Posted on 06/24/2007 7:54:42 AM PDT by rob21
We'll see who is spinning:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/16/romneys_words_grow_hard_on_immigration/
In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."
Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."
----------
So, less than two years ago, Mitt was spouting the same "it's not really amnesty" nonsense that we are hearing today from Bush and McCain. He praised their proposals. And said we couldn't deport all the illegals.
The only one spinning here is you. That's TWO of your nonsensical posts I've shot down with very little effort. Don't you Romniacs realize that there is this web app out there called Google?
You would be better off just admitting the truth about Romney - that he has been liberal in the past but understands that he needs to run right to win the nomination (something that escapes both Rudy and McCain), and let that stand as the truth for pubbies to evaluate, instead of attempting the same "he's always been a conservative" bullcrap again and again and again and again.
I think the problem is that Fredheads want to give Fred a pass on prior statements and always point to his actual record as being good enough, but Mitt gets no such breaks. A little fairness is all anyone wants (both candidates have damaging youtube videos out there).
I think it is the hypocrisy that gets some people angry and then they are unable to post as civilly as they should.
However, for the most part, the Romney posters are very civil and usually make very factual postings backed up with evidence. I am not sure why people have to call us Willard-ites and make other nasty comments.
The truth is many candidates made prior statements that do no match up with their actual record while in office. I think more weight should be given to the actual record.
While some may find Mitt's prior statements more objectionable than Fred's past statements -- I give him a break because he was running for office in Massachusetts and not Tennessee.
The truth is that both Fred and Mitt are better than Rudy on this issue.
The truth is that Duncan Hunter, however, has the strongest pro-life record of all the candidates supported by FReepers.
I wish we could all just stipulate to this and move on to other issues.
All conservatives should be immediately skeptical of any self-identified conservative who has won statewide office in Massachusetts.
Ronald Reagan won in Massachusetts. The right person can do wonders.
You're the one who is 0-2 in your attempts to spin Mitt. Are you related to this guy?
Reagan held a statewide office in Massachusetts? Do tell.
Of course, everyone supports some kind of immigration reform. Nobody in their right mind supports the Z visa, however. It's a deal breaker.
Plus, I was talking about his ACTUAL record which is the best indicator of future actions. He was tough on illegal immigration issues while governor, but you conveniently ignore that and go back to old statements taken out of context which do not actually refer to the specific legislation being proposed NOW.
You can have the last word, as I see you are unreasonable and firmly anti-Mitt. So be it.
You funny.
My statement was that Mitt was for amnesty before he was against it. Even prior to z-visas, McCain's bill was amnesty - and Mitt praised it.
You truly are shameless. Just admit it. Mitt flip-flopped on this issue. Which isn't even that big a deal - I'm glad he's on board - but quit pretending that he wasn't for amnesty as soon as 2005.
You can have the last word, as I see you are unreasonable and firmly anti-Mitt. So be it.
I see it is now unreasonable to go back to a position a candidate held less than two years ago to refute YOUR OWN STATEMENTS.
If that is unreasonable to you, you really should change your political affiliation to Democrat, because that's how they function.
You confused.
Not as funny.
That includes Hunter backers who try to remake Fred into NARAL in a suit. That includes Thompson backers who try to connect Hunter to Cunnigham's malfeasance.
It’s a statement that stands on it’s own, so I disagree that I’ve taken it out of context.
So the debate on Fred is over.
No more questions.
Sounds just like a lib attitude.
Well, that sounds like a more just policy than I gave it credit in my last post. So, I apologize for over-reacting. I think a lot of us would like to believe that Fred is a solid conservative we just are little gunshy after having have been burned by Bush and other Republican’s. Anyway, I sincerely hope that you are right about Fred and hopefully by the time that next year rolls around he will have made it perfectly clear that he will fight to protect the unborn.
Pro-choicers have a tendency
to sneer at any pregnancy.
Unless you’ve felt that hate firsthand,
you’ll never really understand.
By the way, if Romney has governed pro-life all along, then what is this stuff he's saying about a recent "conversion" to being pro-life. Someone's being dishonest here. Either those who say he governed pro-life all along or Mitt himself for saying that he's only recently become pro-life. This discrepancy hurts his pro-life claims and those of his supporters. Y'all can't even stick with the same story and you want voters to believe you?
It's dishonest statements like the above that cause people to not believe the whole Mitt Romney is pro-life claim.
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.