My interview with Rudy Giuliani
Though my one-on-one sitdown with Giuliani is excerpted in today's paper, here is the full text of our chat:
Q (Bridget): California's early primary this year --A (Rudy): Good! Good!
Q: Do you think you're going to get the Arnold voters, the ones who went more the moderate route --
A: I think I'm going to get all Republicans! I don't think of it that way. I think of it as reaching out to all Republicans. We have strong support among all different kinds of Republicans, meaning Republicans who would describe themselves a little differently. I think we have the broadest support among the widest group of Republicans of any of the Republican candidates.
Q: And how do you see the Republicans in California?
A: Just like the Republicans in New York. Just like the Republicans in New Hampshire. Republicans are Republicans because of a number of things. They believe in strong national defense, they believe in fiscal conservatism, they believe in social conservatism, social values, there are a whole group of things that make a Republican. I'm appealing to them by not changing the views that are deeply held by trying to be who I am, by being as honest about that as I can express. And then I ask them to take a look at the whole package and if they agree with it, even if they disagree with a few things, to vote for me, because I believe in the old Ronald Reagan view -- my 80 percent friend is not my 20 percent enemy. And I think that will give us the best chance of defeating Hillary Clinton. If we try to replicate the prior ways in which we nominated candidates the last three or four times when we get ourselves down to one state. Well, first of all, California will be counted out. And I think, of the Republicans, I'm the candidate that has the best chance of winning California -- the general (election). And also the best chance of winning New York, some of the big states. And I think it would be good for everything, including American politics, to have a real active Republican-Democratic campaign in California next year.
Q: Candidates usually don't have a very good track record of showing up in California or spending much time here.
A: I think I've exceeded this year the number of appearances that any Republican candidate has made in California in the year before an election -- since Ronald Reagan, I suspect. I've been here 10 or 11 times. This is one of the states we've been in the most. We've been in San Francisco, we've been up in Napa, we've been in the Central Valley, we've been down in San Diego, of course we've been in Orange County, Los Angeles, we've been virtually all over the state in an effort to lay the groundwork for winning the primary Feb. 5 which we focused on going back to January. And because I truly believe that we have as good a chance as Hillary Clinton to win this state in November. And I honestly can tell you, if any of my opponents as a Republican is nominated they will close down their office in California the day after they get nominated. And I'm going to expand my office the day after I'm nominated.
Q: Have you talked with Gov. Schwarzenegger at all about any type of endorsement?
A: I talk to Gov. Schwarzenegger all the time, but obviously when you talk about endorsements you keep that confidential. The governor has to make his own decision. He's a good friend and I talk to him quite a bit.
Q: What kind of support have you received from any prominent figures in L.A.?A: Well, I've gotten the support of your ex-mayor -- Mayor (Richard) Riordan, he's been a strong supporter -- your ex-governor, Gov. (Pete) Wilson, Kurt Pringle, who's the mayor of Anaheim, Bill Simon, who was the former Republican candidate for governor, who won the Republican primary overwhelmingly -- he and Dick Riordan were opponents and they both support me.
Q: (LAPD Chief William) Bratton?
A: Well, Bill and I have talked several times. Bill's a Democrat, and I respect that.
Q: They're now saying that immigration reform is going to have to wait until after the 2008 election. Can it wait; should it wait?
A: I can't assess that. I mean, the legislative priorities are not something that I am privy to, so. I would say that it cannot wait to do border security and President Bush should be doing it right now. He should be expanding the size of the Border Patrol and building both the physical and the virtual or technological fence because it's a combination of both along the 2,000-mile border. And he should be making a significant effort to tighten up our borders so that the next president can get that job done as quickly as possible. I see the next year and two or three months as a period of time in which the president could be building the technological and physical fence, so it's a long way toward being built by the time the next president take over. If it's me, I will make sure it gets done as quickly as possible.
And then to hire the additional Border Patrol that's necessary because I would set up a “Borderstat” system similar to the COMPSTAT system we used in New York to deploy the Border Patrol based on the information that we get from the technological fence and technological equipment so the Border Patrol will only be waiting to stop people from coming over the border. Then I would set up a tamper-proof ID system so that everybody who came into the United States, the rule would be you have to identify yourself. The more progress we can make on that over the next year, year and a half, the faster we can get it done and the sooner we can look at real immigration reform. Because real immigration reform is premised on a very simple fact: We have to end illegal immigration. If we end illegal immigration, we can then look at the ways to expand legal immigration and allow the people who would otherwise come in illegally to change their behavior and for the ones who are good people who want to work, come in legally. And we'll have a tamper-proof ID system that will facilitate that.
The premise of it is to end illegal immigration. That has to happen.
Q: Can you do that?
A: I've been involved in one way or another dealing with this issue for 20-25 years. I understand maybe as clearly as anyone and I'm able to carry this out probably better than anyone. We have to end illegal immigration. And we should certainly not give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, like Hillary Clinton proposed. That would be a very big mistake. As she finally agreed with after agreeing disagreeing with it, agreeing with it, and then agreeing with it again. She's taken four or five different positions on it, so check the last position. I think the last position is that she agrees with giving out licenses to illegal immigrants, but would leave it up to each state to decide. She thinks it's a good idea.
Q: Part of your appeal has been with wooing moderate voters, the growing undecided block with each election. What does the endorsement of Pat Robertson say about that?
A: It says I can reach out to all voters.
Q: Considering some of the controversial things he's said, though, about Ariel Sharon, about gays --
A: Remember that in getting his endorsement I haven't changed any position. Unlike some other candidates who have had dramatic changes in position in the last year or two, I haven't changed any position. Pat endorsed me for the three reasons that are very clear and are very important. He endorsed me because he believes I'd be the strongest in dealing with the Islamic terrorist threat against America, that I would handle the War on Terror better than anyone else, he endorsed me because he thinks I'd be the best at restraining spending and lower taxes. Frankly, I'm the only one who has a record of doing that. And third, he felt that I would be the best in appointing judges. Those are the three reasons he endorsed me. He hasn't had to change any of his positions; I haven't had to change any of mine. It's a straight-out, honest assessment that in those three areas, I would be the strongest. And that's why I think I have the broadest possible appeal. Because I don't have to change my positions to get wide support. I can be myself.
Leave a comment