|
Posted on 02/27/2007 10:43:12 AM PST by TitansAFC
"I supported welfare reforms. He didn't." That's what Senate candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton told the New York Times' Adam Nagourney last week, by way of contrasting herself with her likely opponent, New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (while at the same time denying that she is the left-winger depicted in Giuliani's mailings).
Mrs. Clinton seems to be referring to the 1996 welfare-reform bill signed by her husband. This column has previously argued that the first half of Hillary's statement is correct--contrary to the fantasies of her liberal backers, she apparently did support her husband's decision to sign the bill. But did a tough welfare reformer like Giuliani really oppose the bill? Give me a break! Only Hillary Clinton would begin her first campaign with a big lie like that. Her bizarre assertion sent me scurrying to Nexis, where sure enough, I quickly discovered ... that her bizarre assertion is true.
Giuliani denounced the 1996 law, primarily because of its genuinely nasty provisions denying benefits to legal immigrants (which President Clinton opposed as well). But he also whined like a congressional Democrat about the bill's "lack of sufficient funding for day care"--a complaint that turned out to be largely bogus, given that the bill actually provided the states with a large increase in federal money per welfare recipient. (Why? States were guaranteed the funding they'd needed when caseloads were at record mid-'90s highs, even though the number of people on welfare subsequently fell dramatically.) According to news reports at the time, Giuliani's administration actively lobbied President Clinton to get him to veto the 1996 bill.
Giuliani even ridiculed Clinton's campaign pledge to fix the bad parts of the bill he'd signed (a pledge Clinton largely honored). At the time, Giuliani's stand allowed him to bask in favorable national press attention as a Republican mayor who bucked his own party and defended poor immigrants.
All this doesn't mean Giuliani's not a serious welfare reformer. His welfare commissioner, Jason Turner, the man who designed Wisconsin's highly successful reform, is making progress in applying the Wisconsin model to New York City. Unlike, say, Bill Bradley, Giuliani made it clear in 1996 he didn't oppose the core provisions of the bill (requiring work, ending the welfare "entitlement," and giving states authority over the program). It's also true that the immigrant cuts in the 1996 bill would have hit New York especially hard.
Still, in retrospect, given the success--so far--of the 1996 reform, Giuliani's opposition (like Bradley's) sure looks like a misjudgment. And Hillary wasn't lying. ...
Truly, a Fiscal Conservative be he. (Rolling eyes)
While you whine - Rudy climbs.
RUDY 08'
Beginning to look inevitable.
- Rudy launched a work requirement program for the remaining welfare recipients. the NY Times called it slavery.
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
NY Times
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy constantly spoke out against illegitimacy and fatherless families. One of many things that Rudy said on the subject was the following: " If you wanted a social program that would really save these kids, . I guess the social program would be called fatherhood.
" Rudy Giuliani “State of the City” Address
Mayor Giuliani Delivers Eighth And Final “State Of The City” Address
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
- Rudy rejected the idea of lowering the job requirement standards for minorities and woman. - Rudy said. "it was unfair to expect middle-class kids to work their way through college by holding down jobs and going to classes while exempting students on welfare from working.
" CA Political News
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's Fiscal Record: 1993-2001 – Deroy Murdock – National Review
When will the world quit trying to white-wash Rudy?? At least he is honest enough to stand up and admit his liberal bent, especially on ILLEGAL immigration, unlike the present resident of the Oval office.
Considering that in 1992 Bill Clinton didn't even enter the race until 4 months before the first primary, you are dreaming. There is a lot of ground to cover prior to anyone locking up a nomination. Nothing is "inevitable" yet.
Dean 2004.
Inevitable!
Wasn't this the bill that Clinton did veto?
Anyway, nice job of digging up Rudy's past. Maybe you can dig up some of the things he said when he was 13?
Yup. President Hillary! is beginning looking inevitable.
And thank you for helping to elect President Hillary!
|
Yes. He vetoed it, and the Republican-controlled congress, badly beaten up during the 1995 "govt shutdown" debacle, weakened it and resubmitted it. He vetoed it again. Congress weakened it some more and resubmitted it. By now it was 8 weeks before the 1996 election, and Clinton's polls indicated there was a lot of support for the bill across the country. So he signed it, but privately promised the dems that he'd continue to weaken it later. That's the promise he kept.
Well, if you're right, the dissolution of the Republican coalition is "inevitable."
Obviously, the difference between you and me is that you think that's a good thing, and I don't.
I'm not a Rudy supporter either, but do you really think it is better to allow a liberal socialist like Hillary, or an inexperienced surrendering apologist like Obama to take the White House for four years while we are at war? When are you going to wake up and realize that the only thing that is important right now is our survival and the left is willing to throw that away just to get power. At least Rudy understands the war and isn't looking to surrender.
"Rising stars" fall.
It's usually not a good idea to peak a year before an election.
I see you are a believer of selective history. Who cares what he said because he never meant it right?
We will miss you at the polling stations.
Please do stay home - I will send you hanky.
Poor thing.
Stay home? What a childish thing to say.
That a boy - keep the faith.
I don't think it's "inevitable" but I also don't think you can compare 1992 to 2008.
Remember, at this point in 1991, George H.W. Bush was still somewhere in the 80-90% approval range because we'd just "won" the Gulf War. We'd driven Saddam back to Baghdad and Bush had proclaimed "By God we kicked the Vietnam syndrome."
His approval ratings didn't tank until much later.
Plus, the Internet makes this a whole new ballgame. Bloggers, chat rooms, YouTube.com. And it takes a whole lot more money to run these days.
Early money numbers are doing to be key to this race. If a candidate isn't on solid financial ground in the next 2-3 months, they might as well stay home.
Like I said, it's not inevitable. Anything could change.
But it's not 1992. Or even 1991.
How about 2004?
YEAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
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.
