Posted on 11/16/2011 11:50:04 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
CARROLL — As he surged to the top of two national polls Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich spent nearly three hours at the Santa Maria Winery in Carroll on Monday, speaking with voters, taking questions, signing books and screening a movie he co-developed celebrating Pope John Paul II.
Gingrich also conducted a 10-minute interview with The Carroll Daily Times Herald and La Prensa, an Iowa Spanish-language newspaper, before going on air nationally with Fox News’ Sean Hannity from a makeshift, temporary studio...
....La Prensa asked Gingrich’s reaction to an often-repeated line from Cain about constructing a border fence with Mexico so that it can electrocute immigrants, and possibly even snare them in an associated moat stocked with alligators.
“It was a bad idea,” Gingrich said.
He added, “I hope he was joking. I’d like to think he was joking.”
Gingrich then turned to his own immigration plans, calling for control of the border in a way that is “human and practical.”
“I’m working on an immigration program which is firm but at the same time has a human aspect to it that I think most Hispanic Americans would appreciate,” Gingrich said.
Earlier, in a question-and-answer session with voters in the winery, Gingrich said he wanted to impose severe penalties for employers who hired undocumented workers. Moreover, he put forward a plan modeled on the Selective Service System used by the military in World War II in which local committees of citizens could help determine the immigration status of a city’s illegal residents based on factors like how long they’ve lived in the area, family roots and contributions socially and in business.
Gingrich said rhetoric about deporting all illegal immigrants isn’t realistic.
“I think it’s very unlikely the American people are going to break up families,” Gingrich said...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanindependent.com ...
Yes I have seen Newt speak on the subject. He has a very good grasp of the problems with Islam.
You forgot one verrrrry important issue. Anchor Babies. We HAVE TO eliminate the instant citizenship law that is an antiquated civil war era law. We have 30 million illegals cranking out 4 to 6 kids each (while we kill half of ours) in a generation we will have 90-100 million hispanics voting at least 60/40 for rats. That spells a blue Texas and or Florida and the end of the USA as a Free Republic.
You are correct. I’ll add it in the next edition.
Hyjacking a symbol isn’t exactly in good taste to depict the type of snake I was referencing Tim.
‘Gingrich said rhetoric about deporting all illegal immigrants isn’t realistic’
Mr. Intellectual conservative here is a news flash. The 20+ million illegals did not cross our borders all at once. Sending them back will take time. Cut off all social services to illegals. use E-verify, fine employers, fine their country of origin(taking financial aid away) $10,000 for each illegal apprehended, etc....
Just say NO to Newt !
Even funnier is that Perry now wants to debate Pelosi...maybe he thinks he is running for minority leader of the house...
And who do you like or want to win?
Perry is a puppet....and a clown.
How about the courtesy of responding to my questions rather than just repeating your post?
I’d like to understand your thoughts on why you ask this question.
Like I’ve posted...all of them have sins and skeletons. I’m sure I could dig up tons of stuff that some people won’t like on your candidate too. I go with mostly with my gut feeling and I like Newt.....
Your post doesn’t respond to my questions. I’m sincerely interested in what you’re trying to say/accomplish by your comment.
Thank you for #110, another point of view as to the costs of government mandates, it costs us our morality as well as wealth.
Are you implying that Timber Rattler has maybe made up the facts of Gingrich's record, as contained at the links, because he maybe supports a different candidate?
I'm going to assume that he does support a different candidate.....and No, I don't think he wrote any of the articles and made the stuff up as he wrote them.
If you read this information on a candidate's record AND you agreed it raised substantive questions, would you support that candidate?
The articles are moot because I don't take them as FACTS. I'd rather hear from the candidates mouth....the WHOLE context. But, if the articles do raise some concerns, I would wait to hear the candidates reply...if he wants to justify the article by replying. Cain shouldn't of replied to his allegations...just gave credence to it in my opinion.
Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.
Totally agreed.
I don't want Gingrich as the presidential nominee. He did wonderful things to take back the House of Representatives and become the first Republican Speaker of the House in virtually anyone’s living memory, but his zipper problems are a serious liability. Some of his policies are also serious problems.
However, a debate between Gingrich and Obama could be very good — imagine Gingrich eating the Teleprompter in Chief alive. Same thing if Gingrich is the VP nominee, taking on Vice President Joe Biden who actually does have intellectual competence but has an unfortunate habit of saying bad things.
For comparison, imagine a debate between Gov. Perry and President Obama. I don't want to see that.
Gingrich is notable for his academic competence mostly because too many other Republican candidates aren't. Unfortunately, the conservative movement has not done a good job of developing serious heavyweight thinkers in its candidates. We've got lots of good conservative think-tanks, but somehow the policy wonks do better at tearing apart bad Democratic ideas in print and policy statements than they do at running for and getting elected to the city, county, and state offices that are usually prerequisites for running for Congress or a state governorship.
We need to do a much better job of developing competent conservative candidates on the local level. Do we not have young Republicans in the College Republican clubs at left-wing universities who will come back to their hometowns and run for state and local office on the grounds that we need some people who are capable of disproving the nutty arguments of the left-wing profs they've seen in college? I know we need the think tanks, but we also need actual elected officials who are intellectually competent debaters, and the rise of Newt Gingrich is happening in significant measure because we don't have too many other people with his intellectual competence and vast knowledge of government and foreign policy. Those used to be considered minimum requirements for presidential candidates in both parties, not just nice things to have.
Your note about catching people who are legal caught my attention.
I have a Hispanic-sounding name. It's actually Italian and my father's ancestors have lived in the United States since immigrating to Michigan in 1870, but when I lived in the Southwest I was sometimes mistaken, based on my last name, for being an Americanized person of Hispanic ancestry. I actually got called a “disgrace to my race” on occasion by people who thought my Spanish speaking skills aren't very good. They were quite correct that my Spanish accent is really bad, but quite wrong about my ethnicity.
My name has caused me no problems and actually helped me when living in New Mexico. However, my mother, whose ancestors have lived here even longer than my father's ancestors and doesn't look in any way “foreign” except for being short and having black hair, got identified as a possible illegal immigrant during the early days of employer checks.
Fortunately she was working for a Michigan law firm at the time, the state where she, her father and mother, and her grandparents were all born and which she never left again after attending Reagan's 1981 inaugural. The partners of the law firm thought it was very funny that some federal bureaucrat gave them an opportunity for a discrimination lawsuit. The mixup got fixed **REALLY** fast with some nastygrams by the lawyers to the federal bureaucrat who thought a person might be an illegal immigrant whose only ancestors who “immigrated” were people who moved from Indiana to Michigan after the Civil War. There were absolutely no indicators of possible non-citizenship except her last name.
If we think citizenship verification is easy for businesses, we underestimate the problems. It's well and good to say businesses shouldn't hire illegals, and I agree, but effectively enforcing that is considerably more difficult.
My mother thought the whole incident was funny at first — until she realized what could have happened if her boss hadn't been a lawyer and if the claim of non-citizenship wasn't obviously bogus to everybody around.
I think all FReepers believe American companies should be hiring Americans and not illegals. But what if the person being identified as an illegal really is a citizen? What do we do then?
Unlike me, my wife is an immigrant, as are four other members of my family in my household. We've spent thousands of dollars to handle things legally, to the letter. My wife is now a citizen, and my niece hopes soon to be in the US Army. We've done things right, and we get angrier than most at illegals who want to live in America without following the rules.
But let's make sure that when we penalize people for breaking the rules, we don't penalize people who have done nothing wrong except be the victims of a bureaucrat's screw-up.
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.