What are you Mittsters smoking? The Boston GLobe ASKED them.
Mitt could have too, but Romney is above the law, isn't he. Far above mortal humans.
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
Posted on 12/14/2007 12:52:41 AM PST by Fred
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is trying to hold off a challenge in Iowa from Mike Huckabee with criticism of the former Arkansas governor’s record on immigration, is using the same tactic in South Carolina, with one major difference.
Instead of targeting Huckabee alone, as he is doing in Iowa, Romney is taking aim in South Carolina at former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson as well as Huckabee.
A new mailer sent by the Romney campaign in South Carolina this week has photos of Huckabee, Giuliani and Thompson under the headline: “Compare the records on illegal immigration.”
The mailer’s caption for Huckabee reads “Special Benefits for Illegals; for Giuliani, “A Sanctuary City”; and for Thompson, “A Do Nothing Record.”
Romney, on the other hand, offers a “record of results” and provides “strong leadership on illegal immigration,” the mailer asserts.
The mailer makes no mention of Arizona Sen. John McCain, who was the key Republican sponsor of a broad immigration bill earlier this year that would have given a path to citizenship to many illegal immigrants and created a temporary worker program.
In the latest Mason-Dixon poll, which was released this week, McCain is running a distant fifth in the Republican presidential field with 10 percent. The leader in the poll was Huckabee (20 percent), followed by Giuliani (17 percent), Romney (15 percent), and Thompson (14 percent).
What are you Mittsters smoking? The Boston GLobe ASKED them.
Mitt could have too, but Romney is above the law, isn't he. Far above mortal humans.
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
“What are you Mittsters smoking? The Boston GLobe ASKED them. “
Asking immigration documents in the role of a customer is illegal. Besides, they all have good-looking fake SSNs and green card (they cost about $30). Why fredheads insist that customers have to do it (against the law) while they support Fred who voted against the bill that would have enabled employers to do this?
Mitt vetoed several illegal bills in MA and enabled local LE to work with immigration to enforce the law (it was delayed 18 months because of Bush admin). At least he has a record. Also, Mitt aired TV ads against the senate amnesty bill when it mattered.
Ah not exactly what John McCain had in mind when he turned over campaign finance reform to the leftist liberal media monopoly. He is owed as much as any politician by the media power makers and yet he can't get them to give him the time of day. Silly man.
Obviously the GOP Big circus Tent do not seem to mind that liberal media monopoly was given the power of campaign finance, just bizarre that a GOP front runner uses a liberal rag to debate who Jesus is. Enough to make this Christian want to barf.
Sorry. But you are wrong.
Mitt-thePERPETUALvictim invited illegal aliens into Mass
and then made the citizens pick up their medical fees.
Mitt did nothing until the weeks before he left office.
I see you also blame President Bush (whom you call ‘Bush’)
for Mitt’s failures.
Perhaps you were living on Mitt’s planet, and missed this.
Mitt die not “invite” any illegal to MA.
Mitt sought for the local law enforcement deal about 18 months before he left office, but it was granted just 2-3 weeks before he left office (that delay was because of federal delay tactic - not because of Mitt).
Mitt vetoed important bills (e.g. bi-lingual education, specifically crafted for illegals early on in his tenure, and college funding for illegals). Had senators, such as Fred Thompson, not voted against employer’s ability to check immigration status, the situation would have been better, of course.
Apart from Hunter and Tancredo, Romney is the only one who has actually done something against illegal immigration when in office. McCain, Huckabee, Guliani and Thompson all made official decisions in favour of illegals when in office.
Wrong. Under Mitt-proponent-forILLEGALaliens-beforeHEwasNOT,
illegal aliens did not need licenses, insurance (car or
medical), and sanctuary citizen BLOOMED.
Many are surprised that Mitt did not appoint them judges.
Too bad, Romney was ONLY interested in his Presidential
campaign.
Yeah, well, let's take a closer look at the record, shall we? (Hat tip to ellery)
Tried to kill voluntary pilot programs for workplace verification in 1996Wrong. He voted against sections 111-113 in the bill, which called for the president to develop a permanent system that would call for the federal government to OK all employees (including American citizens) before they can work. This came up recently with HillaryCARE, where Hillary proposed that anyone who didn't have insurance would be denied permission to work -- that's the danger of a verification system that doesn't focus solely on immigrants. The program called for pilot programs merely as a prelude to the permanent system.
Your man Mitt would have us move toward the "federal government must approve all employees" system with his "health-care" boondoggle as well.
Rudy McRomnabee is a strong slate?
Herd of Rinos.
What yeatr do you consider to be the strongest slate of Rep participants in the Presidential primaries excluding years when there were incumbent Presidents or Vice Presidents?
1980.
Last time there was a pub I wanted to vote for.
I wrote this bunch off when they hispandered to Univision.
They want to be president of Mexico let them move south.
All of them aren’t as good as Hunter on Immigration.
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
You don't know me or my views to make such sweeping statements.
If you're so pleased, good for you. But criticizing our slate has zero to do with my thinking the dems are better, so let's stop such silliness, ok?
I only know your views from your "sweeping" statement, "Man, what a terrible bunch we’ve got running."
If you're so pleased, good for you. But criticizing our slate has zero to do with my thinking the dems are better, so let's stop such silliness, ok?
I have no problem with our slate. I don't buy the MSM crap about our candidates. Unlike the Dems, we actually have a real choice among our candidates who do not march lockstep in their views. The only silliness is your blanket statement that we have a "terrible bunch" running. It simply isn't so. And you fail to indicate whom you would like to see running who isn't.
On the other side they have one former governor, 4 sitting Senators, 2 former senators, and one sitting congressman.
The fight continues. The man is brilliant and has organized a brilliant staff. He is our smartest candidate and the one best qualified, if for not other reason than money, to defeat the Democratic nominee — who will not face a donor base that has closed its pocketbook this year.
He’s not conservative, and he has truth problems.
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.