Posted on 07/30/2010 5:44:38 PM PDT by GOPGuide
A tantalizing bit of 2012 gossip dropped way, way down in an otherwise fun piece about amnesty shills boo-hooing over having (temporarily) lost McCain. Note to Politico: This is whats called burying the lede.
Their hope now is that Republican presidential candidates and former operatives under Bush, a reform proponent, can convince GOP congressional leaders that the issue needs to be dealt with before 2012 or that they could risk alienating the burgeoning Hispanic vote in the crucial swing states of New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and Florida.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a front-runner for the nomination, has signaled quietly to Graham that Republicans must address immigration before the campaign heats up, according to several sources familiar with the conversation.
Grahams push against birthright citizenship prompted this response on POLITICOs Arena from Cesar Conda, a former domestic policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney: If the Republican Party embraces ending birthright citizenship, then it will be assured losing Latino and ethnic voters and presidential elections for the foreseeable future.
Now Im more confused than ever about why Grahams pushing the birthright citizenship amendment. If he really is thinking about trying to settle the immigration issue before 2012 which may be do-able, given the electoral pressure from Latinos that the GOP leadership will be feeling what does he gain by staking out a position further to the right than hes ever gone before? I have to assume that its precisely because he thinks a deal is likely that he wants to stockpile conservative demands now so that he can give up on them early in the interests of compromise. If he sacrifices birthright citizenship in the interests of being reasonable but stands firm on securing the border first, itll give the Dems some cover on agreeing to the latter. In fact, Politico notes that his comprehensive bill co-written with Schumer already would have made amnesty contingent on first reaching certain benchmarks vis-a-vis border security; Grahams now insisting that thats no longer enough, that he wants a separate borders only bill before amnesty comes back on the table, but Ive got a crazy hunch that hes just staking out a bargaining position there too.
As for Mitts role in this, its not like hes nudging Graham to strike a deal on his behalf. Getting immigration off the table would, in theory, benefit whoever the eventual nominee is. But suspicions about him among the righty base plus the fact that its Grahamnesty, of all people, that hes coordinating with here instead of, say, Jim DeMint isnt going to win him any new fans. Exit question: Any fallout over this for him, or no biggie?
Lol. The GOP, the party of Amnesty. Reagan, Bush, McCain, Graham, Romney...
B.S.. Latino’s that favor amnesty are not going to vote for Republicans no matter what they do. This is nothing but a shrill attempt to play right into the DemonRATs playbook.
Send the illegals packing and the same for any whiners that are protecting them. They are criminals that have thumbed their noses at our laws and continue to do so.
So Romney may get the nomination and win the Presidency? He won't be the President of the United States. President of something, maybe, but it will not be America. Amnesty finishes us.
This guy has become the king of proxy treacheries. He's like a mob boss from a TV show who is always up to something nefarious, but works through proxies so carefully that he thinks he always has plausible deniability.
Sorry, Mitt, we're not buying your Bart Simpson-esque “I didn't do it, you can't prove I had anything to do with it” crap. You play dirty, you're not the 1100 issue convert you pretend to be, and we're not stupid.
In theory, a biggie. In actual practice, Myth Romney is DOA with the base of the party.
Most Latinos are Catholics, many in the liberation theology vain. Those will vote leftist.
Also, Latin America has a tradition of "caudilloism". They are far more likely to vote for a big-government strongman-type politician (Obama, Chavez) than a rugged individualist-type politician (Reagan).
Hispanics already vote something like 65%-35% in favor of Dems. What makes you think the current crop of illegals would vote any differently?
Mitt Romney,a front-runner for the nomination.....
By who’s standard?
Sit On It Mitt!
Sarah or thune for me.
The haughty snake, Willard Myth Romney:
"A little self examination is in order for you Republicans.
You may want to ask yourself if I had spent my time promoting and serving
Obama and Mitt Romney, could not I have garnered more support
of both Obama and Mitt Romney now?
Thsy can take their Latinos and shove them, the rule of constitutional law is at stake.
I don’t think amnesty will ‘finish’ the Country. It’s a sickening proposition, however - laws and sovereignty traded for votes - it’s a form of betrayal in my opinion.
I’m only guessing about Romney’s motives.
Palin 2012, period.
Romney is a jackass.....
You know that Allahpundit have to be pissed. He is a huge Romney supporter.
They will just KEEP COMING!!....And then finish us off, financially, culturally, and politically.
.
"That Colombian born employer says that Romney never brought it up
. during the 11 year relationship that included two nationally publicized
. exposes of the Romney scandal and his sons involvement.
. It never came up even during the years that Romney was Governor of the state,
. the gang of Guatemalan illegals that Romney only spoke Spanish to
. never aroused his suspicions evidently."
.
Another day at the Romney Illegal Alien Sanctuary. [/s]
>> What makes you think the current crop of illegals would vote any differently?
I’m not saying those factors are absolute.
Taxation and labor costs would go into effect immediately. This could translate to a significant drop in income for illegals, greater competition from the original labor base, and fewer dollars for export. Combined with national resentment towards implementing amnesty, I don’t see this being a big win for Democrats. But, it might take some time to settle out. That’s why I think Romney would rather see it happen sooner than later. Also, Obama could be calculating that it’s better to wait on amnesty to maximize 2012 instead of 2010.
I’m not committed to this line of reasoning. Just some speculation based on the article.
I wish Romney would just go away......
I wish Palin would just go away.......
I wish Huckabee would just go away...
We NEED another choice. A LEADER! Of course, I have no idea who that could be at this point. I’ll post a help wanted ad in USA Today, looking for a ‘dark horse’.
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.