Romney vrs Giuliani on Amnesty and the 2008 campaign

opinion | 01-05-2007 | brianbaldwin

[Brian_Baldwin]

The “line in the sand” difference between Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani in regards to issues, both admired as two top contenders for the Republican nomination for President in 2008, is in regard to the issue of illegal aliens. It doesn’t matter what the old media says will be the “issue” of 2008 – yes, there will be many issues during that campaign, but I will absolutely guarantee you that at the top of the mind for the base of the Republican Party will be this issue as is with myself and countless others. We have grave concerns about this issue, and we realize that once certain measures are made (under the pretext of “reform”), in particular amnesty which we are against, that the results and the impact of such a mistake will be irreversible. The damage will be irreversible, and will not be something that we will be able to “change our minds” about later – the long term damage to our country will be permanent and is as vital an issue to this nation as is the war on terrorism.

I will absolutely guarantee that I am not alone on this opinion among the base of Republicans, and I don’t care what the old media claims, I know for a fact that this issue was a factor in the 2006 results, negative to Republicans due to President Bush’s wrong stand in every regard on this issue.

This one issue alone, with Mitt Romney on the correct side of the argument, can win the primary elections for him in 2008. Bank on it.

Mitt Romney is against amnesty for illegal aliens. He wants to actually secure the borders, which is a security issue as well, and he seems to be on the right side of this issue.

Giuliani is not.

I admire Rudy very much, but this is a defining issue. I also admire Mitt a lot, and his stand on this issue only confirms to me that he is a preferred candidate for the Presidency.

Do not be fooled. The gay agenda, abortion, and other “social issues”, are in no way as important as this issue of illegal aliens in the minds of the base – and it is important in the minds of all Americans and poll after poll demonstrates that the American people do NOT want amnesty, and they DO want the borders controlled, and they want to STOP this illegal invasion from Mexico. It doesn’t matter if they are Republican or Democrat, the majority of Americans in their opinion on this matter are like minded regarding this issue. And yet, neither party will listen to the American people – the Republican leadership in Bush has shown a tin-ear to the American people, Senate Republican leaders, and of course the Democrats as well simply do not LISTEN to the American people in this regard, and it is insulting.

Americans are insulted when they are not listened to.

The party which brings forth candidates who campaign on the theme that they will LISTEN to the American people, that is the winning candidates in 2008. Such candidates will need to demonstrate that they are LISTENING to the American people on this issue, a “line in the sand” issue that can, and will be, the “line in the sand” in 2008.

Politicians can “change their mind” – I suspect that some of them will do so into the 2008 campaign. Being on the “right side” of this issue will make the difference in 2008, and Mitt Romney, as long as he remains on the right side in this regard, has my support.

[gitmo]

I can't support either one. We need a conservative.

[gitmo]

Amnesty" is whatever the immigration hawks don't like. "Amnesty" is anything short of rounding everyone up and shipping them back to Mexico.

Uhhh ... if you decide everyone violating a particular law will be allowed to continue doing so, what else would you call it?

[Ramius]

We need a conservative.

That'd be nice. But there aren't any. It really is rather astonishing how shallow the pool of candidates is, in fact on both sides of the aisle. The power players (like a Reagan) just aren't there.

The only consolation is that the democrats are in even worse shape. Hillary? Edwards? Kerry? ~This~ is the best they can do? Even their power players and "good" democrats (say, Zell Miller or even a Paul Simon) have faded from the scene and there's no new generation worthy of their priors, their betters.

I don't know if it is just the generally poisonous political atmosphere or what... but the quality of our leadership class is suffering across the board.

All that said, a real true hardcore conservative wouldn't win the next election anyway. The national pendulum is swinging away from the right and toward the left. Two terms is about all we usually can expect from one party, without some exceptional circumstances. Maybe we'll have that, but probably we won't. I don't like it either, but we would be blind to not recognize it.

Hillary will be easy to beat, unless we get stupid and run somebody like Duncan Hunter. I like him, and of all the people that will NOT be the next President, he's probably my favorite. Romney is in there somewhere too.

McCain gives me the willies. I don't think he can do it.

Rudy will win easily, if he runs. He will mop the floor with any dem that runs against him. Mainly because he has a command of the language and presents himself forcefully and articulately. He's still seen as a born leader, and people are naturally attracted to clear leadership. They just are.

Sure I wish he was a little more conservative on some issues, but on the one issue that trumps all the others-- the war on terror-- he gets it, and the voters will trust him there.

My .02

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

After a defeat, the tendency of both parties is to redouble their efforts to push an unpopular social agenda on the electorate.

The result of ballot initiatives should tell you something... and sticking your head in the sand like the "moderates" and RINOs in the Senate isn't going to win any votes...

You'll continue blaming conservatives while losing the core voters that support the party. So much for the "big tent."

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

After a defeat, the tendency of both parties is to redouble their efforts to push an unpopular social agenda on the electorate.

The result of ballot initiatives should tell you something... and sticking your head in the sand like the "moderates" and RINOs in the Senate isn't going to win any votes...

You'll continue blaming conservatives while losing the core voters that support the party. So much for the "big tent."

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The national pendulum is swinging away from the right and toward the left.

Ballot initiatives say you're clearly wrong. Good luck in the Democrat primary.

---

Sure I wish he was a little more conservative on some issues, but on the one issue that trumps all the others-- the war on terror-- he gets it, and the voters will trust him there.

Without strict border enforcement, nobody "gets it."

[nowandlater]

Let me say this about Rudy:

If there is any politician where I fundamentally disagreed with his policies and would seriously consider voting for him with a good conscience it would be Rudy. In fact, he is the only politician that I can think that is the case. If Rudy can promise to fight hard for strict constructionist Judges and will reign his liberal tendencies then that would guarantee the nomination for him.

If I recall, when George W. Bush was running he was touting a lot of liberal crap but a lot of conservatives looked the other way because the desire to regain the White House was supreme. Well, I hate to tell it to you guys but to win we can't go 100% pure. Sorry, it ain't going to happen! Heck, even Reagan was not even pure! I think the best you can do is try to elect someone who can introduce some fundamental changes without scaring independents and moderate Democrats.

McCain won't scare independents and moderate Democrats but he will radically undermine many of the causes that I and many social conservatives hold dear. I cite McCain/Feingold, the gang of 14 against Judges, and early opposition to tax cuts as some of the obvious examples.

Rudy also won't scare independents and moderate Democrats but again will undermine our causes, will he be neutral, or even hostile towards them? I am inclined to think that he will maybe neutral, but I am not sure and that is why I am pegging him as my number two choice.

Now, I like Romney a lot and I am seriously considering donating to his campaign. When you are getting slammed equally hard from the left and from the right, then I think that he must be doing something right. Romney is very smooth and think he has a Clintonian quality of making a lot of the moderates feel good AND he will fundamentally advance many of our conservatives. Look what was able to do with spending in Massachusetts with the Democrats fighting him at every turn. I think that we need that in the White-house and we need someone who can communicate effectively like Romney!!!

[Victoria Delsoul]

I've found that posting that button on the Rudy McRomney threads is a great way to get Hunter's name out there--and call people's attention to the ping list.

That's great, Tony, and hopefully more Americans and not just Freepers would also know who Hunter is and what he's running for. The only thing is, you gonna need to post more then buttons to attract the attention of the GOP and that's just for Hunter to win the primaries. After that, you are going to need a LOT more to attract the attention of the electorate and get them to vote for him.

I like the guy, he's a fine individual and he would certainly do the conservative cause a lot of good, but I'm also realistic and I don't like to waste my vote. Growing up in a very loving, conservative, and politically oriented family who knows the risk of allowing leftists to run a country, I've learned that sometimes to avoid a leftist victory, it's smarter to align yourself with the individual who is closer to your values (which isn't to say completely aligned with your values) who has a better chance of winning and a better chance at defeating the leftist. At this moment, and I emphasize – at this moment – Rudy is the best choice to beat the Democrats in 2008. Why? Because – and I' m sorry to say this, but the electorate is fed up with GW and the right wing of the party.

So you need an individual who appeals to the broader electorate. Rudy is the guy who appeals a lot of people and they don't feel threatened by him. Based on more recent interviews and speeches, I believe that Rudy would govern in a Republican, conservative leaning fashion for all Americans and not in a liberal NYC fashion.

The proof is in the pudding, isn't it? Well, the GOP congressmen who were against GW's immigration reform were defeated by Democrats who were also (or so they say) against GW's immigration reform. Why didn't those GOP congressmen win? By and large, people still like the conservative values, but they don't want those values shoved down their throats, and that's why a guy like Rudy is ahead in the polls.

I'd rather vote for someone who isn't a strong social conservative, but with the knowledge that he/she would uphold my principles many more times than a liberal Democrat would. I won cut off my nose to spite my face.

Whatever you do, Tony, make sure not to distort the facts regarding Rudy. I don't think you do that, but I've seen the work of some of the Rudy haters ranting on every Rudy thread, appealing to the emotionally deficient just how much Rudy is going to kill our babies, take the guns from our houses and turn our children gay. Booo Booo, oh boogeyman Rudy!

[Victoria Delsoul]

As I said, be my guest!

Be my guest? You told me that: “people have already been doing that - posting Rudy stuff on the Hunter thread” and Blackirish just posted that they haven't done so. So you weren't being straight with me.

We all make mistakes in our lives sometimes, so I will give you a pass this time, but make sure not to lie to me next time.

[Victoria Delsoul]

We should be looking for someone who fires up the base AND will attract Reagan Democrats.

You got that right, Tony. Let's find someone we are familiar with and fires up the base just by the mention of his name. But the moment you need to promote your guy like some “HeadOn: apply directly to the forehead” TV ad for a name recognition, you know he just isn't exciting the base.

[Antoninus]

Be my guest? You told me that: “people have already been doing that - posting Rudy stuff on the Hunter thread” and Blackirish just posted that they haven't done so. So you weren't being straight with me.

Oh please. There have been some Rudy boosters on the Hunter threads. Do I have to contest EVERY claim? Does Mr. Blackirish speak for all the Rudy-boosters? Give me a break...

[Clemenza]

I respect your decision, but supporting a corrupt denizen of "urban America" who effectively managed a socialist city bureaucracy is not something I can do.

Romney is intelligent, honest, an effective manager, who doesn't pass the buck. He is also, as Archie Bunker would say, a "regular American." Rudy, on the other hand, consorts with some of the slimiest folks this side of the Appalachians, has a history of blaming others when things go wrong (ask William Bratton and Rudy Crew), and is to the left on all issues except for "law and order" (like any outer borough eyetie fascist ;-) ). I don't think my vote will make a difference, but I will leave the top of the ticket blank if Rudy Rockefeller (without the ethics) is the GOP nominee in 2008.