Its interesting that we think alike :)…

Doesn’t Romney have a city called Cambridge in his state that refuses to recognize federal immigration laws?

Why hasn’t he sent the Mass. National Guard there to crack some heads?

Would Romney allow any city in his state to become a sanctuary from any law or is it only immigration laws that he feels aren’t worth enforcing?

Perchant on February 13, 2007 at 11:08 PM

Ecuse me, Romney isnt Gov of Ma. anymore.

0.0

(they are every where!!!)

-Wasteland Man

Doesn’t Romney have a city called Cambridge in his state that refuses to recognize federal immigration laws?

Why hasn’t he sent the Mass. National Guard there to crack some heads?

Would Romney allow any city in his state to become a sanctuary from any law or is it only immigration laws that he feels aren’t worth enforcing?

To leave off the word “illegal” is in fact “intellectually dishonest

No, the word illegal is not there because Romney was not talking about illegals. His platform makes a large distinction between illegals and legals which Bush doesnt.

There’s only one possible way that you make the U.S. less attractive to illegals, and that’s to take away all of the benefits they are currently given for free. Benefits such as free medical, free educations, jobs, free college tuition, free food, and deportation in place of prosecution. Please give Romney a call and ask him if he plans to take any of that away

You have failed to even read about Romney before commenting. He vetoed in state tuition for illegals. He was in favor of state troopers arresting illegals. He was in favor of system for employers to more easily check if people are illegal. He was in favor of English immersion and MA has abandoned teaching en Espanol by ballot initiative.

he favors states rights
… SO DOES BUSH
I disagree with that – federal expansion everywhere

is against judicial lawmaking
… SO IS BUSH
lip service only to get his friends on the bench (Myers?), Romney has been in entrenched battles on the subject

calls the Jihad threat what it is
… SO DOES BUSH
No bush has spent years waging war against a strategy (terrorism) instead of a philosophy (jihad)

has proven fiscal concervative track record
… HUH?
seems pretty straight forward

besides all that he is a great politician who can can often outmanuver a hostile legislature
… So was Clinton. Does that mean anything
So you want another President like Bush who can’t convince the opposition in congress that water is wet?

The guy who gave us Anton Scalia

I don’t get it. Are you knocking Scalia as being liberal? Am I missing something? If only ALL judges could be Scalias.

Gregor your selective highlights are intelectually dishonest. He said in that quote he wants to secure the border and make living in the US less attractive to illegals.

Maybe you’re not sure what “intellectually dishonest” means. I included the entire quote and bolded the important part.
Both portions you mentioned were included in my comment. I bolded part of it to show the tricky word games that Romney uses to make it appear that he’s tough on immigration, just as Bush does. There’s nothing dishonest about this. If so, anyone who bolds a portion of a statement would be inellectually dishonest.

You however, do in fact purposely leave off the meaningful part of the quote which you post. You write …

He said in that quote he wants to secure the border and make living in the US less attractive to illegals.

His actual quote was …

We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders

Yes, bolded section is mine. Notice anything familiar in that line to the Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” plan? How about the words … “reform the current immigration laws?”

There’s nothing about a wall, which is what I said. Romney’s plan is to CHANGE THE LAWS in order to actually make the illegals … LEGAL.

Nice.

As for the second portion of that quote …

make living in the US less attractive to illegals.

How exactly do you do that? There’s only one possible way that you make the U.S. less attractive to illegals, and that’s to take away all of the benefits they are currently given for free. Benefits such as free medical, free educations, jobs, free college tuition, free food, and deportation in place of prosecution.

Please give Romney a call and ask him if he plans to take any of that away. I think you know the answer. And with that being said, can you think of ANY other way you make the U.S. LESS attractive to illegals? Less attractive than say … MEXICO?

Moreover he is focusing on making immigrants become Americans instead of permenant underclass guestworkers.

Once again … making (illegal) immigrants become Americans instead of underclass guestworkers. Sounds familiar. To leave off the word “illegal” is in fact “intellectually dishonest. That’s mysteriously the same tactic pro-illegals use, conveniently labeling anti-illegal groups as anti-immigrant groups, in effect classifying them as racists.

How is there any question this is to the right of Bush?

It’s the same Bush plan. No difference. Please explain the difference between Romney’s immigration plan, to Bush’s.

he favors states rights

… SO DOES BUSH

is against judicial lawmaking

… SO IS BUSH

calls the Jihad threat what it is

… SO DOES BUSH

has proven fiscal concervative track record

… HUH?

wants to secure the border and enact tamper proof documentation and employment verification system

… SO SAYS BUSH.

besides all that he is a great politician who can can often outmanuver a hostile legislature

… So was Clinton. Does that mean anything?

Or are we giving Reagan a pass on his amnesty plan that got us where we are today?

JackStraw on February 13, 2007 at 7:11 PM

If the “But Reagan did it” argument validates a new amnesty today, will the next amnesty proposal 10 years from now be validated by “But Reagan and Bush did it”?

Would it be possible in the future for Republicans to stand against any subsequent amnesty proposal ( or if you prefer: “comprehensive immigration reform” that legalizes millions of illegal aliens ) being offered by a Democrat president if the Republicans were responsible for the previous two?

I’m not sayin’ Romney’s definitely Mr. Right, rather he’s Mr. Right Now ; )

Politics is the art of the possible.

Otto Von Bismark

Way too many personal & political skeletons in his closet.

I’m not sayin’ Romney’s definitely Mr. Right, rather he’s Mr. Right Now ; )

Reagan’s hard right conservative values? You mean the divorced and remarried Reagan? The guy who signed abortion legislation as Gov of CA? The guy who gave us Anton Scalia (big ups) and Anthony Kennedy (pretty mediocre). The guy who spent the first half of his life as a self-proclaimed FDR Democrat? It was Reagan who coined the whole “I didn’t leave the Dem Party, the Party left me”. There’s a lot more including his escalation of international debt to historic heights.

Point is Reagan did a lot of great things but he was not the perfect saint people try to make him out to be. And he also had the great fortune to run against Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Reagan owes a great deal of his legacy not just to the fall of the Soviet Union but also to the disaster that was Jimmy Carter. If Hillary or Obama becomes our next President, you might have a different idea who is acceptable to succeed either one of them.

he favors states rights
is against judicial lawmaking
calls the Jihad threat what it is
has proven fiscal concervative track record
wants to secure the border and enact tamper proof documentation and employment verification system
besides all that he is a great politician who can can often outmanuver a hostile legislature

I think you are detached from reality if you think you are going to get a president elecected more concervative then those issues

We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically enabled, tamper proof documentation and employment verification system, and increase legal immigration into America.

Governor Romney: “We need to make America more attractive for legal immigrants – for citizens — and less attractive for illegal immigrants. I want to see more immigration in our country, but more legal immigration and less illegal immigration.”

Sounds a lot like Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Doesn’t it?

Nothing about the wall.

INCREASE immigration?

Make immigration MORE attractive? How do we do that? Offer MORE benefits? Do we really need to do anything more to make immigration to this country more attractive? What’s the problem exactly? Are people canceling their applications?

Wake up! You’re being conned AGAIN!

Yes…by all means argue for those values and convictions and see where it gets you.

Meanwhile, this weak-kneed conservative will be looking for a candidate who best represents Reagan’s big-tent GOP values.

In other words, a candidate who can win the hearts and minds of the majority and not the minority.

I’ve grown weary of the “us and them” mentality in this country. I’m looking for someone who can bring the majority of us and them together again.

I have a dream.

The Ugly American on February 13, 2007 at 5:57 PM

When you say “the majority” … are you referring to the majority of Americans, or the majority of conservatives? Because I’m not sure where you’re going with this. Reagan brought the majority of Americans together through rock solid conservative values. That’s what it’s going to take again.

Romney is no Reagan. Romney is further left than Bush is, and Giuliani (other than military issues) might be even with Hillary. Many will argue this, but I think his record speaks for itself. And before anyone brings it up, yes … I’d vote for both Giuliani or Romney in the general election before I’d vote for Hillary. But I’m not sure we’d be getting much difference in the end.

If you’re referring to the majority of “conservatives” … then you’re still off, because it’s views such as Giuliani, McCain, and Romney’s, along with the actions of Bush that have torn the Republican base apart. Again, it’s going to take rock solid conservative actions to bring us all together again.

If you think Giuliani or Romney will bring the conservative base together, you’re dead wrong. They are both further left than Bush and will tear us apart even more than we are.

If you think they will bring “Americans” together, all I can do is scratch my head. Liberals will go off the deep end if anyone representing the GOP should manage to win another election. If you think the divide it bad now, just wait to see what happens if they lose in 2008.

There’s only two men currently running that would be able to stand next to Reagan. That’s Gingrich and Tancredo. And except for the un-deserved bad rep Tancredo has been given, I would put him in front of Gingrich due to Newt’s hypocritical infidelity, although … those who want to bash him on that will be guilty of hypocrisy themselves if they then claim to support Giuliani.

Reagan would turn over in his grave if he felt he was being compared to Giuliani or Romney.

Mitt could have stopped the gay marriage process if he’d so desired.INC on February 13, 2007 at 4:05 PM

I didn’t read that blog but I already know that isnt correct. Romney was a strong critic of policy making by the judiciary. I’m no lawyer, but he invoked some rule/law that said the legislature was forced to vote on the gay marriage issue. They failed to do so, and this was reported (even in the hostile local press) that the legislature was not following the law.

If judges is your issue, you are simply uninformed if you dont already know Romney is the most concervative person in the race on the issue. He complained again and again that democracy was being subverted and the law and state consitution was not being followed. It seems to me he did everything he could on the issue, short of storm the legislature with state troopers.