I’m with you on the severity of the issue and IMO Palin was too lax on this up at least as far as earlier this year, when she said she and McCain agreed totally on illegal immigration and she seemed to intimate that once the border was ‘sealed’ she’d be for amnesty as well.
My sense is that she’s toughened up on it through her support for Jan Brewer and the strength of the tea party movement, but I would like to see her coming out more strongly once she rolls out her campaign and positions.
But Romney, Pence, Daniels, Barbour, Rubio, Huck, etc., have all been bad on the issue historically. DeMint is the only leading pol whom I believe has been strong on it all along.
I really want Palin to be tough on it. At least she’s been sounding better in recent months, but I want clear, unambiguous positions on it.
Thank you for that surprisingly honest admission - It is but a very few Palin proponents who will not try to beg off on Palin's prior stance. How refreshing!
My sense is that she’s toughened up on it through her support for Jan Brewer and the strength of the tea party movement, but I would like to see her coming out more strongly once she rolls out her campaign and positions.
See, here is where you and I must part company:
First of all, while she did endorse quite a few (25?) Tea Party candidates, her total endorsement list is somewhat north of 40, to include notorious RINOs, and the Traitorous Bastard, McCain't himself...
So any "TEA Party credz" she might have must summarily be offset by her participation in electing establishment RINOs.
Secondly, which of her immigration positions shall we believe (if removing a desire for hope and change)? Considering her bi-polar approach, and the bare fact that there is *nothing* in her record to buttress her true position (one way or the other), my tendency is to take the skeptical view... Primarily because a Conservative would not have had to waffle in the first place.
But Romney, Pence, Daniels, Barbour, Rubio, Huck, etc., have all been bad on the issue historically.
Not to defend Pence too much, but he has been reasonably good on the issue historically (no Hunter/ Tancredo to be sure):
* Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
* Voted YES on reporting illegal aliens who receive hospital treatment. (May 2004)
* Voted YES on extending Immigrant Residency rules. (May 2001)
* Rated 100% by FAIR, indicating a voting record restricting immigration. (Dec 2003)
* Rated 92% by USBC, indicating a sealed-border stance. (Dec 2006)
* Declare English as the official language of the US. (Feb 2007)
OnTheIssues: Mike Pence (Immigration section)
Now, while the KBH/Pence bill was an atrocity (Phyllis Schlafly describes my opinion better than I could myself), I have to wonder why Pence did what he did, when it is in direct opposition to his previous record, and overall solid Conservative record.
To be sure, he will have to explain his actions if he runs, and it better be one helluva good one... But it is easier for me to overlook a roadkill moment in an otherwise excellent record than it is for me to take the uninsured word of Sarah Palin. So if it is a choice between the two, It would be Pence in my book.
But without a doubt, I want DeMint.