Video: Romney’s “Change Immigration” ad

Mitt Romney 2006: In favor of amnesty.

Mitt Romney 2007: Against amnesty.

Shameless.

His executive order in MA would’ve been good, except he waited until the final weeks of his term (well after a Dem who predictibly overturned it was elected and he started working on his Presidential campaign), knowing that it would never been implemented (it wasn’t). Apparently it took him 3 years, 11 months before he realized that there were sanctuary cities in his state and that illegal immigration was a problem.

Hollowpoint on November 9, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Hollowpoint, the nominee will either be Rudy or Mitt. If you’re committed to a “conscience vote,” and your conscience won’t allow you to vote for either one, there’s no reason for you to continue to blather, because other “conscience voters” will have made up their mind already, and those of us who still have our brains turned on will reject the arguments of those who don’t.

Splashman on November 9, 2007 at 1:23 PM

Vote however you like; I’m not trying to convince anyone to stay home or vote for someone they strongly disagree with. That’s their decision.

A very possible end result of nominating someone without a clear and consistant conservative agenda is a Republican party that slides even further from it’s principles of small government, law enforcement and individual liberty than it already has in recent years. If the party is going to abandon conservative principles, they’ve abandoned me and thus don’t deserve my vote.

Bottom line- given the current ideological decay of the Republican party, we need a clear, consistant conservative as nominee more than ever. Otherwise, a win is still a loss.

Hollowpoint on November 9, 2007 at 3:27 PM

The best we can do is to get a difinitive answer out of them and hold them to it.

Just keep the tape.

Zetterson on November 9, 2007 at 1:36 PM

Thanks for the compliment, though I see little in common with csdeven.

After watching a Republican Congress and President that have been more concerned about bringing home the bacon, increasing the size of the federal government and pushing for amnesty I’ve had it with fighting my own side. I’m no longer interested in a two-front war. The Republican party didn’t get the message after losing in 2006; the recent pork-laden water bill demonstrates that. I’m not interested in rewarding bad performance; not anymore.

I just don’t see Romney pushing the party back to it’s principles- not when he’s flip-flopped on amnesty, stands in favor of more gun control, advocated big government spending on subsidies, corporate welfare, health care, education, etc, etc, etc. There’s just too much self-contradiction in too short a time period that just happens to coincide with an election campaign.

Had his positions changed over a 10 year period, then I’d find him much more credible. Unfortunately too many of his positions have changed almost overnight with the dawn of a new election cycle.

He’s given little reason for me to believe that his conservative “epiphany” is genuine and would hold up after being elected. We see the same version of events every election cycle- a Republican candidate moves right for the primaries, leftward to the “center” for the general election, then just does whatever they want when elected since few remember or care what promises were made during the primaries.

I don’t blame anyone who’s committed to voting for whomever the Republican candidate is, even if they disagree with them greatly. That’s a reasonable opinion, and one I’ve shared in previous elections. Not this time- I’m too disgusted with the outcome of what should’ve been a historic opportunity of Republicans holding Congress and the Presidency to vote “lesser of two evils”.

Hollowpoint on November 9, 2007 at 3:50 PM