Meet the GOP immigration drag queens
Every Democrat running for president thinks anti-illegal immigration activists are all racists and xenophobes. Do we really need a Republican nominee for president who thinks the same way?
Breakout GOP candidate Mike Huckabee, the soft-on-border control former governor of Arkansas, scored a jaw-dropping endorsement Tuesday from Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project. Despite a long gubernatorial record opposing employer sanctions and pushing tax-subsidized illegal alien education benefits, Huckabee won Gilchrist’s support by unveiling a last-minute, tough-sounding homeland security plan.
Trouble is, Huckabee has downright and longstanding contempt for his new bedfellows of convenience.
Just two years ago, Huckabee appeared before the open-borders Hispanic group, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), preaching an open-door policy. According to the Arkansas News Bureau, Huckabee also criticized state legislation requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote and enhanced reporting of illegal aliens as un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life — not to mention “inflammatory,” “race-baiting” and “demagoguery.”
Just last year, Huckabee lambasted opponents of the bipartisan shamnesty bill providing a mass pardon to illegal aliens as “driven by racism or nativism.” He called strict immigration enforcement — the kind he now supports — “sheer folly” in his campaign-timed book released earlier this year. He actively invited the Mexican government to establish a consulate in Arkansas — giving its office a $1 per year special office space rate — so that its foreign officials could start dispensing security-undermining matricula consular ID cards to illegal aliens for banking and employment purposes. And he’s not only for government in-state illegal alien discounts, he’s for expanding them far beyond what the federal DREAM Act proposed.
But now that he needs to establish his border control bona fides, Huckabee is all honey. “Frankly, Jim,” he said to the Minuteman Project founder at a press conference in Iowa on Tuesday, “I’ve got to tell you there were times in the early days of the Minutemen I thought, ‘What are these guys doing, what are they about?’ I confess I owe you an apology.”
It’s Gilchrist and those who allow themselves to be snowed by Huckabee’s cynical conversion who’ll be sorry and deep in apology debt, I guarantee you. Huckabee showed his true colors at the Univision Spanish-language debate over the weekend when he pandered to the crowd by lamenting “racial profiling” of immigrants — while remaining silent about catch-and-release policies that fail to detain criminal aliens who go on to commit more heinous crimes because politically correct politicians and police chiefs are more concerned with being accused of “racial profiling” than protecting the public.
Huckabee isn’t the only shameless border control cross-dresser in the GOP field, of course. Rudy “I supported sanctuary policies before I was against them, but my sanctuary policy wasn’t really a sanctuary policy, anyway” Giuliani now quotes “the advice of a great man, Father Hesburgh, who said, ‘We must close the back door of illegal immigration in order to preserve the front door of legal immigration.’” In an interview with Washington Examiner reporter and author Bill Sammon, Giuliani now says he really, truly would have deported 400,000 illegal aliens in New York if he could have. Never mind that small matter of the lawsuit he brought against the feds to block them from enforcing immigration laws. Never mind that he was openly inviting illegal aliens into his open-borders safe harbors.
Reports Sammon: “Some of the hardest-working and most productive people in this city are undocumented aliens,” the mayor said at a 1994 press conference. “If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you’re one of the people who we want in this city. You’re somebody that we want to protect, and we want you to get out from under what is often a life of being like a fugitive, which is really unfair.”
Bringing up the false convert rear is Sen. John McCain. Earlier this year, he was the most vocal critic of grass-roots conservatives who mobilized against the amnesty bill. He now says he has learned his lesson and supports securing the border. He has learned nothing. During the shamnesty debacle, he called Rush Limbaugh a “nativist;” over the weekend, he repeated such contemptuous “straight talk” at the Univision debate by assailing what he called anti-Hispanic rhetoric. In an interview with the New Yorker, he irritatedly dismissed immigration concerns in Iowa as marginal and irrational — just a bunch of “senior citizens” in Iowa caught up in the “emotion” of a cultural assault.
Bad enough that the Democrat candidates are still stuck in a 9/10 mentality on the nexus between immigration and national security. The question for conservatives is: Would a Republican immigration drag queen be any better — or worse?
***
Polipundit has an immigration news round-up.
Lonewacko has a warning about George P. Bush joining the Thompson campaign.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- A Word on Immigration « Federal Way Conservative
- Bear Creek Ledger
- We The People 1, Hot-Air 0.
- Michelle Malkin » The Iowa GOP Debate
- The Radio Patriot
- The Radio Patriot
- Old War Dogs
- Michelle Malkin » Digging deeper: The enviro-nitwit-ization of the GOP
- 9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America
- Michelle Malkin » GOP immigration drag queens, part II
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Sean Hannity isn’t on many Conservative BlogRolls, & someday he’ll care.
- The Dan Lee Report » Blog Archive » Huckabee doesn’t know the status of Pakistan?
- Michelle Malkin » Choose or lose: NumbersUSA, the candidates, and immigration
- Commentary » Blog Archive » Iraq Is The Issue. Iraq Is The Issue. Iraq Is The Issue.
- Commentary » Blog Archive » Iraq Is The Issue. Iraq Is The Issue. Iraq Is The Issue.
- Michelle Malkin » I don’t believe Mike Huckabee
- Michelle Malkin » John McCain gets away with his slippery, open-borders talk again
- Michelle Malkin » McCain-Huckabee: The GOP immigration drag queen ticket
- Huck’s Surge Continues Despite Critism by Conservatives « What Is Your Worldview?
- Michelle Malkin » McRudy?!?!?!?!
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani
Power Line
» A Prophet Who'd Rather Not Mention ItBabalu Blog
» "October Surprise"Stop The ACLU
» Why Can’t Obama Produce a Birth Certificate?Gateway Pundit
» Talk About Angry Thugs... Philly Leftists Boo Sarah Palin & Her 6 Year-Old Little Girl!Power Line
» Cheers for the FlyersRiehl World View
» Oh, Shut Up!Riehl World View
» Why Won't Obama Release Any Documents?Patterico
» Obama Supporters are an E-clectic BunchStop The ACLU
» Western Journalists Redeploy From Iraq
The only Republican candidate who might - I repeat MIGHT - do anything about illegal immigration would be Tancredo.
That.Is.All.
Seriously, do you think any of them will follow up on this issue once in office. As for the minuteman project endorsement, seems fishy, wouldnt you think they would have backed a different horse some time ago? things that make you go hmmmmmm.
I’ll take a Republican drag queen any day over the liberal/socialist opponent.
Wait, that sounded pretty bad…
…lesser of two evils kind of thing.
Hunter 08′
Seriously. The pool of GOP presidential candidates get more shallow every day.
Hunter 08′
“gets more”
If we Republicans nominate the Huckster, we will deserve all that follows.
I doubt that any of the republican candidates would do anything to stem illegal immigration. They just tell us what they think we want to hear. They are all liars (Politicians, same thing).
Have you seen the latest on the fence?
http://www.firesociety.com/article/19402/?src=105
lol pb, I’m going to leave that one alone.
None could do less than Bush has. I am not a Bush basher - in fact I think he is at least one of the ten best presidents in US history.
Romney proved that he understands what exactly it is the executive can do when the legislature abdicates its responsibilities. Instead of simply accepting the nonsense of the Massachusetts legislature, he utilized the proper agency of the executive to limit the damage done. Huckabee’s only noteworthy use of executive power was to bestow clemency on a murderer.
I do wish Congressman Hunter were more viable, though.
I freely admit I would like to see anybody other than “she who must not be named” in the White House, but these RINOs that have suddenly seen the light on illegal invasion don’t impress me one little bit. Their record on this issue speaks volumes for their stance on this issue. Michelle thanks for cataloguing the record of the Huckster and his born again brethren trying to garner our financial support and votes. Fool me once shame one you, fool me twice shame on me.
Duncan Hunter is probably the guy to make things happen. He has a proven record in San Diego, and has been consistent on both the secure border issue as well as many other conservative causes. Too bad his poll numbers still keep him in the basement.
My number one question remains - why? It is not like he is inaccessible, or the fact that he doesn’t spit out bile and hatred. Maybe it is the fact that he *might* actually be the real deal, and that is too much for some to handle.
I just don’t get the GOP anymore.
They’re spelling his name wrong - it is correctly spelled “Hucksterbee”.
Tancredo is the real deal if you want the borders sealed and regulated. He also has a genuine understanding of the jihad problem and where the Islamos want to take us (into Shariah).
Tancredo gets my vote, even if I have to write him in.
These GOP candidates who are not conservatives but now pretend to be, sicken me.
And God save us from “compassionate” conservatism, which seeks to justify forced redistribution of wealth (AKA “stealing” or “robbery” when done by an individual).
Nevertheless once again if I have to I will hold my nose and vote for the Republican candidate - that’s got to be better than any Democrat, I keep telling myself! Even though the Republicans now seem all to be for big government and more spending, sort of mini-me Democrats…
Mebbe’, it’s just me, but I have this eerie feeling, the Huck is about to shout “Sur-Prise, Sur-Prise, Sur-Prise, Sgt.Carter,” any time now.
At this point, all we’re left with is a choice between candidates who have all flip-flopped on at least one main plank in the party’s ideal ‘08 platform.
The question is, which flip-flops are least forgivable? Which plank is most important?
pro-mission/anti-surrender
pro-life/anti-abortion
pro-border enforcement/anti-amnesty
pro-business/anti-tax
pro-law and order/anti-crime
pro-traditional family/anti-gay lifestyle norming
For me, for this particular election, the war is #1, the border is #2 and business is #3. I’m giving a one-time-only pass on all the rest, as long as the top three are in order.
As it turns out, the ‘08 republican candidates with the least substantial records are in some ways the most attractive because they’re essentially blank slates upon which I can project my notion of what a good president should be. In that light, Thompson and Hunter have done the least to disqualify themselves for consideration in my book.
Realistically, I think it will be either Romney or Rudy, which is disappointing. But I’ll still gladly take a RINO over the PIAPS or the Obamanation.
Heh, yes, please.
Pandering fools, all of them. I could give a darn about party brand and affiliation if all these idiots do is stand up and say what the audience wants to hear in each and every circumstance. There’s no principle or character with any of these so-called and media-anointed front runners. For conviction, notwithstanding being lampooned by the pundits and talking heads, at least Ron Paul has the convictions to stay his course. He’s at least competent enough to bring 4,000 babies into the world which is more that can be said for all the prattling windbags who talk about what they might do if they were made president.
The MSM has made Huckabee a frontrunner. They’ll prop him up during the nomination process and then destroy him during the general election cycle. They think that he can’t beat Hillary and the others will.
Conservatives must not throw away their vote on a RINO this time. Otherwise, RINO is what we’ll get and RINO will be what we deserve.
Mike Huckabee is a combination of Elmer Gantry and Goober Pyle. He can say anything with a straight face, knowing that MSM will not investigate further. His explanation of his “reaffirmation of marriage” is so implausible that it doesn’t pass the smell test. Yet he gets away with saying some friends of his wife wanted to have a little cookout with gifts from Targets. He says he has suddenly discovered that Castro is not like Mother Teresa and he gets away with that. He says he had nothing to do with the release from prison of a convicted murderer who killed again, and he gets away with that. Suddenly he discovered that open borders are not so great. If he honestly held that position like Representative Guttierez from Chicago, I would respect him. But with Huckabee, it is all a matter of what he thinks his audience wants to hear. Rereading Elmer Gantry, I think the author must have envisioned Mike Huckabee. What is it about Arkansas governors? Look at at the last three: Clinton, who is a serial liar, Tucker, who went to the federal pen and Huckabee, who is even more ethically challenged than Clinton and Tucker.
Check in on Arkansas today. Huckabee left it a “sanctuary state” and the new Governor, Mike Beebe, has taken it futher down the same road.
Tyson rules.
gilchrist’s endorsement of huck the schmuck has to do with the huckster’s ‘religious’ affiliation. PERIOD. but, as i have stated in other comments, the schmuck’s fruit stinks.
he is no different then that other governor from arkansas that ran for president, oh yeah, the hitlery’s hubby.
i see no difference in this man’s platform. he has seen the light on immigration, yeah right, don’t believe him. he is fiscally liberal.
i have had enough fiscally liberals as president. i voted for bush, but what choice did i have as compared to gore or kerry? i never agreed on his immigration policy. why would i knowingly vote for the huckster knowing that very recently just a few debates ago his stance on providing benefits to illegals. he can call them children, but after 18.. they are adults, and they are using ‘illegal identification (social security #, etc.) to go to college. HELLO.. the rule of law? not so much apparently in the mind of huck the schmuck.
Here is what’s happening:
When you run something, whether it be a youth basketball team, an Elks Lodge, or the United States you must be pragmatic and conciliatory. You must balance the interests of several competing factions, making decisions and enacting policy that works in the real world. Grand visions and big ideas are nice, but when the buck stops at you pragmatic, actionable solutions are needed.
Do you notice a pattern in the immigration records of the candidates? Huckabee, Romney, and Giulini–the candidates who have actually been on the ground and run a city or a state—are “soft” on immigration; while Hunter, Tancredo, and Thompson, the heroes of the movement, have done nothing but cast votes in Washington.
The reason for this is simple: an executive realizes it’s not practical to deport thousands of people, that eliminating a considerable portion of the economy and isolating communities is not good for his constituents. On the other hand a Senator or Congressman can vote on principal and demagogue the issue with no repercussions.
Don’t be fooled by any of them. Now that the GOP base is whipped into a frenzy over the horrors of illegals they are falling all over themselves to see who can be the most anti-immigrant. But if any of them are elected they will be forced to make pragmatic, conciliatory decisions on the issue and once again you all will be screaming “shamnesty.”
….Another “Slickster” from Arkansas. Wasn’t the first one enough?
My Republican Bestiary:
Huckabee: Nutcase who loves swag - we already had an Arkansas governor as president. Have we learned nothing. NFW
McCain: Camera-Loving Rino, may be a few shrimps short of a barbie, big cojones. MAYBE
Paul: Nutty neighbor with 45 years of trash in house. NFW
Guliani: Horny Rino with enormous Cojones and feisty attitude. Best Bet
Tancredo: Several bricks short of Barry. We already tried it in ‘64. It didn’t work. whodat
Romney: Pretty boy. Great sideburns. Better actor than Reagan. Don’t give a rats ass about the LDS business. Got this Dukakis aroma… Maybe
Thompson: Poke him to see if he is still alive. A perfect veep. Nope
cmon 2012! who will it be to pull us back from the grave?
It IS practical to deport thousands of people. Especially if you can stop them from coming back in at the border.
Saying it’s not practical is like saying it’s not practical to lock up tens of thousands of criminals.
Besides, it doesn’t matter if it’s practical or not, the Law is the Law. It should either be enforced or changed, and the American people obviously don’t want it changed, as witnessed by the huge outcry against Shamnesty. An outcry, btw, that crossed party lines.
Also, no President should be ‘conciliatory’. That’s nothing more than another word for ‘appeasement’. So, if the President is suppose to ‘appease’ illegal immigrants, should he ‘appease’ radical muslims too?
Hunter ‘08
I don’t trust republicans any farther than I can throw them. Same goes for democrats…
Two peas in the same pod.
Neither party is “for the people”, and there have been no “good presidents” since, John F. Kennedy. No “great presidents” since, Abraham Lincoln.
For both parties the primary goal is to destroy the middle class in the United States, in order to make us into well behaved, low paid, little worker bees, and bring us in line with the rest of the world. Dependent on, and beholden to, the government and corporations. Thus, ensuring a solid base for the ruling elites, and preserving their power. “Their” wealth and power is the one and only thing they care about.
Republicans want us beholden to corporations first, and government second. Democrats want us beholden to government first and corporations second. There is no other difference between the two.
That’s why they want as many uneducated and unskilled people here as possible. Illegals work hard for low wages, ask no questions, and do what they’re told. To quote the guy in the Guinness commercial, “Perfect!” for dumbing down, and impoverishing us all in the American middle class. “Perfect!” for the ruling elites.
Pick your poison.
This is turning into one of those elections, where I end up, having to vote for a politician I hate the least.
Almost all of them, on both sides of the aisle, are lying crapweasels. Most of the Washington elite have no agenda, other than continued re-election infinitum. To them, the welfare of the Republic isn’t even a concern, even in the face of an overwhelming mandate from the American People to close the borders and enforce the laws. Their behavior is a stinging rebuke of the principals and sacrifices that our forefathers founded this country on. If these idiots continue to ignore the will of We the People, I can see another “Tea Party” resulting.
Tancredo for President!
The war on terror and the border are related. On the economy,it’s lower taxes and reduced regulation. On energy policy, it’s the need for more domestic production and new sources towards independence. On the SCOTUS and federal district appointments we need conservative and not “legislative” justices.
We need a winner or all of this is academic.
The Evangelical Voter’s “Thought” Process:
Cons:
* Gives succor to invading reconquistas
* Believes anyone who wants sovereignty is racist
* Raised taxes
* Corrupt in office, like Clinton was
Pros:
* BELIEVES IN JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD AND SAVIOR!!!!
Decision: Vote Huck!!!
The Dems must be hurting themselves with derisive laughter as the “godbags” are exceeding their low opinions of them by turning the Stupid Party race into a theological poo-flinging match.
Instead of talking about the Islamofascist jihad against modernity, border security, fiscal responsibility, controlling the reach of government, etc., we’re about to let an oily weasel who we’d be against if he was a Dem, muck up the works because he waves a Bible around and smears an opponent’s religion. (Huck would probably bash a Catholic for something the Pope did in 1138 AD.)
Single-issue voters ruin democracy. Idiots are only voting for Ron Paul because he spews the “America BAD! War BAD!” shibboleths. Feminazis are all about abortion. Tancredo will rail about immigration if you ask if he wants cream and sugar in his coffee. Now the “Jesus loves me” brigades are showing that they’re more concerned with the Kingdom to come and not the world where they currently live.
DirkBelig#32 Don’t lump all of us together.
I just can’t understand why people vote for a candidate based on a TV ad or the like. With the internet, it’s not that difficult to investigate what a candidate has done in their previous public positions. I doubt and I hope that not many people will be convinced to vote for Huskster based on this endorsement.
Ok, here’s the deal. Huckabee is a disaster when you actually look at what he has said and what he actually believes. Some of the lower-tier candidates are the best on illegal immigration, but they aren’t electable. There are three candidates who could do well nationally-Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. Some people say they vant to vote for a lesser candidate because of their conscience. You all might want to start voting for a candidate because of your brain instead. It’s obvious that many Republicans are lacking in this department as evidenced by how many are supporting Huckabee, but you can at least try. Pick from the three I just mentioned. It isn’t that hard, I promise.
Fred Thompson. That is all.
It’s really a shame. Huckabee seems like good and decent human being, but his take on immigration offends me.
Absolutely not true. We can and will survive deporting as many illegals as possible. Any theoretical downturn in the economy because of the deportations would be such a small price to pay for restoring the rule of law, and letting the USA decide who comes here and who doesn’t, in a controlled, legal, matter. Secure the borders now!!!
Go ahead and say it Michelle: Romney and Thompson are the only two candidates who will likely address illegal immigration if elected.
Of those two, I believe Romney is the only one with voter appeal outside the South. The National Review agrees.
I have just emailed the Minutemen to ask how in hell they could endorse Huckabee.
Of the three candidates mentioned above, Thompson is weak and doesn’t have a chance. Giuliani is OK and I’ll vote for him in Nov ‘08 if he’s the Republican candidate. I like Mitt and will vote for him in the primary. He has a good track record in the public and private sector. I live near MA and have watched him for many years. I think he’s quite strong on immigration and border security issues. I also think he believes in a smaller government
.
The Evangelical Conservative on the street doesn’t understand that Illegal Immigrants from Hispanic countries typically have no desire to assimilate. These conservatives see every person as shades of themselves and their ancestors, and this simply isn’t the case. They take on such a distorted view that their compassion for “undocumented immigrants” parallels the 18th century “we must educate the natives” approach.
I have two such people in my immediate family who so blindly believe in Shamnesty that they can’t see the damage it would do to our laws. They simply argue that “we can’t possibly do anything else”. That’s sad.
dukebedevilment# 39,
I like Mitt but, I haven’t seen him move up in the poles nationally, for whatever reason. He has spent a bag of money in these early primaries and he is still vulnerable. For some reason republican voters seem to be uncomfortable with him.
Jim Gilchrist has already been credibly accused by several high-ranking MM members of corruption. This seals those allegations for me. I now think Gilchrist is definiitely corrupt & Huckabee probably literally bought his endorsement.
Marshall #42,
Mitt is now third in the RealClearPolitics national poll averages behind Giuliani and Huckabee (but ahead of Thompson and McCain). The money is paying off because he definitely is moving up at the national level.
I’m from South Carolina, an early primary state, and I’m starting to see his signs sprout up everywhere. I’ve talked to a lot of people, and Mitt’s blend of economic and social conservatism is winning people over. Don’t be surprised if he takes SC by a good margin.
I have a new term I want to try out. Tell me what you think.
Huckabigots-Those who support the candidacy of Mike Huckabee and oppose the candidacy of Mitt Romney entirely based upon the candidates religion.
Four things make me consider Giuliani for president:
1. Education. He is for less government involvement and more choice for parents
2. Free trade. He understands the need for the U.S. to have healthy trade relationships with other countries (when you are trading your are not fighting)
3. He believes we need to maintain a strong military and to absolutely crush those who wish to do us harm
4. He wants to reduce taxes as well as personnel in government.
Ditkaca,
I agree that the four conservative ideas you mentioned are worthwhile and important in a presidential candidate, but they are certainly not exclusive to Giuliani.
Romney, Thompson, and McCain are very similar on those issues.
It wouldn’t be because of the relentless drumbeat from the Treason Media and religious bigots like Huck the Schmuck that Mormons are “weird” and “anti-Christian” and “cultists” and that the LDS folks are just like Tom Cruise and his fellow Xenu worshipping Scientologists, would it?
Since Orin Hatch isn’t a threat to liberal powerlust, his Mormonism isn’t mentioned. Because Harry Reid is a leader of the Defeatocrats, his Mormonism isn’t mentioned. Does anyone remember when those lovable Osmonds were the first Mormons you ever heard of? Marie almost won “Dancing with the Stars”, so it’s not as if America was voting against her based on her religion.
Romney is a serious threat to Hillary! and the Treason Media’s quest to regain power and they have deftly played the religious fearmongering card and the dim-bulbed Evangelicals have lapped it up with glee. Of course, mentioning anyone else’s religion is beyond the pale. It’s ironic that after all their yowling about being persecuted for being Christians, they’ve turned around to persecute the Mormons.
You make a good point Bedevil. I just don’t think the three you mention can’t beat Hillary/Obama…. Mitt might be the only other who can win due to the size of his war chest.
Plitics being what it is, I don’t “trust” any of them because they have to compromise to get anything done. It’s all about, you scratch my back, I’ll scratch
yours. I like Tancredo and Duncan. For me, Romney is third. Illegal Immigration
is actually a much larger issue in this election than any of the front runner
candidates either believe or want to admit ( I’m not sure which) and I think they
will find that out at the polls. The people of Arkansas are disappointed with their
state leaders because they won’t pass the same law as Oklahoma and make their
illegals move out. Now, whether they succeed in ousting their latest governor,
well, we’ll just have to wait and see. As for Huckabee, anytime someone says,
“God wants me to be president” I have to take a step back because there’s not
enough space in the room for him, for me, and for his ego. We can’t have some one in the White House that thinks he has a mandate from God. AND
we don’t need someone in the White House that thinks the US is Mexico II.
An almost guaranteed third party Ron Paul Debacle that also guarantees a closet communist in the Whitehouse.
Deja Vu to the max.
By now, every single politician on the planet knows that in the US a run for POTUS means you better step up on illegal aliens and immigration.
The slightest accommodation speak and the pitchforks come out (its about time).
The tough part is, we get to try and determine who’s lying so we can try to separate the sh** from the shinola.
Speaking as a Rudy supporter, you can take this or leave it. I saw him on Friday and the first thing he talked about was how important it is that we get illegal immigration under control. You can choose to believe him or not, however he has made it a platform of his campaign.
I firmly believe that there is not proper context for many of the candidates on a whole host of issues including illegal immigration. If you look at Rudy’s record on illegal immigration without giving the proper context to time and place I don’t think you are being fair. Michelle has done a great job on this issue, however her standards, to me at least, are impossible to reach unless the only record you are looking at is a hypothetical one.
Here is a summary of my view of the event at which I saw Rudy
I’m gonna sound like a left-wing loon, but it seems to me the power and reality of immigration policy is all behind the scenes. The law is the face of public policy, and that’s not being enforced, so … what’s going on? Need for cheap labor to pick vegetables, serve food, and tend lawns? Is it political correctness? Or are the powers that be just throwing up their hands?
Romney has some good ideas. I like him, he reminds me of Newt. Smart, an idea guy, and I think he’ll stick with them. From mittromney.com –
“We must secure the border, implement an enforceable employer verification system, punish sanctuary cities and reject amnesty.”
Does anyone else have a better plan?
MarshallRuss #42
…..I think Mitts problem is his “Pretty Boy” look. I really think the majority of voters have trouble relating to $2,000 suits and $400.00 haircuts. It’s the same problem Jon Edwards has for the Dems.
…..Mitt would probably be well served to put on some jeans(not new ones), a sweatshirt and some well worn sneakers.
STOP! I think my head’s going to explode if I hear another one of these clowns doing the ‘before and after’ thing. They’re tap dancing so fast I can barely see their feet.
Just read the Duncan Hunter website - Core Principles…..Wow!
Why are we not hearing more about this guy? Oh, I guess he’s not electable.
I’m surprised George P. joined the Thompson campaign, given Thompson’s firm stance on illegal immigration and border enforcement. Unfortunately “P” isnt’ going to help Thompson. I don’t think anything can.
As for P’s presidential aspirations, you bet he has them, he joined the reserves so he could check the “military service” box.
#23, Ja, if I may say so, being pragmatic doesn’t mean “sell-out”. Hunter got an actual real-life fence built that cut the crime rate, and he gets re-elected with huge support from legal hispanics. If Giuliani had been against sanctuary and been out-voted by Albany or some such thing, fine, but he was for sanctuary.
Not trying to argue with you here, just making the point that he could have been against sanctuary, but he wasn’t.
I too believe the MSM thinks Huckabee would make good fodder, so are helping push him now. Just say no.
I won’t vote for any of those three.
Bush and McCain were saying the same thing as the tried to push CIR down our throats. Everyone wants to “end” illegal immigration. The question is whether we end it by stopping it, or by legalizing it.
Mike Volpe
A virtual fence, amnesty for the current illegals, and some big new guest worker programs is what we defeated in the form of CIR. And its what Giuliani is proposing right now.
What about Ron Paul wanting to end welfare so then there won’t be any more enticements for illegals to come here?
Well Rudy wasn’t talking about amnesty, he talked about building a wall, technological and otherwise, and tamper proof ID cards. Rudy said absolutely nothing about legalization of illegals. Again, you can choose to believe him or not, however there is nothing in his current platform that says that he plans on legalizing illegals.
Flenser, you are no better than any MSM type. That isn’t his plan. Don’t demagogue and don’t make things up because you don’t like him. I saw him and he said he wanted to build a fence and where you couldn’t build a fence he would put up a virtual fence. He also wants tamper proof ID cards. He said nothing, NOTHING, about amnesty.
You obviously don’t like Rudy. Fine, don’t spread lies and falsehoods about him.
I agree with you Mike, I saw him last night and was very impressed with what he had to say. There were several registered democrats with me who will be re-registering based on listening to him last night.
He stressed the importance of weaning people off of welfare/entitlements and get people working.
It reminded me of the movie “Dave” where Kevin Kline talks about the confidence that people have when they are working…how that gives people the idea they can accomplish anything.
Maybe I’m an idealist in thinking we can actually have somebody in Washington who can get some of these important conservative ideas in place, but right now my money is on Rudy
When I saw him, I took away how sensible he is. He talked about productive and unproductive taxes. His health care plan is spot on and very much in the mold of John Stossel’s view of health care. I don’t know if he took out his laminated card with his twelve commitments but he did in my event.
It is simply beyond question that he has the most leadership qualities and effectiveness of candidates of either party and that cannot be ignored.
Has anyone else gotten the e-mail blast from the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) today, like the one I got below?
Guess I’ll change my name here to Huckabigot. Gee, I feel the love.
For your information, I don’t support Huckabee because of his religion, nor dislike Romney because of his. If I swapped to Hunter, would it be because he too is a Baptist? Or maybe, just maybe it’s because he’s also a fair-tax supporter, strong on immigration, and anti-abortion? None of which I feel secure about Romney on.
I am also not at all ashamed to say that I feel Mr. Romney is not being completely honest about his religion, or to point out that Mormons (with all the good things they may be) are not Christians. Does not being a Christian disqualify him as a candidate in my mind? No. But his pointing out where Mormonism and Christianity overlap while ignoring the fundamental differences makes me question his integrity on other topics. If that makes me a bigot, well, then I guess I am.
I’m not happy at all with some of the things coming out about Mike Huckabee. If I were voting today, it’s likely Hunter would get my vote. But the question of viability looms large for Hunter. It’s tough to go from Congressman to President, largely because of the lack of a track record.
The bottom line is, I’m absolutely sickened by not just the depth of the hatred in comments here, but by the fact that they are getting tacet approval. Seems like the next thing I, and those like me, will hear is DLTDHYOYWO.
#63, a candidate who wants to convince me he is serious about border issues does not say what Rudy said to a business group a few weeks ago. He promised them he would not punish businesses that hire illegals because immigration is the sole responsibility of the federal government.
Nobody is going to build a fence across the entire border, so you can’t stop illegal immigration without punishing businesses who hire illegals.
There. Fixed that for you Ja-Man.
It wasn’t a business group. It was a townhall meeting. Again, you are all making things up about Rudy. Either you just don’t know what he is saying about illegal immigration, or you don’t care and you will say whatever you feel.
I guess you didn’t read the part about the TAMPER PROOF ID CARD. He isn’t threatening businesses with punishment. He wants to create a tamper proof id card so that businesses have no excuses if they hire illegals. Again, the demagoguery and flat out lies is really obscene here.
All I know is, we are being lied to left, right and sideways. We do not need all of
these illegals in order for our economy to function. I, for one, would gladly pay
higher prices for produce, etc., if it meant that our schools and health care
systems were not being overtaxed, not to mention our welfare system. Do not
try to tell me that illegals are on welfare, because I have a neighbor that works
for AFDC and she says that these women with their anchor babies are in the
system because we cannot let these American children go without.
Show me a candidate that promises to do something about this mess and keeps
his promise and he will have my full backing, plus, I will go door to door
campaigning for him.
Correction- was supposed to be are not on welfare…
Should have warned ya’ll that a rant was coming.
Whew. Do feel better now!
Radiojoe, I’m so glad you’re not ashamed to judge others harshly and still call yourself a Christian, and then complain about the “hatred” you find in the comments you read. I guess if a “Christian” says it, its not hatred.
Mormons may not be mainstream or “orthodox” Christians, but they do believe in Christ. Shouldn’t Christ be the one to judge if they are Christians or not?
Yes, Mormons have scripture not found in the Bible. But did you know that the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible either? It is an extra-biblical doctrine.
I’m sure early Christianity was considered a cult by other religions of the day. Christ told his followers to expect to be hated and persecuted by the world. He didn’t tell them to do the hating. Please don’t judge others because their path is not as wide and popular as the one you are following.
One would like to consider McCain as patriotic considering his imprisonment and suffering during the Vietnam war. It is sort of an emotional reaction to consider that he suffered for us “serving” the country, but logically it doesn’t follow that getting tortured = patriotism. After all, what choice did he have?
Given his corruption on the invasion of illegals, he could probably use a good “swiftboating” to determine if he joined the navy out of any loyalty to the U.S., or only because of family tradition.
Since you believe I’m making up things about Rudy, I’ll quote the AP article:
If you’re going to say that the National Federation of Independent Businesses is not a business group, then I have to question everything else you say. Illegal immigration is everyone’s responsibility. So, if I hear any candidate say it is not the responsibility of cities, states or businesses, I have to question how serious they really are about stopping illegal immigration. I’m just saying I want a president who will take action against santuary cities and against businesses who hire illegal aliens.
Yes, that’s what I said. He promised not to punish businesses.
What’s obscene is your lack of research and your distortion of our comments. What good is a tamper-proof ID card if businesses are not going to be punished for ignoring the card? It’s not going to be worth the plastic it’s printed on!
Papa, please tell me where I said anything at all disrespectful of Mormons. Is it disrepectful to say a Muslim is not a Christian? Or perhaps you think there is something disrespectful in calling them what they are. They are Mormons.
Let me ask you this. Do you think I should be ashamed to openly state what I believe? And if so, why?
You got one thing absolutely correct.
Christ will judge.
Radiojoe, Muslims do not claim to be Christian, so of course they are not offended if you say they are not Christian.” “Mormon” is a nickname. The actual name of the Church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” So yes, it is offensive to say Mormons are not Christians, because you are actually saying Mormons are lying when they say they belong to Christ’s Church and are trying to follow him. It would be like saying, “Baptists are not Christian, they are Baptists”, and then claim you were not trying to be disrespectful.
The word “Christian” appears only 3 times in the King James Bible. The word “Saint” appears 70 times. Here is one example:
The early believers were called to be saints. They rarely used the term “Christian”. Christ is the Greek term for Messiah. To Jews, Messiah was a sacred title and was not to be used lightly in everyday conversation.
By the way, the Bible says in Acts: “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” Unless the Bible is in error, or unless Christ founded his Church in Antioch, many of the first believers did not use the term Christian, nor did they know anything about the Niceen Creed. Does that mean you don’t accept them as Christian, either?
Obviously, you are not content to let Christ judge or you would not try to do the judging for him.