Huge surprise – Romney flips on immigration

Republican presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney serves sandwiches to supporters outside Jackie’s Diner in Nashua, New Hampshire November 20, 2011. REUTERS/Brian Snyder (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS)

Romney’s chronic flip flops have been well documented. Last week he went after Newt Gingrich on immigration, but it turns out Romney once held the position he is now criticizing. What a shock.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who charged Republican presidential primary rival Newt Gingrich with proposing “amnesty” for certain illegal immigrants, took a nearly identical position in a 2006 Bloomberg interview, saying some foreigners who entered the U.S. illegally should be allowed to remain and gain legal status.

Romney, who at the time hadn’t yet declared his first presidential candidacy for 2008, told reporters and editors in Bloomberg News’s Washington bureau that the 11 million immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally “are not going to be rounded up and box-carred out.” Law-abiding people who pay taxes, learn English and don’t rely on government benefits should be allowed to “get in line” to apply for citizenship, he said.

“We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status,” Romney said during the March 29, 2006, session.

The comments contrast with the position Romney took last week when he challenged Gingrich’s assertion during a televised debate that the U.S. should have a “humane” immigration policy that allows some people who entered the country illegally long ago, have no criminal record, and have family, civic and religious ties to stay and get legal status. Romney called the approach “amnesty” and a magnet for illegality.

Romney is a joke. I sometimes think he’ll be the easiest opponent for Obama as he has become a caricature of the spineless politician. I guess he looks good to some next to the current, pathetic GOP field, but he has avoided interviews with major news organizations, even FOX News, as he seems to be afraid to answer questions about previous positions. It’s hard to imagine how he can do that in a general election.

Herman Cain does his best Rick Perry immitation

Rick Perry took a lot of grief last week for his brain freeze during a debate. I didn’t bother posting it as Perry’s gaffes keep coming at a remarkable clip.

As bad as that was, Herman Cain tops it with his painful pause during a question about Libya. Watch the video and then ask yourself who could possibly support this guy for president.

Conservatives vs Mitt Romney

Republican presidential candidate former Gov. Mitt Romney. UPI/Roger L. Wollenberg

The scathing attacks on Mitt Romney from prominent conservatives are intensifying. While the GOP establishment rallies around Mitt as they survey the confederacy of dunces that make up the Republican field of candidates, conservative writers are stating the obvious – that Mitt Romney is basically a fraud who will say anything to get elected.

George Will unloaded on Romney last week, expressing disdain for Romney’s multiple positions on practically every issue dear to conservatives.

Yesterday, Erick Erickson from RedState.com lamented that Romney will be the death of conservatism.

Mitt Romney is not the George W. Bush of 2012 — he is the Harriet Miers of 2012, only conservative because a few conservative grand pooh-bahs tell us Mitt Romney is conservative and for no other reason.
****
Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process.
****
Mitt Romney will be the nominee because the other candidates, right now, are a pretty pathetic lot.
****
You’d think that given the economy, jobs, and the present angst about the direction of the country that the GOP would have an easy path to victory. You would be wrong.

You forget the electoral college. The vote is coming down to a handful of states and Barack Obama still maintains the advantage of incumbency and not terribly terrible polling in those swing states.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.

I’ve been reading the 200 pages of single spaced opposition research from the John McCain campaign on Mitt Romney. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself. You want him to be tough? He’ll be tough. You want him to be sensitive? He’ll be sensitive. You want him to be for killing the unborn? He’ll go all in on abortion rights until he wants to run for an office where it is not in his advantage.

I don’t blame conservatives for rejecting Romney. I think the conservative movement has lost its mind with the unbending, extreme positions we’re seeing all around the country, and I do believe that some level of pragmatism has to be considered, but Romney is a joke.

George Will slams GOP candidates on Iraq

George Will is on a roll.

Despite his intense desire to have Obama lose in 2012, George Will still has tough questions for those in the GOP field who seem to favor perpetual war:

Most of the candidates have disparaged Barack Obama’s decision that all U.S. troops will leave Iraq this year. (Ron Paul considers the withdrawal of U.S. assets insufficiently thorough; but, then, he might favor U.S. withdrawal from territories of the constitutionally dubious Louisiana Purchase.) What is the candidates’ objection to Obama implementing the status-of-forces agreement that his predecessor signed in 2008?

The candidates should answer three questions: How many troops would they leave in Iraq? For how long? And for what purpose? If eight years, 4,485 lives and $800 billion are not enough, how many more of each are they prepared to invest there? And spare us the conventional dodge about “listening to” the “commanders in the field.” Each candidate is aspiring to be commander in chief in a nation in which civilians set policy for officers to execute.

The foreign policy statements of the GOP candidates have been embarrassing. I doubt any of them can answer this question coherently.

Related Posts