Hot Air Audio: Michelle interviews Gov. Mitt Romney

posted at 2:46 pm on August 17, 2007 by Bryan

Immigration and border security are now at the center of the GOP presidential race. Hot Air spoke with Gov. Mitt Romney about sanctuary cities, Rudy Giuliani’s response to his criticism of NYC’s illegal alien safe haven policy, homeland security, ID cards, CAIR, and civil liberties, among other related topics. We’d of course welcome the opportunity to hear from Giuliani about these issues. Thanks to the Romney campaign for taking the time to speak to Hot Air’s audience.

Part 1:

Part 2:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

where do we draw the line.
conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:38 AM

I would like to draw the line after fully automatic weapons. It pisses me off that if I want to own some really cool gun pron, it’ll cost me upwards of $7,000 just to own it. Restricting grenades, claymores and the like is not unreasonable.

But having said that, I can temporarily live with the AWB as an alternative to a full-on weapons ban. Hopefully we can get it changed one day, but for now, I can certainly defend my home with my:

M1A
AR-15
Model 590 (2)
.45 1911 pistol (2)
9mm Sig
Model 1894 30-30
Remington 270
Stoger .22 cal Luger
Ruger 10-22
3 .22 rifles

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Now that doesn’t fit with anyone who places a greater value on one of the bill of rights over others. We have several folks here who think the 2nd amendment has greater weight than any other right. They think any restrictions on that right, regardless of it’s basis in rationality, means the candidate is a RINO.

RINO’s do exist, but the only person I would put firmly in that camp is Rudy. But even at that, he’s better than any dem any day of the week and I will vote for him in the primary if he polls best against the front running dem.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 8:23 AM

The Second Amendment should be held a little higher than the others, as it makes us citizens…. not subjects.

But I do thank you for your support. And I do agree and support your right to disagree.

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:57 AM

But having said that, I can temporarily live with the AWB as an alternative to a full-on weapons ban. Hopefully we can get it changed one day, but for now, I can certainly defend my home with my:

M1A
AR-15
Model 590 (2)
.45 1911 pistol (2)
9mm Sig
Model 1894 30-30
Remington 270
Stoger .22 cal Luger
Ruger 10-22
3 .22 rifles

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Well you better cherish them my friend. As I will mine. Because there are some folks out there in Republican dress that would take them from you.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:57 AM

After numerous pints of Guiness tonight, I finally figured out why the Massachussets contingent here is so slavishly devoted to FlipFlop Mitt and so adamantly opposed to the only conservative Republican front-runner: The Kennedys, Kerry, the inherent elitism…. you think your state deserves a president, no matter what his lack of Republican credentials. Pity for you most of the country sees through the facade.

Hollowpoint on August 18, 2007 at 3:16 AM

Hollowpoint,

No wonder you keep talking about flying pigs. See them much? How about pink elephants? You think “most of the country” is floating this crazy theory of yours around? Time for an intervention, Dude!

By the way, I happen to be from the Northeast but where I come from we call people from Massachussets “Massholes”, but that’s mostly because they are lousy drivers. I also loathe the Kennedys and Kerry, and I would venture to guess that Mitt’s Massachusetts supporters at H.A. have a similar revulsion for them and the liberal “elites”. Indeed, those “elites” are the first ones to think of Mormonism as a disease that threatens mankind, so how do you square that with your wacky theories?

Oh, and I am not “adamantly opposed” to Fred. I just think he’s exudes laziness, and supported one of the worst pieces of legislation ever devised, McCain-Fiengold. Free speech is a huge issue for me, and the idea that money by its nature is always corrupt, or that one can remove money from politics, is a loony Left concept IMO.

How could Flip Flop Fred have supported that as a “conservative”? Doesn’t that bother you? Are YOU a true conservative? Ha Ha Ha.

Buy Danish on August 18, 2007 at 8:57 AM

…but for now, I can certainly defend my home with my:

M1A
AR-15
Model 590 (2)
.45 1911 pistol (2)
9mm Sig
Model 1894 30-30
Remington 270
Stoger .22 cal Luger
Ruger 10-22
3 .22 rifles

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 8:51 AM

Sounds like your weekends are fun.

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Sounds like your weekends are fun.

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Really, I want to go over and play at csdeven’s house.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:01 AM

Hollowpoint on August 18, 2007 at 3:16 AM

Keep drinking till you make sense.

Did his Mormonism come up much when he ran for Governor, and if so, how was it handled? And is what happens in a Governor’s race relevant to a run for the Presidency?

Buy Danish on August 17, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Sorry for the delay, had to watch the Jets get clobbered. Yes, it came up but not to the extent it is now. I think the answer is both simple and depressing. First, people in MA had a pretty good idea who Romney was. He was a star in the business community for some time. People were well aware of how he turned around the Salt Lake Olympics when they were on the verge of disaster, for example. He got a lot of support for his ability in the private sector as an executive who knew how to make things happen. When his religion did come up he was able to explain that his religion was for him and did not affect how he would govern and he even got off some great self-deprecating jokes. Amazingly enough, when Romney was governor tabernacles didn’t start springing up on every street corner and we weren’t forced to convert. The budget got balanced and large problems like the Big DIg got handled.

Second, MA is an overwhelmingly Democratic state. Independents and Dems care a lot less about religion, that’s just the truth. Romney only has a Mormon problem in the primary. If he gets by that it will be much less an issue. I would put more money on Romney winning debates with crucial independent voters against Hillary than I would on the Pats taking the AFC East again this year.

I’m not sure what happens in a governor’s race is as significant as what governors and mayors do in office. The reason they tend to have more of a record for the press to examine and pick apart is because they actually have to make things happen. They have to govern. They have budgets to deal with, real everyday problems to solve. Senators and Reps have no such burden. They can sit in Congress for years with nary a piece of legislation to their credit. They don’t have to be an executive. Consequently, when they run for president their is less of a paper trail and they can pretend they are whatever they want to be. It’s also a good reason why Senators almost never get elected President. They can debate all day, they just don’t know how to lead.

Look at Reagan’s record as governor. He would be somewhere between Rudy and Romney on the RINO meter. He governed a purple state and he had to get things done. But he is now revered as a conservative god (although that’s debatable) for what he did as President. If a guy who was at first derided as a dim bulb actor from Hollywood can get the nomination, I’m pretty sure the Mormon thing can be overcome if handled properly.

As to the whole north south thing, Carter, Clinton, Bush…. some of us northerners are getting pretty sick of southern governors, too.

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:02 AM

Kinda hard to do nowadays with shotguns and deer rifles huh?
conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:50 AM

Good point, but what can you afford that can compete against a M1 Abrams? How about an F-15? A Bradley?

If the government wanted to, just their superior weapons and tactics would take care of most of us, especially if we had no outside help. And really, what country would we accept help from? China? Russia? Iran? No, we would rather die than turn this country over to commies and jihadists, regardless of our governments actions. And Great Britain, Australia, Japan, and Canada would be no match against the US.

The best chance we have to stop the government from taking us over by force is the citizens they would have to use to man the army and equipment. It wouldn’t happen.

I find this concern about the government taking us over kind of an over-reach when the exact same people criticize the left for complaining about wire taps. Wire taps are not infringing on our rights, and that would be one of the first steps (taking all guns a very close second) before the government tried to suppress us by military force.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 9:03 AM

I find this concern about the government taking us over kind of an over-reach when the exact same people criticize the left for complaining about wire taps. Wire taps are not infringing on our rights, and that would be one of the first steps (taking all guns a very close second) before the government tried to suppress us by military force.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 9:03 AM

I don’t think it is that much of an “over-reach”. I don’t want to sound like a “right wing milita nutball” here. But I have become firmly convinced after looking at the changes and debates that have taken place over the last 60 years that we are only a generation or so away from a Hugo Chaves (sp) type of populist ruler getting elected and then being in a postion to take all of our rights. We are not that far away my friend. That is why we need to push not only for a strong conservitive to run the country but one that is willing to fight the good fight and roll back government control over our lives. Unfortunatly I have yet to find that candidate.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Sounds like your weekends are fun.

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 8:59 AM

Expensive too. :-)

I just bought my M1A last night. My son is at Fort Campbell and comes home Sept 1st for his sisters wedding. We will take a few hours to go shoot some crap up. They issued two M-14′s to his unit a couple months ago and gave them to the two new guys. He was pissed! He mans the SAW, and that’s fun, but he got to shoot the M-14 this past week and he loved it. I’m not sure how the sniper OP’s are set up, but he has been selected to be a part of a 6 man sniper OP team when he deploys mid sept.

Anyway, mine has the synthetic stock, and we’re gonna camo it when he gets home. I want to do the entire gun, but I’m not sure what paint I can use that will stick and not void the warranty.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 9:15 AM

Dangerous turf man. I understand what you are saying and agree to some point but where do we draw the line. If a majority of the American people (or the government) believe that speech can be dangerous, what happens then? Time for more comprimise? I think not. Once you start trampling on any of our rights you open the door to a pandora’s box that can result in a downward spiral and the loss of all of our rights.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 8:38 AM

We do compromise on free speech. There have been limits that have been upheld by the SC. Schneck v. US, Brandenburg v. Ohio, etc.

It’s a myth to say that the Constitution can’t ever be amended or have limits put on individual rights. The Constitution originally called allowed for slavery and made blacks a percentage of a person. A few hundred thousand people had to die but that got changed, too.

The Constitution always needs to be weighed against the times and changes in society. It’s a great document, not a perfect one and it sure ain’t a suicide pact.

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:18 AM

but he has been selected to be a part of a 6 man sniper OP team when he deploys mid sept.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 9:15 AM

God Bless him, please thank him for me, for his service.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:19 AM

Romney won some points with me in this interview. Thanks MM for good questions and thanks Gov. Romney for your time and your answers.

I understand that American businesses needs workers but I draw the line, a hard line, at illegal workers. The American way is that those who take cuts in line go to the back of the line and that’s exactly what the cheater illegal workers will need to do, go home and take their place at the back of the line to come here. The would be immigrants who are doing it right and honestly and legally should all be in front of them in line to come here as guest workers or for citizenship and I welcome them here.

Buzzy on August 18, 2007 at 9:24 AM

made blacks a percentage of a person.
JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:18 AM

An off topic point here but it was northern states that insisted on that to restrict the political power of the south. And it had nothing to do with the “war of northern aggression”

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Conservnut,

We do have some reasonable restrictions on Free Speech, such as “community standards” or yelling fire in a crowded theatre. We also have unreasonable restrictions such as McCain-Feingold and the dangerously Orwellian “hate speech” laws.

Which illustrates that the Second Amendment is open to some reasonable restrictions, but we have to be careful that those restrictions don’t become unreasonable.

And while you may want a gun to protect your family from intruders (or to protect against tyranny, should it ever come to that), your neighbor might be a gangsta loading up on AK 47s to terrorize the neighborhood (or an Al Qaeda cell member for that matter).

It is a fine balance, but I would tend to be wary of people who say that the Second Amendment forbids any and all restrictions on gun ownership.

As to exactly what restrictions are reasonable, well, there’s the rub!

Buy Danish on August 18, 2007 at 9:27 AM

An off topic point here but it was northern states that insisted on that to restrict the political power of the south. And it had nothing to do with the “war of northern aggression”

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Au Contraire. It had to do with the expansion of slavery into the territories and the souths demand to extend it into areas it was never intended to go. That and fugitive slave laws. It was also a war started by the south at Fort Sumter. But you’re correct, a topic for another thread.

My point is simple. The Constitution has been amended before and limits to our rights have been enacted and upheld.

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:29 AM

Buy Danish on August 18, 2007 at 9:27 AM

I completely agree with you. I am just saying that we have to keep in mind throughout all of these disscusions what the oringinal intent was and be very careful of any changes that are made. Good intentions have done more harm to freedom than any enemy.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:31 AM

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:29 AM

You are right, another fuss for another time. If Allah wants that thousand comment post he should start that up sometime.

And again, I just think we should be careful. We have had some very bad ammendments too you know.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:35 AM

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:35 AM

I agree. Interestingly, Ronald Reagan lobbied hard for the assault weapons ban but nobody seems to be upset about that.

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:37 AM

but he has been selected to be a part of a 6 man sniper OP team when he deploys mid sept.
csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 9:15 AM
God Bless him, please thank him for me, for his service.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:19 AM

And that goes for me too. He may be looking out for me at night. Our boys have nailed a few baddies around here. All I can say is, “Keep up the good work.”

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 9:54 AM

My son is at Fort Campbell and comes home Sept 1st for his sisters wedding.

csdeven

Let’s not forget the last part. A son in the Army and a daughter getting married in a few weeks. Congratulations!

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Yep, congratulations are also in order. Best wishes to both of them, and the (justifiably so) proud parents.

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 9:54 AM

And thanks to you too Nick.

Love to stay and play guys, but I am moving into a new house this weekend, gotta get to work.

I will be back about Monday

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Oh, and congrats to your daughter too cs. I guess you are in the poor house now?

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Amazingly enough, when Romney was governor tabernacles didn’t start springing up on every street corner and we weren’t forced to convert.

JackStraw on August 18, 2007 at 9:02 AM

JackStraw,

And he didn’t try to get Polygamy legalized, or lower the age of consent to age 12, or promote incest – like the Mormons who have been excommunicated from the Mormon Church? Who’dahtunkit?!

Seriously, thanks for the interesting response. As an aside, I think that Mitt’s youngest son Craig is a huge asset to his campaign, since he is a little less buttoned-up looking than his older brothers, works as a music producer, is incredibly charming and handsome, and thus is hugely appealing to first time voters – many of whom may not have decided yet even which political Party they want to join.

Good intentions have done more harm to freedom than any enemy.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:31 AM

Conservut,

Yep, the road to hell is paved with them, and political-correctness is the most dangerous “good intention” of all. Although it can be argued that it isn’t even a good intention, but a deliberate attempt to silence the opposition by insidious and incremental means, to turn our traditional concepts of right and wrong upside down, and gain a final victory for Marxism, err, Progressives.

Buy Danish on August 18, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Thanks to everyone. I am very proud of them.

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Woops, make that “Conservnut”.

csdeven,

Congratulations!

Buy Danish on August 18, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Do you know what year the 14th amendment was ratified?
HYTEAndy on August 17, 2007 at 11:35 PM

Some argue that the 14th Amend. was never properly ratified because the Southern States were under duress when forced to ratify it. However, the Supreme Court has utilized it in their jurisprudence since its inception so I think that this is a moot point.

Troy Rasmussen on August 18, 2007 at 11:46 AM

Mitt! for President!

Thanks Bryan for posting this.

:-)

Darnell Clayton on August 18, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Is it just me or doesn’t Michelle look oh-so-cute with that cap and headset?

infidel4life on August 18, 2007 at 3:39 AM

And your point is?

OF COURSE she looks cute. Those little Filipina gals look cute even when they wear a burlap sack. In fact, they look cute even if they wear clothing that is made out of the living room draperies. That’s just the way it is. Get used to it. I know. I married one of those cute litte Filipina gals.

As for Mitt, I’ve been pretty quiet about his candidacy. Time to weigh-in I guess. Even though I’m not a fan of his religious faith (I could never be Mormon myself), I COULD vote for him and I would enthusiastically support his bid for POTUS (without reservation). If it turns out that he is the nominee, I will do what I can to help him get elected. Hillary simply MUST NOT be allowed to return to the White House.

Like others already pointed out here, Reagan wasn’t perfect either. I just hope and pray that Mitt doesn’t betray conservatives the way that the Bush family has. The most disturbing thing about Mitt is the fact the he had changed his stance on some issues, NOT his Mormon religious faith.
Keep in mind that he’s not running for supreme religious leader, he’s running for President. We’d be sending him to Washington D.C. to do a secular job. I believe that he HAS the qualifications to that job quite well.

CyberCipher on August 18, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I like Mitt’s effectiveness in organization, moving his machine ahead and especially in his being on message.

It’s obvious why he has been successful.

Speaking of deceit coming from our current administration.

Immigration authorities conceding crackdown not as tough as expected

By Javier Erik Olvera and Lisa Friedman
MediaNews
Article Launched: 08/16/2007 06:37:21 PM PDT

A week after unveiling a major crackdown on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, the Bush administration is now conceding that its most heavily touted weapon in pursuing employers – an assault against Social Security fraud – will be nearly useless.

That’s because when the Social Security Administration warns employers about bogus identification numbers, it remains barred from also alerting the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that’s supposed to hand out penalties.

In addition, federal promises to hold companies responsible for hiring illegal immigrants could potentially be stymied by several other issues: Employers are still not required to check a new employee’s Social Security number against a free federal database, there could be long gaps between when an employee is hired to when the warnings are issued each year, and there is no way to follow up on employees who have been fired. In many cases, illegal workers could still hop from job to job without being caught.

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_6643369?nclick_check=1

Speakup on August 18, 2007 at 3:40 PM

These Mitt? threads would be much more entertaining if you’d recruit some one-note Nancy to constantly leap into every one of them and repeat the same anti-Mitt? points over and over.

C’mon. Anybody? There’s got to be a knee-jerk Mitt hater out there somewhere. Step up and do your thing. It’s a long time ’til 2008 and I need the entertainment.

Hey … I heard he’s Mormon. No, rilly. Fer shure. That should get you started.

Professor Blather on August 18, 2007 at 5:24 PM

The flying pigs will be awesome too.

Hollowpoint on August 17, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Oh. Oops. We have one! Never mind. Thanks for volunteering.

Professor Blather on August 18, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Can you say where you are at? I know what FOB he will be at, but not much else. He’s 19 and is perfectly content with the information they give him. Me, I’m an information junkie. It drives him crazy, all the questions I ask. :-)

csdeven on August 18, 2007 at 5:55 PM

As long as Tancredo is Veep.

Like Cheney to GWB?

profitsbeard on August 18, 2007 at 7:26 PM

That is why we need to push not only for a strong conservitive to run the country but one that is willing to fight the good fight and roll back government control over our lives. Unfortunatly I have yet to find that candidate.

conservnut on August 18, 2007 at 9:15 AM

If this is a major concern for you, you shouldn’t discount some of the more “liberal” candidates whose similar concerns lead them to conclusions that many cultural conservatives find offensive.

Big S on August 18, 2007 at 10:10 PM

I’ll give you a hint, take a look at the video of a power plant in Baghdad starting up. Its back in “The Valult”, late July posting. I made the video and sent it to Bryan, who posted it. The unit pictured is one of four at this site, but not of one we refurbished. The locals did the two on the left side of the vid, USAID contracted US companies to retrofit and refurbish the two on the right. Our units run a lot cleaner than the one that looks like a coal-fired plant.

They all run either diesel, bunker C, or heavy oil. At one time they had the capability to run on natural gas, but the pipeline coming into the plant is so dirty, they gave up trying to burn that.

Best wishes to you and your family. Although we differ in our choices of candidates, I suspect we will both vote for the same man next year.

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Texas Nick 77 on August 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM

OK, I remember that post. He will be well north of you.

Thanks for your concerns and please accept mine for you and yours as well.

Peace and cheers.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 12:02 AM

As governor, why did not Mitt simply order the mayors in MA to stop encouraging illegal aliens or else he would take over their cities? After all, aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a crime, is it not?

Governors are not only the chief executive of their states, but does not law enforcement ultimately rest with them, especially since they take an oath of office that includes upholding and defending the US Constitution?

Instead of simply cutting off funding to those sanctuary states and cities, why not also place those governors/mayors under arrest for violating federal law?

The False Dervish on August 19, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Mitt! gave the state police the authority to detain illegals. The “swimmer” hated it.

csdeven on August 20, 2007 at 7:49 AM

OK, I remember that post. He will be well north of you.

Thanks for your concerns and please accept mine for you and yours as well.

Peace and cheers.

csdeven on August 19, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Ditto, brother. All the best.

Texas Nick 77 on August 20, 2007 at 12:34 PM

Impressive interview by Rommney. Michelle was excellent.

MarkB on August 20, 2007 at 4:00 PM

As for illegal aliens caught in our country, they need to be deported. Period. End of story. Anchor baby or not.

No one is forcing them to leave their child behind. Nothing is stopping the child from leaving and returning at a later date, when it is of an age of majority. Using an anchor baby as leverage to bring sympathy to their being here as illegal aliens is shameful.

Its a shame that some suggest other wise.

MarkB on August 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM

As for illegal aliens caught in our country, they need to be deported. Period. End of story. Anchor baby or not.
MarkB on August 20, 2007 at 4:05 PM

Exactly correct.

saiga on August 21, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Club for Growth releases white paper on Romney.

It’s a mixed bag, but in the end, they consider his record working with a liberal Mass legislature and agree that he will be pro-growth.

Club for Growth President Pat Toomey:

“While his record on taxes, spending, and entitlement reform is flawed, it is, on balance, encouraging, especially given the liberal Massachusetts Legislature. His record on trade, school choice, regulations and tort reform all indicate a strong respect for the power of market solutions. At the same time, Governor Romney’s history is marked by statements at odds with his gubernatorial record and his campaign rhetoric.”

“While Governor Romney still needs to explain some of his past positions,” Mr. Toomey continued, “given his overall record as governor and the strong pro-growth positions he has taken on the campaign trail, we are reasonably optimistic that, as President, Mitt Romney would generally advocate a pro-growth agenda.”

csdeven on August 21, 2007 at 6:48 PM

Not that anybody is on this thread anymore, but is it ME or was MITT AWOL at the VFW Convention???

seejanemom on August 22, 2007 at 2:28 PM

seejanemom on August 22, 2007 at 2:28 PM

Did you see the video clip of him stumbling all over his words and being generally incoherent during the interview segment? fred? ain’t got what it takes to artikalate his posishuns without havin’ the questions ahead of time and the answers ready to go. His folksy colloquialisms may impress some in Tennessee, but the rest of us are not from Tennessee.

csdeven on August 22, 2007 at 3:19 PM

FlipFlop Mitt flips again on abortion. What comes after flip-flop? Is it flip-flop-flip? Will he get to flip-flop-flip-flop by the time Super Tuesday rolls around?

Just when I didn’t think anyone could be more phony than Hillary or Edwards, here comes Mitt “Three Dollar Bill” Romney.

Hollowpoint on August 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM

As governor, why did not Mitt simply order the mayors in MA to stop encouraging illegal aliens or else he would take over their cities? After all, aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a crime, is it not?
The False Dervish on August 19, 2007 at 2:34 PM

You see, Mitt cared so much about illegal immigration that he waited until the final weeks of his term to give local police the resources to pick up illegals. Of course, this was shortly before he declared his candidacy for President and after a Democrat successor that he knew would do away with the program was elected to be the next governor.

Predictably the plan was never implemented; Mitt never intended for it to be- just another phony gesture from a fake Republican.

Hollowpoint on August 22, 2007 at 7:07 PM

Hollowpoint on August 22, 2007 at 7:01 PM

You need to stop letting headlines convince you what you should take from the article. Mitts! position is not a flip-flop. He is explaining it to those who ask. If you’ll read the ENTIRE article, you’ll see what his position is his justification is rational.

csdeven on August 22, 2007 at 8:12 PM

For the bigots…..here’s some fodder for you.
Mormons massacre 120 men, women, and children.

csdeven on August 22, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Not good news for Mitt!, but I guess bigots get to voice their opinions also.

csdeven on August 23, 2007 at 8:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2