The 700 threads of Rudy bashing inspired me to comment about one aspect of his politics.
The perception that he somehow made New York a haven for illegals. My friends, as most of you are aware this entire COUNTRY is a haven, and has been for 40 some odd years. No conservative in any position of authority has done jack squat about. Considering his experience at the DOJ nobody knew better than Rudy that the federal government was unwilling and unable to handle illegal immigration in any serious manner. I think he has two choices, Govern the city he was elected in or declare certain areas of the city to be war zones with no law and order. If the local government says that every police officer you see has the power to take away whatever life you built for youself here as an illegal, your ability to maintain any sort of government disappears.
The reason I say this is because if you were a hardass and decided to enforce the laws of this country and told your police (50,000 of ‘em in a city of 8 million) to arrest illegals what magical mystery department and process of the federal government do you think exists to hand them over to. You remember the federal government don’t you? The ones responsible for our boarders? The ones who let the first world trade center bombing ringleaders in through JFK airport via LITERALLY a keystone cops distraction.
I find it admirable and patriotic when little townships declare a no tolerance policy on illegals but it’s not realistic in our large cities, tough luck, that ship sailed a long time ago.
I have seen enough horror stories of this agency or that fining or regulating some business or individual to an obscene degree. Give me a ring when an elected official uses this power of government to fine some business out of existence for willfully abetting illegal immigration. I would feel sorry, but the next business sure would shape up.
May 7, 2000
Mayor and Mrs. Clinton Woo Liberal Party
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E04E5DD1238F934A35756C0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print
Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday returned to what has been a solid source of support throughout his political career — the Liberal Party, and its leader, Raymond B. Harding — and asked for the party’s backing as he sets his sights on the United States Senate. But Hillary Rodham Clinton also appeared before the same group, arguing that her views were more in touch with the Liberal ideology than were those of the Republican mayor.
Mr. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton each spent an hour in private at a Manhattan hotel with the policy committee of the Liberal Party, the first step in the party’s move toward choosing its nominee by June 6. This usually barely noticed rite for candidates in New York drew a bustle of attention yesterday, evidenced by a lineup of cameras and security officers, reflecting the state and national political implications that have become attached to the decision by Mr. Harding’s party.
‘’This is not my first time being interviewed by the Liberal Party,’’ Mr. Giuliani said as soon as he left the meeting, grinning as he noted his longstanding ties with one of the smaller parties that his advisers believe could provide the winning margin in this election. When a reporter asked if he considered Mr. Harding a close adviser, Mr. Giuliani responded: ‘’I consider Ray Harding to be more than a close adviser. I consider him a close personal friend.’’
Mrs. Clinton pointed to the same friendship in remarks that seemed to lower expectations on her chances of winning the support of a party that almost invariably backs the Democratic candidate in statewide elections. ‘’I’m well aware of the mayor’s relationship with Mr. Harding and the party,’’ she said. ‘’But I came today to ask for their consideration, based on the issues that I’m talking about in this campaign and what I would do in the Senate.’’
As Mrs. Clinton knows, the only time a Democrat running for statewide office won without the cross-endorsement of the Liberal Party occurred in a Court of Appeals race in the 1970’s, when judges to the state’s highest court were still elected. Mr. Giuliani’s aides noted this fact in a handout they distributed to reporters just before Mrs. Clinton left the committee meeting to talk with reporters.
The Liberal Party has helped Mr. Giuliani’s electoral success as mayor, not so much because of the relatively few votes he drew on the Liberal line, but because the party’s support has allowed him to blur his ideological designation, making it more comfortable for some Democrats to vote for him.
Mr. Harding was able to steer the endorsement to Mr. Giuliani with relatively little difficulty during his three races for mayor. But this high-visibility Senate race has presented the party with a particularly complicated choice. And it has put Mr. Harding in the position of choosing between the potential future of the 55-year-old party and his loyalty to a man who is a close friend and a source of jobs for his family and party.
In an unusual display of public dissension, some Liberal Party members have said in recent days that they would oppose backing Mr. Giuliani, saying it would be a betrayal of the party’s philosophy to send another Republican to the Senate. And if Mr. Harding backs Mr. Giuliani, he risks losing a presidential candidate: Mrs. Clinton’s aides have been pushing Vice President Al Gore to decline the Liberal Party line if the party backs Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Gore’s aides said yesterday that he might accede to Mrs. Clinton’s request. They said he would put off the decision as long as possible, giving him time to assess whether he needs the Liberal Party to win in New York (right now, his aides think he does not), as well as to see whether Mr. Giuliani stays in the race.
Peter Ragone, a spokesman for Mr. Gore’s campaign, said that the vice president was now beginning a closer look at the thicket of independent parties in New York, and that he would ‘’consider the endorsement’’ of any party that shared his views. However, Mr. Ragone added, ‘’the vice president is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, and our campaign will do everything we can to elect her the next senator from New York.’’
Several of Mr. Harding’s friends have tried to convince him that the Liberal Party’s standing might be permanently damaged if it supports Mr. Giuliani and he defeats Mrs. Clinton this fall. And the advantage that Mr. Harding now enjoys by having Mr. Giuliani in City Hall ends in a year even if the mayor loses, because he will not be allowed to run for a third consecutive term.
Mr. Harding has told friends that he will delay a decision as long as possible, in no small part to see whether Mr. Giuliani stays in the race. The mayor learned recently that he has prostate cancer and has said his medical condition would determine whether he stayed in the race.
The Liberal Party endorsement has been important to Mr. Giuliani’s political success to date, but he may be taking some risks in aggressively seeking its support in this race. For one thing, taking the Liberal Party line means giving up the Conservative Party line, said the Conservative Party chairman, Michael Long, who said it was ideologically dishonest for one candidate to run on both lines. The Conservative Party historically has been as critical to statewide Republican candidates as the Liberal has been to Democrats.
‘’What he did today — with Hillary, no less — they both went and knelt at the altar of Ray Harding, who in fact gave us Bella Abzug, John Lindsay and Mario Cuomo,’’ Mr. Long said. ‘’That sends a clear signal to the world that he wants to run with Al Gore, he wants to keep the Liberal tradition, and I don’t know who the real Giuliani is.’’
In addition, running as the Liberal candidate is likely to complicate Mr. Giuliani’s efforts to portray Mrs. Clinton as a liberal. That has been the thrust of his fund-raising appeals, and statewide Republican candidates have, for a decade, routinely attacked their Democratic opponents as liberal.
When Mr. Giuliani was asked yesterday whether he considered Mrs. Clinton a liberal, he demurred. ‘’I think it would be overly simplistic to put labels on people,’’ he said. ‘’I think you can say somebody is a liberal on something and moderate on something else and conservative on something else.’’
Turning the question to himself, Mr. Giuliani said: ‘’I think about me, they would say, he’s conservative on economic matters, he’s conservative on law and order. But he’s moderate, and possibly even liberal, on social issues. It would depend on the part of the country you’re in. In New York City, I’m often seen as very conservative. I travel south and west, I’m seen as very liberal. I like that, actually.’’
Mr. Harding greeted Mrs. Clinton politely when she arrived at the meeting at the Intercontinental Hotel, but, one participant said, asked no questions, sitting quietly in the back of a room that was thick with cigarette smoke.
Mr. Giuliani and Mrs. Clinton share positions in their support of abortion rights, gay rights and gun control, as Mr. Harding noted after the meeting. But Mrs. Clinton pointed out some differences between them on issues of concern to Liberals, including her opposition to Mr. Giuliani’s school voucher program, and her criticism of the large tax cuts being advocated by Republicans in Washington.
Asked her view of what the Liberal Party stood for, she responded: ‘’Based on what I know of it and what I’ve read about it, it stands for a sort of positive, progressive tradition in New York politics, and the kind of issues we’ve talked about. Very strong support for public education. Strong support for child care and working families. Strong support for a minimum wage increase.’’
Yet, when Clinton and the GOP congress attempted in the mid 90s to put more teeth, money, resources and deportations into the mix, Rudy fought it.
The man never uttered the words “illegal alien” when describing these people, choosing to conflate CONSTANTLY legal and illegal by calling them “immigrants”. He has by far the worst record dealing with illegal immigration of ANY candidate of either party.
His new excuse of “well, the feds wouldn’t do their job” is obfuscation. Why was he not demanding more federal help? Instead, like most liberals, he WANTED them to stay put, and siad so emphatically many, many times.
More onerous laws against illegal immigration - scream out aginst.
More onerous laws against gun owners - lobby congress on behalf of Clinton.
He is not worthy to even be in this primary as a republican.
There's a difference between choosing not to enforce laws in order to prevent riots and insurrection, and declaring a place to be a sanctuary city. One is passive lawlessness, the other is active lawlessness.
I could be wrong here, perhaps you can cite Federal or State law that allows mayors to declare their cities as sanctuaries for illegals.
Yep, let's just all give up, drink the koolaid, and die. No thank you.