Posted on 06/17/2012 7:52:00 AM PDT by Bigtigermike
BRUNSWICK, Ohio (AP) — Mitt Romney is refusing to say that he would overturn President Barack Obama's new policy allowing some young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States.
The Republican presidential candidate tells CBS” ”Face the Nation” that if he’s president, Obama’s executive order “would be overtaken by events … by virtue of my putting in place a long-term solution.”
Romney was asked three times in the interview if he would overturn Obama’s order, but he didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he said would work to pass a law to help those young people who were “brought in by their parents through no fault of their own.” Romney said he doesn’t know why Obama “feels stop-gap measures are the right way to go.”
The candidate’s comments represent a further softening of his rhetoric on immigration since the GOP primary campaign ended.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.yahoo.com ...
Romney is playing this right.
If Romney spends the next 4 months ***responding*** to Obama’s XO’s or speeches, then Obama controls the agenda and Romney is playing catch-up and will lose.
Romney should drive his agenda and let the Obama camp answer questions about Obama’s response.
There’s a huge gulf between your”...Republican dominated Congress”....
and my posted “...Big C Conservative Congress...”
Never known you to set up strawman arguements before.....you OK?
But you’re right... a North East Republican dominated congress, full of Olympia Snowe types, would roll over readily for a “belly rub”from the likes of Romney.....That’s why primaries are so important....
Still it might help to read a post throughly......especially if it contains qualifiers.....BTW....I don’t smoke....anything.
Romney was asked three times in the interview if he would overturn Obama’s order, but he didn’t directly answer the question. Instead, he said would work to pass a law to help those young people who were “brought in by their parents through no fault of their own.”
During debates Mitt Romney attacking Rick Perry's wanting to help immigrant kids:
“We must stop providing the incentives that promote illegal immigration,” Romney told more than 100 people attending a Republican Hispanic conference. “As governor, I vetoed legislation that would have provided in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants ...” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/62591.html
“I think if you’re opposed to illegal immigration, it doesn’t mean you don’t have a heart, it means you have a heart and a brain,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perrys-immigrant-education-stand-draws-fire/2011/09/23/gIQAZbocqK_story.html
Romney is such a hypocrite.
Well, planting my feet firmly in the soil of Reality, I'd say that a Republican dominated Congress is a lot more likely in the present, than your "Big C Conservative" Congress. We're gaining ground in that direction, but it's going to be some time before we see such a thing in the real world.
The above disqualifies my statement as a 'strawman argument'. The type of Congress I describe is quite likely to be the actual case, come January 2013.
...a North East Republican dominated congress, full of Olympia Snowe types, would roll over readily for a “belly rub”from the likes of Romney...
Now you're making a caricature out of my statement.
It doesn't take a Congress filled with liberal Republicans such as Olympia Snowe, for the whole body to roll over for a Republican president. Plenty of so-called conservative Republican congress critters rolled over for Dubya's statist legislative initiatives. So did the so-called 'moderate' Republicans. Naturally, liberal squishes like Collins and Snowe enthusiastically supported those liberal initiatives.
In case you hadn't noticed, conservatives have been burned time and time again by congress critters who we entrusted to hold the line on bigger government and encroaching Socialism. I've lost count of how many of them have learned to pillow talk conservatives, while simultaneously stabbing us in the back in the halls of DC.
The better these weasels learn to play that game, the more they're rewarded with federal pork for their districts and powerful committee assignments. Playing ball with the DC powers that be, is obviously intoxicating and highly addictive. In time, even decent legislators are turned into compromised foot soldiers for the corrupt oligarchy, and are forever lost to the people.
Frankly, I'd say that the seeds for such compromise are firmly implanted in these people long before they arrive in DC. It's pretty hard to climb the political ladder if you're not already showing signs that you're a 'company man' (or woman).
It's only recently that the people have been galvanized enough to fully organize, fund, and push honest citizen candidates to a win in congressional elections. That's the Tea at work, and it's a worrisome development for the old entrenched political machine. New arrivals such as Allen West have proven to the old guard that the power has always been vested in The People, and that we can replace them at will if they piss us off badly enough.
But there aren't nearly enough of that type in Congress yet, to break apart the standard business model of Washington DC. The kind of Congress we both hope and pray for is coming, but we've got a lot of work ahead to put them there. For now, I would caution against placing too much faith in what a Republican dominated Congress will do when faced with a Republican president's agenda.
All Liberal Democrat politicians are hypocrites.
"Zero" shouldn't be removed from office because of his race, but he should be impeached because of his actions. A president is obligated to faithfully execute the laws.
ABOOR, I like that!
Thank you!
For this and other reasons I do not expect Romney to win the election, even if he gets a large majority of legitimate voters. I do not believe, as do some hysterics, that the kenyan will try to cancel the election. I do believe that his people are certain that they will win. And Communists, once in firm control, never do without ceremonial elections. This election will demonstrate to the Left whether the kenyan's cabal is in firm control.
Is socialism acceptable if it is competently managed?
Yet another reason to write in a republican at the top of the ticket. I choose Palin.
And for all the CINOs who say that such a thing is a vote for Obama, STFU. If a person votes for Obama, they vote for Obama. If a person votes for Romney they vote for Romney. But a person voting for a conservative cannot vote for either one, there is no difference between them on the issues that matter.
Romney can’t do a damn thing about immigration unless he wins in November.
To win, if Romney has any brains, he should focus his attack on Oblamo’s economy record.
Note that campaign statements from Romney place him to the right of Bush & Rubio.
Romney can deal with illegals if he wins in November. He better have a strong position on defending borders and against amnesty to illegals. But like I said, first things first. Losers in elections can’t effect in change. Just ask O’Donnell, Sharon Angle, Hoffman, McCain/Palin etc.
A 100,000 old land mines along the border would be a long-term solution
***I favor the plan to set up a half mile wide no-man’s-land along the border, patrolled by the military as a continuous training exercise.
well, whaddya know... crickets
ABOOR isn’t as good as your own login acronym ATC: Anyone That’s Conservative.
The thing that is left to vote for, that is always worth voting Republican over Democrat is of course the Supreme Court. Four current members (2 conservatives, 2 liberals) are in their 70s. Losing the chance to replace Stevens and Souter was bad enough, but now we face the grim prospect of Obama replacing Scalia or Kennedy, thus turning the court totally to the left, or at least replacing Breyer and Ginsburg and robbing us of our chance to finally right the Court.
Having said all of that, Romney’s cowardice on this is deeply distressing. This goes against the promise he showed in the primary when he spoke of using attrition-through-enforcement to deal with illegals (i.e. self-deportation). But even if this shows Romney is going soft or illegals (or that he has always been soft and the primary talk was just lies), then why couldn’t he at least go after Obama on Constitutional grounds? That is an easy, no-brainer. The Constitution says the President is to enforce the laws...and here he is just saying he’s not going to do so! It’s not the first time of course, as he’s done the same with DOMA, but at least there he makes the claim (false and self-serving that it is) that DOMA is unconstitutional. But here, not even Obama is claiming the law calling for the deportation of illegal aliens is unconstitutional. Yet Romney and the GOP are sadly, but not really surprisingly, pathetic in their response.
I have to disagree though that a President Romney would get an amnesty passed into law. Bush was unable to do so mostly because of a near-revolt from Republicans. I think the same could very well happen again should a President Romney follow in Bush’s footsteps.
So for the Supreme Court alone, Romney is worth voting for. He might nominate and get confirmed good judges. With Obama, we know he will nominate and get confirmed horrible judges.
Still though, for his pathetic response to Obama’s outrageous actions here, I have to say FU Romney!
I am talking principles -YOU are talking people.
***Note the chirping sound of RINO crickets...
It’s unfortunate but the fact is that if Romney takes the bait and argues vehemently AGAINST what Obamao has done, then the discussion shifts FROM the economy to the touchy-feely issue of deportation of “innocent, young ‘Americans’ — albeit illegal by virtue of the fact their parents brought them here.”
Personally, I think it’s good Romney says as little as possible about it — Americans can now SEE what is going on.
Romney should continue to beat the drum on the economy — and deal with all the other issues once he gets into office and we have majorities in the Senate and the House. (I can dream, can’t I?)
OR, you vote for Romney, WHO IS NOT a democratic/socialist/communist/marxist. Big, big differance here. Romney is the choice we have at hand right now..not perfect, not completely who we want. BUT, the alternative of the likes of a oboma is the death knell for you and me and this country. We must use common sense, and join forces together to rid this country of the menace to each and every one of us, and that is oboma and his hacks. We then must stand together to make this happen, and we must continue to be vigilant and make sure Romney listens to the will of We the People.
I can't repeat this enough. The choice is ours to make. Deal with the hand that has been dealt. Operate in the here and now...what do we as a country need most RIGHT NOW? The answer is to get oboma and the rest of these enemies of the people out of the White House in November. Joining forces together, voting for Romney and protecting the vote, will be the first step...freedom is not free, and we must keep up the fight to regain what we've lost, one step at a time.
I'd settle for that...Lots of live-fire training will scare everyone back to their side of the border except the drug gangs...
We need lots of those videos like we saw of the helos in Iraq taking out IED crew members. Only the targets in the U.S. would be the gangs and acceptable levels of collateral damage...
Now that I think about it, maybe this would also be the solution to the Chicago cesspool...Don't hit the gang bangers...just the community activists...
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.