Rudy Was Against English Being "Official Language" Before He Was For It
Wolf Blitzer just asked the GOP candidates to raise their hands if they oppose the idea of making English the country's official language. There's Rudy Giuliani, front and center, keeping his hands at his sides:
In other words, Rudy now favors making English the official language of the United States, right?
Ahhhh, but it turns out that Rudy hasn't always been in favor of this -- particularly back when he was Mayor of a city full of non-English-speaking immigrants. From The New York Times on August 14, 1996 (via Nexis):
Brushing aside the strong objections of Hispanic groups, the Suffolk County Legislature approved a resolution today that would make English the county's official language...The law would be the first of its kind in a New York county. Twenty-three states, 41 counties and 15 cities have passed similar measures, and a bill recognizing English as the official national language has been passed by the House of Representatives. A similar measure was defeated in Suffolk in 1989.
In New York City, Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has consistently opposed such measures. Earlier this month, he remarked, "There's no reason to pass a bill like this except, maybe, to exclude people, insult people or offend people."
Comments (12)
Doreen wrote on June 5, 2007 9:04 PM:So I guess Rudy doesn't mind excluding people, insulting people and offending people, if he thinks he gets to be president in the process. Nice to know.
marcNYC wrote on June 5, 2007 9:16 PM:Rudy, as he always has been, is in favor of whatever he thinks is best for advancing the career of Rudy at any given time.
Ebenezer wrote on June 5, 2007 11:10 PM:It's interesting how the R's are supposed to be the party of business. As an increasing number of large and small businesses look to exporting, more are becoming international in outlook and looking for multi-lingual workers who understand other cultures.
Here in Washington State, the idea of businesses automatically supporting the R's is increasingly becoming the thing of the past. This is especially true for businesses that require skilled workers and look upon a diverse workforce as a plus. English as the official language would make the U.S. look backwards to our current and potential trading partners.
gqmartinez wrote on June 5, 2007 11:42 PM:This is one of my pet peeves in politics: calling candidates by their first name that we most likely oppose. Giuliani is supposed to be this autocratic, power hungry person, but by repeatedly referring to him as "Rudy", he gets personalized, making him seem less harsh then he really is. If he is as big and bad as people say he is, why do progressives help him by constantly referring to him as "Rudy"?
mike valentine wrote on June 6, 2007 12:45 AM:Much shorter and easer than Guiliani.
whiterosebuddy wrote on June 6, 2007 7:32 AM:And the same goes for Hillary.
In 2000, after the election was stolen from Gore, Clinton told everyone at her campaign stops that the first thing she was going to do as a US Senator was get rid of the electoral college and that would be the first piece of legislation she introduced for a new amendment.
What is she saying today on the campaign trail? That the first thing she will do as President is end the war. Whatever is politically expedient is how she will express her current of political will so as to obfuscate her total failure to do what requires strength of conviction and courage.
Hillary never introduced legislation to end the electoral college and she will not end the war if she is President.
Her and Rudy are two peas in a pod.
marcNYC wrote on June 6, 2007 9:43 AM:I don't necessarily agree with your comments about Hillary, but they do clarify one major difference between how the media treats, and the public perceives, Rudy and Hillary.
Much of the media are prepared to pounce on any "flip flop" by Hillary in the same way the media feasted on John Kerry's inability to coherently articulate how policy positions might change over time. On the other hand, when Rudy does not hesitate to say whatever is politically expedient at any given moment, the media does not dare call him out. As long as he is allowed to promote himself as the King of 9/11 and to project the Saint Rudy image (he is actually a mean spirited, power hungry demagogue), he is a very dangerous candidate.
leon723 wrote on June 6, 2007 10:30 AM:You can't win for losing. People often refer to Hillary Clinton as "Hillary" on these boards, and from time to time get called out on it as engaging in a demeaning form of unconscious sexism. The move to have her always referred to as "Senator Clinton" stalled, however, when Hillary's official bumper stickers and the like just said, "Hillary!"
I try to ignore these side points.
leon723 wrote on June 6, 2007 10:33 AM:The irony is that the pre-2001 Rudy for all his faults is largely better than the current Rudy. Why, in 1996, Rudy's statement that "English only" proposals are divisive and exclusionary, sounded almost exactly like Obama's response to Wolf's similar "show of hands" question on Sunday.
By the way, how about show of hands for a proposal to abolish "show of hands" questions at these debates? I raise my hand in support.
whiterosebuddy wrote on June 6, 2007 10:51 AM:Much of the media are prepared to pounce on any "flip flop" by Hillary in the same way the media feasted on John Kerry's inability to coherently articulate how policy positions might change over time. On the other hand, when Rudy does not hesitate to say whatever is politically expedient at any given moment, the media does not dare call him out.
I strongly disagree with this assertion.
Both Hillary and Rudy get a free pass with their gaffes and flip-flops not being highlighted and repeated adinfinitum, at all. Kerry was mercilessly attacked for any minor tidbit that could be misconstrued and overblown. Hillary..naw. There is no press on how her stance on the war in the Senate supports Bush's policies. The press is not at all taking her to task for saying she wanted diplomacy first, yet voted against the Levin amendment preceeding the AUMF.
The mainstream press is also not calling her out for saying America is safer when the recommendations of the 9/11 commission have not been at all implemented and there was a report to the Senate in February that said just that. Hillary is allowed a free pass on her statements about this being Bush's war when she authorized giving him carte blanche. The media is not calling out Rudy nor Hillary. I wonder if it is all about NY, since Schumer jumped in the fray to defend Hillary's 'american is safer' comment.
Is it just that the public will not tolerate any politician from NY being held accountable given the tragedy of 9/11? Rudy, Schumer and Hillary are simply not being pounced on at all.
whiterosebuddy wrote on June 6, 2007 11:32 AM:however, when Hillary's official bumper stickers and the like just said, "Hillary!"
Yes, after all it is the height of celebrity status no? Once you become a household single name isn't that the epitome of 'superstar' status, ...thus...Oprah, Bono, Tiger, Ali, Rudy, Jordan..etc.
nascardaughter wrote on June 6, 2007 1:01 PM:Side note, but wouldn't it be nice to hear someone *celebrate* the fact that the U.S. doesn't have an official language, for a change, instead of always being on the defensive about it?
It's relatively rare for a nation to not have one or more official language(s). IMO, it's hecka cool that we don't have one.
And there's so little to celebrate about the US these days... if you're gonna do the "what makes America great" thing, as politicians so often do, this seems an excellent opportunity.
I sometimes wonder, if more people would talk about not having an official language nationwide as an interesting, cool thing about the U.S., would the proposals to change that come up as often?
Maybe they would. People do seem to have a strong drive to define groups linguistically, which they often extend to policing language at the national level.
But it would be nice to hear a non-defensive affirmation of the fact that the U.S. has no official language once in a while -- at the very least, it would probably change the terms of the debate when those proposals came up.
