Rudy's litmus test

[SeanEdwards]

I just saw a clip from one of the debates where Rudy was talking about the immigration bill that's currently being fought over. At one point Rudy says "the litmus test of any legislation should be: "does it make things better?"

I must not have noticed the first time I saw him say this, but seeing this clip suddenly reminded me of Ron Paul's main litmus test for legislation, which is of course "is it allowed by the Constitution?" I thought that was an interesting contrast, and here is Rudy, saying straight out of his own mouth, what his criteria for supporting legislation is.

I think that it might be worthwhile for the Paul campaign to directly attack this Rudy quote. Maybe by having Paul recommend some books on civics to Rudy. I wonder if there is an "Idiot's guide to being President" book on the market.

[ElGreco]

I think that might be a risky strategy because I'm sure someone would see it as "Ron Paul attacks Giuliani because he wants to make things better" or something.

[nayjevin]

it could be a good angle if treated properly.

my first impression is that i would handle it this way:

What's wrong with 'if it makes things better, do it?'

Well, we can't predict the future, so we don't know what will make things better. The forefathers, in their infinite wisdom, gave us a guideline for deciding what types of legislation will make things better, and they decided to let each state decide what's best for themselves what would make their state better. Unfortunately, Rudy, what's best for New York might not be best for Iowa.

Sumpin like that.

[beermotor]

Makes things better for whom?

Always point out: WHO BENEFITS, and WHO PAYS. You may find out that the qui bono is reasonable and OK, but the payees are not going to be pleased.

Often, who benefits = politicians and their lobbyists and who pays = YOU AND ME.