Flashback: McCain’s immigration proposal is “reasonable,” “quite different” from amnesty, says … Mitt
posted at 10:09 am on February 1, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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…”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 Next »
Finally, a small amount of balance among the mountain of Mccain hate. Thanks AP.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 1, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Yeah, I can’t wait for the comments to this thread.
Exit question: Is Mitt Romney the conservative messiah?
Allahpundit on February 1, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Well said AP
Pam on February 1, 2008 at 10:17 AM
I’ll be frank. I didn’t consider Mitt as a significant voice on immigration until Tancredo endorsed him. But as Tancredo stated, his history was still better than McCain.
Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Bingo. If he’ll cave to the liberals in Massachusetts, he’ll cave to the Republican base. So it’s cool.
SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 10:18 AM
Nope. But he looks good in a pair of jeans.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:19 AM
No, but I have a feeling he’ll be a lot easier to push toward conservatism than McCain.
That’s pretty weak tea, but we campaign with the candidates we have, right?
Blech.
Slublog on February 1, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Is he not McCain? That that’s the bar anymore says more about the state of the conservative movement than anything a McCain nomination would.
Vizzini on February 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Nope, but if you promise him your vote, he will try to morph into whatever your personal vision of a conservative messiah is.
JayHaw Phrenzie on February 1, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Fairly nuanced take there, but I can’t condemn him for it. He didn’t call us all bigots and nativists and took steps to enforce the law as governor.
In other words:
He’s walkin’ on water, baby!
amkun on February 1, 2008 at 10:23 AM
A Second Look At Amnesty:
Call it whatever you want, but I’ve always been quasi receptive to the idea. The logistics of deportation of 15 million people is daunting. The economic impact of simply vacating several million apartments and houses could rock the US. That is just a small aspect compared to the legal costs and inevitable court gridlock.
Hate me all you want, but that’s my humble opinion.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Romney’s no messiah, but he is the best of the lot we have.
We need a new party.
beatcanvas on February 1, 2008 at 10:25 AM
No.
HebrewToYou on February 1, 2008 at 10:25 AM
It’s official all our candidates stink. The Democrats’ policies stink, but they get their people excited about pulling the lever.
If only we could pick our people based on their ability to make us have happy thoughts rather than policy…
simon on February 1, 2008 at 10:26 AM
It looks like Mitt is finished. Big Mo is on the McCain side, and the MSM is ganging up. Mitt did a reasonable job in the last debate to try and knock off McCain, but he didn’t do it. Super Tuesday will seal or fate, and what a crappy political fate it will be.
McCain is big trouble in immigration, and will most likely sell the farm. What a disaster.
saiga on February 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM
He’s not so much the conservative messiah as he is a crappy third string quarterback who’s at least wearing the right team jersy.
Put me in Coach! I’ll murderize ‘em!
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:29 AM
That is some seriously flawed logic.
J on February 1, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Re: Money quote:
Word actually do mean something.
“Not practical to deport” is absolutely correct in any scenario. That doesn’t mean approval of amnesty in any dictionary I’ve consulted. Nor does it mean that you shouldn’t crack down, build a fence, push employers – so the illegal self deport.
By the way, when Mitt was 18 he said he though JFK was cool.
See if that can be twisted into a pro-Democrat position.
Onager on February 1, 2008 at 10:30 AM
I recall even Bill O’reilly liking McCain-Kennedy until he looked closer at it.
In this case…yes.
CABE on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Does Mitt have a history of punching Conservative and breaking campaign promises? Not that I know of.
John, on the other hand, has consistently poked and punched us over and over again.
I think I’ll take a chance on Mitt, that he’ll do what he says than vote for the absolute abandonment that John offers.
GO MITT!
stenwin77 on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Good argument. I’ll keep it in mind in case anybody against granting full and immediate amnesty to 15 million criminals ever suggest that the only alternative is to deport those 15 million overnight.
I’ll also make sure to keep it (the argument) well away from open fires.
Strawmen are quite vulnerable to those, or so I hear.
Misha I on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I totally agree. He’s the best of what we have to work with.
TX Mom on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Stop distracting me. McCain is a dirty satanic lib with commie sauce!!1!
Dash on February 1, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Meh.
I’ll still take Mitt’s apparent core beliefs over Juan McRINO’s apparent core beliefs.
rockbend on February 1, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Oy, politicians. He’s still the better of the two, methinks.
AbaddonsReign on February 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
I didn’t put a time table on it… you did. Even if it took 3 years to execute, the impacts would still have major impact.
Economics much?
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Wait a minute…the quotes about the plans being “reasonable,” and “quite different” from amnesty were about the 2005 proposals for immigration reform, not the 2007 legislation. I personally don’t remember seeing any 2005 legislation, so I can’t opine on it, but I did read the 2007 legislation, and with particular interest the part about the Z-visas, and that gang members only needed to renounce their gang affiliations to stay in the country on eternally renewable Z-visas.
So how is that fair to take what Romney said about 2005 proposals and compare it to something he said about the actual 2007 legislation? It’s not. Geez, talk about anti-Mitt bias…I expect it from the Boston Globe, from CNN, from Mitt-haters and McCain supporters, but aren’t we supposed to be intellectually honest here at HA?
Also, let’s look at Mitt’s RECORD:
1. vetoed in-state tuition rates to children of illegal undocumented immigrants
2. opposed proposals to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants
3. authorized National Guard troops to assist with border patrol
4. sought federal permission to deputize state troopers to detain illegal immigrants encountered on construction sites
If I’m wrong here, please correct me….I want to make sure my support for Mitt is warranted.
JustTruth101 on February 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Hasn’t McCain’s amnesty plans become far worse since then? I seem to remember it not being the abomination it is now.
EJDolbow on February 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Poor wording on my part.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:35 AM
Or will he cave to Iowa farmers and Michigan auto workers with government subsidies?
Seniors with more expensive entitlement spending?
Cave to immigrants by softening his current stance?
Cave to the Greens with more environmental regulation and spending?
Cave to the Bono crowd with more humanitarian aid that ends up in the pockets of dictators?
Cave to he “independants” that more than any other group determine the outcome of elections?
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 10:36 AM
As opposed to the impact of encouraging another 45 million to illegally migrate to the country by granting full amnesty to the ones already here along with their families abroad?
Indeed.
Misha I on February 1, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I know a Mexican, so I have absolute moral authority.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:37 AM
FRED!
YEah, yeah, I know…..
ihasurnominashun on February 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Mitt = the lesser of two liberals
bigbeas on February 1, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Not before we build a secure border.
1. Fence first
2. Soft Amnesty second
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
MItt is correct, it would be expensive to deport 12 million illegal aliens (henceforth designated “Criminal Invaders”). Here is how you fix it.
1. Require proof of legal status to get a drivers license.
2. Include a mag strip or bar code on the license.
3. Provide a PIN for that license.
This would enable employers and others to verify legal status instantly.
Then:
Require proof of legal status to work, rent, buy property, and if you want to be really mean, require it to buy food.
End result: They all go home on their own at their own expense.
Elected officials in “Sanctuary Cities” should be prosecuted for aiding fugitives.
We also need a good guest worker program as well.
The kids make this really hard to do. When a child came here at age 4 and they are now 22, America is the only home they have ever known. In my book, they are Americans. There has to be accommodation for special cases.
The Rock on February 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Hey guys, lets do a little role play. Lets say we are forming the “NEW CONSERVATIVE PARTY”. Be serious now…Our foundation would of course be the Constitution. What type of “platform” would you like to see in a “New Conservative Party” candidate?
kcd on February 1, 2008 at 10:39 AM
JustTruth101, you’re right. I recall a lot of people discussing the bill of 2005 who thought is wasn’t too bad on the surface UNTIL, they started to pick it apart and then we got a worse version later on.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Tom Tancredo support Mitt and that’s pretty good for me.
Where are all the people who stopped the Gang of 14?
moonsbreath on February 1, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Mitt talked about McNumbnuts amnesty last night on Hannity&Colmes. He wasnt defending it.
dogsoldier on February 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Both nominees will return (read:pander) to the center during the general. At least in some shape, way or form.
SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
By the way, referencing my last statement: Each person should Copy & Paste then add your suggestion. The same for the next comment & so on.
kcd on February 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Mitt pandered to the pro-choice base in MA and then says that every bill that crossed his desk relating to abortion was handled with pro-life views. Right there Mitt admits to pandering to get elected and then doing what HE wants. I do not trust him. I don’t trust any RINO in this race.
ihasurnominashun on February 1, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Mitt is our fallback position. I trusted Rudy and he endorsed McCain. I trusted Fred and am afraid he’s also going to betray us at the proper moment. I trusted Ted Olsen. We’ve all gotten caught up in cheerleading for individual politicians and have forgotten the cardinal rule. None of them can be trusted. Everything they do is based on self interest. I’ve got to get back into the mode of just looking at this as entertainment. Otherwise, it is too painful.
a capella on February 1, 2008 at 10:42 AM
You act like the President has free reign to do with what he wants from the federal treasury. Unfortunately, Congress has control of the purse strings, so any hand outs have to come from the legislature first.
Troy Rasmussen on February 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Now we have something to work with. Still not on the amnesty wagon myself, but as long as we make sure that the border is water tight first, at least we can start talking about what to do with the ones already here and possibly find some middle ground.
Misha I on February 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Unfortunately it’s not clear if Mitt has any core political beliefs.
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Hey Allah, did Mitt Romney EVER campaign for this amnesty bill? Did he ever vote for it?
Saying it looks reasonable is nothing, it means nothing and it changes nothing.
John McCain gave birth to that ugly beast!
EJDolbow on February 1, 2008 at 10:43 AM
I’ve wondered for months why this site has such a hatred of Mitt.
Anyone?
Labamigo on February 1, 2008 at 10:44 AM
McCain has been a senator for 25 years. He is part of the problem, not the solution.
moonsbreath on February 1, 2008 at 10:44 AM
I repeat:
Wait a minute…the quotes about the plans being “reasonable,” and “quite different” from amnesty were about the 2005 proposals for immigration reform, not the 2007 legislation.
I call foul on the Boston Globe for unfairly attributing the two quotes to the same issue, and foul on AP for perpetuating it.
Plus, what about Mitt’s record on illegal immmigration? He’s actually voted WITH conservatives.
JustTruth101 on February 1, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Mitt governed as a conservative. McCain legislated as a liberal/moderate.
While McCain moved to the LEFT,
Mitt moved to the RIGHT.
Still with Mitt.
CABE on February 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I think AP is teed off that Rudy bombed, so now he’s desperately clinging to the only liberal left on the GOP ticket.
Misha I on February 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM
It’s because Allah’s in the tank for McCain. I mean Huckabee. I mean Fred. I mean…Ron Paul.
No, AP’s been critical of all of them.
SouthernDem on February 1, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Labamigo, I could be mistaken, but I believe it’s about Mitt’s changing views on abortion. For some that’s the number one issue and forgiveness is not there.
moonsbreath on February 1, 2008 at 10:49 AM
And Congress has been oh so very tight with the purse strings lately, right? You can bet that if a President wants to throw some money at a certain demographic of voters that Congress will play along… after they get their goodies, too.
I don’t plan on voting for McCain should he win the nomination, but concerning one of the biggest failures in the party today- spending- he’s actually pretty conservative. Much more so than Mitt, who seems to have a federal spending solution for every percieved problem. Unfortunately McCain brings a whole lot of non-conservative baggage with his fiscal restraint.
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 10:50 AM
AP is pretty much anti the whole field as all of them are less than perfect, but better than the alternatives.
I do not hold that view. I see McCain as the worst out of all the people running for office right now. I would vote the nut job Paul in before McCain.
Just Truth already said all that needs to be said on this topic though. This is a lame line of attack being put out there on Mitt that takes no account for timelines or actual actions taken by him on the issue. HotAir is giving voice to it, but now that it has been shot down an update is in order I would think.
Voidseeker on February 1, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Agreed.
Don’t get me wrong. Illegal imigrants suck. Amnesty sucks. A water-tight border should be our first priority.
Close the net and then sort the fish.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Mitt also said nice things about McCain-Kennedy in 2006.
How much of his record on illegal immigration came after he decided to run for President in 2005, when the “epiphanies” started happening?
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Bye folks, I’m leaving to go vote early. I’m voting for Mitt even though it looks like Georgia is going for Jim Nabors’ other brother.
moonsbreath on February 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Mitt has a fighting chance against Hillary-Obama.
McCain will be wiped up by them.
I’ll take a fighting chance over a Dole II.
profitsbeard on February 1, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Here you go again, AP, with your snarky leave-out-the-relevant-context bullshit.
Mitt explained this in a debate no less, in a response to McCain taking Mitt to task about.
McCain, “You said in November of 2005 that my immigration bill was not amnesty. You are the one that has changed your position.”
Mitt, “That was my response to your first bill, which was reasonable because it did not grant defacto amnesty. But the bill that was drawn up in the end was defacto amnesty, because the Z-visa was allowed to be renewed indefinitely.
You’re the one that keeps changing the facts here.”
(Paraphrasing here but that was the gist of it.)
I absolutely cannot believe you AP!
What the hell!?! Are you late on your bills or something? Do we need to pass the hat around for your groceries?
Give me frigging break!
Do you need a towel to dry up the moisture behind the ears?
Do you need some Q-tips to clean the wax out of your ears?
Do you need a context editor?
(I’m expensive, but it’ll pay for itself.)
Are you needing to take some fish oil supplement for brain food?
What is your hat size? Do they still make them?
Did your live-in girlfriend dump you?
Did somebody pee in your cheerios?
Just a really bad day?
I can cheer you up, but I’m expensive. Just send me an email.
Good lord!
Mcguyver on February 1, 2008 at 10:57 AM
That’s a nice slogan. Agreed.
Sorry for jumping you, by the way. It’s just that every time I hear something that even sounds like “we can’t deport them all, so let’s just let them stay”, I reflexively go for the baseball bat. Not fair, I know, but I heard it too many times during the Shamnesty ‘07 debacle.
Misha I on February 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM
That the same template I’m working off of.
By the way rockbend, your point about starting points is well received.
Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 10:58 AM
Its important to remember the large amount of immigration transition that occurred in 07.
McCain became worse, Mitt got better.
Speakup on February 1, 2008 at 11:00 AM
It’s all good. Your heart is in the right place.
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 11:00 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22deport+them+now%22+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fhotair.com
jummy on February 1, 2008 at 11:02 AM
SECOND LOOK AT NUANCE!
Mitt made public statements supportive of McCain-Kennedy in 2005 and again in 2006, when conservatives across the country were railing against it. As the political winds changed, so did Mitt’s position.
Yeah, McCain sucks on illegal immigration. Mitt would probably be better… but let’s not pretend that he’s the second coming of Tancredo, OK?
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Same list here, but one critical item needs to be added – Tancredo Endorsement. That man had NO reason to pander to anyone, and considering he’s a one-trick-pony, that means A LOT.
SkinnerVic on February 1, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Aw, now I have Diet Coke on my computer!
TX Mom on February 1, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Are you suggesting that every single one of the 15 million illegal immigrants are rapists, murderers and drunk drivers on TOP of being here illegally?
Wow.
Now THAT’S a blanket statement!
Misha I on February 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Just wondering then, how do you explain his endorsement of Mitt?
SkinnerVic on February 1, 2008 at 11:06 AM
No, but he’s running against the conservative Anti-Christ, so to speak.
BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 10:34 AM
You just wrote time table! You MUST be for withdrawing from Iraq! I dont care what words came before or after this phrase, you said TIME TABLE! Everyone knows that’s code for withdrawal!
/mccain mode off
jdawg on February 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I’ll trust Tancredo on this. It’s hard to believe that Romney would actively seek Tancredo’s endorsement and then screw us with amnesty.
Buddahpundit on February 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM
I watched almost every Tancredo appearance when he dropped out and explained his endorsement. Those are the points that he cites, and I agree with you entirely on his credibility.
Spirit of 1776 on February 1, 2008 at 11:11 AM
Allah, I think your headline is unfair. It’s what the MSM does. It should read as follows:
Flashback: McCain’s 2005 immigration proposal is “reasonable,” “quite different” from 2007 amnesty legislation, says … Mitt
JustTruth101 on February 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Indeed.
*puts finishing touches on note, places noose around neck, steps off chair*
natesnake on February 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
lol AND point well made
JustTruth101 on February 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Mitt’s no prize. Never has been.
But he’s not the ANTI-REPUBLICAN either.
McCain is.
edgehead on February 1, 2008 at 11:16 AM
No.
But he’s better than McCain. Mitt’s malleable for sure, but at least he’s reaching out to us, whereas McCain shows mostly contempt for the conservatives, and as the last 8 years have amply demonstrated, it affects the way he chooses to govern.
thirteen28 on February 1, 2008 at 11:16 AM
No; they’ve all been slain and pushed out by both the RNC and the rank-and-file of the early states. Slublog has the rest of my answer already.
steveegg on February 1, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Listen, my friends, Romney may have flipped toward the right, but since when is that considered a BAD thing? McLie-to-your-face may say he’ll build a fence but he’s also said that he hasn’t changed his position on his don’t-call-it-amnesty-but-it’s-still-amnesty program. If given the chance, Maverick wants to and would grant amnesty for millions of illegals. Romney may be getting more conservative, but isn’t that the point? We agree that our Republican president has veered our party off track, no? And that we need to get back to our conservative roots, and put an end to big government, spending, high taxes, a head-in-the-sand mentality about global terrorism, and this ridiculous notion that a free market system is bad. Mitt is right, Mac is wrong, and we need to show our support for conservatism on Super Tuesday (or in my case, 2/12).
eucher on February 1, 2008 at 11:25 AM
That’s not tea we’re being served by the survivors, Slu.
steveegg on February 1, 2008 at 11:27 AM
And Juanny MexCain does???
I’d love to see a comparison of RINO’s overall conservative record, with his conservative voting record for the last 15 years. Mr. Straight-Talk Maverick has made a career of pandering to the left in the last 8-12 years.
You can’t constantly poke your friends in the eyes and expect them to help you when you come begging. Oh wait… apparently you… can…
rockbend on February 1, 2008 at 11:29 AM
That’s OK, your entire argument was poor.
Suggestion. The word “execute” has even more impact in straw man arguments than “deport” does. Next time consider saying, “The logistics of
deportationexecuting 15 million people is daunting.”FloatingRock on February 1, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Good point about the 2005 version versus the 2007 version. Doesn’t Mitt say that the earlier version was not so bad, but the later version would have given Z visas and permanent residency to illegals overnight for a mere $3000 fine?
As for Mitt being the “conservative messiah”, I’m not looking for a “messiah” in my political leaders. He does have a brilliant mind, proven leadership ability, experience turning around companies/the Olympics/state government, and a whole lot of common sense conservatism.
Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I’ll take Mitt without a thought over McCain. He was great in the debate the other night, no doubt about it. I want that smugness wipped off of McAmnesty’s face real quick.
Romney’s the best we have and should support him. I hear people saying they are staying home, writing in Fred’s name, and other nonsense. I say, go out and vote for Romney and smear McCain!!
Conservatives R Us on February 1, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Lesser of two evils.
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 11:46 AM
For me the choice between McCain and Romney is not about dealing with the illegals. Actually, the only part of the comprehensive reform I disagreed with was the Z visa. Any Bill will require congressional action and that is where the people’s voice needs to be heard, just like last time. And that is where the danger lies if the Republicans can’t keep what they have much less losing a small amount of seat in both chambers.
The choice for me between the two is national security and fighting the WoT effectively. McCain’s wanting to close Gitmo and bring the terrorists to Ft. Leavenworth, and McCain’s insistence that his amendment on torture be included in the military funding Bill, all this based on the ‘world will like us attitude’ is what worries me about McCain. To tell the truth, I don’t give a rat’s a$$ about whether the world likes us as we are fighting against those who want to kill us. And I do think that the economy is going to be a big issue come the November election. McCain is not going to be strong in that area. And if elected and if we do have another attack, the economy is really going to take a hit. Ya’gotta give Bush his credit on that, he’s done an excellent job against a lot of economic pitfalls in the last 7 years.
But I understand that the GOP has rallied behind McCain because he appears to be the most electable in the match up against Clinton or Obama, and the possibility of a Clinton/Obama ticket is going to be very strong. I just really hope that things don’t get so ugly that there can’t be a mending of fences between McCain and Romney because a McCain/Romney ticket can give a Clinton/Obama ticket hell!
Texas Gal on February 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Did you visit the link? They have an audio clip of Mitt explaining why McCain’s proposal is not amnesty and why it is a reasonable proposal. How were those words twisted?
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
I’m not voting for Romney, I’m voting against McCain.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Dump flip-flop Romney and support Huckabee. Did you all even look at the 9 point immigration plan? Romney has no good plan for illegal immigration.
Please don’t support this John Kerry-like politician.
justinok on February 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM
as I said ……
Onager on February 1, 2008 at 11:57 AM
You’re spinning. Don’t pretend that the 2005 version was significantly more palatable than the 2007 version.
Here’s what the Heritage Foundation had to say in 2005:
The Center for Immigration Studies didn’t like it either in 2005:
In 2005 Front Page and Tancredo thought it was amnesty too:
Even if you like Mitt’s current position, there’s little question that it isn’t the position he held as recently as 16 months ago in 2006 when he supported it:
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 12:08 PM
It’s not a good point, it’s spin. The 2005 version wasn’t much if any better than the 2007 version- conservatives everywhere were calling it unacceptable and amnesty while Romney was defending and supporting it.
Hollowpoint on February 1, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Huckles plagiarized his plan and it’s still against his soul to deprive illegal aliens of benefits. If it’s a stolen term paper or Huck’s soul, Huck’s soul wins.
BKennedy on February 1, 2008 at 12:15 PM
What is your point? What are the significant differences between the 2005 proposal and the 2007 bill? Does it really matter? The point is that Mitt said that a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who work for six years and pay a fine is reasonable and not amnesty. That IS very different from his position now and makes his attacks on McCain extremely disingenuous, er fraudulent.
As for Mitt’s record on immigration, he was putting on a kabuki dance as governor paving the way for his presidential run. He took actions that he knew would never go into effect and would be reversed as soon as he was out of office — like the state trooper thing. No state trooper in Mass. ever enforced immigration laws, but that doesn’t stop Mitt the fraud from touting that as part of his record. And I didn’t even mention the fact that illegals were caught cutting his grass, not once, but twice!!! Sanctuary mansion. That has a nice ring. Thanks Rudy.
Look. Most red meat conservatives want to use economic coercion to force 20 million poor out of the US and back to a shaky third world economy. They have not really thought it through. A population wave like that over any reasonable time frame is impossible. Mitt talked in the debate about allowing them time to make arrangements and allow their kids to finish the year of school that they were in. He made it seem like it could be accomplished in about 1 year. For those with calculators, that is about 57,000 people every day for 365 straight days. Exactly where are they all supposed to go? Ignoring the impact on the US economy, property values, etc., it would cripple the shaky Mexican economy creating chaos and starvation. It cannot happen and it never will happen. That was why in 2005, Mitt said it was a reasonable proposal. It was a reasonable proposal. But Mitt the dopplegangler will morph to what he thinks the voters want. If the voters are delusional about the ability to economically coerce 20 million poor back to a third world cesspool, then Mitt is all for it, and anyone talking reason is an amnesty lover or a sanctuary mayor.
Exit question: Why could Mitt take a position on this as governor but not on the surge?
tommylotto on February 1, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Hollowpoint–any hopes for a brokered convention? Fred/Rudy ticket emerges from the dust?
Yeah, I know, no chance. sigh
funky chicken on February 1, 2008 at 12:28 PM
It seems to me that Mitt often sounds like a liberal, but all his actions I’ve heard about were conservative, other than his health care program. Are there other liberal-like acts he’s guilty of, or just words?
Because if he comes across as a real nice, kinda liberal guy, but governs like a conservative, maybe he really is perfect.
NellE on February 1, 2008 at 12:30 PM
How does this differ from what illegal immigration hawks have said? Has Michelle Malkin ever said that we need to deport all 12 million, or has she leaned towards a combination of solutions which would lead to attrition?
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.”
Buy Danish on February 1, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »