CNN

xtina ... you find nothing wrong with Rudy flip flopping – his talking "tough" on immigration now after making NYC a safe haven for illegals when he was mayor .. or even AFTER this clip?

Of course you wouldn't!

If you like flip flops xtina ... try Romney!

Hh ... and is the competition (in place of govt) that you love so much OK when buyouts decrease the number of competitors and allow the companies with resulting monopolies to jack up the price on goods and services as a result?

Yeah ... I didn't think so either.

The fact is that too much free market is as bad as too much govt control.

Thanks for posting though, and thus allowing me to correct you yet again.

xtina -

I’ve never heard anyone try to claim the Republican party is altruistic, unless you mean tax cuts for the rich and no-bid contracts for Haliburton.

Romney achieved success by predatory corporate raiding.

Giuliani achieved success by shameless exploitation of the victims of 9/11.
.
Thompson achieved success by lobbying for mining, tobacco, asbestos and Aristide.

Support for affordable housing, education, environment, and universal health care is real altruism.

Terry I understand your point, but I have to disagree because the most dazzling, charismatic candidates are those who are kind of a "blank slate", where people fill in their wishes within the vagueness of their statements. Barack and Hillary exude this quality that says to people "anything you want, you got it", but that's not realistic and it's false.

The most berated candidates are those who possess altruism – Romney, Thompson and Giuliani. Both try to do the things that are not popular but are best for all people of our country; continuing to fight terror to strengthen our country; lowering Congressional spending, increasing revenue through keeping the tax cuts permanent and allowing the private sector to compete for medical care, and encouraging private enterprise . These are the things that make our country strong.

So the diff. is that the more people Hill and Barack can control through taking over their medical needs (universal, goverment-provided health care), their housing needs (subsidized housing), their education (nationalized schools), etc. the more power they absorb. They want to tell you which car to drive, they want to monitor and measure your "carbon footprint" every day of your life (in the name of global warming); they even want government-mandated radio (Fairness Doctrine).

For they know better than you. If you put your trust in them, they will control every aspect of your life from exactly where you can stand to smoke a cigarette to what kind of toilet paper you can use to how much fat your food can contain .

Hill and Barack say "dont worry, be happy, we'll take care of ya- just leave it all to us –" yes, every aspect of your life. Romney, Thompson and Giuliani would not say that because they want people to not be tethered to the government.

The conservative candidates want us to look at Americans who have achieved success and take the opportunities that lie in every city and town and to do what the successful have done; The liberal candidates think that you're too stupid to figure out your own success, so they'll take more from those who have achieved, taxing those people to death, so that they, the new socialist government can give it you, be your great benefactor. It's called re-distributing the wealth, or socialism and it diminishes the original purpose of our country.

Our candidates, when selecting a position on an issue, do not think much about what they actually believe or about what would be best for their constituencies or what would provide the greatest good to the greatest number.

They are piecing together majorities by staking out claims on various constituencies trying to piece together a majority of the voters. Getting elected has nothing to do with what they actually try to do after they are elected.

This is why they continuously change their positions: chasing the ever elusive majority.

Seriously, if you think technology hasn't changed dramatically since 1996 than your an idiot!!

No offense, Van, but I wouldn't exactly call this "reporting" on the Democratic candidate's views on illegal immigration.

Like I said, they ALL supported Bush's plan (which is overwhelmingly opposed by a solid majority of Americans) which amounted to complete amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful remarks!

I think Rudolph's full statement was actually, "I think now we have the technology we didn't have back then to end illegal immigration... and uh, we also have the technology to spy on you that we didn't have back then, so we'll know if you harbor an alien, or a terrorist, or a democrat, or somebody that just plain doesn't like me. I will make sure that we catch any such evil doers and send them to Guantanmo, or even better, I'll put a new Guantanamo at ground zero, as the memorial i never bothered to put up during my tenure as mayor of New York. Then I'll use that nifty warrentless wiretapping thingee Bush created to spy on you to the fullest extend the law doesn't bother to allow or disallow. I will control every aspect of your lives, but don't worry about it, because my views change as frequently as my wives, and I'm sure that somewhere within the time I alot myself to govern, 8 or 24 years depending on how good technology actually gets, I will agree with your point of view on things. Oh, and I'll also be making a ton of money from the Blackwater style security firms I own that are currently supplying mercenaries to Iraq. I'm making a killing off it, and I'll make a "killing" off those immigrants too. Oh, and hey, while we're at it, LET'S BUILD A FENCE! Yeah, that will work to keep them out. We have the technology to do that one too. Hey, I'm on a roll!"

[i]Dan (Baltimore, MD) said: Please, Alex. People who start off with "the more I look at the myth" already has made up their mind before "looking."[/i]
FYI-when he jumped into the race, he was THE person I was going to vote for. But I looked past the image, like I do with all the candidates from both parties, and had to change my mind. He's not on my short list anymore.

And to preempt the attack that I'm some rabid Hillary or democrat supporter: I've been a hard core republican and a hard core democrat at various times in my life. Now I'm an independent, and my short list contains members from both parties. And it doesn't include her, either.

Greg, Phoenix, AZ -

The reason most of the Democrats and John McCain and moderates of both parties supported President Bush’s immigration plan is that it made sense. The country needs guest-workers. Our economy would fall apart without them, and anyone who puts some serious thought and research into the situation can see that. The reason most of the country disagrees is that their fear and xenophobia has been riled up by the irresponsible and ignorant voices of Buchanan and Coulter and Limbaugh et al. The reason the bill failed is that members of congress were more concerned with getting re-elected than the good of the nation. The reason CNN doesn’t cover the issue is that the Democrats aren’t talking about it and CNN (and other news sources) only cover things that happen, not things that matter. The reason the Democrats aren’t talking about the issue is that they’re caught between their union and Hispanic bases, (I’m a Democrat, but I’m not running for office so I can say that out loud), and it’s a loser of an issue for them. So what I’m saying is, in terms of the news coverage and the political horse race, you’re right. But in terms of the good of the USA you couldn’t be more wrong.

Meanwhile, in my little valley we grow 80% of the nation’s lettuce. Who is going to harvest when you deport all my hard-working neighbors?

"Supported Bush-backed immigration reform legislation" Interestingly this first line appears in all the so called front runners positions. Reason enough to not vote for any of them. Richardson is the only one with a somewhat sound policy on the issue..not that im supporting him..

Still wondering why CNN is refusing to do any stories about the positions of the various democratic candidates on illegal immigration.
Posted By Greg, Phoenix, AZ : August 17, 2007 3:14 pm

If you only read more than you posted...Their positions are right here, you nasty, mean-spirited little man, on this site;

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.immigration.html

Read it before you regurgitate the same uninformed bile ad infinitum.

Van

XTINA,

You are 100% correct in that we live in a post 9/11 world now and that makes everything that occurred prior to 9/11 irrelevant on this VERY important matter of illegal immigration.

Romney has no business criticizing ANYONE as he has conveniently changed his position on ALL issues he is currently running on. The person from his team that called Giuliani's explanation "non-sensical" should go watch some recent tapes of Romney appearances if they truly want to see some non-sensical backtracking of previous positions.

Still wondering why CNN is refusing to do any stories about the positions of the various democratic candidates on illegal immigration.

Giuliani was absolutely right back in the 90's – as mayor, even mayor of New York City, he had no business trying to control illegal immigration. That is a federal issue, and it is up to the Congress and Executive branch to fix the problem.
On the other hand, if His Honor thinks technology is the whole solution, as his statement claims, he could not be more wrong. It is this kind of over simplification that Republicans have inflicted on this country for too long now, and why they will lose in 2008.

Unless you want to put RFID codes into humans, technology hasn't really moved that much in terms of immigration. What, Microsoft released XP and now Vista so the world is so much different than 10 years ago??

Again it must be said, Romney has never been for amnesty of crimaliens that enter the country illegally.

He is for LEGAL immigration and wants to make it easier for LEGALS to gain citizenship.

He wanted the State police in Mass to uphold our countries laws by arresting,holding and letting the federal government know that the people arrested were indeed ILLEGAL.

It got overturned as soon as Deval Patrick took office.

And we do have the city of Cambridge that provides sanctuary to CRIMINALS, but he had NOTHING to do with that and NO recourse against it.

Reply to Steve from Peoria, IL -

I agree with your insightful comments. I think it’s essential that we transcend party loyalties in these trying times. What little I know of Gov. Romney’s Massachusetts health insurance program is quite positive. It’s certainly better than the disaster of our current national system.

But to be fair, don’t you feel that Romney is out of touch with independent America when it comes to supporting outsourcing and the disastrous war in Iraq?

Thanks for elevating the debate.

Political definitions dept:

When a republican changes their position on a topic, call it movement, adjustment,revision etc.
When a democrat changes their position, SHOUT FLIP-FLOP!, FLIP-FLOP, FLIP-FLOP, endlessly, in hopes it will stick.

Van

Dan: I would hope that in 1996 the US government would have had access to more advanced technology than the average Joe, er Dan. I mean, the US Army was using text-based email over a dial-up connection in the sixties!

Face it. He's just another politician that will say anything to get a few votes. Period.

Someday, we will all look back on this anti-immigration era and its eventual consequences with horror, just as most sane people do with respect to the Japanese internment camps, the days of segregation and other race-based aggressions.

Rudy did a lot more than just give a speech at Harvard. He sued against a federal law that would required the disclosure of the illegal immigration status of a person who committed a crime.

"Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against Congressional override. A 1996 federal law declared that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. "Oh yeah?" said Giuliani; "just watch me." He sued to declare the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary policies unconstitutional, and though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end.

The law Rudy sued against had nothing at all to do with technology needed to secure our borders. The law Rudy hated so much provided needed information to the INS. The law made it much easier to pass immigration status between law enforcement agencies.

Rudy is pandering once again to gain votes. We've already had 8 years with a President who lies. Let's not make that mistake again.

Reply to David fr. Salinas – A thought flashed in my head when you said Romney and Giuliani were too liberal back in their states.

How successful was Romney's Massachusetts universal health care prog.? If it did turn out successfully, isn't this a good opportunity to stop with "Democratic issues" and "Republican issues" and focus on "people issues?"

I wish we could abolish the two party system so that we Americans were not pressured to tow the party line. If Bostonians are happy with universal health care, why does that have to be a "democratic , liberal plan"? Isn't Romney more independent by embracing universal health care? Is he still proposing it on a national level?

Please, Alex. People who start off with "the more I look at the myth" already has made up their mind before "looking."

Rudy gets attacked by the right wing and the left wing all the time, which tells me two things. 1) Extremists are scared of him beating their candidates and 2) that he is no extremist, but a moderate. This is why extremists attack him. He's got the most appeal to the majority.

Rudy's explanation makes 100% sense. In 1996 at a major state university, I was using still using text based email on a dial-in modem. Technology was not nearly what it is today. Short of suggesting some mystical fortune telling power, Rudy couldn't have been expected to know back then the scope of the development of technology. Those in glass houses should not throw stones. If you can't acurately predict the future, then don't call out others or you risk being a hypocrite.

I think Mayor Giuliani was right in 1996, and that he’s wrong now. But I’m willing to respect other opinions.

What bothers me about Giuliani, and Romney as well, is that it’s all too convenient to take the liberal position in NYC or Massachusetts and the opposite one in Iowa. I don’t think either of them is speaking out of logic or heartfelt ideology. I think they’re pandering.

So I can see why a hardcore anti-immigrant conservative would vote for Tancredo or Hunter, (even though I totally disagree with them on pretty much everything).

And I can see why a more pragmatic and compassionate Republican would vote for McCain, (even though I think he’s wrong about the war).

But I can’t see why anybody would vote for Giuliani or Romney. They positions blow with the wind.

By the way, here are the links to Giuliani’s 1996 speech at Harvard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1TKQ09BX70

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m0jgZsaT98

The more I dig into the Giuliani myth, the more I see that he is unfit for the presidency. I hope people listen to the criticisms of him by the families of 9/11 victims, the NYFD, NYPD, etc. His image does not equal the reality of the facts.

see now xtina, your argument would make sense if Rudy had said that things have changed since 9/11 and hence I am changing my position. But he sought the lame excuse that the technology has changed. That kind of tells me that Rudy is just prentending to change his position just to get votes.

A lot of things changed after 9-11.

I don't see any problem with Rudy Giuliani revising his stand to now feel that we need to end illegal immigration.

A lot of things changed after 9-11.

I don't see any problem that Rudy Giuliani has revised his position to now feel we need to end illegal immigration ?

Giuliani is a joke. Granted he's better than anyone the Democrats have offered.

And Hannity seems to think he's the next Reagan, nay, Lincoln! Giuliani needs to just sit back and take the Secretary of Homeland Security gig.

Isn't this the same Giuliani that lost to Ron Paul in the Illinois straw poll and Mike Huckabee (and even Brownback!!!) in the Iowa straw poll?

These "front-runners" are all pretenders.