Videos: Mitt and Mike go a couple of rounds Update: Fred’s speech on immigration added
posted at 8:57 pm on January 6, 2008 by Bryan
Romney’s interest tonight is in pushing back the Huckabee surge; Huck wants to knock off Romney now, take over as many of his supporters as he can and move on to the bigger states that Giuliani is counting on. So it’s natural that Romney and Huckabee would duke it out tonight, and they have.
So far they’ve gone two rounds against each other directly. Round one was over whether Huckabee raised Arkansas taxes by half a billion dollars during his ten years in office. Huckabee has to be asked the question four times before he finally answers. The smarter move would have been to give his final answer first and defuse the attack. As it played out, Huckabee made himself look shifty and unwilling to answer a straightforward question. And Mark Levin says that Huck didn’t answer honestly once he finally answered.
Round two was over class warfare, and I’m including it because Romney ends it making a point that’s getting lost in all the current populism, namely, that class warfare is counterproductive to creating and maintaining a healthy economy. You can’t have wage earners without wage payers. That used to be basic Republican doctrine, but once again it’s Huckabee whose rhetoric cuts against it in a way that would be more at home on the other side of the political aisle.
I’d score both rounds for Romney, with a solid knock down in the second one. Conservatives just shouldn’t engage in class warfare.
Update: Fred knocks this speech in illegal immigration out of the park. He treats his colleagues well but gets to the heart of one of the reasons open borders policies are bad for everyone, on both sides of the border. He works in support of free trade and turns Mexico’s criticism of the US back on Mexico for its own failed policies. Well done.
Update: My final take is that this was Romney’s best night as a debater. He won the same way the Patriots win, by taking the fight to his opponents and staying on offense from start to stop. But unlike McCain, Romney can go on offense without coming across like a snarling jerk. Fred and Rudy also had good nights, though Rudy left an opening when he said he learns from his mistakes and doesn’t repeat them. Fred was particularly solid on immigration as in the clip above. As for Rudy’s line about not repeating his mistakes, wives one and two might argue with that. The boss sums it up best:
Wallace to Rudy: “Do you have too much baggage to lead the Republican party?” Rudy laughs nervously.
The answer is: Yes, he has too much baggage.
Huck was weak and evasive but he edges McCain by being less irritating.
What say you?
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 3 Next »
Shazzam! First comment. If Romney didnt rub me the wrong way, I might go for him.
Nihaody on January 6, 2008 at 9:02 PM
Huckabee was eaten alive!
davenp35 on January 6, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Underscoring for the millionth time (which still won’t be enough to convince the Huckster’s eager snake oil customers) that Huck isn’t a conservative.
ReubenJCogburn on January 6, 2008 at 9:04 PM
I figured out my problem with Mitt – he’s unimpersonatable! Can you image Darryl Hammond doing him? No, you can’t!
BJ* on January 6, 2008 at 9:19 PM
I said this when Clinton was first on TV in ’91-92 and
I’ll say it again cuz him and Huckabee are just tooo smooth. I’m afraid Huck is going to take it and it’s going to be a race of the two smoothies. “Huck and Obama”
Wake me up in Jan 09.
Texyank on January 6, 2008 at 9:20 PM
Wait what???????????????
sunny on January 6, 2008 at 9:22 PM
Mitt is pro-choice???????????????????
sunny on January 6, 2008 at 9:24 PM
Yeah, that’s an AWESOME reason to let Huckabee be the nominee….
Nessuno on January 6, 2008 at 9:28 PM
Romney did not knock down Hucks poin’t, which was that it is the government that is biggest impediment to small business. Instead, he knocked him for attacking corporations, which Huck did not do. Huck was blasting government, not business.
I don’t think this was class warfare a la Hillary. Huck said that people should be given the opportunity to become rich. In the next line he says that they can not do so if Government squashes small business. He is not saying that we give handouts like the Democrats do. He is instead saying that they would need to work for it.
Me too. Though I can’t put my finger on why he is so unlikable to me.
jman on January 6, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Mitt is pro-choice!!!!!!!!!
sunny on January 6, 2008 at 9:29 PM
when I clicked on the first video it said: We’re sorry, this video is no longer available.
Jordan Yentsch on January 6, 2008 at 9:34 PM
Snarky personal jabs are not a good look for Huckabee.
CP on January 6, 2008 at 9:47 PM
YouTube strikes again. It’s fixed now.
Bryan on January 6, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Romney won, I think. Then Rudy because he was really able to flush out some non 9/11 things, then Fred who again had some great lines, then McCain. Huck was the biggest loser. He’s not doing well as a big player in debates [yet] as he was in a second-tier guy.
Fred had the best answer on immigration hands down, I thought. He’s running like an incumbent candidate, though, so he’s a lost cause.
Spirit of 1776 on January 6, 2008 at 9:54 PM
OT-Obama=George Bush?
John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 9:54 PM
Bryan – THANK YOU for posting Fred’s immigration speech so I could hear it again. I misunderstood it in the live feed.
RushBaby on January 6, 2008 at 9:54 PM
I am now leaning towards Fred. Strictly a situation of limited choices.
Zorro on January 6, 2008 at 9:56 PM
It just amazes me when people say he is smooth and comes across so genuine. Even people as perceptive and smart as Mark Steyn. huckster comes off to me as smarmy, dishonest and arrogant. I came into this campaign with an open mind hoping someone could jump out and grab my attention. huckster has reminded me of clinton and carter right from the beginning and he’s getting worse.
peacenprosperity on January 6, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Agree Fred hit the point. Others were arguing that its more compationate to let the people come here and stay. Fred said how is it compassionate to set up policies that reward people to risk thier lives to come here Illegally and possibly die in the process ?
The US cant fix the world’s economic problems and draining other countries of their most ambitious people only keeps those countries in poverty and adds to the vicious cycle of immigration.
Mexico isnt helped by sending its people here it hurts. It hurts the US because too many come here and send their money home and drain our economy.
Again its a question of legal vs illegal immigration. Make it compassionate for those that come here legally but make it impossible for those that come here illegally.
William Amos on January 6, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Fred!’s position on immigration merits some money, don’t ya think?
John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I was impressed with Mitt both yesterday and tonight , yesterday he withstood the dog pile and tonight he held his own and put the hammer down when need be Fred pwned them all on illegal immigration
Mojack420 on January 6, 2008 at 10:04 PM
I’m just glad that Bill Kristol popped Fred Barnes. Barnes has been looking pretty darned stoopid lately.
Connie on January 6, 2008 at 10:06 PM
McCain has a right to state his military service
Romney has a right to state his Business and political service
Guiliani has a right to state 9/11
Fred has a right to back John Wayne over Chuck Norris
Huck has a right promise to end death and a tyson chicken in every pot.
New Hampshire elects contrarians so look for McCain to win simply because he is “Maverick
William Amos on January 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Huck is lying to hannity. What a joke.
csdeven on January 6, 2008 at 10:07 PM
Of course he’s lying to Hannity, he’s a LIAR.
John_Locke on January 6, 2008 at 10:09 PM
I didn’t see that, I though Romney did better in the first round, too much me, me, me in the second clip.
lowandslow on January 6, 2008 at 10:13 PM
I wonder what the Luntz meters showed during that answer by Fred. I’m somewhat surprised they had such a negative reaction to him, but it may be the southerner vs. yankee thing. If they didn’t like that answer on immigration, then there was simply no reaching them.
Dudley Smith on January 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Well, I’m talking about the substance and hitting back at Huckabee’s one-liner with a solid right punch. Huckabee thought he had a great line but Romney used it to show that Huckabee isn’t very conservative.
Bryan on January 6, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I think it has a lot to do with the whole north / south thing also the fact Fred hasn’t come and kissed their collective rings.
Mojack420 on January 6, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I’ll say it again cuz him and Huckabee are just tooo smooth
OK ! ! We agree. Smooth, swarmy, whatever.
Clinton, Huck both are liars .
Texyank on January 6, 2008 at 10:36 PM
The only thing I havent see Huck do yet with his economic populism is the swarmy
“Ahh Feeeelll yeerr Paainnn……..”
William Amos on January 6, 2008 at 10:38 PM
I know what rubs me the wrong way about Romney. Just as Bryan said, he’s like the Patriots!
viking999 on January 6, 2008 at 10:39 PM
I say Calderon is looking out for the best interests of his
country40 families that own half of everything and run a mafia, slave owner government.Its our side of the border that isn’t doing squat for the best interests of Americans but instead using American taxpayers to fund, literally, no less than a third world invasion.
Speakup on January 6, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Heh.
Bryan on January 6, 2008 at 10:44 PM
Underestimate Darryl Hammond at your own risk.
krabbas on January 6, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Romneylanche!
krabbas on January 6, 2008 at 10:49 PM
Romney was really, really strong tonight. For the first time in the campaign, I saw what his supporters have seen the whole time.
Fred got no love from the New Hampshire crowd, not that I’m impressed with them either. They should probably spend some time listening to what he said instead of waiting for him to dance across the table like Michigan J. Frog. If you want style, vote Huckabee. If you want substance…well, there’s Fred.
Giuliani isn’t getting a lot of love for his performance, but I think he did very well. I can’t think of an answer of his I hated, though there were a couple I didn’t especially like he didn’t back down from anyone either.
McCain was just an ass tonight, like last night.
Huckabee. Ugh. My priceless moment of the night was when Fred schooled him on what happens when you housed detained terrorists in the US. That moment should be the one that people see over and over again.
Jimmie on January 6, 2008 at 11:08 PM
Fred’s still my man, I hope he hangs in there.
gmoonster on January 6, 2008 at 11:11 PM
I thought Mitt had a strong night and I thought Rudy had a strong night. I can understand why the focus group liked Mitt’s conservative-oriented answers, but I cant understand why the NRO know-it-alls and that gal Nina Easton on fox think rudy was disengaged.
Wallace hardly directed any questions at rudy. he was far more interested in trying to start a street-fight between Mitt and Huck and McCain. Rudy answered everything very well, made his case for his experience and did a fine job jabbing back on his “baggage” which hes got and just aint gonna go away.
I think if Rudy were the “frontrunner” and did exactly the same performance, the “pundits” would be raving. But he has fallen back in a tough state for him and suddenly he is an “afterthought”. NOT TO US RUDY SUPPORTERS HE ISNT.
Fred is avuncular and down-home folksy and that just doesnt go over in NH. I admit he has some great ideas and he is a true conservative thinker, but I want to give you all a new word to describe why Fred probably wont win.
PHLEGMATIC.
Look it up.
Fred is too PHLEGMATIC to win a general election.
You heard it here first.
Always Right on January 6, 2008 at 11:21 PM
That’s my working thesis, as well, and if I saw the Luntz meters at half mast for that immigration answer it would confirm it for me. I think Mark Steyn was saying the other day that Southerners simply haven’t done that well in NH historically (see GWB in 2000, Phil Gramm in 1996), and it was probably a good decision on Fred’s part to pick his fights somewhere else. He should probably spend Tuesday night holding a big rally in SC to show them how much he thinks of the NH Primary.
Dudley Smith on January 6, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Bryan, thanks for posting these. I do not have TV.
I am still undecided between Romney and Thompson.
Huckabee? No way. Too much evasion. If you want to pretend you’re the guy I work with, then act like him. Answer the damn questions.
McCain? No way. Shamnest. ‘Nuff said.
Guiliani? No, I don’t think he can win.
Romney? So far, my choice. I like his business experience as well as his experience as Govenor. I don’t have to like everything about him, but I like enough so far.
Thompson? Yes. Contrary to his critiques, I do not think man has to have a “Fire in his belly” or has to be a publicty hound. I like the fact that if Thompson met Allahpundit, Allahpundit would crawl away with his tail between his legs. Thompson knows who he is, he doesn’t have to denegrate others. A President has to know who he is and must have convictions and common sense. Fred has those things. I’d be tickl;ed pink if he wins POTUS. Let the elists chew on that fat!
Montana on January 6, 2008 at 11:34 PM
Well, I don’t think I’ve ever seen Nina Easton not being an idiot (usually when she was filling in for Mara Liasson as the token lib on Brit hume’s Panel), so I wouldn’t worry much about her opinion.
ReubenJCogburn on January 6, 2008 at 11:40 PM
Saw the debate and the choice is clear. Either vote for Fred or be prepared to cede the southern states to Illegal Aliens.
DannoJyd on January 6, 2008 at 11:45 PM
So why did that focus group think Fred didn’t communicate well? Fred hit the immigration problem right out of the park. The guy is dead-on on every single issue. He is the best of the lot.
msipes on January 7, 2008 at 12:02 AM
Interestingly enough, my parents watched part of this with me. They’re small business owners, and politcal laymen when it comes to US politics. A few takeaways:
“All of them would make good presidents, especially compared to the Democrats we saw this morning, who were at each other’s throat all the time”
“Yes, they seem far less fractured than the Democrats who don’t seem to agree with each other on much at all. They seem to agree on a lot of things, too”
“McCain was the only one I knew anything about, and he didn’t seem too bad. He’s the first one to have mentioned anything about Iraq or Islam, we didn’t hear the Dems even mention it at all”
“They’re right about the change thing, the Democrats just seem to want to change taxes and pull everyone out of Iraq”
“I thought this Huckabee bloke must’ve been a right plonker after the BBC report, but he seems quite appealing, especially his business thoughts”
My father responded quite emphatically in a positive way when Thompson mentioned his 10-25% flat tax bit (I didn’t hear much of it myself, but obviously it came across as ‘good’ to the P’s)
I suspect many Americans with less interest in politics are the same. So hopefully these reactions should be useful. Especially the mention how the R’s aren’t attacking each other like the D’s are, which in turn apparantly make them ALL seem far more electable than the Ds
Reaps on January 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Also interesting is they too thought that Mitt and Mike came across as the most appealing, especially vis-a-vis ‘change’..
Reaps on January 7, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Listen there Romney, those who would deny state benefits to illegal immigrants are un-Christian, un-American, irresponsible and anti-life and are engaging in inflammatory, race-baiting and demagoguery.
I drink a different kind of Jesus juice than you Romney. My faith says don’t make false accusations against somebody. But then of course my faith, the one true faith and the only one that is approved by both Jesus and Chuck, don’t believe that Jesus and the Devil were brothers, like , ahem, ahem, some cults do.
- The High Reverend Huckabee
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Why do I feel so alone in believing that none of the candidates addressed the illegal immigration issue strongly. None. Please try to convince me otherwise, if I missed it.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:13 AM
“McCain was the only one I knew anything about, and he didn’t seem too bad. He’s the first one to have mentioned anything about Iraq or Islam, we didn’t hear the Dems even mention it at all”
I find this amazing too. Do the Dems not think there is a threat at all? What about the attacks we have thwarted? Will anyone ask them about that?
Rightwingsparkle on January 7, 2008 at 12:13 AM
After watching the first clip above, I had to go wash off. the slime and oil flowing off of Huckleberry was intense. He is a typical politician: if he doesn’t want to answer a question, he makes a mini-speech about something else. Kudos to Mitt for not letting him get away with it. When Huckleberry finally answered, it sounded like “because my Mom said I had to.” I think the Huckster solicited Chuck Norris’ endorsement in order that Chuck would show him how to grow a spine.
The hairs in Chuck Norris’ beard are stronger than titanium. He is weaving them together for Huckleberry’s backbone. Even though he plucks the hairs out one at a time, Chuck still won’t cry and there will be no tears to cure cancer
Mallard T. Drake on January 7, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Obama – lefties
Bloomberg – independent ticket
Romney – semi-righties
Discuss
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:18 AM
Heh. Glad they saw tonights instead of yesterdays!
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Isn’t CNN creepy?
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:21 AM
I believe you missed it. Check it out here, and enjoy the commentary by the Blame America First Ron Paul loons. :oD
DannoJyd on January 7, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Thanks Danno – do you recall, however, one of them even mentioning obiding by the current employment laws?
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:25 AM
You might have to scroll up to see the comments of Fred. My bad.
DannoJyd on January 7, 2008 at 12:25 AM
A Democrat even Republicans can like
The analogy that worries Republicans the most is a more recent one. Could Obama be a potential liberal version of Ronald Reagan?
He [Reagan] came out of a period in which Americans had become sickened by the incompetence of their government. Reagan shocked US elites by pivoting that discontent into a victory in 1980. And by his second term, he won 49 out of 50 states.
You can see the same potential in Obama. What has long been remarkable to me is how this liberal politician fails to alienate conservatives. In fact, many like him a great deal. His calm and reasoned demeanour, his crisp style, his refusal to engage in racial identity politics: these appeal to disaffected Republicans.
He is particularly attractive to those on the US Right who feel betrayed by the Bush administration’s version of conservatism, just as many Democrats felt betrayed by Carter’s liberalism.
These voters — non-evangelical, fiscally and militarily prudent, socially tolerant — do not feel at home in the angry, southern, anti-immigrant Republican Party of the past few years.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 12:29 AM
I’d give the win to Gov Rommney, then to Mr Thompson, then Mr Gulliani, then Gov Huckabee, finally with Sen McCain.
I was good rating the first three but I got stuck at 4th and last place between Gov Huckabee and Sen McCain but Bryan helped me fit them in with the irritation factor. Thanks Bryan!
Weebork on January 7, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Again Danno – I recall his nice commentary at the “Mexican government…next generation of children”, but nothing about enforcing our current laws. The border is not going to happen, no matter who wins. Not to ignore the Northern border, from a war/immigration standpoint. We tend to focus on the Southern one and ignore the other. Most bad activity that we don’t hear about is infiltration from the North (I mean terrorists).
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 AM
No I don’t. I do recall most obfuscating the issue, but no one mentioned the currently ignored employment laws concerning the employment of Illegal Aliens. I don’t think anyone could expect any republican politician to cut their own throats [sans Ron Paul] by messing with businesses that may provide campaign funding at this time though. It isn’t as if they can depend on the socialist Unions for financial backing as the democrats can, and they don’t have Cigarman’s buddy Hsu either.
DannoJyd on January 7, 2008 at 12:32 AM
They’re creepy and they’re greedy,
Bible thumping and spooky,
They’re all together icky,
The Huckabee Family
Their back yard is a dead dog museum
Where people come to see ‘em
They really will a scream
The Huckabee Family
(They’re not Neat)
(They’re not Sweet)
(And they’re sure not Petite!!!)
So get a gift givers shawl on
A collection plate you can bring contributions on
We’re gonna pay a call on
The Huckabee Family
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM
I know, I know. Still fascinating just how good of a speaker Huck is, though. In about 5 minutes he managed to turn my parents thoughts of him as basically another religious political loon into a smart guy who cares for small business
Everyone’s piling on the guy (in the comments, the guys on TV are piling on Mitt), but I haven’t reached that point yet. I used to really like the guy and was happy to see him suddenly getting so much exposure. But with the exposure comes the history.. I did think he came across pretty good tonight, though
It was nice to hear the folks basically give their nod of approval to the entire group of candidates (well, the 5 they saw), whereas here the general consensus is often ‘all of our nominess suck’. If my P’s do represent the small business owner politcal layman, then I think the Republican candidate, whoever it is, is in with a good chance
Reaps on January 7, 2008 at 12:39 AM
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Thanks for the link FC – this is, however A. Sullivan’s wet dream. So as to not stray off topic, I will refrain from commenting much. For starters, Obama is a charismatic empty in a good-looking suit, and not a Reagan. What an insult to Mr. Reagan. Note to self – go visit his resting site again, soon, to see the airplane hanger too. Then, this is not 1980. And so much more, which we’ll discuss over the next few months.
I see you’ve been busy, above – must go read. Percentage meeter falling to normal? Note, meter, not FC :)
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Does the West coast crowd go to sleep with the chicken?
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Not quite sure where they got that impression from.. but the rest of it is quite interesting, indeed. And from an Australian paper no less.
Reaps on January 7, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Do not forget, perception usually trumps reality.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 12:46 AM
Just for you, Entelechy …
Thompson opposes the comprehensive immigration reform proposal that called for increased border enforcement combined with a path to legal citizenship for illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. Supports concept of “attrition through enforcement” – a reduction in the number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. by stepping up border security and enforcement against illegal immigrants and their employers.
Good enough? ;o)
DannoJyd on January 7, 2008 at 12:47 AM
Yeah. Which is why I think some people underestimate his ability. The guy can speak.
I didn’t know much about him either, but he earned my dislike when he compared illegal immigration to slavery saying that he thought God was giving us a chance to make up for slavery. I find that highly offensive from both angles. I thought during the first debates that he might make a viable VP candidate, but now with his performances lately, I think he is kind of petty. But I do take your point. I do see what he says now through that prism I’ve mentally created.
Thanks for passing on that anecdotal observation.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 12:48 AM
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 12:35 AM
I paid a bit of attention to him tonight. This was, if I recall correctly the 1st complete debate I watched in this cycle. Those first ones were not serious and it was just too early, with so many insignificant attendants…
I don’t find him creepy. He comes across as a nice guy, but totally devoid of knowledge and a sure loser for the primaries. I know you enjoy the somewhat ‘bad’ label, but I think we can attack him on the issues galore. Not lecturing, just saying. I used to be able to fight with you and I can’t of late.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:49 AM
That’s true. But perception never is reality. Reality is reality and it needs to be driven home. Unfortunately we need to know who the driver will be. I think it will take a while to sort that out. If not a strong one will emerge, then a 3rd party candidate will jump in (not the like of Paul).
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:52 AM
How would you reconcile the immigration part FC, even if you agree with the rest? Why not a 3rd strong (of course must know who)?
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 12:56 AM
That (Huckabee’s thinking) seems very bass-ackwards to me as those drawing illegals up here just want to use them as serfs.
I don’t think too many introduce them to their daughters or invite them to go golfing with them unless it is as a caddy or invite them to their parties unless it is as a servant.
Ditto McCain as that whole visa-z thing of his and Kennedy’s was just to set up a class of second class citizens, aka serfs, aka slavery light, aka worker bees for the
plantation ownersemployers.MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Thanks again Danno. I don’t need to be sold on Fred. It’s their reservation in the debates which puzzles. I see your money point – but in that case they’ll continue what 43 does…Yes, I know there are other issues too. Was just looking for stones tonight, on topic, and got hard-boiled eggs from all.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I was very tempted to leave that part off as it sure doesn’t fit me but I didn’t want to be a censor.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:03 AM
and a sure loser for the
primariesCorrection – sure loser for the general.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:04 AM
Because NONE of them get it. They talk platitudes about ‘securing first’, but then they talk about it in terms of the illegal aliens. It’s not about the illegal aliens. IT’S ABOUT THE AMERICANS! We already know that the government can’t provide the entitlement programs that it taxes the crap out of its legal citizens to try to provide. And NOW they expect Americans to pick up the tab for another set of law breakers.
Ron Paul GETS the immigration issue. It’s about WE CAN’T AFFORD THEM! It has nothing to do with ‘compassion for them’. It has nothing to do with them. It has everything to do with AMERICA and AMERICAN TAXPAYERS and AMERICAN ENTITLEMENTS. That’s the problem. Who they are, what language they speak, whether they work here or not, whether they break the law or not IS NOT THE ISSUE.
Whether the are deported or not, whether they should get medical care (by law they have to anyway but Rudy takes credit for ‘allowing’ that one). . . none of these things are important.
It’s about AMERICANS, and they don’t get it. They won’t get it because they want the illegals to vote, and they want the illegals to vote for them. They don’t care about Americans as much as they care about illegals.
Ron Paul would have straightened this issue up among the ‘conservatives’.
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Having some familiarity with some of your previous posts on this issue, I believe we see eye to eye.
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:14 AM
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:00 AM
This is why I have a harder time accusing them than the employers. Here in Calif. we are surrounded by thousands of them, most the hardest working and nicest people many of whom live in squaller conditions, or in the fields even. It’s the honey/the spiget that needs to be turned off. I’d even be for paying Mexico money to train people or to provide jobs. To this situation there will be no end in sight, not with 1-2-3…ad infinitum amnesties.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:15 AM
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 1:06 AM
For that alone he might have been good to have at the table. To then say to the other “and you, and you, and you”.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:19 AM
And this is why it isn’t about them.
This is why we NEED a temporary worker program that is temporary. We have industries that need their work. They are willing to come here to do the work for what employers pay them. The Canadians have a ‘Guest Worker Program’ where they come into the country for 9 months or so and go back home for 3 months. They NEVER become citizens, they NEVER have a path to citizenship, it isn’t about ‘paying a fine’ and ‘learning English’. It’s about them working to earn a living for their family without being a drain on our entitlement system.
It’s not about them. It’s about our government spending and planning to spend more money than it has.
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 1:20 AM
Here’s an abbreviated version of Fred’s immigration plan.
1. No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens […]
2. Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. […]
3. Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country: […]
4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive. Ensure employee verification by requiring that all U.S. employers use the Department of Homeland Security’s electronic database […]
5. Add to the Cost of Hiring Illegal Aliens. Deny a tax deduction to employers for the wages they pay to illegal aliens, […]
6. Bolster Border Security. Finish building the 854-mile wall along the border by 2010 […]
7. Increased Prosecution. Deploy the additional assets outlined above to prosecute alien smugglers (“coyotes”), alien gang members, previously deported felons, and aliens who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws much more vigorously.
8. Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking. Complete the implementation of a system to track visa entrants and exits, […]
FloatingRock on January 7, 2008 at 1:23 AM
My claws are out mostly for the
plantation ownersemployers too.They don’t give a rat’s hind end about the illegals. They just want to exploit them for their cheap labor and stick their fellow American’s, for whom they don’t give a rat’s hind end about either, with the tab for schooling, medical, law enforcement, etc.
They have bought off a lot of our politicians with their
bribescampaign contributions.MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM
We don’t need any
serftemporary worker program!!!Let the
plantation ownersemployers pay a competitive free market wage to people who are Americans.Most American employers do that. Let the rest join the club.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:29 AM
ThackerAgency on January 7, 2008 at 1:06 AM
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:24 AM
Spirit of 1776 on January 7, 2008 at 1:07 AM
We fully agree.
Spirit, which general region are you located in?
FC, please save that larger comment about the types that come up here/U.N. being derelict, and consider posting it on all immigration-related threads. It’s highly effective because it makes all these points, not that known to many.
FloatingRock, I’m familiar with Fred’s point-by-point – it just won’t make it out into the debates because of Danno’s good point on the financing from the employers.
The lefties/righties are beholden, for different reasons – but both don’t care about the people, just about the cheap work and the votes. I was hoping that one of the candidates would have the stones to point this out, but…ping-pongs instead.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:29 AM
In the debate last night Fred was for employers checking out employees to and firing them.
Tonight Huck, Rudy and Mitt all started in with the “We have to be firm but fair and humanitarian” towards illegals. They all made the “Compassionate” arguement.
Fred only had a breif time to address immigration and he shot down the “Compassion” argument that all the others were pushing.
William Amos on January 7, 2008 at 1:29 AM
That’s good to hear William. I didn’t watch last night’s. Thanks for sharing.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:31 AM
As a lot of American companies are already exporting jobs to other countries, I would put a tax penalty on them for doing that, but if they exported those jobs to Mexico, I would waive it.
MB4 on January 7, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Danno, lest I didn’t come across clearly on the “don’t need to be sold on Fred” – I like him already. Huckabee worries me the most.
Entelechy on January 7, 2008 at 1:33 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »