Newt's not for that. His plan was 1) close the border, 2) begin deporting illegals. Subtracting some, but not all, does not equal adding more.
making things far less comfortable, much of the illegal immigration population would eventually self deport.
Yep, much of it would. But guess which ones wouldn't. The ones with kids and grandkids who have put down roots. Oh yeah, the same ones Newt was talking about.
Odds just increased again for a major Third Party candidate in 2012.
Or in other words, odds just increased that we get another four years of Obama. Not because of anything smart Democrats are doing. And it's not just that Newt "shot himself in the foot"... no, it takes the stubborn stupidity and self-righteousness of conservatives with a 100% purity test who bury him over one issue that he's not 100% perfect on. Dang. I DON'T AGREE with that part of his plan. But if he closed the border and began deporting illegals he'd be one million times better than any president in my lifetime. So I'm not going to criticize him because I disagree with him, when MY view probably couldn't be accomplished by a president anyway, and if tried would pretty much guarantee a Democrat would win in 2016.
This isn't a purity argument or just me being stubborn, it's an argument of logic. Let's say for argument sake that amnesty was implemented. What happens to the economy with an already overly saturated work force? Could we (as a society) exist with a real unemployment rate of 30%? Doubtful.
The problem with Newt is similar to many of our politicians. They talk tough when it comes to elections, but their records speak a different language. In Gingrich's case, I'm becoming less convinced that his views on important issues aren't closer to that of a Liberal than a Conservative. In other words, Gingrich has now given me more reason to doubt who he really is, meaning I'm questioning if he would indeed close the borders.
With that being said, understand that I certainly don't want Obama reelected. But, if we're going to offer up an opposition candidate (that being a moderate Republican candidate) whom history has proven won't win, then my only recourse is to look towards 2016, accepting that the next four years will be worse than the previous four years. I don't like this option, in fact I detest it.
Unlike you (I guess), I'm unwilling to pretend our possible nominee is something that he isn't. I will criticize that individual when they're wrong. I tried (once again) pretending in 2008, and look what it got us.