I think Romney voters are going to find that he doesn't believe what they think he believes. Check out what MSNBC reported about his statements at a private fundraiser in Florida:
Romney said the GOP must offer its own policies to woo Hispanics, including a "Republican DREAM Act," referring to the legislative proposal favored by Democrats that would offer illegal immigrants a limited path to citizenship, to give Hispanic voters a real choice between parties.
Now contrast that with this statement at the Fox News debate in South Carolina:
ROMNEY: And I have indicated I would veto the DREAM Act if provisions included in that act to say that people who are here illegally, if they go to school here long enough, get a degree here that they can become permanent residents. I think that's a mistake. I think we have to follow the law and insist those who come here illegally, ultimately return home, apply, and get in line with everyone else.
Or this from the Fox News debate in September:
It's amazing that the candidate who continually beat up Perry and Gingrich for being "soft" on immigration is so quickly softening his stance. I wonder what other flip flops are coming.WALLACE: Governor Romney, I want to continue a conversation that you had with Governor Perry in the last debate.
In Massachusetts, you vetoed legislation to provide interstate tuition rates to the children of illegals. Governor Perry of course signed the Texas Dream Act to do exactly that. But what about Governor Perry's argument that it's better to get these kids an education and to get them jobs than to consign them just to being a burden on the state?
ROMNEY: It's an argument I just can't follow. I've got be honest with you, I don't see how it is that a state like Texas -- to go to the University of Texas, if you're an illegal alien, you get an in-state tuition discount. You know how much that is? That's $22,000 a year.
Four years of college, almost $100,000 discount if you are an illegal alien go to the University of Texas. If you are a United States citizen from any one of the other 49 states, you have to pay $100,000 more. That doesn't make sense to me. And that kind of magnet --
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: That kind of magnet draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense.
Cross posted from libertarian neocon's blog.
14 comments:
I'm not surprised to see this because Marco Rubio is working on such a policy right now, which is why he has said he will not be anyone's VP. He want's this legislation to go through.
If you don't mind, I'm going to link to your article at Tea Party Nation.
Thanks again.
Of course we don't mind. Thanks!
Saying we need a Republican alternative to the Dream act is not a flip-flop -- it's stating the obvious, we have to have an alternative. He's also absolutely right. We need to get Hispanic votes in order to win. You're trying to imply he's suggesting amnesty or something which has NOTHING to do with what he said.
Hey American. Two points.
If he was elected in Florida and elsewhere saying he was against creating any form of a Dream act - and now does, how is that NOT a flip?
( I agree that the flip itself would not hurt him in a general election by the way).
Second, this isn't an isolated event. From Legal Insurrection today:
Via Byron York:
At a closed-to-the-press Florida fundraiser Sunday night at which his remarks were overheard by some reporters standing outside, Mitt Romney was asked about his media strategy for the general election campaign. According to reports in the Wall Street Journal and MSNBC, Romney said his campaign has been treated well by Fox News but that he needs to expand his audience beyond the leading cable news channel.
“Fox is watched by the true believers,” Romney told donors, according to the Wall Street Journal. “We need to get the independents and the women.”
------------------
So effectively we have a rudderless ship with no true conservative core after all. What we know about this type of candidate from the past is that:
A) he significantly reduces his chance of winning against Obama since lines are blurred.
B) he will not have the strength to hold out for true reform if the pressure becomes too severe. Instead of a Cut Cap and Balance, he'll be the Bohener Bill over and over again.. (Essentially another George Bush 41)
C) he will continue to flounder in his attacks since "flip flopper" label will become his identity as it did for Kerry.
There is a reason Heritage Founder Paul Weyrich was ready to bolt the GOP if Romney was VP after originally endorsing him....
Please correct me if I'm wrong on my analysis but I'll leave it to LibNeocon (since he wrote the original article) to clarify if I'm not understanding your point..
Whoops - forgot to put the full article from Legal Insurrection about Mitt ADMITTING he was now abandoning the conservatives for the general election - http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/the-nomination-hasnt-been-etched-but-already-hes-sketching/
1) It's very clear that he's talking about passing a Republican alternative to the DREAM act, aka a Republican version of Immigration reform, which is completely consistent with opposing the DREAM act.
2) FOX News, which I support, gets around 4 million viewers on their best shows (that's a ball park guess). 125 million people voted in the last presidential election, and more than that will vote in this one.
4 million is not 51% of a25 million.
Romney is stating the obvious. And NOWHERE did he say he was abandoning them, just that he needs to win over tens of millions more voters.
This editorial doesn't stand up to even the most tepid scrutiny.
That should read, "
4 million is not 51% of 125 million."
The DREAM Act IS about amnesty though so there is no way around it. He didnt say a Republican version of immigration reform but a Republican version of the DREAM act. Btw, strategically he can be correct AND be flip flopping at the same time.
Also, any reaction to his Obama-like desire to increase taxes on the rich?
Can we just admit the simple fact that Mitt Romney is part of the Democrat's Agenda?
The Democrats wanted Romney. Why? Cause it's a Win-Win for them. If Obama wins they're happy, if Romney wins, they're happier.
I've said this before on blogs, on my twitter account, at Tea Party Nation, the Democrats are prepared to lose this election.
Don't get me wrong, they want to win this fall, and will do whatever they can to achieve that goal.
But the Democrats always 2 steps ahead. They know Obama can't run on his record. They know people think his policies failed. They see those polls on issues. All Obama has for him is people personally like him.
They are ready for Obama's defeat cause their goal is for a return to power in the 2014 Mid-terms.
Why do they want Romney?
Romney is like a double edged sword for them. If he wins, he'll govern from the middle. Meaning he'll push some Liberal things through. They maybe watered down Democratic proposals to appear Republican, but it's still a liberal policy.
He'll govern that way and disenfranchise the Republican base.
A disenfranchised base means lower Enthusiasm, which translates into fewer votes in the fall.
They also know the tensions between the Moderate GOP and us Conservatives. And hope, if Romney is elected and pushes a left wing policy, that a third party rises.
This way by 2016, the GOP Base feels betrayed, The Republican Party is potentially fractured, and the Democrats plan to roll back into the White House with Super Majorities in the House and Senate and finished the work Obama had started.
Richichi, I agree with much of your comment. I actually wrote something similar http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2012/02/would-romney-presidency-be-worse-for.html
Romney would be a disaster for the GOP even if he wins. Possibly especially if he wins.
Libertarian Neocon, but that's the point is it not?
Look, I really like Newt and wish he would be our nominee, but lets face it, we're stuck with Romney. (I'm voting for Newt in the DE primary, and if he can win here and maybe RI next week, there maybe a shot for a brokered Convention)
Here is the bottom line. We cannot let the Left regain power. If the establishment wants Romney than so be it. We'll focus on Senate, House, and local elections.
Also it's time we take on the left truthfully. When the left attacks you, they try to ruin you, physically, financially, and metaphorically.
When Conservatives attack the left, we just ask for an apology which we know ends up becoming meaningless.
We keep on criticizing the GOP establishment for not having any spine... well what about us as a whole?
We point out the truth, call the Left out of their falsehoods, but fall short in calling them liars.
They curse and trash our women but we don't boycott their sponsors, don't demand their resignation.
Hell, when the left forced Coca-Cola to withdraw from a conservative group, we go "Lets boycott Coca-cola now for caving!" Really? We don't try to fight for them to stay? To return to the group?
We keep on fighting the battles the left makes, instead of us demanding answers from the Left for mistakes THEY made.
I mean my god, who was it the free the slaves? Republicans. Who was it that first pushed for civil rights laws? Republicans. Which group helped get Women the right to vote? Republicans.
Who created the Jim Crow laws? Democrats. Who made the poll tax? Democrats. Who tried to stop women from voting? Democrats. Who argued to keep slavery? Democrats.
We let the left get away with little things at first. Ok, we don't use this word, or that. We become more tolerant to this and that. Ok, we'll eliminate prayer and replace it with moment of silence.
Little by little we give a way our freedom. Now we woke up to how much we gave them. We cannot afford to go back to sleep. We cannot afford to give in. Romney or not we must preserve our Country, and fight them off.
The greatest Domestic Threat to this nation is another Democratic Majority. The left started this game, and every step of the way we Refuse to play it, event tried changing it at times. But we're still playing Chess with them.
Perhaps it's time we start to play the Left's game.
Where are all the rich Republicans I keep hearing about? Are they not involved in politics?
Romney & Rubio, at it together:
"Marco Rubio, Romney Endorser, Proposes DREAM Act GOP Version," April 4, 2012
http://gulagbound.com/28028/marco-rubio-romney-endorser-proposes-dream-act-gop-version
I believe it is a fundamental mistake to say, "Romney will govern from the middle."
It is much more accurate and very important to understand that represents the cargo trailer being pulled by Obama-Pelosi-Reid's tractor, in the Marxian dialectic process of revolution.
In other words, Romney is the "right" side of the Overton Window being moved left, to catch up with Obama's hideously extreme "vanguard."
One has to think like Marx, Gramsci, Trotsky, Alinsky (and the central bankster complex that has supplied their fuel bills, since back in the day, in Germany).
Post a Comment