Running From Their Records

McClatchey continues its revolutionary journalism efforts by looking at the records in office of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, as compared to their current rhetoric:

Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney share a big problem as barnstorm across American trying to act like tough guys on immigration: their past.

Each ran a jurisdiction that's arguably among the nation's most tolerant, where cracking down on illegal immigrants wasn't good politics.

But now, Giuliani, the mayor of New York from 1994 to 2001, and Romney, the governor of Massachusetts from 2003 through January, are battling for the Republican presidential nomination amid an uproar over illegal immigration. So they're gritting their teeth, squaring their shoulders and vowing to throw the bums out and keep them out.

The whole piece is pretty strong, except for the unfortunate decision to quote the embarrassingly-in-the-tank Fred Siegel defending the consistency of Giuliani's views as if he's a neutral source. The question that remains, though, is what does this spell for their likely future policies as president. More broadly, however, the 2008 elections shake out, we're likely to see a majority in congress that secretly favors a comprehensive reform approach along Bush/Kennedy/McCain lines and we're likely to see a president who thinks the same way. But at the same time, it seems exceedingly unlikely that we'll get such an approach, since politicians of both parties have pretty firmly decided that the politics of the issue require ever-growing boasts of toughness.

Comments

"More broadly, however, the 2008 elections shake out, we're likely to see a majority in congress that secretly favors a comprehensive reform approach along Bush/Kennedy/McCain lines and we're likely to see a president who thinks the same way."

Will it matter that a super-majority of the American people is against this?

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 9:56 AM

David Brooks, of all people, has a decent column up about the inconsistency of Guiliani's immigration stance as a candidate in contrast to his earlier positions, and the opportunity costs that the Tancredo-like posture will impose on the Republican party.

Posted by Rich | November 23, 2007 10:05 AM

> what does this spell for their likely future policies as president

Who cares. Neither one is ever going to be President.

Posted by Alan | November 23, 2007 10:34 AM

Fred asked: "Will it matter that a super-majority of the American people is against this?"

"IMMIGRATION -- On another much-debated issue, immigration, a bare majority, 51 percent, supports a program offering a path to permanent status to illegal immigrants; 44 percent oppose it. (Support for this kind of program goes higher in polls that propose deportation as the only alternative.)"

On Key Social Issues, Partisan Divisions Loom Large

That's the kind of polls I've seen, not anything about a supermajority opposing reform.

Posted by SteveH | November 23, 2007 11:43 AM

But you see, when you're Fred, the "American people" is defined as the group of folks that you talk to, hang out with, and think like you. By definition, then, anybody that doesn't think like you do about any given issue is in the minority (no pun intended, of course).

Posted by justinb | November 23, 2007 12:07 PM

But you see, when you're Fred, the "American people" is defined as the group of folks that you talk to, hang out with, and think like you. By definition, then, anybody that doesn't think like you do about any given issue is in the minority (no pun intended, of course).
Posted by justinb

Fred has simply spoken the truth about poll data that shows 70% of Americans vehemently opposed to Amnesty. An Ohio Democrat talked about the Bush-Corporatist Elites-Jewish Elites-Kennedy/McCain Amnesty reaction - "My mail and phone calls were vehement and angry, from a wide spectrum of Americans, including a significant percentage of my black and legal immigrant constituents. I think their next step, if this Bill had gone forward, would have been torches and pitchforks...and I don't say that as a joke. People were mad as hell. And I don't blame them. Congress lied to them with the 1st Amnesty 20 years ago."

***********************

Romney and Giuliani have very different immigration records. They both know it.

With Romney no getting anywhere with his Democratic legislature in his modest efforts to limit state expenses for illegals or have Mass State Police handle illegals and turn them over to the Feds. As soon as he was Governor, Deval Patrick reversed Romney and said State Police may no longer check if perps they arrest are in America legally. The only "dirt" on Romney is he unwittingly had some landscaping contractor he hired to mow his lawn that used illegals. If Giuliani wants to push it, no doubt Romney had food prepared by illegals and his magical underwear washed and pressed by some S Koreans abusing the family reunification immigration loophole.

But that is not the same as the complicity and open endorsement of illegal immigration and Holy Sanctuary that Rudy made as Mayor of NYC. "Mr. 9/11 made some speeches extolling illegals and NYC as an inviolable Sanctuary that he wishes he hadn't.

Same with gun laws.

Romney didn't make gun rights his pet cause in Mass. - and he would have been nuts to do so, as Mass. ain't Oklahoma. He was about getting Massachusetts fiscally solvent without raising taxes, restoring Mass. as a technology leader, and health care - and he won those fights. He wasn't "anti-gun" - it was just very low on his list as Gov.

As opposed to "Mr 9/11", who was again complicit as an active advocate for the other side. He opposed gun permits except for his beloved cops, celebrities, connected people, and wealthy people with adequate sums given to Rudy for Mayor. He pushed prosecution of Bodega owners defending their store from thugs with firearms. He sued gun manufacturers, strongly supported registration, was an enthusiastic fan of Diane Feinstein's "these are the guns that scare me as a housewife" gun ban. Where the lady, who herself had a pistol because she had clout in SF, made up her Rudy-endorsed list of bad-looking semi-autos with black plastic stocks like the AR-15 while letting functionally identical guns like the Ruger Mini-14 pass because it had a comforting wooden stock and didn't "look so military in style".

Nah, Rudy is backtracking on guns like he did on judicial appointments...telling people he swears he has reevaluated his position on the 2nd and on activist judges safeguarding Roe.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 23, 2007 2:34 PM

Chris Ford,

Three points about Rudy and immigration:

1) He did maintain NYC as a sanctuary city, but he didn't start it. Ed Koch did.

2) He has flipped on immigration, but Romney flipped on abortion.

3) Rudy's previous sanctuary city policies were different from Bush's amnesty obsession in this sense: Bush is ideologically committed to importing more poor Mexicans; Giuliani could argue that he was simply being pragmatic in dealing with a situation created by the non-enforcement of federal immigration laws.

Posted by Fred | November 23, 2007 3:23 PM

"Liberals" (as they call themselves) are supporters of the BushCo/Wall Street cheap labor lobby. They justify this betrayal of America's most vulnerable workers by pretending that it is an act of "tolerance" toward "brown" people. See, feeling good about yourself by earning bragging rights in the sensitivity grandstanding game is much better than doing good for others.

Posted by kafka | November 23, 2007 3:36 PM

"Fred has simply spoken the truth about poll data that shows 70% of Americans vehemently opposed to Amnesty."

Then can you cite one of these scientifically conducted polls? I won't hold my breath.

Posted by SteveH | November 23, 2007 5:10 PM

Illegal immigrants are a by product of an unethical "Alliance", our politicians, big business, and special interests. While not enforcing our immigration laws, telling us instead that the laws are broke, and allowing millions of illegal in the country. Hard to believe that our own countrymen(politicians) have knowingly allowed foreigners to violate our nations sovereignty, but they have. We must understand that big business and special interests have powerful lobbyist who grease all the wheels. The politicians receive campaign contributions, the party gets contributions, and who knows what else. Big business is allowed their cheap labor and large profits. Special interests receives grants and funds from the politicians and big business. That is what makes it so hard to correct the problem, while not harming any of the partners of the "Alliance". A good example is the new bill H.R.4088, while it is serious about border enforcement, it give some employers up to 4 years to comply. What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by h poff | November 23, 2007 5:35 PM

Then can you cite one of these scientifically conducted polls? I won't hold my breath.

Me neither.

ABC News Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,035 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 :

"Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?"

Support %58
Oppose %35
Unsure %7

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. June 22-24, 2007. N=1,029 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3

"As you may know, the U.S. Senate has been considering a bill to change the way the government handles the issue of illegal immigration. Based on what you have read or heard about all the proposals in the Senate immigration bill, do you favor or oppose that bill?" If oppose: "Do you oppose the Senate immigration bill MOSTLY because you think it goes too far toward helping illegal immigrants, or MOSTLY because it does not go far enough toward helping illegal immigrants?"

Favor %30
Oppose, Goes Too Far %28
Oppose, Not Far Enough %15
Oppose, not sure %4
Not Sure %22

I could go on and on, but I don't think Fred (or Mr. Ford) really care about the actual facts.

Posted by justinb | November 23, 2007 8:16 PM

Not that it's relevant to anything under discussion, as is usual in one Ford's rants, but Feinstein actually had licenses for TWO pistols, and turned ONE in as a grandstanding PR stunt when she was mayor.

As I recall, NYC Mayor John Lindsay did something similar in his day.

As I've said before, immigration per se is a non-issue for ninety percent of the population in reality, except when they're unemployed or during an election year.

For the remaining ten percent, it's all racism. Anybody who is white or whose father was born here hates "foreigners". My father was one such white.

From any real economic standpoint, it's completely irrelevant to the condition of the country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 23, 2007 9:42 PM

Pretty funny actually about Feinstein's *two* guns, if true...

Maybe the easiest way to get lots of friendly liberal media coverage on the gun issue is to first acquire *lots* of guns---like fifty or sixty---and then very publicly turn in most of them, while still keeping a few---maybe a dozen or so---for personal "protection"...

Posted by RKU | November 24, 2007 10:55 AM