hurt your feelings and all your principles be damned.
Which laws did Rudy Giuliani break by being mayor of a sanctuary city? The point is that his job is to serve his constituents. If they have jobs and aren’t making a big issue of immigration, then why should he raise their hackles by organizing raids into minority communities?
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:37 PM
I just read Michael Steele’s response in The Hill, and it’s perfect. It completely put my mind at ease.
“I found that to be stunning, that the White House would send word to one of only two black governors in the country not to run for reelection,” Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), said on CBS’s Face The Nation.
Steele was commenting on a report in The New York Times that said an intermediary of President Barack Obama sent word to Paterson that he should not run, considering his low approval ratings. Asked by host Bob Schieffer if race played a role in the White House’s decision to ask Paterson to back off from campaigning, Steele said he didn’t think so.
“It raises a curious point for me. I think Gov. Paterson’s numbers are about the same as Gov. Corzine’s. The president is with Gov. Corzine,” Steele said. The RNC chairman was referring to Gov. Jon Corzine, the Democratic New Jersey governor who is facing a tough reelection bid this year.
Steele also said he would be interested in black leaders’ response to the White House request.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Unclesmrgol, the catholic church is a false one anyway, who cares?
You guys wouldn’t even let laymen read the bible until V2.
TTheoLogan on September 20, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Answer one: Federal Law.
Answer two: If everyone wants to smoke crack and no one is complaining, is it still wrong?
Yes, the law means a lot to me and I am glad you followed the law, allie.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Obama hates the blind!
Sorry I stole the comment ’cause I loved it!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on September 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM
I’m with you there! Rudy put a lot of bad boys away and cleaned up the city til it sparkled.He also gave the NYPD free rein to clean up the criminal illegals.
Sanctuary city does not always mean free ride for illegals.
In my day it was the Chinese who were the mainstay of about every restaurant in NYC. We looked at SS cards for our employees.Maybe theirs,maybe not. This was in the ’70′s and early ’80′s.All now have citizenship,homes,and great families. I would have fought for any one of them.
katy the mean old lady on September 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
I agree with 100% of what Rudy said here. If they are willing to go through the full legal process, get to the back of the line and pay fines, they should be able to stay, since we’re assuming they came here to get ahead and have opportunities that would not be possible in their native country. As someone who did all of this, I can tell you it’s a long, frustrating and expensive process.
PS: My husband was told after taking a trip and after we had been married a year, that he had the wrong kind of visa, should have applied to renew that other visa at an earlier date, and was banned for three years despite that he had filed paperwork for a greencard, had the visa he thought he needed, was paying taxes and also running a small business that employed Americans.
The system is totally broken, and what can you do when something like this happens but just do what you’re told? We had a good immigration lawyer. He had no ideas for us but just going through the interminable wait. Another two years waiting for the interview after serving out the three-year ban.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Nice of you to Godwin already.
If Lincoln proposed a slow end to slavery, over the course of 30 years, the radicals who wanted to end it now would consider him pro-slavery because he did not advocate immediate abolition. To the more patient radicals, he would not because his desire is to end the Institution, which is also theirs.
I am the more patient radical.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM
You are welcome to your opinion, and I to mine. Should Rudy attempt another run for the Presidency, we shall see who wins. You’ll note I’m not talking about the Governorship, since I don’t live in NY. As for going to Mass, hell, even Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden do that. It’s living the Faith, beyond the basics, where Nancy, Joe, and Rudy fail.
I see it, and I will vote my conscience.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Before we all kick Rudy for being a moderate Republican remember, he is a Republican. Nothing would twist the Dems like losing NY. Also remember this, as we conservatives take the Republican party back over, we will have a tent large enough for moderates. Oh, they’ll be sitting at the kid’s table- they’ve been naughty long enough- but they’ll be under the tent.
archer52 on September 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM
And how would a pro-slavery Lincoln (like a pro-abortion Giuliani) have made such patience worthwhile?
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM
What can the mayor of a city do to enforce federal laws? NY doesn’t share the border with Texas. How does the mayor of a sanctuary city (1) find the illegal immigrants (2) send the illegal immigrants back to their native country (3) especially when the federal government is moving to accommodate illegals with a blanket amnesty
Should we start going after pot smokers with the full fury of the law? It’s hard enough just getting the smugglers bringing it across the border and growers in the US. Do we start kicking in doors and jailing recreational users?
Thank you for that. Putting a Republican in the Governor’s mansion means a lot to me, and I think Giuliani has a good shot. I think demonizing his record on immigration and abortion considering the alternative is counterproductive.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM
There are millions of people that are still in their old country, filling out paperwork, waiting to come to America. Why should lawbreakers that use our entitlements and take our jobs get a free ride to stay here while they ‘wait’ for citizenship? The people that did it legally, that didn’t subvert our sovreignty should be first in line and the rest of them should be sent back, by going after employers that hire illegals, stop paying welfare/entitlements to illegals, and stop the bastardization of the Fourteenth Amendment that gives anchor babies citizenship.
The law is the law and I’m tired of people shirking around it for their own agenda.
The system is not broken, that is a liberal meme.
The enforcement of our laws, making our laws stronger, and helping those waiting that are going to be an asset to our country to come here to work or gain citizenship would do nicely.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 4:07 PM
The time was ripe for Lincoln to push his abolitionist policies. There will be a time for the pro-life movement to make their case, and that moment would have come sooner if Bush hadn’t destroyed the reputation of conservatives and the GOP itself.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Just because one calls themself a ‘Republican’ does not mean that they share the same ideals as, say, a conservative or a libetarian.
Case in point: John McCain. I don’t want a repeat.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Until the advent of the printing press, the only copy of the bible in most communities sat in the Church. Nobody was prevented from reading it, but the copy was community.
When the printing press became available, the Church immediately published the Latin Vulgate edition (which was the one being hand-copied and distributed everywhere).
The Church had prohibitions against private interpretation, not private reading, of Scripture — based on 2 Peter 1:20.
You, sir, assume modern technology and modern capabilities which for over 1500 centuries did not exist, and then you castigate my Church for not having had those capabilities.
I like your “V2″ designation for your Bible. It certainly fits the concept of not being the original.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 4:12 PM
I live in NY. Paterson has been a disaster.
rjl1999 on September 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
They don’t get a free ride, though. While they make more than they would back in their home countries, they lead marginalized existences in constant fear of getting caught and sent back. And it’s not fair that they are here while others in another country are paying lawyers, filing paperwork and waiting in line. That’s why they should be fined and forced to work on the books and wait at the end of the line.
That is the best way to end the problem. If businesses knew that hiring illegal immigrants would destroy them, they wouldn’t run the risk, and there would be no incentive for illegals. They come here for jobs and a better way of life.
I agree. The only problem is that their children are citizens, and that’s good enough for most parents.
That takes a conservative SCOTUS which means a Republican president, and a Republican governor in any state you can manage is a good first step.
As someone who had firsthand experience with the system, I can tell you it is broken. That is the best reason why the government should not have more power and expanded influence. It cannot run anything efficiently. Corruption is the problem with the system, and it will take vigilance and reform to fix it.
I agree with you. But I also think Giuliani would make a good Governor of NY.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Lincoln pushed his very strong anti-slavery position for over ten years prior to his election to the Presidency.
If there were to be Giuliani-Pelosi debates, I doubt that abortion would even figure into it. It would be like Lincoln-Douglas but without slavery.
The time for the pro-life movement is now. We have the momentum, and I’m not about to give it up even for a day.
Lincoln’s personal zeal to abolish slavery was tempered, of course, by its legality in the Constitution. He could not go against the Constitution, and his stated desire to limit slavery to those states in which it currently existed, and to not permit its further expansion, was torn asunder by the Taney Court’s multiple rulings allowing the use of slaves even within Free States, and requiring that slavery not be restricted within the Territories.
Lincoln’s feelings on the matter were so well known that within days of him winning the 1859 election, Southern states were proposing acts of secession. South Carolina seceded while Buchanan was still in office, before Lincoln even took the Oath. What matter of States Rights precipitated such an act?
So we have a situation similar to Dred Scott in Roe v. Wade, and I certainly don’t want a Buchanan in command — I want a Lincoln!
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM
She is too busy helping the Russians move on Europe.
Geochelone on September 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Lawbreakers should ALWAYS live in fear, allie.
That was my point, we have so much crap gumming up the system, we cannot help those that are doing it right…they get shafted.
Enforcement of our laws would take care of the problem. That is all that is needed.
HornetSting on September 20, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Excuse me. 15 centuries, not 1500.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM
The Same Way the New Left saw that they could use the Old Left to gain power. It is called incrementalism, reform, and slow cultural revolution.
It is the same tactic the Left used to take control of Congress in 06 and futher their gains in 08. Know what the Blue Dog coalition is? That is how, by supporting temporary allies against their enemy.
My means are different. Some prolifers think all they gotta do is enact legislation and problem solved. I want to destroy the Culture of Abortion by using their tactics.
Like I said, I am patient.
If Conservatives cannot see the utility of allies, we deserve defeat.
Holger on September 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM
It’s the issues that decide. A plurality of Americans opposed amnesty, and that took a hit on McCain’s presidential aspirations. He was tied up with that issue, and the unpopular war, and the unpopular incumbent’s party, and the Beltway. In a year of change, McCain was the status quo.
That’s why he lost. His base hated him, AND he could not win independents. It was depressed turnout for John McCain. Not Sarah Palin. Just John McCain.
Giuliani can win in NY, because he has experience in that state, fundraising advantages, name recognition, and because the voters there agree with him on the issues. And the incumbent is weak.
alliebobbitt on September 20, 2009 at 4:28 PM
If conservatives are willing to forego their most cherished prinicples to obtain allies, they deserve defeat.
unclesmrgol on September 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »