Posted on 01/21/2019 5:41:44 PM PST by Kaslin
You'll hear Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) rejecting President Trump's border security proposals these days, but about a decade ago, she was singing a different tune.
During her 2008 campaign for Congress, Gillibrand bragged in a mailer how she had called for the deportations of illegal immigrants. The ad also highlighted her opposition to illegals getting drivers licenses, a boost in the number of border agents, fines on companies who hired illegal immigrants, expanding the E-Verify programs for employers, and other now-unheard-of policy stances from a Democrat.
Here's the mailer @jaketapper cited, from my story on Thursday. https://t.co/DHKJeiHVig pic.twitter.com/4p39Frxq9G— andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) January 20, 2019
CNN's Jake Tapper asked her to please explain her change of heart. Considering that Gillibrand is now in the business of calling Trump's policies "racist," he wondered whether those policies were racist when she supported them.
NEW: On @CNNSotu, Kirsten Gillibrand was asked about the mailer I reported on her office sent out bragging about her votes to increase and speed up deportations of undocumented immigrants.
"I did not think about suffering in other people's lives," Gillibrand said. pic.twitter.com/ee9yePjDNZ— andrew kaczynski (@KFILE) January 20, 2019
"They certainly weren't empathetic and they were not kind," Gillibrand said of her past comments. "And I did not think about suffering in other people's lives."
Since then, she explained, she's tried to correct her approach to immigration by traveling throughout New York to meet with families affected by such policies. She also met with immigration advocates and afterwards the senator "realized" that the things she had said were unacceptable. She said from now on she'd "fight" for families who are suffering in her state.
I predict Gillibrand will have to answer these questions about her flip-flopping stance on immigration again as her campaign for president gets underway.
Gillibrand is being treated like a rock star by Iowa Dems, even more than Obama was.
She’s likely to be a major force after Iowa and New Hampshire.
A strong showing in S. Carolina and she’ll be the odds-on favorite.
That would be very racist of the Rats to prefer Gillibrand over Skanky Kamala and Spartacus Jazz Hands.
She’s worried about suffering yet she wants Americans to suffer the burden of millions of illegal aliens?
What a fraud she is but that’s redundant... She’s a liberal.
I don't think so. They're going to go with a black female. Probably Michelle O. But it could also be that Harris creep.
They don't have anyone who could possibly defeat Trump... That is, if he sticks to his guns and doesn't capitulate to the dems.
No chance.
“I was for it before I was against it...blah...blah...”
Gillibrand’s campaign for president just ended whether she knows it or not. Jake Tapper, on orders from his Deep State bosses, just branded her a racist and now she’s going to be forced to do a mea culpa on her past support for stronger immigration laws. Game over Kirsten. All the white candidates except for the fake Mexican Beto are gonna be driven from the race. Uncle Joe is next.
They do what they're donors want for 4 years and track back to their base for other 2 - we see it happen again and again.
Believing a Senator is on the side of their constituents or state is a quick way to end up disillusioned.
I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you did not already know
IOW, he pretended to take a hard line but actually just had her on his show so she could spin her two-faced hypocrisy.
>>>And I did not think about suffering in other people’s lives.”<<<
You mean like the Families who have had their Mothers, Fathers and Children Murdered by Illegal Invaders?
The made it pretty obvious they intend to anoint KH - unless Clinton steps in, in which case they will discard her like used toilet paper.
Not when the elections, primary and general, are going to be rigged in her favor.
She’s lost weight....she is serious
clinton. lol. people have that loser chick on the brain; she’s behind every tree, and lurking in every shadow.
And yet there’s no candidate that could survive against her, should she choose to be the nominee. She would destroy each and every one of them, and we all know she can.
we’ve had this argument before. it looks like we’re going to do it a lot.
you’re still delusional. the dems washed their hands of that spectacular loser after she lost to (what they would say is) the most flawed candidate in history. electorally, she lost to neophyte obama, she lost to trump — the only person she beat in presidential politics of any kind was doddering old bernie what’s-his-face. she’s an 80 year old empty sack, pal.
next cycle, the dems are going younger, and either female or a “person of color”, as they like to say . . . KH is all three, AND an immigrant, which is top of their happy list this season.
I just don’t think Clinton seizing the nomination will be voluntary on the part of many Democrats, no more than McCain being the GOP nominee in 2008 was voluntary on the part of Republicans. It’ll be a nasty brawl and she’ll be the only survivor.
<><> called for the deportations of illegal immigrants.
<><>highlighted her opposition to illegals getting drivers licenses,
<><> called for a boost in the number of border agents,
<><> supported fines on companies who hired illegal immigrants,
<><> demanded expanded E-Verify programs for employers,
<><> and other now-unheard-of policy stances from a Democrat.
You think she is going to get far enough to where she’s debating Trump? I say no way.
They didn’t tell her voters that along with an “empty dress” they were getting “an empty head”.
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.