Replies

if the Cainsterical bunch are going to now contend that immigration is a state’s rights issue.... why hold an immigration position against anyone running for a federal office?

Exactly, Titan.

Cain gets to say all this stuff contrary to the Constitution, and his ardent followers just compensate and drive on with nary a thought 'cause they're following their messiah.

If immigration is a states rights issue, then why not amend the Constitution first since naturalization is listed as a power of Congress.

And why not turn back to Perry whose argument was that Texas can give education credits to illegals if Texas wants to do that. Isn't that states rights?

But, no. Bring up Perry and they'll be all over him for those education credits.

Bring up Gingrich and they'll say he's for amnesty even though he says he's not for amnesty. But Cain can say this inane stuff, but say he's not for amnesty, and that's all they hear from him.

This whole thing is about following a messiah and not picking a conservative candidate who can govern. The Manchester Union Leader had that part right.

I don't want a messiah. I already have one thank you.

Cain has outlined his four problem solving - including empower the states to do what the federal government can’t and won’t do - as FAR BACK AS 2007 and has reiterated it ALL ALONG In this election cycle.

Solve FOUR problems: 1. Secure the border 2. Enforce the laws on the books 3. Encourage the path to citizenship already in place - starting with entering the country LEGALLY. 4. Empower the states to do what the Federal government can’t

Cain is not asking states to CHANGE the federal law but enforce the laws on the books. The laws on the books are NOT AMNESTY.

Here is a comprehensive look at Cain’s immigration stance:

http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/rep_bios.php?rep_id=98516477&category=views&id=20110508174404

I don't want a messiah. I already have one thank you.

Amen Brother! Thank you for bringing a little perspective.

I gravitated to this site because I am a conservative and love the information and insight on issues I can get here. I don't always agree with a view and like to flesh out the pros and cons. This process helps me to see if I am standing on solid ground or not. If not I pray I'm smart enough to see my error, or what's lacking in my perspective, and adjust my thinking accordingly.

FWIW, it looks to me like we are down to 2 anti-Romney candidates, Gingrich and Perry. Gingrich has surged in the polls and has been fantastic in the debates. Gingrich lacks the organization and money right now. Perry has the organization and money but stumbled in the debates. We need to figure out which of these 2 will be the best POTUS.

I am with Perry for a couple reasons. Perry has 10 yrs experience as Gov of TX and is a pretty solid conservative. Also, he served in the military which I believe is an important experience for the CIC.

Gingrich has been Speaker of the House. He led the Pubs out of minority status and is a great debater. He is solid on the social issues.

Cain is going to continue to fade because he is all over the place on the issues and we've entered that part of the campaign where substance does matter.

The issue of illegal immigration that is being banged over Perry's and Gingrich's head is playing right into the Rats playbook. Conservatives are portrayed as a bunch of racists (which we're not) and the Rats are portrayed as sensitive to minorities (which they aren't). In a perfect world we would stop the flow of illegals in and those that are here would leave, but that won't happen because the Rats only care about power and most of the children of illegals vote for them. I think the visa program both Perry and Gingrich have proposed makes the best of a bad situation if the border is secured first. Otherwise, we will continue down this same path and the demographics that are against us will become our destiny.