16 Comments

• 1. neocon  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:03 pm

  Do you think there was a chance that Mr. Spitzer received a call from Mr. Clinton urging him to abandon this program until AFTER the election?

  I do.

• 2. Retired Spook  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:23 pm

  Neocon,

  I’d bet on it. Wouldn’t you love to have a recording of that call? Talk about a great campaign commercial.

• 3. Joe  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:29 pm

  Let me just say first of all, I will not vote for Hillary, I like others that are running and not at all a fan of her.
  Second of all, I agree that illegals should NOT get a drivers license.

  Let me also say that neocon and spook, you guys sound like a couple of gossiping women at a tea party. If you have proof Hillary or anyone else had something to do with Spitzer changing course, show it.

  Spitzer said:
  “It does not take a stethoscope to hear the pulse of New Yorkers on this topic.”

  Without proof of anything else, you take that at face value.

  Imagine if our PRESIDENT listened to the pulse of the American people. Maybe we’d be better off.

• 4. Bigfoot  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:48 pm

  Imagine if our PRESIDENT listened to the pulse of the American people. Maybe we’d be better off.

  When it comes to immigration policy, I couldn’t agree more. The American people (generally speaking) do not want amnesty for illegals, at least until our borders are secure, no matter what kind of pretty words (such as “comprehensive immigration reform”) are used to dress it up.

• 5. kjstrouble  |  November 14th, 2007 at 5:52 pm

  You mean you want a president who does what the most current poll says the people want? If so, Hillary is your canidate. If you want one who will do what his morals and ethics say is right, look to the right.

• 6. Retired Spook  |  November 14th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

  Neocon, would you care for a spot of TEA? Heh, heh.

• 7. TiredofLibBullShit  |  November 14th, 2007 at 7:42 pm

  News flash!!!!

  Hillary has just come out AGAINST driver’s licenses for illegals and she is glad that Gov. Spitzer has withdrawn the proposal.

  What was her position last week? For it……http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/a-day-later-clinton-embraces-spitzers-license-effort/

  At the debate? for it…against it….neither….for it…against it….neither……

  It is too convenient that Spitzer dropped it and just before another debate. It has suddenly become a non-issue.

• 8. Joe  |  November 14th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

  Actually no kjs. I am not for someone who is following polls, but someone who is in synch with the public would certainly be a good thing… especially if you are as far out of whack with public opinion as much as this President.

  Spook, you left out the crumpets… maybe a cucumber sandwich?

• 9. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 11:15 am

  Spook,

  More crumpets please.

  Isn’t it also interesting how liberals will ask for proof of any minor negative assertion directed towards their der leaders, yet feel comfortable themselves in hurling insults and baseless accusation towards others regardless of the facts.

• 10. Retired Spook  |  November 15th, 2007 at 11:39 am

  Neocon,

  I was thinking maybe “green” tea with the crumpets. I dont’ know whether or not “interesting” is the right word; I guess it’s probably the kindest word one could use to describe people like Joe. I did get somewhat of a chuckle, though, from his assertion that he wants his elected representatives to be “in sync[h] with the public, but not follow the polls. I guess now we have to add clairvoyance to the list of qualifications for elected office.

• 11. Joe  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:23 pm

  I’m not asking for clairvoyance. All I can hope for is that if 70% close to ¾’s of America want something, I would hope that the President is at least part of that ¾’s. Otherwise, that tells me that President is out of touch with the rest of the public. If only say 50% felt one way and the President was on the other side, I would have no problem with it.
  neocon, I’ve read this blog long enough to read comments by SO MANY posters here including you to prove certain assertions. I read it all the time around here. So when you and Spook start claiming that Hillary had something to do with this, why shouldn’t we ask for proof of what you claim?
  I was simply making the point that you two were like gossiping women.

• 12. Sunny  |  November 15th, 2007 at 3:48 pm

  kjstrouble | November 14th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
  If you want one who will do what his morals and ethics say is right, look to the right.

  Who determines if the person’s morals and ethics are “moral and ethical”? That is a judgment call that each of us makes regarding everyone from our spouse to the President of the United States. What one finds moral or ethical, another does not. And to imply that there are only moral and ethical persons on the right doesn’t hold water. Ther are persons on both the left and right who are moral and ethical, and on both sides that are neither. To answer my own question, we each make our own decisions as to who we consider a moral and ethical person.

• 13. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:00 pm

  Joe,

  That would be two “good looking” gossiping women.

  But just an aside:

  Top Democrats fear that Gov. Spitzer’s controversial plan to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens has endangered their party’s candidates across the state — and even threatens the presidential prospects of Hillary Rodham Clinton, The Post has learned.
  A half-dozen senior Democrats told The Post that Spitzer’s licensing plan is producing what one called “a mass exodus” away from the party’s candidates that may lead to unexpected losses in November’s local elections.

  They are also warning that growing voter unhappiness with Spitzer on the licensing and other issues - illustrated in several recent polls - could carry into next year and end the Democrats’ hope of winning control of the GOP-dominated state Senate.

  “The driver’s-license issue is a killer for us in the suburbs,” a senior party strategist said. . . .

  neocon, I’ve read this blog long enough to read comments by SO MANY posters here including you to prove certain assertions. - Joe

  Joe,

  I don’t even know what that means.

• 14. Sunny  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

  I believe that the Republicans can win this election if they promise to close the borders and enforce the existing immigration laws. With things improving in Iraq, and if it continue to improve, the war may not be as big of an issue as it is at this time. I do believe the economy is going to become a bigger issue in the coming months. With such high gas prices, and the impact that has on everything else (food, clothing, heating homes, etc) foreclosures, the dollar loosing value, and other economic issues, I believe illegal immigration and the economy may become the two most important issues to voters. The Democratic Party’s stand on illegal immigration is going to hurt them a great deal.

• 15. Joe  |  November 15th, 2007 at 4:46 pm

  “That would be two “good looking” gossiping women. ”
  — so which has the bigger… nevermind.

  Thanks for the article. That wasn’t so difficult, right? It still doesn’t say anywhere that the Clinton’s were behind it, but it does say “top democrats”. So fair enough.
  I’m glad it got shut down one way or the other.

  You can go back to your tea now.

• 16. neocon  |  November 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pm

  Good analysis sunny.

  The economy is the x factor. The Dems will have lost on Iraq by next summer, both parties are not strong on illegal immigration, so the economy will be the harbinger.

  The election will depend on which direction the economy swings and which party articulates a coherent illiegal immigration policy

Matt Margolis on Twitter