Wednesday, August 15, 2007
|
|
Giuliani And Romney Mix It Up On Immigration
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
7:09 PM
|
The AP reports on the Giuliani-Romney exchange. K-Lo's doing oppo research on Rudy.
In an interview with me yesterday, John Podhoretz mounts the best defense that Rudy has: That was then. This is now. The problem has grown much worse:
[L]ook, basically, the situation is when he said whatever it was that he said that people don’t like about illegals, it was 1995, 1996, something like that. I mean, you know, the influx of 12 million had not yet happened. So to be fair, these are different times. Different opinions can be expressed in different times. And also, if, as you’re saying about Romney and abortion, the facts on the ground change, and a candidate decides that it is in his interest to move toward a place where the popular opinion of his party has gone, that is the nature of representative democracy.
J-Pod, author of Can She Be Stopped?, also gave Hillary's "invisible" ad very high marks:
JP: I think this is a great commercial. I mean, I think everything she’s saying is balderdash, but I mean, that is a commercial that precisely and perfectly appeals to the people that she needs to be enthusiastic about her in January in Iowa. And remember…
HH: You’re right. They’re victims, the victim class.
JP: And remember, the thing about Hillary is if she wins Iowa, it’s over.
|
|
|
...a handle on New York City's crime. To do that, you need believable witnesses from the neighborhoods, willing to tell juries what they saw. And some of those witnesses are going to be in the country illegally. So that's not the time to emphasize immigration status. The illegal immigrants were too new, too green, to know that that the correct answer is always “I didn't see anything,” even if they were twenty feet away looking straight at the crime. |
|
|
Did anyone ask why Rudy, after his mayoral stint, chose to set up shop in Texas (not New York City) to work on behalf of the Mexican government and intermational corporations to open the border? Oops! Another impolite but trenchant question. Don't bother answering, we know the answer. Another deathbed conversion. |
|
Your "victim class" snark is reminiscent of a detail from last month's "Ship of Fools" article. Dinesh D'Souza made a very similar statement, saying that the Democrats were "the party of losers."
If nothing else, today's GOP boasts a healthy self-esteem. It looks in the mirror and finds itself "financially blessed." They fancy themselves as the sh*t-kickers, the gung-ho fighters, the cowboys, the Real Men. They've got theres, and the hell with you if you don't like it.
And, for awhile, it was true -- when your competition is John Kerry, its easy to look like John Wayne.
Except the GOP doesn't look like the Party of Champions anymore. They lost both houses of Congress, boast a historically unpopular chief executive, and don't have the public's trust on everything, from the health care to Iraq.
Like a wiser man once said, the Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. Winners shouldn't have problems running FEMA.
Younger Americans favor the Democratic Party by the widest margins in years. They're raising more money and generating more interest. They're not the ones beating back embarrassing personal scandals or walking away from buffoonish figures like Alberto Gonzales or Harriet Miers.
I'm sure the GOP will get back its mojo one day, after a stint in the wilderness, just like that greatest of losers, Jesus, and get some humility. Until then, a winner is you, until 2008.
DU |
|
will say anything at anytime to win. Same with Romney. Frog, I see you buy into this BS. That is a shame, and doesn't say much about your intellectual prowess.
Take the party back, people. From the CINOs who run it at this time. Don't elect these clowns, for they will say what you want to hear now, but once elected, look out. Because they'll do exactly what Bush did, grow the government, open the borders and entangle the US in foreign interventions when navigating the waters of political spin.
Frog writes:
****The illegal immigrants were too new, too green, to know that that the correct answer is always “I didn't see anything,” even if they were twenty feet away looking straight at the crime.****
What a crock that is. Illegal immigrants have been in NYC for centuries, open your eyes man. Too New? Don't buy that BS. Open Your Eyes and your Brain.
|
|
"when navigating the waters of political spin." should be in the first paragraph, following the words "...and doesn't say much about your intellectual prowess...."
Should read:
Rudy
will say anything at anytime to win. Same with Romney. Frog, I see you buy into this BS. That is a shame, and doesn't say much about your intellectual prowess when navigating the waters of political spin.
Take the party back, people. From the CINOs who run it at this time. Don't elect these clowns, for they will say what you want to hear now, but once elected, look out. Because they'll do exactly what Bush did, grow the government, open the borders and entangle the US in foreign interventions.
I'm new, what can I say. No edit button.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rudy has been changing his former positions about as often as he has changed clothes. He is a much bigger Slipper than Romney on a host of issues. It is about time the press had some integrity and called him about it. Fox is just as bad if not worse than CBS when it comes to Rudy.
Both Rudy and Romney governed liberal entities. Rudy is far more liberal than Romney on most issues but uses his image to hid his real record. |
|
when it is time to pick up their welfare checks.
It is a stupid commercial because the Government knows EXACTLY where the people she mentioned are and gives them a slice of my hard earned money. |
|
when what he DELIVERED was a 100% pro-life record as Governor?
You judge people by their words when there are no actions by which to judge them.
Hey, richard_223---
Would you rather be married to a woman who says she will cheat on you and then does not, or a woman who says she won't and then does.
In the real world, were lives are at stake, it is ACTION that matters, not words. |
|
Let's stop with all the BS and state the obvious. Hillary, whether she wins Iowa or not, will be the dem nominee. That was determined in November 2004. Why dems long for Bill getting more bj's in the White House beats me. Socialism is very enticing.
The repub nominee will be Rudy unless the Clinton crew has some slime that they are saving. Never, ever rule that out with the crowd that perfected the politics of personal destruction. Who can forget that it was the Clintons who were caught with the "raw" FBI files on all their republican enemies in the White House basement. Sure Hillary, we beleive you when you said you never looked at them.
All Rudy has is a puncher's chance. Hillary starts off with 90% of the black, hispanic and jewish vote equal to almost 16% of the electorate. She only needs 35% of the remaining white, asian and other minority vote.
|
|
"it was 1995, 1996, something like that. I mean, you know, the influx of 12 million had not yet happened."
This is a very bizarre statement by Mr. Podhoretz, because the influx was ongoing, and has since the amnesty provided by the Reagan Administration.
However, knowing the political career of Rudy in the NYC area, when he says something, makes a political commitment, he means it.
Romney's history suggests he is equally sincere in his declared expression.
When some like Romney and Rudy embrace your own conviction, you should feel very good about it.
If they are elected, something constructive will be done.
Both are extremely accomplished, and have a history of doing what they promise.
|
|
Goldwater said 'Why does it matter what Romney promised when what he DELIVERED was a 100% pro-life record as Governor?'
Well,you have made my point, he says one thing, and does another. If we can't believe what he says, I don't trust him. |
|
This is the age of the Internet Mechancal Eye. It's easy to check claims such as yours. You can assert that because of Bush's "historic" unpopularity that the American public doesn't trust the GOP. But the problem is, the claim about Bush's popularity is an outright lie.
First of all, "historical" would mean that you have polling numbers for all 43 presidents. If you have such numbers, please post them. If you don't then avoid using words like "historical" because they don't mean what you think they mean.
Second, we DO have polling numbers from Gallup going back to Truman, and guess what, of those, THREE presidents had lower numbers than Bush's current Gallup poll of 34%:
Truman, 1951: 22% approval
Nixon, 1974: 23% approval
Carter, 1979: 30% approval
What should also be mentioned is that Bush holds the record for the MOST POPULAR president since FDR with a popularity rating of 86%.
As for the rest of your post, if the polls are so indicative of what the American people think of the GOP, what does the 14% (and dropping) popularity rating of Congress (the lowest since such polls started being taken) say about the Democrat party?
If the Dems continue their current slump (and remember, their popularity rating on the handling of the war is statistically ZERO) then not only does that show they have no mojo, but they are proving why a liberal woman should never be put in any position of power. Ever. |
|
The ad said that Hillary has spent her life standing up for people that were invisible to others.
The reality is that Hillary has spent her life putting up with Bill's women that were invisible to others.
If she is so sensitive and pereceptive, how come she didn't know about Monica untill we were all forced to know?
|
|
|
Hillary DOES NOT need to be too aggressive re: stumping for campaign funds. Rush and Hannity have so gloriously accommodated her by incessantly playing her, reportedly, high rated "invisible" commercial for free. Imbeciles, idiots, morons are the only words that immediately come to mind. |
|
|
|