Flashback: McCain’s immigration proposal is “reasonable,” “quite different” from amnesty, says … Mitt
posted at 10:09 am on February 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
It’s flashback day so let’s go whole hog. A reader sends this Globe piece from last March, which I don’t remember seeing at the time but probably did and have since repressed. Audio at the link; the money quote is from November 2005, not long after Mitt had his epiphany about abortion. The epiphanies have been coming pretty fast and furious these past few years, huh?
Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. “These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society,” he said. “In some cases, they do not. But that’s a whole group we’re going to have to determine how to deal with.”
Asked about the discrepancy between Romney’s comments in 2005 and now, spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said: “Over the past year and a half, as the American people have learned all the details of the McCain-Kennedy approach, they have arrived at the same conclusion as Governor Romney: It rewards people who are here illegally.”
None of this hurts Romney because (a) McCain is so much worse on this issue and (b) conservatives have long since made peace with the likelihood that Mitt’s a classic say-anything-to-get-elected politician. We know guys like that. We can work with them. If they’re willing to say anything to win, odds are they’ll do what they have to do to keep the base happy in office. Romney’s flip-flops are at least happily free of the infuriating anti-right remarks that occasionally spout forth from Maverick, starting with the “goddamned fence” and most recently with the knock on Alito and tut-tutting about Wall Street greed. It’s one thing to be betrayed, it’s another thing to be sneered at while it’s happening. Or is it? Quote: “One of the problems being encountered by the Stop-McCain Activist is that certain conservative interest groups don’t see Romney as significantly better than McCain on their signature issues…”
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: « Previous 1 2
The Rock on February 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Might work, but seems pretty big government not not very true to conservative principles. Why do I envision a gestapo like guy saying “let me see ze paperz” oh and gimmie you PIN.
Additionally, if you can steal a SSN or an ATM pin why not an ID PIN. Crooks will always adapt. I’m reminded of sony’s million dollar anti-piracy coding that we thwarted by a sharpie.
infidel2 on February 1, 2008 at 12:32 PM
kcd on February 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
I suspect you’re setting a trap to highlight the positions of your candidate of choice.
With my having said that I’ll take a nimble on it.
I agree that we should start by looking into the meaning of the US Constitution but without the somewhat macabre interpretations by people with an Esq. after their names. So tell us what you think some of the major planks should be. And you might as well tell us who currently supports them. Again, I think that’s where you’re going so….elaborate.
jerrytbg on February 1, 2008 at 12:34 PM
No, he’s more like John the Baptist and he’ll most likely meet the same fate. But in the meantime, perhaps he’ll help kick off a new conservative movement.
CliffHanger on February 1, 2008 at 12:44 PM
I know that’s a stretch, folks and I’m not saying Mitt would be our standard-bearer. At this point though, Mitt’s the only candidate in the race who’s at least articulating our values and perhaps getting some people to think about them.
CliffHanger on February 1, 2008 at 12:46 PM
I don’t speak for Michelle, but I seem to remember her being more than a bit displeased with the bill- be it the 2005 or 2007 version, as were the vast majority of conservatives in 2005.
What Romney said in 2005 and again in Sept 2006 when he supported amnesty aka “a path to citizenship” isn’t what he’s saying now. That’s the point of this entire thread.
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM
Think Chris Kobach, now on Romney’s team. Besides, I have come to the conclusion, prior to reading the headlines here about Kobach, that I would rather go with someone who might not screw us, versus with someone, who I know will.
captivated_dem on February 1, 2008 at 12:52 PM
I’m all for a brokered convention- not because it would give Fred a second chance (it wouldn’t), but because it would sow disharmony and discontent within the party, hopefully driving the conservative base to rally around the flag of conservativism that so many seem to have abandoned.
Welcome to the Republican Scorched Earth Society, of which I am a charter member.
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 12:53 PM
If that were true, you’d have something more substantial to say than causally stating “straw man” and then not giving any back up. Please spare me your remedial knowlege of debating.
I also appreciate your word substitution. Because that’s exactly what we are talking about; executing illegal aliens.
Jackass.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 1:32 PM
The reason your argument is a straw man is because nobody, (or few, anyway), is actually suggesting we deport 15 million illegal aliens. Most everybody apposed to amnesty supports attrition through enforcement, not deportation. In spite of this, amnesty supporters continue to base their arguments on the false premise of how cruel and unrealistic deporting millions of people will be, even though the fact is that they’re the only ones even suggesting it. Thus it is a straw man argument. They build up a straw man and knock it down because it’s much easier to do than addressing their opponent’s actual arguments.
I saw in your subsequent posts that you support a wall followed by soft-amnesty of some sort. Personally, I don’t support a wall; not because I’m apposed to the idea but rather because a wall will not turn off the magnets that draw illegal aliens here in the first place. As long as the job/entitlement magnets remain and illegal immigration is rewarded and encouraged through the use of repeated amnesties, illegal aliens will find ways over, under and around any walls we might build.
FloatingRock on February 1, 2008 at 1:58 PM
So sorry.
Just like the stock market has to suck up a “correction” after a period of irrational exuberance so must the US and Mexican economies. Sometimes the medicine is bitter. But instead of whining about how their economy might be crippled, how ’bout thanking us for keeping them afloat for so long!
Maybe the chaos and starvation will bring forth some actual reform! Right now we’re basically subsidizing Mexico’s corruption. There are just enough dollars going south to perpetuate it. Enough!
I dunno about the rest of HA’s readership, but where I am the unassimilated illegals are two-faced weasels. They’re all polite and demure when bussing tables or mowing lawns(bucking for a big tip) but rude and obnoxious and threatening the rest of the time. Want to picnic in the park? Better wait ’til the drunks finish their soccer game. I know enough Spanish and have seen enough fights that I won’t risk it.
/bracing for barrage of “nativist” name-calling
innominatus on February 1, 2008 at 2:07 PM
I am not going to call you any names whether they apply or not.
However, look at the political mindset of our country. We can barely fund our troops in time of war due to political bickering. The concept that we would have the will to force — either by deportation or economic coercion — 20 million poor back to Mexico is, frankly, silly. Our people (as a collective, conservatives, moderate and liberals) will not stand for what you propose and you know it.
Maybe we can prevent the border crossers from ever getting citizenship. Maybe we can force them to live in the shadows and a grey economy until they die to be buried by their US citizen children. Maybe we should give them some legitimate status in exchange for paying taxes and a fine. There are a lot of things that we can do with the 20 million among us. Expecting them to go home is not one of them.
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Actually, that is not at all what I was going to do. I meant what I said. I simply wanted to see what conservatives would consider the perfect platform for a presidential candidate.
kcd on February 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I all fairness. Romney has always said the original bill was reasonable but not after all the Amendment made their way into it. McCain continued to support the Bill with all the extra Amensty admendment.
azcop on February 1, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Your prior post did reek of a Paul supporter who thinks he will win adherents with the undeniable logic of his Socratic reasoning.
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:57 PM
With that said, my perfect candidate:
1. An ass kickin’ military leader willing to lead our armies all over the world to maintain our empire.
Next…
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:59 PM
LMAO!
Now I want to hear all the McCain bashers vow not to vote for Romney….
packsoldier on February 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM
OMG! A Ron Paul supporter?! I need a shower….
That said,
1. An ass kickin’ military leader willing to lead our armies all over the world to maintain our empire.
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Good one.
kcd on February 1, 2008 at 3:16 PM
But by Mexican standards the ones returning there from here won’t be poor. For Mexico it would be a major influx of goods and capital (what the returning folks bring with them), skills acquired here, and a taste of our form of governance. It all works out to a win-win for both countries if we could just stop settling for status-quo.
innominatus on February 1, 2008 at 4:40 PM
Win Win?
RIIIGHT… They’ll all pack up their plasma TV’s, X-boxes, and tax payer funded college diplomas, head back to Veracruz where they will all get high paying jobs so they can afford the next iteration of HALO.
Where would you put 20 million people? Where will they get jobs? Where will they live? How will they eat? Do you know how much electricity it costs to run a plasma TV — even when in stand by mode?
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 6:00 PM
You’re making too big of a leap to start talking about plasma TVs. What I’m talking about are trade skills, language skills, cars that run. Most of these people send “excess” money back home rather than amass consumer items, so that whole argument is baloney…
- “Where will they get jobs?” See above. They will have more earning power than most of their countrymen.
- “Where will they live?” Have you seen the physical size of Mexico’s landmass? Many large cities. Tons of land. Nonissue.
- “How will they eat?” They’re eating now, right? Are you supposing a blockade to keep food products out of Mexico? Ever eat a banana in January? It probably came from Chile. Foodstuffs are traded all over the western hemisphere. So Mexicans start buying a little more and we buy a little less. Nonissue.
-”Do you know how much electricity…” Like I said above. Everybody following this thread knows that the vast majority of illegals are not here out of “plasma envy.”
I hate it when commenters say “Strawman! Strawman!” but the plasma TV/HALO hyperbole is getting darned close…
innominatus on February 1, 2008 at 6:35 PM
I believe what Mitt Romney was trying to say in late 2005 was that he supported a pathway to legalization/citizenship for illegals, but had not specifically decided, which type of pathway he preferred. John Cornyn and John McCain (Romney mentioned before those men in that audio clip) had very different approaches to getting illegals out of the shadows in mid 2005. McCain wanted illegals to stay forever if they pay a fine and not take government benefits, while Cornyn wanted to them to leave the country after five years and then come back in again in order to stay here forever.
So, this is not really a flip-flop, but more of a guy standing at the 50 yard line, unsure of which direction to go.
Frank T.J Mackey on February 1, 2008 at 8:08 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2