Posted on 05/23/2007 1:27:56 PM PDT by Coleus
While Rudy Giuliani cheers and John McCain smiles next to Sen. Ted Kennedy for a Senate amnesty photo-op, Flip Romney talks tough about illegal immigration – a departure from his 2005 position when he said a similar proposal was "reasonable." What a shock. Pick a subject, any subject, and the new-and-improved, rosy red-state Romney is a "true blue" lifelong liberal until two years ago. If you're having trouble keeping track of Romney's position's on abortion, marriage, gun control and immigration, here's a key: In 2005 and prior, he's a blue-state liberal – true "blue" in the non-traditional sense of the word. After that, he's hoping to appeal to the red-state conservatives with a short-term memory.
In 2005, Romney gave a nod to McCain (whose position on those who don't support amnesty is: "F--- you! I know more than anyone else in the room"). Romney then spouted the kind of language that's drawing "boos" for amnesty senators everywhere. "I don't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them out at gunpoint from our country," said 2005 Blue-Romney. And what do you know? The Romney of two years ago he said he wanted to begin a "process towards application for citizenship." Now Red-Romney says the bill is "unfair to the millions of people who have applied to legally immigrate to the U.S."
Tom Tancredo had it right about Romney in the last debate: "I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines." I'm convinced the "light" Romney saw was the spotlight – and the need for red-state voters in a Republican primary. According to the Heritage Foundation, over half of the 12-20 million lawbreakers are high-school dropouts who will tap into $50 billion per year in entitlements. That's cash and prizes of up to $4,400 per year without counting their education and school lunches. You can forget about your Social Security; it'll go to those here illegally who never paid into it. And forget that 854-mile fence that was mandated by the "Secure Fence Act." The Senate thinks 370 miles of fence will be enough to secure our borders. What stops people from walking around it again? If there had been a 484-mile gap in the Berlin Wall, Mr. Gorbachev wouldn't have had to tear it down.
Forget the law-abiding immigrants who've been standing in line to come here; the Senate is putting out the welcome mat to those who shoved their way ahead of them and began their lives here in America by first breaking the law. And according to the Center for Individual Freedom and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, many of those illegals keep breaking the law once they get here:
Illegal aliens murder 12 people every day – 4,380 people each year (21,900 since 9-11).
Illegal aliens driving under the influence kill 13 people every day – 4,745 per year (23,725 since 9-11).
Illegal aliens molest eight children every day – 2,920 per year.
Atlanta's Violent Crimes Institute reports that around 240,000 illegal aliens are sex offenders. In 2005, more than 10 million Mexican-born people were living in the U.S. – that's one-tenth of the total population of Mexico. One-seventh of the Mexican workforce is now working here in the United States. Jobs anyone? The Senate amnesty bill will bring in even more.
Welcome to "Amexica."
You know what? We couldn't possibly round up all the bank robbers at gunpoint, either. And "bank robber" and "lawbreaker" are such harsh words. Let's just call them "undocumented borrowers." Let's give them a "process" or "pathway" to their own bank account by withdrawing $4,400 from yours every year. And while we said we'd build a wall around the vault, we're only going to build half of it. That ought to do the job. Don't worry – rewarding bank robbery couldn't possibly inspire more. Oh, and don't plan on spending your IRA – the undocumented borrowers have families!
McCain is leading it, Giuliani loves it, and Red Romney is talking tough. Sen. Sam Brownback refuses to support McCain's bill, but Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter are leading the charge against it. Far from chameleons, they have always believed in securing our borders and didn't just "turn red" on the road to Des Moines.
“We accept converts. that is how we win.”
Brilliant. I’d say it the other way also, ‘we need converts to win.’
The question has to be is Mitt really a convert. Rudy still does not acknowledge the Second Admendment.
First of all, Fred is making all the moves to run. Second, he has been a very lucid critic of the immigration "reform" mess and says we should secure the border first - a rational position no matter what your opinion is about dealing with those already here.
And third, I've never heard Fred engage in parsing games over amnesty. Mitt was doing just that 18 months ago. I'm tired of politicians who believe they can completely alter the meaning of words to try and snooker us. I'd rather they just be honest and say "tough noogs, this is what we want to do." But they don't.
That nails it.
Romney will say.
In a very nice way.
What he needs,
to get your vote today.
Romney says that he does, but for him that amendment does not include “assault weapons”, however he chooses to define them. If it’s like the definition in the bill he signed, that’s “most firearms” get excluded from Romney’s Second Amendment plus magazines, pepper spray, and stun guns.
His flips on issues (I haven't yet seen him flop back on any) have been to the right.
True, but that isn't really the question. The question is having recently flipped to the right on so many issues, why should we trust him not to flop back once in office?
We need to stop this silliness over the flip-flop issue. It was lame argument back during the 2004 election and it’s even more lame now. Romney admits he’s changed, but who cares? As long as he’s realizing his mistakes and changing in the right direction (i.e. more conservative) that’s all I care about. I don’t see any indication that once he changed a position, he then turned around and changed it back. Remember that this is a guy who’s not a career politician—he was a businessman up until he became governor and so a lot of these social issues that people are so hung up on likely weren’t things he had to deal with until he had actually faced them as governor. Once he was in those shoes, Romney saw first-hand “row after row of human life” being treated as mere Play Doh for the clone-happy researchers at Harvard, and he realized how sick the process had become as a result of a Roe vs. Wade mindset. So he changed and I’m not going to beat him up over it.
I hear the suspicions about of his recent conversion (i.e. only two years ago), but I should point out that virtually all of these social issues (gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, etc.) literally fell into Romney’s lap while he was governor—he did not actively seek them out for political reasons. Remember that he’s from Massachusetts, not Mississippi, so the likelihood that these things were forced onto his plate is not at all surprising. Out of necessity, he had to learn everything about them and once he did, he ended up taking the conservative position on every single one of them (although he’s never changed his belief that traditional marriage should be protected). When you realize you’re wrong, you either a) realize you are wrong and make a change or b) realize you are wrong but hold onto your existing belief in order to save your pride. So people need to ask themselves whether they want someone who is never willing to change their mind when they realize they’ve made a mistake, or someone who sticks to their guns no matter the consequences. If it’s the latter, then obviously Romney’s not gonna be their choice and that’s fine. Personally, I would much rather have the former.
It is my understanding that Boston was on the precipice if not officially declared although some of the mentions of Boston that I've heard might have been referring to Cambridge which is part of that metro area.
As far as the governor's obligation is concerned, it really shouldn't matter if it's one city, one suburb or one city block that is refusing to observe federal law.
It would be a great question for the debates ( and therefore won't be asked ): What would you do as president if a city or state declared itself a sanctuary from federal law?
I don’t like the fact that Sam Brownback is backing this immigration giveaway. Very disturbing.
Sorry to say, this guy flip-flops way to much for my taste.After horge arbusto Im a little suspect of the front runners that the country club elitist snob bastards have put forth for our comsumption.I ain’t buying.
But see that’s the difference. Romney’s only ever flipped to the conservative position. I’ve not found anywhere where Mitt’s changed from the conservative position to the liberal position, or where he’s flipped from the liberal position to the conservative position, then back to the liberal position.
The only thing he’s changed positions on is Roe vs. Wade and he freely admits it.
Some people are claiming Romney switched positions on McCain’s amnesty bill based on comments he made to a reporter back in 2005, but that is a total falsehood. In the interview, Romney did say he supported “reasonable proposals” like some of the proposals in McCain’s bill to fix the problem, but the reporter specifically stated in the article that Romney did not endorse McCain’s bill and that he hadn’t made a final decision about the bill one way or another. But instead of stating the true facts of the article, people are jumping on “yet another Romney flip-flop.”
Then there’s the accusation that he’s changed his mind on the 2nd Amendment, but that too, is incorrect. He’s always been for 2nd Amendment rights, but he does support continuing the ban on assault weapons. So what if he recently joined the NRA? Does that change his position regarding the 2nd Amendment? No. To some, supporting a ban on assault weapons automatically brands him anti-2nd Amendment, but the majority of people (and a lot of conservative politicians) also support the ban. The AWB law that Romney signed in MA was actually blessed by the NRA—a fact which most people here are either not aware of or don’t want to accept. So again, where’s the flip-flop?
No matter what the facts are, people aren’t going to give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s a northeastern republican. But I would ask people one thing, which is the harder fight—being conservative in a predominantly red state or conservative in a predominantly blue state? For a “liberal” republican like Romney, it seems like he got an 85% liberal legislature to do a lot of conservative things while he was governor (cut spending, not raise taxes, english-only education, etc.).
I am a Romney supporter. You don’t have to convince me. I prefer that people come over to our side.
LOL It’s all good. It never hurts to give people the facts. :)
“Tom Tancredo had it right about Romney in the last debate: “I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus, not on the road to Des Moines.”’
There are other choices besides Rudy McRomney; please vote for a true conservative in the primaries.
He is not a convert, he’s a liar. Mitt has a history of saying whatever it takes to get elected; and he was governor of the liberal state in the Union.
Endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans 2002
Application for endorsement:
Candidate Application Questionnaire
Once you have completed this portion of the application, you may email it as an MS Word (.doc) attachment to [email edited]. In the alternative, you may fax it to [fax edited] or mail it to: [snail mail edited].
Please do not forget to also download and sign the Candidate Contract, as well as email a photo to [email edited] or mail to the address above.
1. Please provide supporting information to demonstrate that you meet each of the basic candidate criteria.
• Be openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender;
• Demonstrate electoral viability;
• Publicly endorse federal Gay/Lesbian Civil Rights Legislation, and similar state and local anti-discrimination laws or legislation;
• Advocate aggressive public policies and positions relevant to HIV/AIDS research, education and treatment; gay and lesbian health and wellness; and women’s reproductive freedom.
2. Briefly describe why you have chosen to run for public office.
3. Have you ever officially sought or held any political office? Please give complete details, including offices and dates.
4. Fully describe all additional political experience, including service as a campaign or party staff member, volunteer, fundraiser or consultant.
5. Fully describe the extent of your community involvement and how that experience relates to your qualifications for public office. Describe any community support for your candidacy.
6. Have you ever participated in a political training conducted by a political party or other organization? If so please list the sponsoring organization, the dates of your participation and a short description.
7. Honestly describe your most notable strengths and weaknesses as a candidate. Thoroughly address any personal or professional circumstances which may have the potential to threaten your candidacy, and your strategies for overcoming them. Include driving records, civil suits, bankruptcy filings, etc.
Your Race:
8. If you are seeking state or local office, describe the current makeup of the elective body for which you are running. If a judgeship, please include a copy of all sections of the local judicial cannon of ethics dealing with campaigning for office.
9. What communities, groups or population segments make up your voter base? Why do you consider them your base? What percentage of the voting population do they represent? Be as specific as possible.
10. Describe the demographics and past voting behavior of your district and how they impact your ability to win. Please use election years similar to the one in which you are running. Explain in detail and include poll data if available.
11. List the name and office of every gay or lesbian candidate who has been elected to office in the jurisdiction where you seek election. Is there a history of openly gay or lesbian candidates running for office in the jurisdiction where you seek election? Include any details you can.
12. Please list and provide detailed descriptions of your primary and general election opposition. Note any incumbents and include potential candidates who may not have officially announced their candidacy. Address both favorable and unfavorable aspects of their candidacies. Are any opponents running as openly gay or lesbian candidates?
13. What endorsements have you and your opponent(s) sought and/or received? Please list endorsement, description of the endorser, and who has received it or who is likely to receive it.
14. Fully describe any matters outside your campaign that may impact your race (e.g., an initiative on the same ballot).
Your Campaign:
15. Describe the present or anticipated structure of your campaign organization, including paid and volunteer staff positions.
16. Who is your campaign manager and what is his or her previous campaign experience?
17. What consultants have been hired for media, polling and/or fundraising? Please describe their background, experience and extent of their relationship to your campaign.
18. Do you have the results from prior elections or any prior election data by precinct for use in targeting?
Your Strategy:
19. What is your campaign plan and strategy for winning?
20. Which demographic groups will you target and how?
22. What is your campaign theme or message?
23. What issues will you emphasize?
24. How will you identify your supporters and get them out to vote?
25. What role will volunteers play in your campaign? How will you recruit and manage them? How many will you need?
Your Campaign Finances:
26. What is your budget for both the primary and general elections? Please attach detailed expense and income budgets.
27. What communities or groups make up your base of donors?
28. Describe your fundraising plan. How much have you raised to date and from what sources? How will your raise the rest of your budget? Include a breakout by categories such as major donors, individuals, PACs, corporations, direct mail, house parties, etc. How much cash do you have on hand?
To be clear about our mutual responsibilities and obligations, we have drafted this contract. You must accept these terms by checking the box at the end of the agreement before any decision on your endorsement can be made.
1. The Fund endorsement is for the current election only.
2. Endorsement by the Fund does not imply an electronic or mail solicitation to our donor network.
3. The timing, frequency and extent of candidate electronic communications and mailings are at the complete discretion of the Fund.
4. If the Fund does include your candidacy in an electronic or mail solicitation to our donor network, we reserve the right to stop contributions to your campaign at any time.
5. If during the course of the campaign, the candidate fails to provide the Fund with the information specified in this contract, the recommendation will be suspended and all contributions will be stopped.
This includes compliance with items 1, 2 and 4 upon receipt of the Fund endorsement.
6. Candidates who do not make a good faith effort to fulfill the terms of this contract will be ineligible for future Fund recommendations, and subject to an immediate stoppage of current campaign support.
The Fund Agrees to:
1. Appoint a Fund staff liaison to your campaign.
2. Provide access to Fund staff for advice on campaign matters.
3. Promote your candidacy in the media and to the Fund membership.
4. Send you all contributions we receive for your campaign, via first-class mail, up until the close of the election when such contributions will be sent overnight.
5. In the unlikely event that contributions are disrupted for any reason, the Fund will return them to their respective donors. Under no circumstances will the Fund hold contributor checks longer than 10 days.
Candidate Letter of Agreement Page 1 of 3
6. Ensure the confidentiality of all campaign information not meant for public broadcast, including the disclosure of fundraising goals and factual totals, up until the date of your current campaign’s general election date.
The Candidate Agrees to comply with the following items:
1. Appoint someone from the management of the campaign to serve as liaison to the Fund.
2. Add the Fund to your campaign and press mailing lists.
3. Include the Fund on appropriate campaign literature and press releases.
4. Communicate with the staff liaison in a timely manner, all information (both positive and negative) about campaign developments, including:
a. Revisions of campaign strategy
b. Fundraising results
c. New endorsements
d. Changes in key campaign personnel
5. Share the cost of solicitation mailings done by the Fund for your campaign.
6. Send thank you letters to all members who contribute to your campaign within three weeks of receiving their donations. The letter should include reference to their membership.
7. Upon request, provide the Fund with the following in a timely manner during the course of the campaign:
a. Copies of all your direct mail and walking pieces
b. Copies of all newspaper clippings referring to your campaign
c. Copies of all your media spots, if applicable
d. Copies of all pertinent polling data, if applicable
e. Copies of all your press releases
f. Copies of all your campaign disclosure reports
8. Provide the Fund with your gay and lesbian campaign donor list in the pre-approved format, within two weeks after the end of your election date.
9. Suppress the names, addresses and telephone numbers of Fund contributors from your database and agree that you or your campaign will not trade, sell, or solicit them in any way.
10. Consent to the use of name and likeness for Fund promotion.
11. Sign at least one fundraising appeal for the Fund.
12. Agree to make at least two public appearances for the Fund at a time mutually convenient to the candidate and to our organization.
Candidate Letter of Agreement Page 2 of 3
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.