Posted on 09/27/2011 4:39:10 PM PDT by shield
I don’t speak for all conservatives, but most every single conservative I know will gladly settle for Mitt Romney and support him over Barack Obama. Even the conservatives I know who right now are saying they could never support Mitt Romney will . . . when push comes to shove . . . support Mitt Romney.
The issue is that most conservatives, myself included, don’t want to settle for Mitt Romney. I don’t have a problem with him personally. He, his wife, and family are super nice people. But I think he is just wrong for this election and his positioning this year as a centrist when he positioned himself four years ago as a conservative is disturbing.
But at the top of the race we are confronted with two men who have two problems. Both are 10th Amendment issues and both are states right issues. And I think whether we like it or not, we should, as conservatives who believe the states should be engines of experiment, respect their right to solve problems in their states as they and their legislatures see fit.
You and I may not like Romneycare, but it was Mitt Romney and Massachusetts’ decision.
You and I may not like Texas giving illegal aliens in-state tuition rates, but it was Rick Perry and Texas’ decision.
Digging deeper though, there is a real and serious problem that distinguishes the two issues and gives me greater concern about Romneycare. And I’m afraid with so much pile on over the Texas immigration decision, it has distracted us from a core issue of Romneycare about which we should be more focused.
Texas did what Texas did because Washington failed to do anything. The difference between Mitt Romney and Rick Perry is that Perry never said that what Texas did on immigration is the right fit for every state.
Given Texas’ history and long standing ties to Mexico (a lot of its now major cities were founded back when Texas was part of Mexico and it continues to maintain historic ties to Mexico) and the failure of the federal government to deal with illegal immigration, Texas did what was right for Texas in a near unanimous vote of the legislature (only 4 no votes out of 181 members in the Texas legislature). Neither the administrations of Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush nor, for that matter, Barack Obama would let Texas deport all these people, so Texas decided that the kids should at least be given an education and made contributing members of society instead of sucking up tax dollars in jail or on government assistance for which federal law would not have allowed Texas to deny them.
At the same time, Perry supported Arizona’s right to handle the problem as Arizona saw fit. There’s never been a claim that the Texas solution is a one size fits all solution that Washington should impose.
Mitt Romney, however, came up with a healthcare plan that may be the only political position in modern American history on which he hasn’t stood on both sides, continues to defend it despite Massachusetts now being weighed down by a costly, dysfunctional healthcare system bankrupting the state, and had the audacity to say it was a model for the nation until after Obamacare passed. Then he got rid of that claim from his book.
And that is a key part. Rick Perry never said the Texas way should be the American way and has a history of supporting other states’ rights to deal with immigration in the way those states want while Mitt Romney wrote in his book that the Massachusetts plan could be a model for the nation. Then, when the paperback version came out after Obamacare came into being modeled on Romneycare, Mitt Romhey deleted those lines from the paperback version of his book.
You may not like Rick Perry’s immigration position, but he’s never said, nor would he ever say that it should be national policy. It just happened to be the right fix for Texas. You may not like Mitt Romney’s healthcare position, but he put it in his book that it was a model for the nation and it just so happens to be the model Barack Obama used.
That is a significant and profound difference in my mind and one that is overshadowed by the present Perry pile on in the debates.
Rick Perry should apologize for saying those of us who disagree don’t have a heart. I hope he will. That was baseless demagoguery against his own base of supporters. Mitt Romney has made it clear he will not apologize for what factually was the foundation of Obamacare.
That is funny...Pauliwogs...what a great sense of humor you have...do you just think funny?
Thank you, that is a very nice compliment! :)
People say it isn’t possible mainly because they have been told by politicians who don’t want illegals deported that it isn’t possible. If we made it a priority it could be done. Eisenhower did it. Nevertheless, I agree that we need to cut off all social welfare benefits to illegals and deny them work to the greatest extent possible.
Of course they’d try and tell us that. Cut off all Fed money to the illegals...if the states choose to continue then let those states who choose go broke like California..and no bailout for any state. Lock down the borders...let ‘em self deport...then cut welfare benefits to those Americans looking for a handout go to work. There will be jobs when the wetbacks leave.
” At least with illegal immigration, we’re still around to fight another day. “
See if you can guess why California went from a State that elected Ronald Reagan Governor to a State that elects only left wing Democrats.
Oh, believe me, I find the thought of voting for Mittens repulsive. However, I would do it to help defeat Obama. I think he is electable. On a scale of 1-10, I would say he rates a 3 as a conservative, but has an 8 for electability. Gingrich is probably the reverse. IMHO of course.
Thank you! I agree with you entirely. Perry was badgered by the moderators in all three debates and Romney, Bachmann, and Santorum were allowed to pile on instead of answering questions for themselves.
Perry does NOT favor open borders. You obviously know nothing about TX or you would not be spouting this garbage. I give up! You simply are not informed, as evidenced by the comments you have made. I am from TX and know what he does and what he stands for. Your comments is a misrepresentation.
I’ve read many things about what Perry has and hasn’t done. and what he favors and what he opposes related to immigration, and it all adds up to open borders, no matter what he or anyone else chooses to call it.
And this Texas viewpoint is half the problem because that is not the Texas/Mexico border, but the US/Mexico border. Perry is little different than Bush on border security matters.
Being from Texas seems to be a problem when it comes to addressing illegal immigration for the nation as a whole. Most all border state governors and senators are weak on illegal immigration in one aspect or another. Not good for the US as a whole.
Perry's not kidding about the Ranger Interdiction Team. We live in the Valley and from whatever point A is - point B - before they fly the Black Hawks low over the river is our roof. Perry and his team are all that stands between us and being over run by the cartels, and we surely appreciate that.
Your homepage does not say where you are from. You are aware that the border between Texas and Mexico is a river aren’t you? A fence on our side would end Texans use of the river but would not stop the illegals climbing over it. Surely you have seen the night vision videos of the illegal climbers.
Texas cattle drink from that river and the native game animals do the same. A fence does not make sense in most places there. Perry is not in favor of illegal immigration, it is stupid to suggest that he is. He has spent millions of Texas taxpayer dollars on the border and has asked for fed help which was ignored.
And I expect most of the water problems that double fencing might cause could be solved. But it is pretty amazing to see one person after another - presumably with a straight face - post as if allowing the cattle on the border direct access to the river is more important than border security and national security for a nation of 300+ million.
If this nation is still capable of exercising one lick of common sense, water for cattle and the free movement of animals will some day become a distant second to securing the southern border against all the problems that cross it with little to complicate the illegal crossings. Such posts illustrate better than anything else could why we do not need another Texan in the White House.
I hope our southern border gets secured and how ever they do it I hope it works. Building a fence is a simplistic and very expensive idea and the night vision videos prove it doesn’t work.
The video proves nothing. What will work is double fencing, adequate BP and the use of electronic devices, and drones, etc.
Fencing alone won’t work.
Personnel alone won’t work (and no president would ever put adequate personnel on the border 24/7/365, the most expensive method of all).
And a super-duper, state-of-the-art, “Virtual Fence” sure as heck won’t work as W’s experiment proved and was later abandoned after more than a billion was wasted.
The Secure Fence Act of 2006 presented a great plan to get things started, but a certain president from Texas and his DHS director did everything they could to deceive the public and avoid compliance with the law.
And then after two or three years of ruses and non-compliance, a certain female senator from Texas slipped language in legislation to remove the requirement that a fence actually be built.
One of the best things that could happen concerning border security would be to get Texas and other border state politicians as far from the decisions making as possible. And don't put another Texan in the White House.
How to greatly improve border security is well known. It's that some want to put local concerns above the national security needs of an entire nation, and others want no improved border security at all for various reasons.
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.