Ann Coulter on 2016: Second look at Mitt Romney?

posted at 3:21 pm on April 3, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via MofoPolitics, which is responsible for the clip, and Free Republic, where the Romney 3.0 movement is, shall we say, off to a bad start in the comments. I’m 90 percent sure she’s joking but there’s no way to be sure: Any conservative willing to offer three cheers for RomneyCare qualifies, indisputably, as a true blue Mitt fan. I didn’t think they existed, but they do. Even among people who knew all along that, if nominated, he would lose.

Why Romney instead of someone else, though? One big reason, she says, is immigration. He was the guy who hammered Rick Perry in the debates for supporting in-state tuition for illegals; he was also the guy who made attrition through enforcement — a.k.a. “self-deportation” — the foundation of his immigration policy, despite endless bleating from the media. Call him a squish on other matters if you like but on amnesty he was rock-solid. But see, this was the whole problem with Romney: Was he rock-solid on immigration or was he merely telling primary voters what he thought they wanted to hear? You never really knew with Mitt. He already had one gigantic, potentially fatal political liability with health care. He likely reasoned, correctly, that he couldn’t afford another one by taking a centrist line on immigration. So he became a staunch conservative on legalization and citizenship and it worked for him — for awhile.

How about after the election, though, when he no longer had to worry about offending voters? Here’s what he told a WaPo reporter for a book on the 2012 campaign that came out last year:

On his plan for self-deportation, Romney said, “I still don’t know whether it’s seen as being punitive in the Hispanic community. I mean, I know it is in the Anglo community … I didn’t recognize how negative and punitive that term would be seen by the voting community.”…

When Romney started to trail Gingrich in polls ahead of the South Carolina primary, the book explains that his advisers want to run immigration-themed ads against Gingrich — but Romney refused to “run an immigration campaign.”

Balz also reports in Collision 2012 that Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, thought that the immigration attacks on Perry were “both damaging and unnecessary.”

“Looking back, I think that’s right,” Romney told Balz. “I think that I was ineffective in being able to bring Hispanic voters into our circle and that had I been less pointed on that in the debates, I would have been more likely to get more Hispanic voters.”

That sounds to me like a man who regrets having taken such a hard line. Here he is again in November 2013, months after the Gang of Eight bill passed the Senate:

Another issue — immigration — is something the Republican Party must deal with, Mitt Romney said. Asked if there should be a pathway to citizenship put forward, he said, “I do believe those who come here illegally ought to have an opportunity to get in line with everybody else. I don’t think those who come here illegally should jump to the front of the line or be given a special deal, be rewarded for coming here illegally, but I think they should have a chance just like anybody else to get in line and to become a citizen if they’d like to do so.”

It’s not entirely clear what he means there. Does he think illegals should be allowed to stay, with legal status, while they get in line to apply for citizenship, or does he think they should be removed and then try applying for a visa while back in their own country just like every other aspiring American in the world? Come to think of it, that’s not the right question. The right question is, how would President Romney, having just won a squeaker over Obama but having lost 70+ percent of the Latino vote, respond to a concerted push by congressional Democrats for immigration reform? Would he have held firm to “self-deportation” or, having been chastened by the Latino reaction to “self-deportation” during the campaign and with Republican leaders breathing down his neck about changing demographics and 2016, would he have tried to broker some sort of deal involving legalization? Which seems truer to the Romney ethos to you? Reagan signed an amnesty but Mitt the Unconquerable wouldn’t have?

I do think she’s right that it’ll probably be a governor in 2016, though. Are there any of those on the Republican bench who are as firmly opposed to amnesty as Romney 2012 was?


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

She is right, of course. Romney was the GOP’s best candidate in decades. he would be again.

Drunk Report on April 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Man, you need to quit beltin’ the bottle, fella.

Lanceman on April 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

freedomfirst on April 3, 2014 at 4:10 PM

I wish that The Blaze could replay the two debates but not sure if it’s plausible.

If The Blaze can’t re-broadcast the debate it would be excellent if Glenn would highlight Nigel and either do an extended interview with him and/or make him a frequent guest on the channel.

FloatingRock on April 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

I for one am sick and tired of the gratuitous Mitt GQ handsome posts…if you hate good looking people I hate you!

freakin commies

windansea on January 17, 2008 at 9:11 PM

portlandon on April 3, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Sure why not. Losing three presidential tries hasn’t been done since the days of Harold Stassen I don’t think.

Call the Guinness Book people. Lets find out what the record is, and then go for it!

MTF on April 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM

It’s a new page so I guess I should provide a link to the debate I’m talking about, which I highly recommend:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd9rsmD4HiM

FloatingRock on April 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Mitt also said post 2012 debacle that, “He didn’t have the fire in the belly.” Let that golden turd sink in for a minute. He spent in total eight fricking years to win the nomination, and once he gets his shot at the title turns into a complete moron. He decimated his primary rivals by outspending them and going negative and flooding the airwaves with negative ads. That is how he won the primary, and because the RNC in their inbred, dysfunctional wisdom ordained him to win.
So he gets his big shot. Once in a lifetime! The man that eviscerated his primary opponents’ by going negative in the primaries, turns into the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man when going after the Big O. His campaign was one of the most incompetent, inept, fraudulent campaigns that have ever been!
What would he do this time? Upgrade to Orca 2.0? Give me a fricking break!
Ann C needs a man, or have her medications increased!

JimmyGee on April 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

What are your thoughts on Martinez?

She’s a very popular governor and would bring both Hispanic and female credentials to a VP slot. I liked her speech at the convention.

Kaffa on April 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Why not the first spot?

HiJack on April 3, 2014 at 4:28 PM

I don’t know, exactly. My current thinking is Scott Walker because of the miracle he achieved in blue state Wisconsin. Two governors Walker/Martinez might make a winning ticket as well as be able to get something done once elected.

Kaffa on April 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM

Mitt is very handsome, intelligent, attractive man. He looks like Matthew Fox’s, from Lost, distinguished, older brother. Plus it’s kinda sexy that he can speak French…..ooh la la!

sheryl on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM

portlandon on April 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

I want a candidate who is dedicated to taking a machete to the directory of gov. agencies and the Federal Register. We worked just fine with only five Secretaries up until 1903 and have gone to he!! in a hand basket since then. We even won WW II without a Sec Def (added in 1947).

Rick Perry is my candidate but I would be happy to see a ticket with him at the top and any of the young bucks (or Palin) in the bottom slot.

jffree1 on April 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

The US Government is the 3rd largest economy in the world.

Texas has done well with Gov. Perry and states who govern conservatively are doing better….so I hope he runs in 2016

First class action Obamacare lawsuit was filed against Nevada’s State Health Exchange & Zerox who won the contract to build and manage the site.

More and more states will be sued in these class action lawsuits.

Texas doesn’t have an Obamacare state health exchange…and Texas has Tort Reform.

Gov. Perry resisted the pressure to cave on Obamacare.

workingclass artist on April 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

She is right, of course. Romney was the GOP’s best candidate in decades. he would be again.

Drunk Report on April 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

And yet we aren’t speaking of President Romney are we?

workingclass artist on April 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Wouldn’t surprise me if she were serious.She clearly suffers from political schizophrenia.RINO one day,conservative the next.She clearly has no political compass;her columns appear designed for shock value more than philosophical edification.Poor confused tranny!

redware on April 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Romney and Christie are no goes for me. Open to everybody else on the rumored 30 prospects..

KMav on April 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM

Mitt also said post 2012 debacle that, “He didn’t have the fire in the belly.” Let that golden turd sink in for a minute. He spent in total eight fricking years to win the nomination, and once he gets his shot at the title turns into a complete moron. He decimated his primary rivals by outspending them and going negative and flooding the airwaves with negative ads. That is how he won the primary, and because the RNC in their inbred, dysfunctional wisdom ordained him to win.
So he gets his big shot. Once in a lifetime! The man that eviscerated his primary opponents’ by going negative in the primaries, turns into the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man when going after the Big O. His campaign was one of the most incompetent, inept, fraudulent campaigns that have ever been!
What would he do this time? Upgrade to Orca 2.0? Give me a fricking break!
Ann C needs a man, or have her medications increased!

JimmyGee on April 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

Agreed.

Romney was more interested in winning the nomination than beating Obama.

workingclass artist on April 3, 2014 at 4:39 PM

Gov. Perry resisted the pressure to cave on Obamacare.

workingclass artist on April 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Pro amnesty.

81% of all first generation immigrants are democrats. 12% are republicans. Do the math. It does not matter if he is perfect on every other thing. Amnesty destroys conservatism for effectively the remainder of the nation’s existence.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 4:39 PM

What are your thoughts on Martinez?
She’s a very popular governor and would bring both Hispanic and female credentials to a VP slot. I liked her speech at the convention.
Kaffa on April 3, 2014 at 4:26 PM

Hell no to pro-amnesty Martinez.

Susanna Martinez (whom I had a lot of hope for, sadly ) gives away part of the game that pro-amnesty Republicans are playing. See below. They are avoiding the word “amnesty” and even denying that they are for amnesty.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/11/16/susana-martinez-mitt-romney-comments/

The governor also said she hopes the party can change their tone, eliminating words like “amnesty” from the debate.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83960_Page2.html

After chatting with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer a few minutes before, she said that Arizona’s restrictive immigration law is not the type she would implement in her state.

“And it can be tackled without using the word amnesty,” she said.
“People can be in this country legally and contributing, and they can come here to do all kinds of jobs, not just jobs Americans don’t want, all kinds of jobs, get educated, the whole nine yards, but be here legally. And there’s a variety of ways of receiving that kind of status.”

Martinez, who won election after campaigning on a “get tough on illegals” promise, now admits she supports amnesty, but deceptively prefers not to use the word “amnesty” since it (rightly) enrages voters.

What a disappointment she has been.

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM

We worked just fine with only five Secretaries up until 1903 and have gone to he!! in a hand basket since then. We even won WW II without a Sec Def (added in 1947).
jffree1 on April 3, 2014 at 4:21 PM

We had a Secretary of War cabinet position starting with George Washington’s administration. The name was changed to Secretary of Defense in 1949.

In 1947, with the passing of the National Security Act of 1947, the Secretary of War was replaced by the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air Force, which, along with the Secretary of the Navy, have since 1949 been non-Cabinet subordinates under the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the Army’s office is generally considered the direct successor to the Secretary of War’s office; although the Secretary of Defense took the Secretary of War’s position in the Cabinet, and the line of succession to the presidency.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM

The arch conservatives basically set up a self fulfilling prophecy. They said he wouldn’t win, and then made sure of it by not voting. It is what it is. He never was good enough for them, no matter how far to their side he got.

I guess I shouldn’t go here, but if Romney had been a Southern Baptist, would the base had turned out for him? I think so.

cimbri on April 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I, like many Conservatives voted for BOTH McLame and Romney. Many of us didn’t come to the conclusion that we weren’t being represented in the GOP until after the 2012 embarrassment and the repeated and frequent mocking and backstabbing by the GOPe “leadership”.

Meople on April 3, 2014 at 4:42 PM

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/11/16/susana-martinez-mitt-romney-comments/

The governor also said she hopes the party can change their tone, eliminating words like “amnesty” from the debate.

Susanna Martinez is a no-go.

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:43 PM

turns into the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man when going after the Big O. JimmyGee on April 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

And not even the giant flaming one that was to be “the destroyer” who was supposed to devastate NY….

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

portlandon on April 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Lolz! Great minds and such. ; )

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Add Jindal and maybe even Kasic to your list and drop Christie and I think you have a pretty good slate. Oh and you can throw Huckabee in there if you want to make the religion crowd feels like they had a dog in the fight.

MJBrutus on April 3, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Yes, add Jindal + Kasich + Huckabee, along with Perry, Walker, Susana Martinez, Jeb, Pence (and Christie) – governors all

Romney would have been a great president but his day is done.

All of them are preferrable to Hillary or Biden and reflect a generational shift for the GOP. We need conservative values w/ proven Hispanic and blue collar appeal.

matthew8787 on April 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Mitt Romney is a smart guy and a wonderful human being, but he sucks at winning elections. Let’s give somebody else a try.

bitsy on April 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

As far as I’m concerned Nigel Farage is the leader of the free world. I like him more than any American politician in my lifetime. He represents my principles and ideals better than any other.

FloatingRock on April 3, 2014 at 4:28 PM

Well, he appears to be a good leader. I know nothing about him other than what I heard in the fifteen minutes I watched. He “gets” it. I’m sure there are others. I’d like to find some American ones with the same passion. I can tell he loves Britain. I want a leader who no-sh!t LOVES the United States. I’d prefer one whose spouse was not Chewbacca! [I know, cheap shot.]

I see some of that passion in Cruz and Gowdy. They may not be pure conservatives, but they go a long way.

freedomfirst on April 3, 2014 at 4:46 PM

By the way, why is there a separate Fox News Latino site? Are we going to see Fox News for Blacks? Why is FoX News encouraging this division based on ethnicity?

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:47 PM

I’m still sorry I looked at him the first time.

Murphy9 on April 3, 2014 at 4:48 PM

Mitt is very handsome, intelligent, attractive man. He looks like Matthew Fox’s, from Lost, distinguished, older brother. Plus it’s kinda sexy that he can speak French…..ooh la la!

sheryl on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM
portlandon on April 3, 2014 at 4:36 PM

Maybe if he had a better crease in his pants….

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:49 PM

We had a Secretary of War cabinet position starting with George Washington’s administration. The name was changed to Secretary of Defense in 1949.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:40 PM

Sounds like political correctness in 1949!

freedomfirst on April 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Lolz! Great minds and such. ; )

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

You betcha.

=)

portlandon on April 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Lolz! Great minds and such. ; )
Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:45 PM

Fortunately nobody is interested in referring to yours and others’ Sarah Palin pinup posters.

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Sounds like political correctness in 1949!

freedomfirst on April 3, 2014 at 4:50 PM

Can’t argue with that assessment.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:52 PM

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

I’m not sure what you mean gilled one. I updated your blog and everything. Why do you hate me so?

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:53 PM

Its a lot of work keeping your blog updated gilled one. You should thank me.

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM

Fortunately nobody is interested in referring to yours and others’ Sarah Palin pinup posters.

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:51 PM

Put her in a fur bikini or mini poncho and gun holster, like Raquel Welch, and I’d buy one…. well…. if my wife would let me…..

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM

I guess I shouldn’t go here, but if Romney had been a Southern Baptist, would the base had turned out for him? I think so.

cimbri on April 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I would not have. It is based on political positions and actually representing me. Romney pretty much did not represent me in any meaningful way.
He should have came up with a contract for America that placed his second term on the line in the mode of “Read my lips, no new taxes!” That had the potential to sway me to go out and get other people to vote for him.
What would it have looked like? Well in the first debate he said that it was immoral to pile so much debt onto the backs of our children and future unborn generations. He also had romneycare around his neck like a 1200 lb dead weight. He also started with a solid argument about no amnesty. I think a three prong contract would have looked like this.

We owe it to our children and future generations to not pile debt upon their backs for our luxuries. By the end of my first term in office there will be a constitutional amendment submitted to the states for a cut, cap and balance. It will give the government 12 years to come into balance, 16 years to get to a maximum spending level of 18%. It will allow for deficit spending on war specific expenses above and beyond normal military spending with a requirement to repay that debt within a period of time based on % of economy spent on the action.
Obamacare is a disgrace to our nation, and I now see how draconian my own Massachusetts law was. It will be repealed in total in my first term.
I am asking to be the representative of the American Citizens of this nation. I owe and have no allegiance to any legal or illegal alien nor any foreigners not present in this nation. In my first term I will reverse the anchor baby status for non citizen non permanent alien residents. No one will be considered an American citizen unless at least one parent is a citizen or if both parents are permanent residents. There will be no amnesty and the laws of our nation will be upheld including and especially our immigration laws and our sovereign borders.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 4:55 PM

Just keeping track of your comments is a full time job. In truth I had to farm it out to someone. They are being very helpful.

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:56 PM

Put her in a fur bikini or mini poncho and gun holster, like Raquel Welch, and I’d buy one…. well…. if my wife would let me…..

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM

I can do that for you. The poster part. Can’t help you with the better half. Have my hands full. You understand. ; )

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Thing about Romney is that he can ramp up his operation quick, and has huge name recogntion and deep pockets.

swamp_yankee on April 3, 2014 at 3:34 PM

And what an operation it was, too! I wonder if they’ve yet discovered “computers” and the like?

ddrintn on April 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM

I’m not sure what you mean gilled one. I updated your blog and everything. Why do you hate me so?
Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:53 PM

I actually have trouble telling you apart from the other drama instigators. Which one are you supposed to be again?

Anyway, let’s not sidetrack the thread, and let’s stay focused on the issue of amnesty and on the need for a candidate who will not cave on the issue.

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM

But it is nice to see that a number of people blame the loss on bigotry. I guess it’s all that they have.

nobar on April 3, 2014 at 4:18 PM

It was a factor, just like some people hope that Cruz gets a few votes because he’s hispanic. If people can vote for you because of what you are, they can also vote against you for the same reason. Not saying that was the overriding reason for the loss.

cimbri on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

I always thought the in-state tuition complaint was a little goofy. It’s a status on your physical address not one’s citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Its a lot of work keeping your blog updated gilled one. You should thank me.

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:54 PM

…it seems like she is babbling again!

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM

I guess I shouldn’t go here, but if Romney had been a Southern Baptist, would the base had turned out for him? I think so.

cimbri on April 3, 2014 at 4:11 PM

With the same squishy politics? No.

ddrintn on April 3, 2014 at 5:01 PM

^ But really though, the Mittfans need to get their post-mortem talking points in order. One squad says that the base turned out for Romney, the other says Romney lost because the base are a bunch of bigots who stayed home

ddrintn on April 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Okay. Because you asked nicely.

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM

I always thought the in-state tuition complaint was a little goofy. It’s a status on your physical address not one’s citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Why? Illegal is illegal. Why would you benefit an illegal alien more than you would a fellow American Citizen?

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM

I can do that for you. The poster part. Can’t help you with the better half. Have my hands full. You understand. ; )

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM

Understand the hands full – her husband got the gun, and she got the rack….
;)

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM

Lolz! ; )

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Okay. Because you asked nicely.

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 5:03 PM

…John?…John Boehner?…you’re using the John Boehner line?

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2014 at 5:10 PM

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2014 at 5:10 PM

Kool, I have been adding her Best Of collection. If you have any to add let me know. ; )

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM

I always thought the in-state tuition complaint was a little goofy. It’s a status on your physical address not one’s citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Actually – no.
It’s a matter of your legal state of residence, which does not necessarily equate with where you currently reside.
So if you’re not a legal citizen of the US – how can you be a legal citizen or resident of a particular state?
By your logic, as soon as my son moves to a different state to attend college, he should be able to get in-state tuition rates – but as a legal US citizen, he can’t.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Yes Mitt lost to Obama, but that’s because Obama was such a good liar – and boy did he lie, lie, lie.

Mitt would trim govt like an efficient business CEO and terrify the liberals to death. Hopefully he’s not as nice a guy as he seems. Nice guys won’t help us , they’re too busy trying to be nice to everyone (don’t want a bleeding-heart Huckabee) and usually lie to sooth us. We need a tough-love disciplinarian who is even fairly truthful. What a change!

Chessplayer on April 3, 2014 at 5:13 PM

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Why? Illegal is illegal. Why would you benefit an illegal alien more than you would a fellow American Citizen?

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Right. So should a Russian citizen be able to get in-state tuition at US colleges? Does it matter whether that Russian citizen came to the US legally or illegally, and if so, why does the illegal immigrant get better benefits?

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Sure why not. Losing three presidential tries hasn’t been done since the days of Harold Stassen I don’t think.

Call the Guinness Book people. Lets find out what the record is, and then go for it!

MTF on April 3, 2014 at 4:33 PM

Adlai Stevenson lost 2 in a row to Eisenhower.

RickB on April 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM

Bmore on April 3, 2014 at 5:11 PM

…you are always thorough…in everything you do. She just…cracks me up!

KOOLAID2 on April 3, 2014 at 5:15 PM

Right. So should a Russian citizen be able to get in-state tuition at US colleges? Does it matter whether that Russian citizen came to the US legally or illegally, and if so, why does the illegal immigrant get better benefits?

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM

If they are a permanent resident I have no problem with them getting in state tuition so long as they reside in state. Texas has a requirement of I think 3 years to qualify for in state tuition for example. So, for an illegal alien, the longer they avoid being deported the better off they are in Texas. Of course, I am sure they lie about their residence period, how you going to prove otherwise?

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:17 PM

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Why? Illegal is illegal. Why would you benefit an illegal alien more than you would a fellow American Citizen?

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:06 PM

Right. So should a Russian citizen be able to get in-state tuition at US colleges? Does it matter whether that Russian citizen came to the US legally or illegally, and if so, why does the illegal immigrant get better benefits?

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:14 PM

You have to be a legal resident for a stated amount of time in order to get in-state tuition. Otherwise, every incoming freshman would rent an apartment and then claim residency.
The liberal ‘it’s for the children giveaway’ is allowing people who should not even be in the state, much less the country, to get benefits on the backs of local tax payers.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 5:20 PM

One great thing about Romney is that he was not worried about making money from winning the Presidency. How many other candidates are in that category (certainly not BHO!)

Romney probably would have taken $1/year in salary, cut all Congressional/Executive(appointive) pensions to $0, given congress a temporary paycut till they passed a balanced budget (or paid off the debt).

KenInIL on April 3, 2014 at 5:21 PM

Jeb Bush, Romney, Huckabee . . .

April fools.

Splashman on April 3, 2014 at 5:22 PM

Anyway, let’s not sidetrack the thread, and let’s stay focused on the issue of amnesty and on the need for a candidate who will not cave on the issue.

bluegill on April 3, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Heh. Then why don’t you keep your Sarah hate to yourself and stick to the issue at hand?

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:24 PM

“We need a new candidate who will be solid on opposing amnesty.”

There aren’t any. Time for people to accept this.

cdog0613 on April 3, 2014 at 5:25 PM

I always thought the in-state tuition complaint was a little goofy. It’s a status on your physical address not one’s citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 5:00 PM

Are you always this stupid?

In state tuition requires LEGAL residence in the state. LEGAL residence.

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

It’s gotta be a Governor, preferably a successful two-termer. Someone with a nice, long track record of Doing The Right Thing we can show.

On the one hand, we need badly someone who’s proven to be competent at running a government. Governors should be, certainly after two terms, but Senators haven’t shown that aptitude or track record yet.
On the other hand, we can’t spare any GOP Senators – we need all of them to take & hold the Senate, not just in 2014 but in 2016, when the numbers will be against us.

ReggieA on April 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Of course, I am sure they lie about their residence period, how you going to prove otherwise?

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:17 PM

Voter registration, vehicle registration, paying state income taxes and filing returns…..

You have to be a legal resident for a stated amount of time in order to get in-state tuition. Otherwise, every incoming freshman would rent an apartment and then claim residency.
The liberal ‘it’s for the children giveaway’ is allowing people who should not even be in the state, much less the country, to get benefits on the backs of local tax payers.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 5:20 PM

Exactly.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:27 PM

On the one hand, we need badly someone who’s proven to be competent at running a government.

ReggieA on April 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Yea, because best qualification for elected office is a history of being elected. My 21 year old daughter could run this country better than most “qualified elected officials”.

Everybody complains about the terrible politicians, then insists only a politician can be qualified to run the country. This sound like the definition of insanity.

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Every single potential GOP candidate I’ve seen posited here and elsewhere has at least embraced some form of “legalization” (i.e. “amnesty”): Huckabee, Walker, Rubio, Jindal, Pence, Bush, Kasich, Paul, Christie, Martinez, Perry, Ryan, and yes, even Cruz as Allah wrote about the other day.

Unless people are planning to vote 3rd party or stay home, they are pulling the lever for an “amnesty” supporter.

cdog0613 on April 3, 2014 at 5:31 PM

KenInIL on April 3, 2014 at 5:21 PM

One great thing about Romney is that because he is not president you can imagine all the things he would have done, despite the fact that he never said he would do them, or even hinted at them, not even a little bit.
The bad thing about Romney is that he actually has a record from being governor. Going by that record I really do not see much good happening in his term. He would make a couple progressive activist gay guys or gals supreme court justices, would institute a nationwide greenhouse gas initiative, go behind the back of congress to force gay marriage on the whole nation.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:32 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:27 PM

I was talking about the illegals. They hide, remember.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

I do think she’s right that it’ll probably be a governor in 2016, though

Right now I would lean that way too..:)

Dire Straits on April 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

I was talking about the illegals. They hide, remember.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

They are not hiding if they are applying for and getting in state tuition. Are you vying for the coveted idiot award?

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:34 PM

He would make a couple progressive activist gay guys or gals supreme court justices, would institute a nationwide greenhouse gas initiative, go behind the back of congress to force gay marriage on the whole nation.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:32 PM

What is your preoccupation with gay marriage? Romney wouldn’t do that, he is a devout Mormon.

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

I was talking about the illegals. They hide, remember.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:33 PM

Well, ya.
And lots of dead people are still registered voters – but I suppose that would imply some kind of permanent residency…..

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:41 PM

Everybody complains about the terrible politicians, then insists only a politician can be qualified to run the country. This sound like the definition of insanity.

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:31 PM

THAT is one incredibly astute point.
What we REALLY need is to clean house and get back to the original idea of the temporary ordinary citizen legislators – and get rid of the career politicians entirely.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 5:43 PM

Mitt also said post 2012 debacle that, “He didn’t have the fire in the belly.” Let that golden turd sink in for a minute.
JimmyGee on April 3, 2014 at 4:34 PM

The guy has a psychological disorder — something to do with his father and a sense of inferiority. He never should have been the nominee. He did the same collapsing act against Ted Kennedy in his senate run. In the final debate, he folded like a K-Mart lawn chair. He only won the governor race because he had a no-name democrat opponent who got a late start. The only race he ever won in his life.

rrpjr on April 3, 2014 at 5:48 PM

She is right, of course. Romney was the GOP’s best candidate in decades. he would be again.

Drunk Report on April 3, 2014 at 3:25 PM

+1 – in today’s society – a NICE MAN – is often met with idiotic reactions

jake-the-goose on April 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

What is your preoccupation with gay marriage? Romney wouldn’t do that, he is a devout Mormon.

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

He did it as governor. The Constitution of Massacusettes required the legislature to make the laws covering gay marriage. Romney did it behind their back while they were still working on a constitutional amendment. Thereby short circuiting the amendment and breaking the constitution in order to create gay marriage. Also note, the fact that the state had to institute gay marriage was his failure to fight it in court properly. Some devout Mormon, are you sure about what the religion says? Romney certainly is not.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Well, he appears to be a good leader. I know nothing about him other than what I heard in the fifteen minutes I watched.[...]

freedomfirst on April 3, 2014 at 4:46 PM

Watch the part on immigration starting at 18 minutes in and you’ll see why Nigel Firage is better than the tea party favorites.

FloatingRock on April 3, 2014 at 5:49 PM

They are not hiding if they are applying for and getting in state tuition. Are you vying for the coveted idiot award?

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:34 PM

I know that in today’s America the eduction sucks, but it is no excuse for you.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:52 PM

What is your preoccupation with gay marriage?

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Comment – don’t waste your energy – some people are simply bigoted fools -who piss and moan all day long – let them do it – and try very hard to ignore them. Today – the self prescribed label “Conservative’ is often being used as a shield for awful behavior and horrible beliefs.

IMO

jake-the-goose on April 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM

I’m more interested in a United States Independence Party, USIP, than I am a Tea Party. The UKIP is what the tea party should have been.

FloatingRock on April 3, 2014 at 5:54 PM

jake-the-goose on April 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Goose here thinks that great nations spontaneous form from the masses of degenerates wallowing in their filth.

astonerii on April 3, 2014 at 5:56 PM

What is your preoccupation with gay marriage?

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Comment – don’t waste your energy – some people are simply bigoted fools -who piss and moan all day long – let them do it – and try very hard to ignore them. Today – the self prescribed label “Conservative’ is often being used as a shield for awful behavior and horrible beliefs.

IMO

jake-the-goose on April 3, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Goose thinks everyone is just so mean and we should just go quietly and politely into the night. I’m guessing highly medicated, IMO.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 5:58 PM

since we’re basically importing communists who have no cultural affiliation with America’s history…and indeed, it seems they’re being taught to hate it at our schools, then what the heck…toss em out.

Hanging head in shame over being too tough on immigration is insane, especially considering everyone is against more immigration.

joeindc44 on April 3, 2014 at 6:07 PM

I find threads like this amusing. So many self-anointed bearers of conservatism who are one issue voters (immigration, social issues, gay marriage, ….) who sometimes sound as if they would rather lose to the Leftist than compromise their position for the greater concept of smaller government.

Tater Salad on April 3, 2014 at 6:13 PM

I could care what acid-Ann thinks, after her aggressive take down of Palin for this Oromney failure, all the while while hugging the poster child for bullies, who ended up jilting her for a chance to hug the socialist messiah….

Don L on April 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Are you always this stupid?
In state tuition requires LEGAL residence in the state. LEGAL residence.
captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:26 PM

After some research in the matter I still cannot find anything with regards to citizenship. Only residence.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM

I am undoubtedly a progressive.
said no real conservative ever.
guess who did say it?
yup.
the most electable person did….

dmacleo on April 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM

What is your preoccupation with gay marriage? Romney wouldn’t do that, he is a devout Mormon.

captnjoe on April 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM

So is alleged pedophile Harry Reid. Besides, Teh Mittenz already did it when he was governor of Mass.

Walter Sobchak on April 3, 2014 at 6:16 PM

Tater Salad on April 3, 2014 at 6:13 PM

How do you think we got into this mess, if not doing exactly what you call for–enabling the co-rulers like we were battered wives giving them one more chance?
There comes a time when survival requires that you see who your enemies are and the GOP co-ruling complicit establishment is mine.

Compromise is what Adam and Eve did….

Don L on April 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM

After some research in the matter I still cannot find anything with regards to citizenship. Only residence.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Look up the definition of “residence” and how it is to be proven.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM

How do you think we got into this mess, if not doing exactly what you call for–enabling the co-rulers like we were battered wives giving them one more chance?
There comes a time when survival requires that you see who your enemies are and the GOP co-ruling complicit establishment is mine.

Compromise is what Adam and Eve did….

Don L on April 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM

No Don, I’m not talking about compromising any position you may hold; fight for it and try to make a difference with candidates you support within the primary system. HOWEVER, if your candidate isn’t the one to win, taking your football and going home isn’t the answer.

Example; If I really couldn’t give two cents over the issue of gay marriage, yet an anti-gay marriage candidate won the primary, I’d still vote for him over any Democratic/Leftist choice available.

Tater Salad on April 3, 2014 at 6:23 PM

Look up the definition of “residence” and how it is to be proven.
dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:17 PM

I did. It says nothing about citizenship. And the two are not legally synonymous.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:25 PM

After some research in the matter I still cannot find anything with regards to citizenship. Only residence.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM

This is from the Colorado State University web site, as one example (bolds are my emphasis):

Residency Requirements
Domicile

“Domicile” is used to describe the place where an individual has demonstrated intent to make a permanent home and legal residence. Both physical presence (see #1 below) and evidence of intent (see #2 below) must be in place to begin the domicile year. A “qualified individual” must reside in Colorado with the intent to make Colorado their permanent home and legal residence.

Colorado residency requires a domicile in Colorado for 12 continuous months on or prior to the first day of classes of each semester.

Since domicile is defined as a permanent home and legal residence, being in Colorado solely for school purposes and/or temporarily for other purposes does not qualify as domicile for Colorado residency.

1.Physical presence is your actual permanent home and legal residence. Proof of physical presence may include all of the following:
•Lease agreements
•Rent receipts
•Home ownership
•Notarized statement from a landlord

2.Evidence of intent to make Colorado your permanent home and legal residence is demonstrated by giving up all your legal ties with your prior state and establishing them with Colorado for 12 continuous months. Proof that demonstrates evidence of intent, as specified by the residency statute, may include all the following:
•Colorado driver’s license or valid Colorado ID
•Colorado motor vehicle registration
•Permanent, full-time, off-campus employment
•Colorado voter registration
•Change in permanent address on all pertinent records
•Payment of Colorado state income taxes as a Colorado resident
•Withholding of Colorado state taxes from wages
•Ownership of residential property in Colorado

You are expected to take appropriate action on all factors relevant in your circumstances.

Evidence of legal ties outside of Colorado during the domicile year that demonstrate residency in another state may include the following:
•Failure to file a Colorado state income tax return
•Failure to have Colorado state income taxes withheld from your wages
•Filing a Colorado state income tax return as a non-resident
•Failure to obtain a Colorado driver’s license or Colorado ID
•Maintenance of a home in another state
•Prolonged absence from Colorado
•Vehicle you operate is registered in another state
•Residing in another state between academic terms or when not enrolled as a student
•Any other factor unique to the individual which tends to imply your permanent home and legal residence is in another state

BTW – in order to get a Colorado drivers license or other ID:

To be issued a Colorado Driver’s License or Identification Card, you must prove the following elements: your full legal name, identity, age and lawful presence in the United States.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:27 PM

I find threads like this amusing. So many self-anointed bearers of conservatism who are one issue voters (immigration, social issues, gay marriage, ….) who sometimes sound as if they would rather lose to the Leftist than compromise their position for the greater concept of smaller government.

Tater Salad on April 3, 2014 at 6:13 PM

I know. Just ask President Romney.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 6:28 PM

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:27 PM

I think I see the problem. The bold text in your quote only mentions residence. That us not the same as citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

*is

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM

*is

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:32 PM

Depends on what your definition of is is, Bill.

Cheese Wheel on April 3, 2014 at 6:33 PM

Cruz/Carson

John the Libertarian on April 3, 2014 at 6:35 PM

I didn’t recognize how negative and punitive that term would be seen by the voting community.”…

It wasn’t. Pretty much no one cast a vote against you because you used the words “self-deport”. And anyone who did wasn’t going to vote for you anyway. But if you’ve come to this bogus conclusion, it’s no wonder you lost the election to one of the worst presidents ever. I can only imagine what other flawed conclusions you came to during the campaign that likely cost you the race.

had I been less pointed on that in the debates, I would have been more likely to get more Hispanic voters.”

And you still would have lost…possibly by even more than you did. But it’s a bogus argument. Did Hispanics refuse to vote for Obama after his bragging about being the biggest deporter ever? No, they didn’t.

Hey, maybe you should have embraced Obamacare too. That might have gotten you more Hispanic votes as well.

xblade on April 3, 2014 at 6:36 PM

I think I see the problem. The bold text in your quote only mentions residence. That us not the same as citizenship.

anuts on April 3, 2014 at 6:31 PM

No, but in order to establish your legal residence for the purpose of getting in-state tuition, you need to get or do things that require you to be in the US legally.

You’re tap dancing around the fact that the first step is to prove you are a legal resident (regardless of citizenship) of the US and the state you live in.

dentarthurdent on April 3, 2014 at 6:37 PM

I find threads like this amusing. So many self-anointed bearers of conservatism who are one issue voters (immigration, social issues, gay marriage, ….) who sometimes sound as if they would rather lose to the Leftist than compromise their position for the greater concept of smaller government.

Tater Salad

Right….because 30 million new democrat voters is the key to having a smaller government, lol.

What I find depressing is geniuses who believe all issues are equal.

xblade on April 3, 2014 at 6:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3