Posted on 02/16/2007 9:47:41 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Last weekend's Republican party convention featured Rudy Giuliani alone among the major presidential candidates, and Giuliani's people were present in significant numbers. They were aggressively meeting with legislators and delegates, engaging political operatives, and offering titles and duties to those who would commit. Rudy's speech on Saturday touched on uplifting Republcian themes, invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan, and naturally weighed in on the threat of terrorism.
Only toward the end of his remarks did he briefly touch on illegal immigration. Giuliani's message was, essentially, "well, yes, I know we have to control the border, especially now because of terrorism, but isn't it great that all these immigrants want to be in our country to work---it just shows what a great country we have".
MESSAGE TO RUDY: Republicans here will be appalled by this lack of understanding of California's illegal immigration crisis. This sounds like McCain all over again: obligatory acknowledgement of border control while ignoring the enormous costs of illegal immigration and gross violations of American law. This issue cuts across party lines. Californians---especially in San Diego---are fed up with footing the bill for healthcare, public safety, etc. (Do you know that 40% of all incarcerated illegals are in California---but we receive no assistance from the federal government or real border enforcement.)
Mitt Romney is the only major Republican candidate who is willing to be tough on this issue. It was crystal clear from Giuliani's speech what his true feelings are, and his lack of sympathy for those who must deal with the costs of illegal immigration is disturbing. If the coming California presidential primary includes even the slightest comparison between the candidates on this issue, neither McCain nor Giuliani will have a chance. Romney will then have a tremendous opportunity to capture this vote. Some may want to support Hunter or Tancredo (or Gingrich if he's on the ballot), but many who care about the issue will choose Romney because they believe he can win.
AND THEN . . . AFTER MAY 17, 2004,
But if the Goodridge ruling DID NOT change the law, and the law has never been changed, then why, AFTER May 17, 2004, did everyone, especially pro-family conservatives (except for Mass. Resistance), act like it had been changed?
If nothing happened (in terms of legislatively changing the marriage laws) between November, 2003 (when the Goodridge decision was published) and May 17, 2004, and the Supreme Judicial Court had never ordered the Governor to do anything, then why did Romney decide unilaterally that a "new law" existed and why did he order town clerks to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses? If nothing had changed between April of 2004 when Mitt Romney said "the Legislature [needed] to look through the laws and see how they should be adjusted for purposes of same-sex marriage," then why were same-sex marriage certificates being given out on May 17, 2004? If the law needed to be changed and it never was, then how could "marriage" licenses be legal?
Yes, they are co-equal, but that doesn't mean the executive can ignore judicial rulings. You're grasping at straws here.
It changed the interpretation of the law.
and the law has never been changed, then why, AFTER May 17, 2004, did everyone, especially pro-family conservatives (except for Mass. Resistance), act like it had been changed?
Because it did.
Well, certainly a man who would not risk impeachment in defense of constitutional republican government and our oldest and most fundamental societal institutions doesn't deserve any office of public trust.
If the chief executive is simply an extension of a leftist court, and the courts actually make our laws now, why do we bother to have elections?
Now, your answer might be: "to get good judges." Hah. Romney appointed more Democrats to the bench during his tenure than Republicans. Some of them were even radical gay activists.
Uhmmm...no, you are. The executive swears to defend the constitution when he is sworn in. How could he possibly fulfill such an oath if he has no right to interpret it, much less enforce it, according to you?
Well, if you believe officials should defy court rulings they don't like and get impeached, I suggest you go have fund tilting at windmills with Judge Moore. However, I hope you will excuse the rest of us if we don't join you in your adventures in principled futility.
- Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison
Of course not. But when they abuse their power, and move to co-opt the powers of the other two branches, those branches have a duty to exercise their power to rein them in. Why do you fail to understand something so simple?
Mitt Romney had a chance to do something great for his state and for his country, to, through the courageous act of doing NOTHING; rein in the judicial activists of the left...but proved himself not up to the task.
Considering the fact that up to that point the Governor was firmly in bed with the forces of gay radicalism, one must ask whether he didn't get exactly the result he was after, in any case.
I am right there with you. I will NOT vote for McInsane or Giuliani. I might be able to pull the lever for Romney. I would like someone with name recognition who is farther right to get in, however.
Calm down! Why would I lie about my state of residence? And no, I don't follow local politics (lost cause in Mass) as closely as you did.
But that is precisely my point: those not in the tiny minority on the front lines (and kudos to you for that) never heard much from Romney before it became evident he was running for Prez.
I never saw him using the bully pulpit aggressively, or on TV, on that issue which garners a majority even in Mass. Also, where was he in the Gov election campaign? Nowhere to be seen on supporting Healey nor on the gay issue again.
He may have done all the things you mention. He was just not visible nor aggressive enough, i.e. I think he did not lead. He did just enough to gain credit in the Red states down the road, and little enough to keep his votes in Mass.
Strike 3, he's out.
Heard on Sean Hannity's interview with Rudy:
(paraphrased) Rudy said, "we need to regularize the illegal aliens."
Huh?
What does "regularize" mean? He used it at least 3 times during the interview, and Sean didn't press him on it.
Well, I know what "regularize" means: amnesty.
NO to RUDY. (NO to Mel Martinez, either. Has a nice haircut, though.)
YES to Tom Tancredo.
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.