War: Gingrich and Romney now accusing each other of supporting amnesty

posted at 6:07 pm on November 23, 2011 by Allahpundit

Technically Gingrich didn’t accuse him of anything, he just strongly insinuated it. It’s Romney who’s going for the jugular:

“My view is that people who come here illegally should not have a special break or a special pathway to become permanent residents or citizens of this country,” Romney said, speaking at a campaign stop at Nationwide Insurance in downtown Des Moines. “They should be in line or at the back of the line with other people who want to come here illegally.”…

Further pressed on whether he thinks Gingrich’s remarks qualify as amnesty, Romney said ”it certainly was.”

“But he didn’t go on to describe the people who have been here 20 years. How about 12 years, 10, five, three. How many children do you have to have to apply this principle,” Romney continued. “He didn’t describe that. The real issue is are we going to spend our time talking about how extensively we have amnesty.”

As frequently happens in GOP squabbles over immigration, they’re defining “amnesty” in different ways. Romney’s defining it as any special treatment for illegals: Because Gingrich wants local community boards to consider the cases of illegals who have been here for 25 years rather than sending them to the back of the line of citizenship applicants, he’s for amnesty. Gingrich is defining it in terms of citizenship: Because Romney would allow illegals to become citizens if they go to the back of the line, pay back taxes, have a clean criminal record, etc, he’s for amnesty. (Gingrich’s own plan would not let longstanding illegals become citizens, remember. It would grant them some sort of second-class status akin to permanent residency.) What they’re really arguing about at bottom is whose plan will create a stronger incentive for people to cross the border. Citizenship is irrelevant to most illegals, I suspect, as long as they’re granted the right to stay permanently so I’m not sure Gingrich’s plan has any real advantage. He does potentially have an advantage by requiring a lengthy stay to qualify, which would leave all but a few older illegals still subject to deportation. When Philip Klein tried to pin Mitt’s spokesman down last night on what Romney would require of illegals who are currently here, he got the runaround. Since Gingrich is already in for a penny on this subject, he might as well go in for a pound and start pressing Romney to elaborate on his own plan. Watching Mitt squirm while he tries to thread the needle between conservative orthodoxy and appealing to Hispanics in the general would probably annoy the base more than Newt’s answer did last night.

Which is not to say the Gingrich plan is the answer. Read Mickey Kaus and these two smart posts by Mark Krikorian for problems with the “red card” system. (Krikorian notes that Gingrich’s time frame fits perfectly with the 1986 mass amnesty, such that it would essentially grandfather in everyone who didn’t qualify under that law at the time.) Whether or not it’s a greater or lesser incentive for border-crossing than Romney’s plan, it’s still an incentive, in which case why entice would-be illegals with any prospect of permanent residence before the border is secure? And if, to use Gingrich’s words, “humane” treatment of illegals is the touchstone, why set the cut-off mark for red-card status at 25 years? Amnesty shills would go to work on that instantly, demanding 20 years, then 15, then 10 and then five to qualify. In fact, why require a cut-off at all for illegals with kids born on American soil? Is it humane to break up that family? And why on earth would you allow local boards to set the standards for red-card status when that’ll guarantee a flood of illegals into blue states to take advantage of the easy qualifications there (followed by migration to other states)? The whole country would be forced to accommodate the most lenient liberal standards from the country’s most liberal cities. And remember, all of this will be subject to intense political pressure by Democrats eager to pander for Hispanic votes by softening the program’s requirements. The 25-year cut-off is the best-case scenario. The final program would be worse, and it would get even worse over time.

Two immigration videos while you mull, one of Romney’s “Meet the Press” appearance in 2007 and the other of a campaign appearance in 2008. Gingrich snipped a damning bit from the MTP interview for his tweet today, but I’m giving you the full context. Romney’s clearly opposed to “amnesty” but he’s also clearly willing to tolerate citizenship for illegals under certain vague circumstances. Square that circle.

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

Oopsy, Mitt ‘Politically Expedient’ Romney strikes again.

andy85719 on November 23, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Square that circle.

That’s perfect motto for Romney campaign.

promachus on November 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

From what I’ve read & seen about their plans it looks to me that they both support something that many here would call “amnesty.”

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM

Newt answers how he would deal with Illegals in an honest manor.

Romney lies through his teeth, knowing damn well that he would do the same, yet this is an election year, so he panders.

Some truth spilled out of Romney’s mouth during one of the debates:

“I’m running for Office, for petes sake. I can’t have illegals!!”

-Mitt Romney, 2011 Primary Debates.

portlandon on November 23, 2011 at 6:11 PM

I agree with the current version of Romney rather than Gingrich. I hold it against Newt that I even have to say that.

I think I now officially belong to the Faction Who Doesn’t Give A Crap.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Romney’s core conviction:
I’M RUNNING FOR OFFICE FOR PETE’S SAKE! I CANT HAVE ILLEGALS!

El_Terrible on November 23, 2011 at 6:16 PM

The longer this goes on, the better for Gingrich. He forthcomingly raised the issue and enunciated a solution. Romney’s over-eager attack is already revealed as disingenuous, and soon we’ll get to the evasions and double-talk about his own position.

rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:16 PM

Mitt’s celebrity cologne would be “Disingenuous”.

andy85719 on November 23, 2011 at 6:17 PM

My thinks Mittens doth protest too much!!

Political Chef on November 23, 2011 at 6:18 PM

It’s almost like Mitt Romney is a flip-flopper or something. Hmmm…

/

Fezzik on November 23, 2011 at 6:20 PM

Frontrunners beat each other up over this and gives Perry a perfect window to come back….oh wait.

thebrokenrattle on November 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM

War: Gingrich and Romney now accusing each other of supporting amnesty

LOL! We’ll need two gaffing hooks, please.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Amnesty shills would go to work on that instantly

Willing dupes for the desperate Willard.

mike_NC9 on November 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Newt answers how he would deal with Illegals in an honest manor.

Romney lies through his teeth, knowing damn well that he would do the same, yet this is an election year, so he panders.

portlandon

If you want to be taken seriously, at least be honest. Newt was pandering with his answer just as much, if not more so than Romney.

xblade on November 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I don’t understand, I thought Perry was the one soft on illegal aliens SNARK.

This one is for Mitt and Newt.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Would Romney 2012 vote for Romney 2008?

andy85719 on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Gingrich is defining it in terms of citizenship: Because Romney would allow illegals to become citizens if they go to the back of the line, pay back taxes, have a clean criminal record, etc, he’s for amnesty.

Sounds much closer to “legal immigration” than “amnesty”.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

This is so unproductive. There was nothing wrong with Newt’s answer last night. It’s a mainstream Republican position for crying out loud.

nickj116 on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

The further away from amnesty Romney moves, the better for the country. This cannot have a bad outcome.

Newt is a worthless RINO, now along for the RINO ride with Perry.

Both use left wing talking points to argue for effectively giving democrats an electoral college lock on the country via immigration/demographics….

rightwingyahooo on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Fearless, Consistent Conservative….

are either of these guys?

_______________2012!!!

PappyD61 on November 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Bachmann is the only candidate that has been consistent on illegal immigration.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

This is so unproductive. There was nothing wrong with Newt’s answer last night. It’s a mainstream Republican position for crying out loud.

nickj116 on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

You and your baby harp seal Republicans, lying on the snow all cute and cuddly, waiting to be clubbed and skinned by the left, offer the future generations of Americans no hope from leftist dogma, with this capitulationist tripe you push.

rightwingyahooo on November 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM

“My view is that people who come here illegally should not have a special break or a special pathway to become permanent residents or citizens of this country,” Romney said, speaking at a campaign stop at Nationwide Insurance in downtown Des Moines. “They should be in line or at the back of the line with other people who want to come here illegally.”…

If only that were even possible. There are far too many…millions…of illegals in this country, with families, homes, work, etc. Good luck with any deportation. The logistics are mind-boggling and probably impossible.

JetBoy on November 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM

War: Gingrich and Romney now accusing each other of supporting amnesty

I suspect that they are both right.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM

Newt’s right that we’re not gonna deport 12-20 million illegals. Never mind the logistics of it. The optics would be horrible(imagine the Elian Gonzalez image multiplied by the thousands). The key is securing the border and disincentivizing anyone from entering the country illegally in the future as well as employers and politicians who are looking to capitalize on those immigrants.

This is where I probably side with Newt over Mittens. Because Newt sounds like he’s trying to have an honest discussion about dealing with this problem whereas Romney is looking to score a cheap political point while hoping no one notices the countless positions he’s taken over the course of his career.

Doughboy on November 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Romney spent millions last election smearing Republicans across several states. And it failed.

He looks bad on the attack. He looks hypocritical & petty. This entire campaign he has been pretending to be “above the fray,” & “inevatable” well, now he’s getting down in the dirt and “inevitable” candidates don’t need to get into squabbling matches with their opponents. It looks desperate and it’s going to hurt him, especially since he’s picking a fight with the candidate who has done nothing by say great things about him and everyone else. And he’s picking a topic on which he’s weak to do it. And opening up himeself to be the sole person that Newt attacks.

All in all, I’d say it was a bad decision.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM

If you want to be taken seriously, at least be honest. Newt was pandering with his answer just as much, if not more so than Romney.

xblade on November 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Newt was being realistic. And he told us exactly how he would handle it.

Romney contradicted himself on his stance on immigration within 5 minutes in the same debate.

portlandon on November 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

Bachmann is the only candidate that has been consistent on illegal immigration.

FloatingRock on November 23, 2011 at 6:25 PM

What, and I’m being serious here-not baiting, is her plan for dealing with the millions of illegals who are already here? I didn’t hear it last night, but I was working & may not have been paying attention at that point.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 6:29 PM

Rush had a great point today……

Okay Newtster……you say 25 years is okay? What about 20? well what about 15 years? 15 months? What about Julio and Marie that got here 15 days ago and Maria went to a Mesa Urgent care and had her baby and now little Michelina will be tossed back to the drug cartels in Mejico?

They broke the law Newt. Follow The Pappy Plan and let’s see what happens.

The Pappy Plan

1. Seal the border.Saves entitlements of all kinds, saves state budgets, etc.

2. 10% across the board cuts in Federal Spending.If you seal the border and millions self deport you might see a 10% cut in spending just by default!!!! And I mean CUTS not those little fake cuts in the rate of growth that they build into the process.

Maybe we could send CON-gress to Mexico, and THEN seal the border?

PappyD61 on November 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Maybe we could send CON-gress to Mexico, and THEN seal the border?

PappyD61 on November 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM

You might be onto something…..

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

Romney contradicted himself on his stance on immigration within 5 minutes in the same debate.

portlandon on November 23, 2011 at 6:28 PM

It’s like the Koran. Make enough contradictory statements & not only can no one nail you down on an issue but your followers can selectively quote you depending upon what they want to prove and to whom.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 6:31 PM

He looks bad on the attack. He looks hypocritical & petty. This entire campaign he has been pretending to be “above the fray,” & “inevatable” well, now he’s getting down in the dirt and “inevitable” candidates don’t need to get into squabbling matches with their opponents.
29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Do you think Newt laid a trap?

rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Somebody please GPS the exact lake the GOP candidate must waltz across. Seems every camp just knows the lake is out there just not where.

Limerick on November 23, 2011 at 6:34 PM

War: Gingrich and Romney now accusing each other of supporting amnesty

They’re both right.

I agree with the current version of Romney rather than Gingrich.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Yep. Not that Romney gets any points for his “stance.” Everyone knows that the words coming out of Romney’s mouth have no bearing on how he would deal with illegals.

I think I now officially belong to the Faction Who Doesn’t Give A Crap.

I’m getting there too. I mean, I don’t want Romney to be the nominee. But if he wins, it won’t be because he beat a strong conservative.

This is so unproductive. There was nothing wrong with Newt’s answer last night. It’s a mainstream Republican position for crying out loud.

nickj116 on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

You mean a mainstream Republican politician’s position? There’s a reason that Perry lost 75% of his support after he made a not entirely dissimilar remark.

The Republican establishment, lead by George W. and the Wall Street Journal, keep chasing the illegal labor for their business buddies and the dream of the Natural Republican Hispanic Voter. In doing so, they completely destroy the philosophy of John Adams that has quietly held this country (and the British Empire before it) up for centuries: that we are a Nation of Laws, not Men, and that the laws are enforced without partiality or “humaneness” or “heart.”

If the GOP wants the laws changed to an open border, than they should try – dare – to do so through Congress. It’s an embarrassment to say so, but Barack H. Obama has been marginally better at border enforcement than his supposedly arch-Republican predecessor who persecuted his own ICE department (though Hussein probably owes his “success” to the failed economy).

HitNRun on November 23, 2011 at 6:36 PM

Both Romney & Gingrich are for illegal immigration.

Pretty much every Republican is to some extent. None of them should be trusted.

tetriskid on November 23, 2011 at 6:41 PM

Yup, let’s keep playing right into the hands of Obama. Lets destroy every Republican candidate over semantics in an issue that in practice will not make one iota of difference who the president is and let Obama keep skating on the economy,debt, deficit, lack of leadership, three-year reelection campaign, solyndra, fast and furious, and on and on and on. Lets let Politico and the Hufington post set the agenda for us and continue to self destruct. I thought we were the party with the brains. We have all this air time to drill home what a failure the dems and their policies are, who ever is the most effective at doing that should be the Republican candidate.

neuquenguy on November 23, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Wow … I love HotAir … today I learned that sometimes … women fake orgasms and …

Mitt Romney is a Flip-Flopper.

Never knew that stuff – who’d have figured?

/S

HondaV65 on November 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Do you think Newt laid a trap?
rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

If so, all it did was backfire, sending him spiraling back to the couch.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

if they go to the back of the line

 
Meaningless platitudes unless they mean “make their presence known, apply for citizenship exactly like an Irish or Japanese person would, and leave the U.S. if citizenship is denied.”
 
But they don’t.
 

Good luck with any deportation. The logistics are mind-boggling and probably impossible.
 
JetBoy on November 23, 2011 at 6:26 PM

 
Nope. Simple as heck. Pass a law that says in six months employers will be fined $5000/day per illegal employed at that point and, if applicable, retroactively to the day the legislation is signed into law, and set up a crimestoppers-type phone line.
 
If the tip is true, the informant gets every penny of each fine that comes from the bust.
 
No deportation necessary.

rogerb on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

Lets destroy every Republican candidate over semantics in an issue that in practice will not make one iota of difference
neuquenguy on November 23, 2011 at 6:42 PM

Actually, Newt laid out his “Rube Goldberg on brown acid” amnesty scheme so it’s fair game – as are any candidate’s policies. As Rush said today: “This is a bold proposal, there’s no question, but it was snuck in there,” he said. “The way he threw it out there as full-fledged policy, okay, that means we can shoot at it.”

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I think I now officially belong to the Faction Who Doesn’t Give A Crap.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Are you following me? It’s cool if you are.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 6:51 PM

If the tip is true, the informant gets every penny of each fine that comes from the bust.

No deportation necessary.

rogerb on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

How about if the informant is an illegal himself? How about if the informant is a Cesar Chavez type — whose reason is to force unionization?

unclesmrgol on November 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

A candidate who supports an amnesty gets a plus mark on my list.

unclesmrgol on November 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

If so, all it did was backfire, sending him spiraling back to the couch.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Doesn’t that remain to be seen?

rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:57 PM

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

not even close, to legally immigrate the immigrant waits to get permission to come over. in this case the people who are here illegally come out of the “shadows” and then get to start the process w/o having to return to country of origin. its crap and how anyone can support romney for blatantly lying in this manner is a dishonest hack also

chasdal on November 23, 2011 at 6:58 PM

But Cain’s the idiot. Is the only one speaking clearly about enforcement only, but so-called conservatives are flirting with Gingrich. Gingrich wouldn’t be anywhere if conservatives didn’t go along with the smear campaign perpetuated on Cain. Now he’s Mr. Conservative? I sure hope this issue disabuses any conservative of that notion, as it clearly demonstrates why Gingrich is as much a big government Republican as Mitt Romney.

milemarker2020 on November 23, 2011 at 6:59 PM

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I listened to Rush today and he did not came out as strongly as some here against Newt’s comments. He pointed out that Newt did not propose Citizenship while Mitt has done it in the past.
My point is that I don’t believe we will see much of a difference in how this issue is dealt with regardless of who the President ends up being, and the next couple of weeks would be much better spent by the candidates contrasting themselves with Obama and how they would run things differently than destroying as many Republican candidates over what in practice are small differences in this issue.

neuquenguy on November 23, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Are you following me? It’s cool if you are.

Daemonocracy on November 23, 2011 at 6:51 PM

I suspect there will be a lot of us by the time this is over.

sharrukin on November 23, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Frontrunners beat each other up over this and gives Perry a perfect window to come back….oh wait.

thebrokenrattle on November 23, 2011 at 6:21 PM

You better believe it! Perry stands to benefit greatly from this.

Many Perry voters left him to join the Cain wagon because of illegal immigration and their belief that Perry was dumb. Only problem or two problems?

- Cain proved he was more “dumb” than Perry answering “9-9-9″ to every question on domestic policy and not having a clue on foreign policy.

- Gingrich, while being the best when it comes to the 1-minute soundbite debates, now also has an illegal immigration problem. Add to that his many transgressions against conservatives and you have a short-lived period at the top.

Now conservative voters get to decide:

- Should we go back to the three-term Governor with a successful conservative governing record or should we continue our flirtation with the know-nothing “outsider” and/or the know-everything “Washington insider”?

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 7:01 PM

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 7:01 PM

yep, those that are taking that 2nd look are gonna realize it was all superficial and that perry outshines the field. its funny that the cain supporters who claim not to let the media tell them who to vote for fell hook line and sinker for the media narrative on perry. but come on back now that cain has shown that he is shallow and vapid on the issues.

chasdal on November 23, 2011 at 7:03 PM

In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king and Gingrich is blind. My enemy’s enemy is my friend.

It’s Romney who’s going for the jugular:

Tear out the Royalist Newt’s tonsils and make him eat them.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:04 PM

Yes, the next few weeks should be amusing…

JohnGalt23 on November 23, 2011 at 7:05 PM

If so, all it did was backfire, sending him spiraling back to the couch.
whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Doesn’t that remain to be seen?
rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:57 PM

To be sure, his amnesty plan will meet with approval from his Beltway elitist RINO pals. But there just aren’t enough of them to defeat the Jane/John Doe and Tea Party GOPers.
Newt can barely survive a 1 or 2 point drop, but here he’s set himself up for the “Perry Plunge”. This will be evidenced in the polls, starting by this week’s end when the impact can be measured.

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Because Gingrich wants local community boards to consider the cases of illegals who have been here for 25 years

This is the worst and the sickest idea I have ever heard. A matter greatly impacting the entire nation is to be decided not at a national level, not even at a state level, not even at a county level, not even at a city level, but at a community level by some board of community Plantation Lords? If the community board members like their nanny service or the price of illegal drugs then they vote “Stay on the Island”. And what does “path to legality, not citizenship” even mean? That they would be second-class Americans? We don’t do second-class in America. That went out at the end of the Civil War. Go back and sit on that couch with Nancy, Newt, you God damned bastard. You used to praise Al Gore for his leadership on Global Warming so maybe you three can have a real love feast on that couch. Maybe you can even be Obama’s VP.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Yes, the next few weeks should be amusing…

JohnGalt23 on November 23, 2011 at 7:05 PM

may Gingrich live in interesting times.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:12 PM

If the tip is true, the informant gets every penny of each fine that comes from the bust.
 
No deportation necessary.
 
rogerb on November 23, 2011 at 6:46 PM

 
How about if the informant is an illegal himself?
 
unclesmrgol on November 23, 2011 at 6:52 PM

 
Ack! My arguement is thwarted!
 
Well played indeed, sir, because I’d bet not even the wisest, Harvardiest, most Latinaiest lawyer could figure out language to prevent such a clever, cunning act.
 
The mind reels at the strength of such debate. We are truly humbled by your presence.

rogerb on November 23, 2011 at 7:12 PM

We tried workers without rights before, and we got a civil war. The unintended consequences that happened from 1776 to 1861 were documented in the many Lincoln speeches. He maintained that the founders put the problem on a path so it would eventually become extinct. But the reality was just the opposite. For example.The number of members in “workforce without rights” was increased by the entrepreneurs of that age, until the number actually exceeded workforce with rights. The geographical area that this workforce operated continued to spread until the nation was predicted to be either all slave or all free.The supreme court, ever with an ear to popular demand, decreed that no state could say “no” to an ever increasing number of the “workforce without rights”. Dred Scott. Lincoln called upon the Declaration that set the course for America. And the declaration states that all men are created equal and government is by consent of the governed. I always thought Newt was a little royalist for my taste. He and/or his campaign contributors just want serf labor.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Yes, the next few weeks should be amusing…

JohnGalt23 on November 23, 2011 at 7:05 PM

You better believe it!

The primary is just beginning. Voters have now seen Romney and the Not-Romneys and have come to recognize that every single candidate has flaws.

The next few weeks will see voters beginning to think carefully through the slate of candidates and select the one whose positive attributes, they believe, overwhelm the flaws.

I am optimistic that Gov. Perry will come out tops because he and only he has the record to match his rhetoric. He is also the only one proposing the bold conservative reforms that we need to overturn the liberal advances of the past decades.

TheRightMan on November 23, 2011 at 7:16 PM

(Gingrich’s own plan would not let longstanding illegals become citizens, remember. It would grant them some sort of second-class status akin to permanent residency slavery or at least serfdom.)

We fought a Civil War about that and those like Gingrich lost.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Newt is about as right and strong as Bachmann, Perry, Cain

Romney owns this debate. The only thing the other side has is tired arguments that are half truths. Golden, shiny Newt gets a rude awakening.

A bigger flip-flopper than Mitt with a pathetic etical and personal record by comparison.

Geesh, I’m starting to miss Perry. Even though he is not ready, at least he has the capability to lead and be president.

Cain and Newt are jokes.

swamp_yankee on November 23, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Do you think Newt laid a trap?

rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

No. But I think that Romney has been running a campaign based entirely on his inevitability and I think that the recent polls are really spooking him, especially the one in New Hampshire (that’s probably crap).

Romney was able to dispatch Perry in Perry’s first debate and I don’t know that he ever took Cain as a serious threat. But Newt is on the ascension now and doesn’t show any signs of weakening. So Romney falls back to his normal way of campaigning, since he can’t run on his record — attack.

The guy has run for office three times and won once. I know he looks like he’s good at this, but I see him as a seriously flawed candidate.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Man I haven’t enjoyed HA this much in months LOL!

gophergirl on November 23, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Gingrich’s plan would not let longstanding illegals become citizens, it would grant them some sort of second-class status akin to slavery light or at least serfdom light. We fought a Civil War about that and those like Gingrich lost. The man is utterly beneath contempt. I want the illegal invaders to go home, but if they are legalized to stay, it can not be as second-class/slavery light/serfs. This is America Newt, not the Old South or North Korea, you God damned bastard.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I like what Andy McCarthy says about the issue.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/284057/more-immigration-and-amnesty-andrew-c-mccarthy

onlineanalyst on November 23, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Gingrich took $1.5 million to support the cause of Freddie Mac ( state supported bad mortgages). Supporting bad policy ought to have killed his candidacy. Being paid big taxpayers dollars to do so and then insulting our intelligence by telling us that he was being paid as a historian is icing on this crap cake he’s dishing out.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Would Romney 2012 vote for Romney 2008?

andy85719 on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Bravo! Someone needs to ask Mittens this question at the next debate, it would be amusing to watch him explain either yes or no to that.

Just my humble opinion but, for me this is the thread winner, hands down.

Archimedes on November 23, 2011 at 7:57 PM

Sorry guys, not a dime’s worth of difference between the two of them on this. And probably not on a lot of other issues as well.

kg598301 on November 23, 2011 at 8:03 PM

T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII is the only conservative left running. At least he’s to the right of Romney/Huntsman. I hope he makes it to the next debate.

Corsair on November 23, 2011 at 8:04 PM

I don’t understand, I thought Perry was the one soft on illegal aliens SNARK.

This one is for Mitt and Newt.

Dr Evil on November 23, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Ha ha. Awesome! Like gophergirl, I am just enjoying the clusterfark. Best time I’ve had here in quite a while!

kg598301 on November 23, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Frankly I would have thought it would be a lot worse for Newt. The amnesty shills have been schooled about like Ron Paul and are reduced to trying to redefine terms like “permanent resident“.

If we can get over this hump, there’s a chance that we could actually make some progress in securing the border.

Yeah Newt!

mike_NC9 on November 23, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Oopsy, Mitt ‘Politically Expedient’ Romney strikes again.
andy85719 on November 23, 2011 at 6:09 PM

Square that circle.
That’s perfect motto for Romney campaign.
promachus on November 23, 2011 at 6:10 PM

He said they should go home and apply like anyone else. You two either didn’t listen to the interview or you are beyond stupid.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2011 at 8:33 PM

I’ll write in Tom Tancredo’s name before I vote for amnesty/global warming/corrupt fannymae Newt.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Newt will soon be joining Perry.

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Because Romney would allow illegals to become citizens if they go to the back of the line, pay back taxes, have a clean criminal record, etc, he’s for amnesty.

This statement is clearly false. Romney said they can go home and apply like everyone else.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Do you think Newt laid a trap?

rrpjr on November 23, 2011 at 6:33 PM

Yeah, Newt laid a bouncing betty and Mittens stepped on it. Now all Mitt can do is pettily attack and try to cover up his own disastrous record and past statements. Newt, in the meantime, actually has a plan up on his website that addresses the problem and offers solutions.

Punchenko on November 23, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Joe Sladge lives down in the Bayou, not many folk know him, never made any real decisions, except what to eat that night. Goes to church, never been in trouble. Never been married, never had kids, never smoked, or done no drugs…may be the only man who would be considered a valid candidate…

right2bright on November 23, 2011 at 8:57 PM

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on November 23, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Your foolishness is stunning. I’m a diehard who wants nothing more than a gigantic nuke dropped on the DNC, but to say Newt should be Obraindead’s VP simply because of a few misguided photo-ops or this immigration policy is just ignorant.

Newt was an incredible speaker who managed to make Bill Clinton into 5 times the fiscal conservative that W was. I guess I could call you an extremist. Maybe not extremely conservative or whatever, just extremely stupid.

preallocated on November 23, 2011 at 9:06 PM

but to say Newt should be Obraindead’s VP simply because of a few misguided photo-ops or this immigration policy is just ignorant

.

Ignorant is ignoring Gingrich’s position on AGW, Illegal Immigration, Freddie Mac, Respect For Marriage etc etc etc. You have no idea of what will come next out of this man’s closet.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM

We are not going to send home 12 million people who have not been committing crimes. That is not going to happen. We do have to shut off the spigot at the borders, stop catch and release, enforce laws about illegal employment and let the problem resolve itself over time. I do not believe we will have local panels making deportation decisions as Newt lamely suggests either.

Newt is being relatively realistic and relatively honest when compared to the other candidates pandering to the primary electorate. Mitt is just being opportunistic.

KW64 on November 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM

We are not going to send home 12 million people who have not been committing crimes. That is not going to happen. We do have to shut off the spigot at the borders, stop catch and release, enforce laws about illegal employment and let the problem resolve itself over time. I do not believe we will have local panels making deportation decisions as Newt lamely suggests either.

Newt is being relatively realistic and relatively honest when compared to the other candidates pandering to the primary electorate. Mitt is just being opportunistic. KW64 on November 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM

You are not going to turn off the spigot so long as you dangle the magnet of amnesty. Mitt is being smart.

You are being very contradictory in your defense of Newt. He stepped in it big time last night.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Gingrich sucks.

jaime on November 23, 2011 at 9:55 PM

We are not going to send home 12 million people who have not been committing crimes.
KW64 on November 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM

How do you know there are “12 million” and how do you know they have not committed a crime?
(And, in fact, they are all criminals by definition.)

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 10:04 PM

I highly doubt that 0′Ronmey will be mentioning Illegal Alien Amnesty again anytime soon. Indeed, his face will need another coating of Cover-All before he goes out in public again.

DannoJyd on November 24, 2011 at 12:02 AM

You are not going to turn off the spigot so long as you dangle the magnet of amnesty. Mitt is being smart.

You are being very contradictory in your defense of Newt. He stepped in it big time last night.

Basilsbest on November 23, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Not deporting is not amnesty. They will still find it harder to get and hold a job and jobs are tne magnet not just existance. They will not be able to vote for more welfare which they will not be eligible for. When they cannot bring relatives in, cannot get employment, cannot get more than emergency public assistance, they will self deport. That beats rounding up people by a long shot. My “defense of Newt” (I said his lame local panels bit wouldn’t fly)was more a jab at those who think they are going to round up that many people embedded into the woodwork of society or think they can convince GOP voters that they will be able to do so when in fact, that won’t be done.

KW64 on November 24, 2011 at 1:04 AM

How do you know there are “12 million” and how do you know they have not committed a crime?
(And, in fact, they are all criminals by definition.)

whatcat on November 23, 2011 at 10:04 PM

12 Million is the number thrown around in the media. Choose your own number of millions, the point is still the same. They committed the crime of illegal entry if they came in adulthood, but they did not if they were children under age of reason. But my point is that by staying out of trouble with the law, it is more trouble to round them up than it is worth. If they are regularly committing crimes other than just “illegal” existence, then it is worth the trouble of arresting and deporting them. If you just make it tough to get a job and get public assistance, those without means may well go home on their own terms.

KW64 on November 24, 2011 at 1:11 AM

Watching Mitt squirm while he tries to thread the needle between conservative orthodoxy and appealing to Hispanics in the general would probably annoy the base more than Newt’s answer did last night.

Taking the same position that Ed Meese says Reagan would have adopted after being burned in 1986 would not be a squirm inducing moment.

csdeven on November 24, 2011 at 7:09 AM

All in all, I’d say it was a bad decision.

29Victor on November 23, 2011 at 6:27 PM

Of course you would. But you are as biased as any person I have ever read on HA.

csdeven on November 24, 2011 at 7:24 AM

That is not going to happen.

KW64 on November 23, 2011 at 9:17 PM

So you are for amnesty also.

Thanks for playing.

csdeven on November 24, 2011 at 7:25 AM

Is Romney calling for rounding up 10+ million people? If so, just man up and be honest.

If you’re going to take such a position, express it with pride, every chance you get.

MNHawk on November 24, 2011 at 8:23 AM

So you are for amnesty also.

Thanks for playing.

csdeven on November 24, 2011 at 7:25 AM

If the Dems win, they will not deport. If the republicans campaign on mass deportation, the Latino vote will swing to the Democrats and the Republicans will lose. So, it will not happen. Read my post at 1:04 am and 1:11 am and you will see that my policy is very far from amnesty.

KW64 on November 24, 2011 at 10:18 AM

For you that like to take things out of context here is what Romney said! Something MOST of us supported when he said it in 2007! He is not calling for Amnesty like McCain was…

GOV. ROMNEY: Now let’s, now let’s look at those very carefully, OK, and you’re, you’re a careful reader. In the interview with The Boston Globe, I described all three programs that were out there, described what they were, acknowledged that they were not technically an amnesty program, but I indicated in that same interview that I had not formulated my own proposal and that I was endorsing none of those three programs. I did not support any of them. I called them reasonable. They are reasonable efforts to, to look at the problem. But I said I did not support–and I said specifically in that interview I have not formulated my own policy and have not determined which I would support. And, of course, the Cornyn proposal required all of the immigrants to go home. The McCain proposal required most of them to go home, but let some stay. And the Bush proposal I, frankly, don’t recall in that much detail. But they had very different proposals. My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country–the 12 million or so that are here illegally–should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

MR. RUSSERT: But they shouldn’t have to go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, whether they go home–they should go home eventually. There’s a set per–in my view they should be–they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there’s a set period where upon they should return home. And if they’ve been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they’ll be going home.

MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?

GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that’s a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who’ve come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally. And likewise, if they’ve brought a child to this country or they’ve had a child in this country, that’s, that’s wonderful that they’re growing their families, but that doesn’t mean that they all get to stay here indefinitely. We’re fundamentally a nation of laws. And let me underscore something here that I think’s awfully important, because this immigration debate can sound anti-immigrant to a lot of people. It’s not intended to be that by myself or, I believe, by the vast majority of others that talk about it. We value legal immigration. We welcome people coming here with different cultures and skill and education, but we are a nation of laws. And our freedoms and our liberty are associated with following the law. We have to secure our border, we have to make sure there’s an employment verification system to identify who’s here legally and who’s not. And then for the 12 million who’ve come here, welcome them to get in line with everybody else, but no special pathway.

g2825m on November 24, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Would Romney 2012 vote for Romney 2008?

andy85719 on November 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM

I want ANYONE to show me how he has voted differently since that time to BACK UP the above statement!

All you Romney basher’s show me his ACTUAL Legislation that he SIGNED since 2005. He has been the same person since his biggest conversion to being BOTH personally and as a Governor against abortion. He has ALWAYS been against gay marriage but for civil unions and that is where many of you confuse his stance for your purposes.

I’ll provide a list for you and you tell me where he is liberal here on his ACTUAL VOTING RECORD:

Romney’s record:
Cut taxes in MA – Check
Closed loopholes and raised fees as Reagan did – Check
Voted pro-life bills as GOV – Check
Voted and eased 2nd Amendment bills in MA – Check
See here: “Massachusetts oldest, largest and premier pro-second amendment/gun rights group, Gun owners` Action League (GOAL) stated:“The bill was the greatest victory for gun owners since the passage of the gun control laws in 1998 (Chapter 180 of the Acts of 1998). It was a reform bill totally supported by GOAL. Press and media stories around the country got it completely wrong when claimed the bill was an extension of the ‘assault weapon’ ban”
Against illegal immigration – Check
Signed bill against Illegal Immigration Recv tuition breaks – Check
Build the complete fence along the border – Check
For Defense of Marriage Act – Check
For Cut, Cap, and Balance – Check
Pro expansion of the military and keeping GITMO open – Check
Drilling in ANWR – Check
Investing in new technologies for oil – Check
Develop energy technology like nuclear or liquefied coal – Check

Sick of people’s lying on Romney’s record. When you want to bring up Romney’s 1994 video’s etc then we can bring up Reagan’s time as well when he was supportive of abortion and also amnesty and make the same argument. Reagan that flip flopper…how dare he!

g2825m on November 24, 2011 at 10:47 AM

One other point to where some of you are just hypocritical like rrpjr, preallocated, punchenko, et al…you make comments about how Romney does not have the intestinal fortitude to fight but when he does bring up facts against the other candidates on stage and challenges them you all say Look at Romney, he flipped out or totally lost it, which clearly he did not and is standing up for his record, hence, why most of the country sees him as perfectly fine to be the Republican candidate. Many of you misjudge WHO exactly is a Tea Party member and what our needs are in the movement. Not everyone that is a TP’er wants a hard pull to the right…they just want Obama out and the country to return to conservative values.

Your other WEAK arguments that I have covered many times here is that he is only polling at 25%…well, its basic math. Perry is only polling at XXX or Gingrich at XXX or Cain XXX. I could say the same thing about ANY of your candidates so this is an idiotic argument. Let’s look at the numbers when there are 2 candidates. IF Romney is polling at 25% still, then we’ll know won’t we?

g2825m on November 24, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I am for amnesty. Mexican chicks are smokin hot.

borntoraisehogs on November 24, 2011 at 1:50 PM

The truth if you listened carefully is that they’re not that far apart. Romney wants to turn off the magnet, i.e. come up with a way to make it harder for employers to hire illegals. Gingrich does too, although I don’t think that announcing in advance that you’re going to provide a way for them to stay here, is not too smart. He’s look for Hispanic votes.

The point should be clear to anybody here illegally: you can’t take precedence over those who followed the law, you can’t vote here, and fraud by using false identification is a serious crime.

flataffect on November 24, 2011 at 5:10 PM