Skip to comments.Politico Misleads on NJ Gov. Chiristie's Immigration Position
Posted on 07/01/2010 10:13:41 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
This morning Ben Smith of Politico posted a story that essentially mislead readers about what newfound conservative hero Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey thought about immigration. Smith's article spun Christie into an "amnesty" supporter when it doesn't seem he is. One has to wonder why Smith did this?
Among many other issues, in the multipage interview with Gov. Christie Smith broached the immigration issue. Being a governor, Christie is faced with as much trouble over the issue as any other, of course, but Smith's characterization of Christie's position on immigration would tend to make one feel that Christie is an amnesty supporter. In fact, Smith seems to impute several ideas or feelings into Christie's replies that may not have been in them at all.
First off, Smith says that Christie had "long declined to 'demagogue' the issue" of immigration. It does not seem, however, that Christie has ever claimed to have a long record of refusing to "demagogue" the immigration issue..
Read the rest at Publiusforum.com...
Oh come now, not Politico......who would have thought? =.=
One does NOT have to wonder why Smith did this.
Plenty of people here seem to have bought into it too.
Fyi about yesterday’s articles.
Actually, I saw Christie address this issue on Hannity last night and I have to admit it was a real let down.
He talked about needing to have a “path to citizenship,” although he then made it sound like that was only for legal immigrants. When Hannity asked him what about illegal immigrants, all he would say is that they’d need to get “at the back of the line.” Big, big disappointment as far as I was concerned.
Never wise to let the drive by types interview you.
Christie needs to get on Cavuto or Greta and clarify his position.
at what point did Politco become viewed as any sort of legitimate outlet for news or analysis? It is a leftist hack outfit, and was from day 1.
None of our people should give the MSM Obama shills the time of day.
It isn’t worth it in any way.
I will wait to see if Christie corrects this himself.
Bought into what? Christie thinks it is a civil not criminal crime to be in the US illegally. He supports a pathway to citizenship aka amnesty. The guy also loves NJ style gun laws. While the guy is a moderate that leans right on some issues, he’s no conservative.
“When Hannity asked him what about illegal immigrants, all he would say is that theyd need to get at the back of the line. Big, big disappointment as far as I was concerned.”
Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
Please provide clear evidence that supports your assertions.
If he ever actually says what he supposedly did (but didn't), then I'll be upset with him.
I'm presuming he was also misquoted about "working with Obama" on education. It's counter intuitive from what he has stood for.
My skepticism will always be towards the MSM first.
I suppose it really comes down to what “back of the line” means.
If it means they get to stay in this country and wait at the back the of the line until their turn to become a legal immigrant comes up, I say no dice.
If it means they have to leave this country and then get at the back of the line, okay.
But I got the feeling Christie meant the former (staying in this country)—although that could have just been my impression.
Politico is just as scumbaggy as any other old media news source.
They play the game better than Salon did (is that still around?) but they’re essentially peas from the same pod. TownHall.com and WorldNetDaily are usually okay, and American Thinker is the best, but Politico? No way... That site absolutely cannot be trusted. Those people are very sneaky.
Christie is for amnesty. He supported the amnesty bill of 2007, and wants another bill like that to pass. Christie is not that conservative. He is similar to George W. Bush during his first term, where conservatives believed Bush was more conservative than he really was.
Good point, for sure.
The problem with this position that many politicians take is more a matter of trust than anything.
Even the “not-amnesty” amnesty bill of a few years back, didn’t look all that horrible in some aspects, it was really our lack of trust in the politicans administering it and passing it that killed it.
If someone TRULY says “get to the back of the line” and at the same time seals the border, ends birthright citizenship, and punishes employers, then it’s fine.
If they mean it just as a wishy-washy response, then I have a problem with it.
Thats the reason I will wait to hear from him.
I heard Christie on Cavuto. He said he has no desire to run for President because he has a job to do for NJ. He sure acted like he meant that.
People should say no to working with Obama. I can’t think of a worse idea.
It’s also a malleable position. Where he stands now, he wouldn’t really be considered hypocritical if he eventually came out in favor of SB1070 on the guise that the Feds are failing on the issue.
I saw him on Fox last night.
He said he is absolutley NOT for amnesty, and our borders need to be secured, and he doesn’t think that the states should be the ones to do it, the Federal Gov’t should enforce the laws.
I don’t disagree with that, but when the Feds do nothing, then states like Arizona are forced to take matters into their own hands to protect it’s citizens.
We should ban the use of Politico from FR.
As usual ... another closet liberal Governor posing as a republican . It just never ends .
MSNBC Survey (still active!!) sent from our friends at NAFBPO
Do you support Arizonas tough new law on illegal immigration?
In July, Arizona will begin enforcing a new law that requires law enforcement officers to check someones immigration status if they have reason to suspect that he or she is in the country illegally. Do you think this is a good idea?
Question on mexico
Total of 1,657,630 votes
He answered the question according to how the laws are written. You wanted him to make up an answer that would, in fact, have been wrong.
weak on the 2nd ammendment
Well, the guy is a former US attorney so I assume he knows what the law says. Technically I believe he is right ... this is why people who are found to be here illegally can be deported rather than sentenced to jail. If it were an offense with criminal penalities, the taxpayer would have to give them a lawyer at public expense, they would have the right to make countless motions that could delay their cases for decades, they would have miranda rights, they could get off on technicalities, and all that stuff that applies to criminal defendants. They would further clog the criminal courts. With a civil situation the case can be dispensed with by an administrative law judge and they can be deported promptly.
It may not sound appealing at first glance that it is "only a civil matter," but one has to consider the implications of a process that keeps them here forever at great expense to the taxpayers vs one that has the potential to move them back to their home countries far more quickly.
All that said, I'm told it is a criminal matter if a person is actually caught in the act of crossing the border.
Christie needs to get on Cavuto or Greta and clarify his position.:
I’m sure Cavuto or Greta would love to have him on.
He could have clarified his position on Hannity.
I missed him on Hannity, but then I am not much of a Hannity fan.
Nothing Kid Kenya and the Left have in mind for us is a surprise anymore. Why should it be? It was all written down in political action manuals from Karl Marx, through Saul Alinsky.
The problem: The Left is in the full bloom of its power. The de facto President and his team have already enacted sweeping changes to the basic American template. So far, our only solution has been to congratulate each other on recognizing the threat, and to look forward to a sweeping out of The House at the fall elections of 2010.
This is not enough. We are at the same crossroads Britain faced in 1946 with its postwar Labour Government, which left it with state socialism, a lost empire, and an empty treasury ... irreversible damage.... a situation that even Margaret Thatcher couldn't restore.
In regard to 2010, The Democrat Party will be only too glad to relinquish control of The House for a while. That's because there is no Republican Plan, Program, Leader, or Will to restore constitutionality to the Federal Government.
Even if there were such a plan, The Republicans will not have the legislative power to implement it. The ensuing stalemate will give The Prepostor ample time to blame the continuing economic disaster on the Republicans and continue to establish the Radical Socialist Revolution he has attempted to engineer as the Soros/Clinton Puppet.
Leader? Christie? Maybe. Let him come out and condemn government spending on Global Warming in his state. Let him close down a few state departments that are useless. Sarah? Sure she can forcefully state what is wrong with Obama. we knew that in 2008, or earlier. Exactly how are we going to get rid of Obamacare? The EPA? The Department of Education?
Where is :
Our debt has gone from 30% of GNP to well over 60%. What is the Republican Party waiting for? Civil War?
Balderdash and baloney.
Christie has NOT joined in the suit against Obama Health Care.
He has appointed a Democrat Anti-Second Amendment activist to the State AG office.
He is on record as having stated that illegal aliens are not breaking any Federal Laws.
In this interview he CLEARLY failed to support Arizona’s attempt to enforce the very Federal laws Bush II and Obama are ignoring.
When ARE these people going to GET IT????
Christie is NOT the conservative Republican Icon to save America.
He is merely a fiscally conservative RINO.
Until he takes some position supporting the above conservative social issues, there is little difference between him and Tom Kean, Chrissie Whitman, Nelson Rockefeller and all the other cursed clan of northeastern RINO Republicans.
"Experiences in my life, along with my faith, have led me to believe in the sanctity, dignity and inherent value of all human life. Hearing the heartbeat of my unborn daughter 14 years ago had a profound effect on me. I am pro-life because I believe her life and the life of every child is precious."
Christie went on record as supporting a Marriage Protection Amendment and promised that he would veto any bill passed by the state legislature legalizing same-sex "marriage." Both of Christie's challengers, Corzine and Daggett, indicated that they would sign a bill legalizing same-sex "marriage" if given the opportunity.
Christie very much supports a bipartisan bill to provide tax credits for parents who send their children to private and parochial schools. He said, Every child deserves a good education, no matter what, and if they are in a failing school they deserve to be in a better school.
Above all, I am committed to protecting the most vulnerable in our society. As U.S. Attorney, I took an unprecedented stand against child pornography and human trafficking - breaking up criminal rings around the world. These crimes are not only despicable, they erode the moral fiber of our society and cannot be tolerated"
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is drawing applause from pro-life advocates for suggesting in his new state budget that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business. Since the 1970's, state family planning agencies run by Planned Parenthood, have been receiving millions of taxpayer dollars. Governor Christie delivered his 2011 budget address yesterday and he proposed eliminating the $7.6 million in family planing dollars, most of which goes to the abortion business. The money, which doesn't directly funds abortions but supports birth control, clearly hasn't been effective in reducing abortions as New Jersey has the second highest rate of teen abortions in the nation. Marie Tasy, the president of New Jersey Right to Life, told LifeNews.com her group supports the move and hopes the state legislature will sign off on it.
Gov. Chris Christie sparked a political firestorm Monday with his unprecedented decision to jettison an sitting New Jersey Supreme Court justice... Christie said dropping Wallace was a necessary step in his push to remake the Supreme Court, the final arbiter on state law and the state constitution. "The court over the course of the last three decades has gotten out of control," he said. "The only way to change the court is to change its members." Christies decision placed him in conflict with the legacy of Gov. Tom Kean, who first nominated Wallace to the Superior Court in 1984 and is regarded as a strong defender of judicial independence.
So none of the above item count as supporting conservative social issues? There's "no difference" between Chris Christie's position and Whitman or Kean's position on the above issues?
So the Catholic Church approves of good little Catholic boy Chris Christie.
You CAN’T call yourself a CONSERVATIVE unless you believe in the CONSTITUTION.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. So far, Mr. Christie has demonstrated he does not follow that logic. But he, like the Catholic Church hierarchy in the U.S., seems to think the Constitution guarantees the right of any non-citizen to come here and their violation of our immigration laws does not constitute a crime.
Get serious. You can’t pick ONE issue and say that show the person is a conservative.
Thus far, New Jersey has NOT joined in on any suits involving the Obama Health Care Bill either - nor will it - ever.
I can pick out liberal Democrats who oppose abortion.
I cited several issues where Chris Christie is a social conservative, including abortion, stem cells, school choice, public expression of faith, constitutional judges, and euthanasia. Seems to me he's VERY different from the Whitman, Kean, and Rockefeller crowd on ALL those social issues, something you clearly have yet to acknowledge.
Your claim that Christie is "ONLY good on fiscal issues" and hold RINO positions on everything else is clearly incorrect.
You responded with one issue, that doesn't even seem to fall under the definition of "social issue" (2nd amendment right to keep arms deal with liberty and freedom, not the moral fabric of society... it's not as if those of us who choose not to keep guns are moral scumbags), and scream "RINO!!" at him on that basis.
Ronald Reagan said a person who is with me 80% of the time is not my enemy and I agree. I would say he's to the left of Jesse Helms but far more than conservative, on both fiscal AND social issues, than an Chris Shays or Nelson Rockefeller type RINO. Chris Christie may not agree me on 100% of the issues, but he's still far better on "social issues" than not only any Democrat, but any Rockefeller Republican in recent memory as well.
I'd place him around Peter Fitzgerald on the political spectrum. There was a small minority of conservatives who hated him with a passion because he voted against their little pet issue and they disregarded all the good things he did. Fitzgerald had a handful of inexplicably "bad" votes (anti-ANWR drilling, pro-McCain & Feingold, wobbly on gun rights, etc.) but he was on the right side the VAST majority of the time, indisputably the most conservative politician from that region of the country at the time, and probably one of the most gutsy conservative Senators in the Senate at the time, being the lone holdout on many popular items like his opposition the airline bailout, his opposition to Carol Moseley Braun's ambassadorship (the vote was 98-2 in favor), and his fight against a combine insider selection for U.S. Attorney.
I do admire your persistence in trying to prove he's a RINO though. 90% of the "Christie = Whitman, and he'll be no better than Corzine" naysayers during the primary have quietly stopped posting those claims, even since the "RINO" ended up being a role model for Rush Limbaugh
So you agree with “Ben Smith” and his misleading attempts to get conservatives to turn on Cristie?
He’s been getting positive marks Zulu. And here you think he’s a border opening (cause a liberal says so?) gun grabbing (cause his Rat AG not he himself is a gun grabber?, I agree it was a bad appointment, one of the only bad moves he’s made), heath care socializing (cause NJ didn’t join the Obama suit?) liberal. Odd. You seem to be grasping at straws to support your pre-conclusion.
Apparently what’s been happening (unbeknownst to those of us outside NJ) is Steve Lonegan is actually spending time and money lately to run anti-Christie ads. The gist of the ads claiming Christie has been ineffective and his budget plan has major flaws. What Lonegan hopes to accomplish with these ads is beyond me:
So it seems like a few of Lonegan’s more die-hard followers have come out of the woodwork to drum up the ol’ “Chris Christie = Christie Todd Whitman Rockefeller RINO” charge. The jury was out on Christie during the primary, so I could understand the alarm that he might be a RINO, but now it’s just a blantant smear. Chris Christie isn’t perfect on the issues but now he has a record showing he’s governed considerably to the right of Whitman.
It seems Lonegan has been taken over the big green envy monster. First he loses his last chance to win major office in the state, and then the “RINO” he loses to is now a national celebrity that some conservative pundits (perhaps prematurely) are already buzzing about a potential presidential candidate.
I compared Lonegan to Oberweis after he lost his third straight attempt to win high office, and now the comparison seems more appopiate than ever. The mindset with his die-hard fans always seems to be that it’s someone else’s fault when he loses (the Republican establishment recruits evil conservative traitors for the sole purpose to sabotage him, dontsa know) and that ANY Republican who dares run against him in the primary is RINO scum, no matter how decent that person turns out to be on the issues.
Based on the limited information I had at the time, I supported Rick Merkt in the primary, seeing Lonegan as unelectable and Chris Christie as too cozy with the GOP insiders. In hindsight, not only has Christie turned to be a pretty decent Governor and reformer, but I believe he’s probably superior than Lonegan would have been in office. Christie knows how to deal with Democrat thugs and get things done from his time as U.S. Attorney, taking them by the balls. I’m impressed with the way he got his budget passed over the opposition of a RAT legislature and how he broke with tradition and dumped an activist Supreme Court judge.
By contrast, if by some miracle Lonegan had been elected Governor (this would have required a HUGE scandal like Corzine caught on tape taking bribes from Kim Jong-il to give away secret information), I think Lonegan would have been ineffective on the job and ridiculed by the RATs. He knows how to run his mouth but he doesn’t know how to run a state. Lonegan would have tried to rule by windy, boring, holier-than-thou lofty speeches about all the things NJ should do, and the RATs would have sat back and ignored him.
Bottom line, I think freepers backed the wrong horse in this race. Let’s learn from this case.
You two saw it early on. Now all but the blind can see, Steve Lonegan is a douche.
I look back at the Christie-Lonegan primary debate and Lonegan really does come across as a douchebag, even though he sounds perfectly fine on the issues and unhesitatingly says he'd campaign for Christie if Christie wins the nomination. Christie's delivery here sounds much more genuine, if frustrated. Perhaps it's not what Lonegan says, but how he says it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.