Posted on 05/21/2007 10:26:55 AM PDT by JRochelle
Mitt Romney has been trying to make quite a bit of political hay out of the compromise immigration bill — he sees it as one of John McCain's key weaknesses as relates to the Republican base and a great way to differentiate himself as the One True Conservative in the race (at least until Fred Thompson jumps in).
Well, today, on a conference call with bloggers, Mr. McCain fired back at the former Massachusetts governor, who has (of course) held varying positions on immigration over the years. "Maybe I should wait a couple weeks and see if it changes," Mr. McCain said of Mr. Romney's position on immigration this week. "Maybe he can get out his small varmint gun and drive those Guatemalans off his yard."
More after the jump...
(Excerpt) Read more at latestpolitics.com ...
McCain-Kennedy isn’t the answer,” Romney said in a well-received speech to conservatives in Washington this month, describing it as an amnesty plan that would reward people for breaking the law and cost taxpayers millions to provide them benefits.
But that is markedly different from how Romney once characterized McCain’s bill, elements of which are receiving new attention in Congress and from President Bush. Indeed, Romney’s past comments on illegal immigration suggest his views have hardened as he has ramped up his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”
Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally.
“Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill”
I see you purposefully chose not to bold this partcular sentence while at the same time, implying that Romney would have supported McCain-Kennedy.
“...saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.””
Okay, so again, here the article is careful to state that Romney had not yet formulated a full position, yet you are now holding his feet to the fire for criticizing McCain-Kennedy as it stands now. Romney approving of “reasonable proposals” to solve the immigration issue is a far cry from him supporting the current bill as it stands now. That is a straw man argument and I think you know it.
“Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally.”
And any reasonable person would likely agree. Romney’s not promising them amnesty or citizenship with this statement, but he is recognizing that it’s impractical to employ the typical “ship them all out!” mentality.
The fact is, a year and a half ago, before Mitt got into the full swing of campaigning for president, he supported the exact measures that are in the current amnesty bill.
So, whether you admit it or not, or like it or not, this is just one more in a long line of Mitt-flops.
And, as in so many other cases, his attacks on other candidates on this issue are the height of hypocrisy.
Most conservatives learned long ago to see through such rhetoric. That's why the President himself has no more credibility on this issue.
disingenous = disingenuous
In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as “quite different” from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
“That’s very different than amnesty, where you literally say, ‘OK, everybody here gets to stay,’ “ Romney said in the interview. “It’s saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine.”
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain’s bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation’s immigration crisis, calling them “reasonable proposals.”
Romney also said in the interview that it was not “practical or economic for the country” to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the US illegally.
No, he can't see the future. That's why he had no idea that eventually his hardcore liberal past was eventually going to catch up to him. Common sense should have told him this, though.
“his hardcore liberal past was eventually going to catch up to him.”
EV, with all due respect, in your mind I don’t think that anyone left of Alan Keyes could escape this label. That’s fine you feel that way, but most Americans would probably disagree with you.
And I like your FReepin' record, hoo-wee! :)
Eternal Vigilance
I get more e-mails over you, just because I like Romney. What are you a one man army against Romney? Anyway, I prefer not to get e-mails one way or the other over what Eternal Vigilance does or does not do in Free Republic. I don’t mean they come from Eternal Vigilance, I mean they come from others, and well I tire of them.
I respectfully agree, to disagree or agree with Eternal Vigilance.
You know , Eternal Vigilance, Romney is moving ahead in the polls, and the others are falling behind. Fred hasn’t put his hat into the race. :-) You must be doing something wrong.
I never claimed he endorsed McCain’s bill. He simply endorsed its main provisions. Which is more important, do you think?
I can’t do anything about the Romney camp’s behind-the-scenes schemes to fight against the posting of the liberal former Governor of Massachusetts’ own words and record. Sorry. If you tire of it, tell them to quit FReepmailing you.
I have made it clear to them, and Now I am putting it out here in the open. My exact words to one freeper in a private e-mail "Please do not mail me again with “a behind the scene agenda” against another Freeper. If you have something to say to me about Eternal Vengence or any other Freeper do it in an open post on a Thread, I don’t like this kind of e-mail at all."
That freeper stopped, and then I continue to get other freeper messages , and well now it is out here to all Romney supporters fight your own battles, stand up on your own, and I will do what I feel like doing on my own. I still like Romney is still my favorite pic so far, but I fight my own battles. PERIOD. I don't share a brain with Free Republic and I don't share a brain with other Romney supporters. Although I do agree with you on most issues. :-)
Now then Eternal Vigilance "give em hell", it will toughen their metal.
I like you. :-)
I like you too, I like how you stir their pot!
Heh...
Well, they’re simmering pretty good, there’s no doubt about that. ;-)
McLame is just sucking up to Mel Martinez. The boy is desperate to be CINC. Too bad the rest of us know a dog turd when we see it.
Hilarious! Captain McQueeg might be nutty as a fruitcake, but he has Romney pegged!
I’ll give McCain credit for this much - though he is completely wrong on immigration, he has been consistent. He has also been consistently right on supporting the troops in Iraq. He has been consistently wrong in trying to confer rights to terrorists. He has been consistently right by describing fellow republicans of spending taxpayer money like drunken sailors. He was disgraceful but consistent in blocking conservative judges. But at least he has a moral compass - it’s just defective.
Romney has no principles whatsoever and will adopt whatever position is convenient at a given time. He flipflops constantly. Just five years ago he ran to the LEFT of his liberal Democrat opponent on the abortion issue. Now he’s suddenly a pro-lifer. A true chameleon - the politician he reminds me of most is Bill Clinton. The Dems are stupid enough to nominate someone like that, but I’d like to think we’re a lot smarter.
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.