Is Rudy's Teflon Gone?
Immigration backlash hits Giuliani right in the solar plexus; a Romney spokesman calls his record ‘abysmal’

Finally: Rudy Giuliani was caught red-handed.
After months of watching him wriggle out of tight spots on issues like abortion and gun control, opponents of the front-running former mayor say that his reversal on immigration policy has finally brought down the mayor’s impenetrable defenses and opened him up to attacks on everything from the consistency of his record, to his personal life, to the veracity of his remarks about Ground Zero.
They couldn’t be happier.
“It’s going to damage him pretty severely,” said Representative Tom Tancredo, a Republican presidential candidate running largely on an anti-immigration platform. “He was prepared to be hassled about the life issue and the gun issue, you knew that was going to happen, so he really had that down pat. But the immigration thing came out of the blue. Now he is dancing, trying to figure out what steps to take to evade this one too.”
“I think it is impossible for any presidential candidate to believe that there is Teflon,” said Kevin Madden, a spokesman for Mitt Romney. “Both the media and scrutiny by a national electorate will always guarantee that everything sticks at some point.”
Mr. Giuliani’s problems started when Mr. Romney broached the subject of immigration on Aug. 8 by calling New York, under Mr. Giuliani, a “poster child for sanctuary cities in the country.”
On Aug. 14, Mr. Giuliani, anxious to avoid appearing weak on an issue that had contributed greatly to the demise of John McCain’s campaign, boldly told voters in South Carolina that “I promise you, we can end illegal immigration.”
It was a bad calculation.
A day later, a rival campaign provided the liberal blog Talking Points Memo with a 1996 video showing Mr. Giuliani, complete with glossy comb-over, telling an audience at Harvard’s Kennedy School of government that “we’re never ever going to be able to totally control immigration to a country that is as large as ours.”
In the 1996 speech, which was quickly posted to YouTube and spread all over the Web, Mr. Giuliani goes on to say efforts to comprehensively stop immigration “might very well destroy the economy of the United States.”
Mr. Giuliani’s response was weak: He explained what looked to all the world like a blatant flip-flop by saying that advances in technology have created methods of fighting illegal immigration that were unimaginable when he made his 1996 remarks.
Since then, it’s been open season on Mr. Giuliani.
Mr. Tancredo said that for months he had been trying to “raise as much hell as I can and draw attention to this terrible, terrible hypocrisy,” but, he admitted, nobody was listening. All of a sudden, he said, something has changed. “You’ve got somebody with enough money to press it home: Romney.”
And Mr. Romney has spent money to do just that. On Aug. 21, the former Massachusetts governor released a new radio ad in New Hampshire and Iowa that says “immigration laws don’t work if they’re ignored. That’s the problem with cities like Newark, San Francisco and New York City that adopt sanctuary policies.”
“Essentially,” Mr. Madden explained, “what you have is a record that is abysmal.” Next Page >

















Flip-flop?! That was over ten years ago!
Our lax gun control laws have enabled dealers to flood urban areas with. How can making it easier for, say, malicious crack kingpins to get their hands on guns be a step in the right direction? I argue in my op-ed on the Huffington Posttoday that while the way to get to the root of most social problems is to provide economic opportunity, it’s foolish to repeal gun control laws. Check it out hereand please share your comments.
Maybe the Telfon is from China?
zach:
so your advancing the idea that if the gun laws were more strict then people who possess guns to commit crimes with would be disinclined to posses guns?
it seems to me that if I was going to commit a crime with a gun it would hardly matter to me if I broke a second law to procure the gun, like say purchase it illegaly (black market).
laxer gun laws dont make it easier for crackaddicts to lay their shaking fingers on firearms, it makes it easier for me you and grandma to do so. that is why its a good thing, so when johnny smokesalot down the block comes at us we his illegaly aquired handgun we can respond in kind and at least have a ghost of a chance.
-dave patry
Was Rudy on anti-depressants in the days leading to 9/11, what with the prostate, marriage, and other problems?
so your advancing the idea that if the gun laws were more strict then people who possess guns to commit crimes with would be disinclined to posses guns?
No so much disinclined as simply imposibilited. Ilegal guns don't come smuggled throug the canadian border, but are plain legal guns gone down. Made in the USA, sold to people who come out to be criminals, without any records. Stop helping crime by making weapons so anonimously available. All illegal weapons were once clean. If they were stolen, less legal weapons means less stolen weapons. If they were purchased, control the previous owner.
Pablo.
How easy. If you want less inmigrants, begin by calling less inmigrants in. They come because they are wanted.
You know, I would be so happy if we could stop referring to this place as "Ground Zero."
i am still hacking up
smoke residues
from 12 sept 2001-
the day the wind changed
& then stopped.
dropping the death smog
on manhattan island.
it is about time
everybody
stops saying " 9 - 11 "
and call it
the first day of ww iii.
no one ever said
" 12 - 07 "
about
" pearl harbour day ".
" first we take manhattan - - -
- - - then we take Berlin. "
-Leonard Cohen
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I love this article!!!