Posted on 11/23/2011 5:52:55 AM PST by icwhatudo
Were Gingrich strategically focused on scooping up primary voters discontented with Romney, surely he would have said something about Romney's past and present liberalism. He didn't say a word. Romney had a so-so debate performance, but it probably doesn't matter, since Gingrich didn't bother to engage him.
Helping Romney even more was that Gingrich decided to use a national security debate to remind conservatives of the nuances of his "humane" approach to illegal immigration -- a lecture, for whatever its merits, conservative primary voters probably don't want to hear and particularly not in the scolding tone in which Newt delivered it. Perhaps Reagan could get away with a point like that but not Newt, who fell into the same pit Perry did. That is, in a previous debate, Perry had called anti-amnesty conservatives heartless. In this one, Newt suggested that they lacked family values, as a tough deportation policy would mean breaking up settled families.
Maybe Newt deserves praise for not caring about offending his audience and defending a policy he considers sound, but the upshot of that debate moment is that conservative primary voters who were eagerly shopping for someone other than Romney won't gravitate to his campaign. Illegal immigration is a difficult issue to finesse -- an issue to which Gingrich's occasionally grating and sanctimonious style does not lend itself.
Just as Newt alienated conservatives with his holier-than-thou approach to Paul Ryan's plan to reform Medicare (first calling it "right-wing social engineering" before supporting it after several throat-clearing qualifiers), so now he alienates them with his holier-than-thou approach to illegal immigration. Romney took advantage of Newt's little sermonette by reminding the audience that he staunchly opposed amnesty in any of its guises.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Exactly. This writer wants to pick on Newt for not picking on Romney while missing the “elephant” that popped into everyone’s living room last night: Newt’s own liberal streak.
Which unfortunately isn’t just in his past. In his attempt to prove how smart he is, Newt once again last night showed who he really is.
http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/283929/newt-gingrich-and-krieble-foundation-plan-reihan-salam
One can read this article...or google “Krieble Foundation” and look at intelligent, sensible possibilities in dealing with the reality we face.
Or, one can reflexively holler, “Deport them all! Crush them, drive them out and hear the lamentations of their women!”
Here are the remarks of Gingrich from the debate:
“I did vote for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it – and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty. There were 3m. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement.
“We got neither. So I think you’ve got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border, as the governor said. I believe ultimately you have to find some system – once you’ve put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here.”
“If you’re here – if you’ve come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you’ve been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you’ve been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don’t think we’re going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.”
“The Krieble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don’t get a pass to citizenship. And so there’s a way to ultimately end up with a country where there’s no more illegality, but you haven’t automatically given amnesty to anyone.”
“I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you’ll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they’ve been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.”
“I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them.”
“I do believe if you’ve been here recently and have no ties to the US, we should deport you. I do believe we should control the border. I do believe we should have very severe penalties for employers, but I would urge all of you to look at the Krieble Foundation Plan.”
“I don’t see how the party that says it’s the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century. And I’m prepared to take the heat for saying, let’s be humane in enforcing the law without giving them citizenship but by finding a way to create legality so that they are not separated from their families.”
These people are not being denied the right to take their children with them.
Besides, nobody is saying "round them all up". We're just saying deport them as you find them.
What is so tough about this?
I had considered voting for Gingrich... but on second thought ... it would not be “humane”
Think carefully about what Newt said. He said,
“Is it inhumane to deport an illegal immigrant who came to the United States 25 years ago,”
Why did he choose 25 years ago and not 20 or 30.
People assume that 25 years was just a number that Newt pulled out of his ass.
It is not.
Think back about about what happened 25 years ago.
That would be 1986.
That was the year Ronald Reagan’s bill gave amnesty to the then current residents in exchange for sealing the border.
The border wasn’t sealed and millions more Mexicans and other poured over the border.
The people who came after 1986 were illegal. But the people who came before 1986 were legalized if they bothered to come forward.
So Newt is talking about a law that is already on the books.
That's the only tone he knows. He's an arrogant, self-absorbed POS.
Again, it's all he knows.
And just how does Newt intend to verify if someone has been here 25 years and been law abiding? What criteria will he use?
And how can the government possibly use church membership as a criteria?
And what will the cut off in years be? 10 years? 14 years? 21 years? Why is that a good idea? Is someone here for one year less than the cutoff date going to be deported even if they meet all of the other criteria?
There is only one criteria.
If you are here illegally, for however long, you need to leave and go to the back of the line.
That is what happens in every other country. You have broken the law, and need to be held accountable.
Any other plan is an amnesty, and just what have these people done to deserve amnesty?
Give people six months to self deport, and then go after them.They forfeit their stuff if we do find them. Better for them to go back to Hidalgo with some stuff than none.
Millions will self deport. That makes the job easier.
We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on illegals already.
At this point, it would be cheaper to take over Mexico and make it the 51st, 58th, or 61st state, whatever.
Newt is a blowhard on this issue, There is no way to enforce his idea, and it won’t be done period.
It sounds nice but it is fluff. I expect better from the GOP.
Not to mention the deaths of those who are abandoned by the smugglers who leave them to die in the deserts or sell them into the sex trade.
That’s your privilege, but it doesn’t really sound like second “thought” to me.
Did you read the article linked in my post?
I will happily vote for Newt if it comes to that, as he is infinitely better than Hussein Obama. But I have to agree about his personality. He can be funny and engaging and I don’t doubt his credentials as a historian. But like many who have earned research degrees, he can be a know-it-all, arrogant, and academic, and that style just turns me off.
Many of us who may not have his academic credentials refuse to be intimidated or awed by a condescending, professorial tone - whether it comes from Gingrich or Obama.
Newt kept a pretty good control over it for the last couple of months but we all knew the other shoe had to drop sooner or later.
To me, Newt is no better than Romney on the issues, and is probably a harder sell nationwide. Newt is a face-saving way for people who refuse to vote for Romney to basically to make the same compromise on the issues.
I considered Newt way back when, and for me, his character issues were the main reason I rejected him. His grandiosity would be very dangerous in the WH. Later, after Perry flamed out, I tried to talk myself into Newt, but good sense got the better of me.
I don’t think I could vote for Newt. I’m in NJ where my presidential vote is meaningless anyway, but I really don’t think I could vote for him. His grandiosity and massive character flaws make him unfit for the Oval Office.
Newt has now sunk his boat with his fathead proclivity to think he knows-it-all. Could the last option for us no-Mitt’ers be RON PAUL! I’m amazed how this crop of Repubs are beginning to look worse than even RP....what a strange world.
“And what will the cut off in years be? 10 years? 14 years? 21 years? Why is that a good idea? Is someone here for one year less than the cutoff date going to be deported even if they meet all of the other criteria?
There is only one criteria.
If you are here illegally, for however long, you need to leave and go to the back of the line.
That is what happens in every other country. You have broken the law, and need to be held accountable.”
Great points!
What is so tough about this?
Allow me to add TE: Mr. Speaker, I assert my right to equal protection under the law. Whether someone is here illegally for 25 minutes or 25 years, he is here illegally and the law must be enforced, equally. I yield back the balance of my time.
Take the heat, Newt? What are your personal consequences of your wonderous sense of humanity towards illegals?
Wow, he might not win the nomination for his brave stance. But He can go right back to milking his Beltway influence - a job where he does not have to compete with illegals and where illegals will not drive his wages down like has been done with meatpacking, construction and many other jobs.
He can afford a home in a nice gated community so he doesn't have to live next to any illegals.
He can go to a top-tier hospital that is not bogged down with treating illegals as mandated by the fedgov.
And the tax bite to pay for government bennies for illegals is just a tiny nibble out of his pay, as opposed to a big, wet bite for a regular working stiff.
And that is my point entirely - Newt only sees possible consequences to his own ambitions - he has no clue (like most Beltway types) as to how his self-inflated sense of humanity impacts those of us in the real world outside the Beltway.
And that is why he should never be the nominee.
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.