Replies

Mitt did nothing of substance?

I guess vetoing laws that would have granted in-state tuition to illegals doesn’t count. I guess fighting against bilingual education and fighting for English-only school instruction doesn’t count. I guess unique programs training state officers to arrest and deport illegals doesn’t count.

Meanwhile, I directly quoted Thompson saying that he didn’t think mortar and stone were necessary to keep illegals away.

Take a look at this own essay. He writes this piece declaring that we should secure the border. Does he ever state how this is to be done?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjEzYTc5YjA2ZGNiZjlmZDJkMTllYmE4MjE3ZmY1OTY=

Now, if you’re going to talk about substance, show me the slightest bit of it in here. Show me anything but vague criticism. Any workable idea. Just one.

Fred said that the Secure border act of 2006 is the best place to start in an interview on Levine’s show. I think after Hunter finally got the 20 miles of fence built in San Diego and it showed such dramatic improvement, this changed a lot of minds. Changes are good, I don’t think a fence is necessary for the entire border, a mix of security devices will likely work just fine. It has more to do with will to enforce the border, deport violators and punish employers.

As to Mitt, I just don’t trust a gun banner saying he is conservative. Maybe if the first thing Mitt said wasn’t “sure the 1994 AW ban should be reinstated” it might be different. Gun rights goes to the heart of the individual rights argument, the bedrock of Conservatives. Can't put it back in the bottle, too late now. Mitt’s a no vote for me.

Fred’s the real deal, a Conservative who can carry the banner proudly, and articulate the Conservative message to the public at large.