Thursday, May 17, 2007
|
|
Romney's Evolving Immigration Stance
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:16 AM
|
|
Hugh is on a bit of a rampage today about border security, writing:
The only good news about the bill as outlined in the talking points is that it will effectively end the McCain campaign.
I do not take issue with Hugh's stance on immigration, but rather, over his assessment that this will "effectively end the McCain campaign." This is perhaps the twentieth time I've heard someone write McCain's political obituary. It's getting so bad that McCain must feel like Mark Twain, who after hearing his obituary was published in the New York Journal, quipped: "The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."
I also wanted to point out that, as recently as 2005, Gov. Mitt Romney essentially endorsed McCain's immigration stance. According to yesterday's Boston Globe, in 2005, 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."
You can listen to the audio here.
In fairness, Romney's campaign explains that, since 2005, Romney has observed the negative results of McCain-Kennedy...
Once again, has Romney really changed his position on this vitally important issue in the last two years?
|
|
above are meant to refute the claim that the LDS church would ever promote homosexual unions or anything pro-gay in order to legally practice polygamy. It is obvious that the Church is not supportive of gay marriage or anything like it.
As a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I find it nearly laughable that someone would think the Mormons want to practice polygamy again. Ultimately it boils down to being "out of touch" for someone to claim that it would "set the heart of every Mormon aflame." Well, maybe it would, aflame with horror. |
|
Interesting cut and paste job from one of your anti-mormon web sites. Like all anti-mormons that I have ever encountered, you distort and misrepresent.
Take for example, the correctly quoted D&C 132:4 states "For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory."
No mention of "[plural marriage]" there. This is a typical anti-mormon ploy to misdefine terms. Deception is their trade craft. The definition of "new and everlasting covenant" is found in D&C 131:2 "And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];"
So then Gabby lies when she says that "Mormon theology teaches that the highest positions in heaven are achieved ONLY through plural marriage,"
I'm beginning to think she is a leftist troll. After all she is using their tactics.
|
|
that the evidence cited here against the Mormons' practice of polygamy all predates the year 1900 and yet it is inferred that those teachings will "set the heart of every Mormon aflame" were the practice to return through the legalization of same sex marriage.
The Church of Jesus Christ openly involves itself in the very matter of homosexual marriage.
http://www.affirmation.org/news/2000_08.shtml
It is unequivocally against it.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week326/news.html
Period.
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/jensen.html
Question by PBS:
Science is moving toward the idea of a scientific origin for homosexuality. What if this isn't a choice, but the way people are born? Would that change the church's thinking about it?
Answer by Marlin K. Jensen, LDS church historian and member of the First Quorum of the Seventy:
There's no room in doctrine, and there's no room within the plan of salvation, as we call it, or God's plan for our life, for homosexuality to be accepted. ... |
|
The Hedgehog, you make a good point about Romney's position.
At the end of the day, this is just another example of Matt Lewis overstating or misrepresenting something someone else has said.
In fact, just a few days ago, a blogger from Red State came over to Townhall to BLAST Matt for misrepresenting what he (the Red State blogger)had recently written.
And I also agree with you and Kimberly about Gabby---he/she embarrasses him/herself with all of the anti-Mormon bigotry and lies. |
|
I don't see Romney endorsing anything in the language the Globe quotes. Nothing in that statement is necessarily inconsistent with his statement that "If you're here illegally, you should not have a special pathway to become a permanent resident."
Please note: The Z-Visa idea in the current McCain bill dispenses with any requirement for an illegal to become a permanent resident other than showing up and applying. Period.
That's not what Romney is talking about in the quoted segment just above. He has never come out in favor of such an easy legalization step. People need to get over their "Romney is a flip-flopper" fetish.
Oh, and Gabby, you're embarrassing yourself. Don't you think we could find a lot of odd or outrageous statement by Catholic cardinals from the mid-1800s? Or from Baptist perachers trying to justify slavery in the South? Give it a rest; stop before you slide any further into self-parody. |
|
|
In your post to which I originally responded, you asserted that the Mormons' historical practice of polygamy in the nineteenth century is politically relevant today because Mormons will try to secure future polygamy by using same-sex marriage as legal precedent. To support your claim, you should be able to cite specific evidence demonstrating that the Mormon church has advocated for same-sex marriage. Absent such evidence, your argument has no logical basis. As is the case with many religious groups, the Mormon church has been a vocal proponent against same-sex marriage. |
|
|
I also noticed that you did not deny the suggestion that you work for a campaign. Is it Obama's, Clinton's, or Edward's? |
|
|
Anyone who has followed national politics for the last decade knows that the LDS church has not been an advocate for homosexual marriage. Nothing in your responsive post proves to the contrary. You lied, period. |
|
Your claim that "Mormons are drooling over the prospects of homosexual marriage" reveals either your complete ignorance or your willingness to circumvent the truth to further your own agenda.
Which campaign do you work for? |
|
Get the RNC to care! Get to the money!
The Republican Party and Senator McCain is and has been aware of the majority stance on immigration reform. They chose to sell out because they know in an election choice between the Democratic Party and the RINO party we will cave and vote Republican anyway. The logic is always that it's better to hold the office in the party but I think that shell game should be retired. When Democrats hold the majority their disrespect for the Constitution becomes obvious their sedition is shown to those left still un-awake that would care. When RINO's hold the majority they continue as they have spouting conservative positions while working behind the scenes to destroy those very positions they laud publicly while either blaming the Democrats or calling for compromise and praising themselves for promoting working together in a bi-partisan fashion. Which does more harm at this point in our country? Sooner or later we will have to win or lose by awakening all those who still believe in this country and its way of life and system of government. If the Democrats win an election the consolation is they speed the process of displaying their contempt for America and their inability to solve any problem or win a war. If the RNC doesn’t give us real conservatives to vote for it will seal its own demise as a political party. We can’t get our representatives to pass legislation to help at this point so proposing bills is futile until we convince them they will lose money or be voted out of office. I would like to suggest a new way of getting their attention.
1. Make the RINO's as afraid of Conservatives as they are of the Left. Attend every public appearance and shout out or shout down their betrayal to the American people until they fear public appearance after voting us down. Conservatives are generally intelligent and courteous people but we have been lied to and our party is not listening to our polite requests. We do not owe decorum to those who would betray their own country and subvert our political process behind closed doors.
2. Concentrate on the money: Don't use the comment lines-Flood every phone number you can find that the RINO's use for- FUND RAISING- with complaints and refuse to give until the money starts to slow.Filibuster the lines! Rotate your call times one or two hours (and every other day) to reduce the ability to predict who or why the call is taking place.
3. Tie up every RNC email mailbox used for fund raising in the same way.
4. Call C-span and embarrass RINO's by berating their votes even though you share the same party. Can C-span stop taking calls from Republicans? Don’t use the word conservative to the call screener. Call and disparage the name of RINOs that voted for this immigration bill even on show where they are not the guest. Make them known as betrayers.
5. If you can't vote for a conservative Republican write in the republican that is conservative, it will be counted. The true republican candidate will gain clout within the party and the next time they may be on the ticket.
6. Send money to Conservative Republicans across districts or State Lines.
7. Loose your loyalty and courtesy to traitors and frauds just because they are Republicans. Our country can't survive another president Bush he betrayed our soldiers our borders and our system of government. Just because he took us to war doesn't mean he believes his own rhetoric about the war on terror. He is the ultimate RINO. |
|
You expose yourself as an anti-mormon bigot. Your statement "Mormon theology teaches that the highest positions in heaven are achieved ONLY through plural marriage, and the chances for this to happen by law for the first time in history has got to set the heart of every Mormon aflame."
IS FALSE!!!
Your opposition to Romney on religious grounds is stupid. If you are willing to throw mormons to the Stalinist anti-religious Wolves now, you will have no defense when they come for you.
Is your bigotry the reason you continue to try and paint Romney as a "Rockefeller republican"? |
|
|
|
The latest Ras poll has Romney at 44 and Clinton at 47. Thompson posts the exact same numbers.
This is great news for Romney. He is finally getting his head to head with Hillary competitive. Thompson has slipped a point or 2 but Romney is up 9 from last months head to head.
Even some of the MSM polls show Romney narrowing the gap between him and Hillary. If this keeps up Romney will be taken seriously by a lot of Conservative who are holding thier noses and supporting Rudy and McCain. |
|
|
Those of you who say that they would vote for Hillary Clinton over John McCain are stupidly and absolutely nuts. John McCain, a genuine war hero, is pro-military, pro-Iraq War, pro-life, pro-fiscal restraint, pro-strict constructionist judges. Hillary, a left wing attorney, is a socialist, pro-abortion, defeatist, anti-military, pro-left wing imperial judges. You may disagree with John McCain on immigration, but don't be stupid, stuoid, stupid. |
|
romney is the only one, tancredo aside, that is strong on immigration. He gets it and will fix it. good website here: http://www.mittreport.com/
|
|
|
to be fair, Matt may have a valid point, he just never can do a very good job of making it. |
|
While this may be splitting hairs, I see nowhere in the article where Romney is in support of the idea. His view seems to be one of "it's better than amnesty"
Be that minutia as it may, I would hardly call becoming more informed on the issue an evolvement of positions, but rather an understanding that blanket amnesty isn't the answer & McCain's proposal had some obvious merit over amnesty. This is, as Old Whig says, a cheap political trick to brand Romney for the uninformed. |
|
|
Senator McCain, it is part of your job to look at issues that matter to your constituents, do your best with what you have at that time, both knowledge and wisdom, but yet, be willing, and actively seeking, to learn from experts and to listen to people as the time goes by. There will be times where you could dig in deeper for an issue, like Iraq, but there also will be times where you need to let go. Your initial respond are wrong occasionally, because you are only human. This is one of those times! So, kill it! Withdraw your sponsorship! Scream on TV about how you realized you are wrong and you apologize for it! That is YOUR job – to protect our country best you know how, and you now know better! |
|
Hello friend:
I agree that changing one's mind is healthy and natural. The difficulty w/ politicians is knowing when these changes are genuine, and when they are simply expedient promises to win votes.
One thing I like about McCain is that he seems to do the latter less than other politicians. You may not agree with him on some or many or even any issues, but at least you can respect the fact that he does not hold a finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing...
Which of course is not the same as voting for him. It would seem McCain will never get your vote, and those of a number of others here, because of his positions on these issues. That is a good thing; it is how democracy works. I too am dissatisfied w/ the immigration bill as I understand it, and I think McCain/Feingold was a well-intentioned measure that has been a disaster.
However, w/ Mr. Romney I have trouble knowing how sincere the new views are. On a number of issues, he has "evolved" quite a bit in a relatively short period of time. And of course, with his thin political resume, he has no Congressional votes to defend or explain... |
|
I would rather have a person evolve away from a bad idea than staying with a bad idea.
being a Neanderthal in today's world is a bad idea.
come-on McCain, it is good to be consistent unless there is something better. |
|
This is classic---Matt Lewis can't defend his candidate's John McCain's position on immigration, so what does he do ?
He attacks Mitt Romney !
John McCain didn't even attempt to defend his positions on McCain-Feingold or McCain-Kennedy in the debate Tuesday nite, rather, he declared that at least he had been CONSISTENT (!) in his positions.
But Pat Leahy, Chuck Schumer, and Barbara Boxer have all been 'consistent' in their positions, but that is nothing to celebrate, as they've been consistently WRONG.
But don't we WANT people's minds to evolve on the important issues, so that they ultimately arrive at "our" position ?
Osama Bin Laden has been "consistent" in his position about Jihad, but is that something to celebrate ?
Wouldn't we prefer OBL to "see" the error of his ways ?
I'm glad that Mitt Romney sees the light.
But by hammering everyone for "evolving their positions," John McCain paints himself into a corner where he cannot change his mind on issues lest he wants to be labeled a big-time "flip-flopper" as his buddy John F. Kerry was in 2004.
John McCain should just cut a TV commercial of himself exclaming, "I may be wrong---but at least I'm consistent about it !"
|
|
Matt said, "as recently as 2005, Gov. Mitt Romney essentially endorsed McCain's immigration stance," the key word here being "essentially." In other words, Gov. Romney didn't really endorse Sen. McCain's stance, but may have had a position more or less similar to it.
This is a propaganda trick designed to mislead the reader into believing that Gov. Romney's position was once the same as McCain's, which then allows the author to paint Gov. Romney's position as "evolving," or Gov. Romney as a flip-flopper. The facts, however, prove otherwise.
Gov. Romney was not running for the presidency in 2005. His position then was in line with what most thought was the best way to deal with the 13-20 million immigrants who were already here. It was a practical, but incomplete, position. Since then, he has devoted himself to more study of this issue from a presidential perspective, taking into account the effects of illegal immigration on the nation as a whole.
Note how the Boston Globe quote highlights McCain's name, but follows with "among others." Was McCain's position the one getting the most attention in 2005? Not at the time it wasn't. But according to how the Globe writes it, McCain's was the position to follow in the debate. Again, a propaganda tool to mislead the reader. In fact, McCain was not the one proposing this kind of resolution; he was simply following the lead of others. To say that Gov. Romney was simply echoing McCain's 2005 stance is dishonest.
McCain's position itself has "evolved" since 2005. Taking up with Kennedy on immigration demonstrates that, like with McCain-Feingold, McCain is more interested in compromising principles to get along with the Democrats than he is with establishing and fighting for a position that reflects American laws, traditions and values. There can be no compromise with liberals today because they have very different goals than do conservatives. It is no longer a debate over the best way to reach the same goal. The debate is now over the goal itself. McCain apparently does not understand that. |
|
|
Clearly Romney's previous remarks on the illegal invasion are very disturbing. Tancredo's my guy, but if (and that's a very big if) Romney were to very forcibly, specificly, and unambigiously come out against this latest amnesty bill and any others that might later spawn I would consider voting for him in the General Election rather than a 3rd Party candidate. Yes it would be a flip-flop, but if it were a flop in the right direction and his words were so strong against any amnesty plan then I don't think he could change course once he became president. |
|
|
Will never be President. I'd for for Hillary before I would vote for McTraitor. And I'd sooner cut off my hand than vote for that shrew. |
|
Romney is not the only one to evolve on immigration. Thompson has also evolved and McCain has made changes in his own bills. Rudy is not saying much yet but has been very pro illegal immigration.
At least Romney and Thompson are evolving in the right direction.
McCains biggest problem is claiming he does not favor amnesty when most people think his bill gives favorable treatment to (rewards) illegals over potential immigrants who played by the rules. Most people right think McCain's bill will encourage additional illegal immigration.
If we are not going to enforce the immigration law, creating a new law will not make any difference.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM! WE ARE NOT ENFORCING EXSISTING IMMIGRATION LAW. |
|
|
McCain is going to step up and help kill this God-awful Immigration Banana Bill? Then he is for it and Hugh is right. McCain is finished. And maybe the other candidates too if they think they can just stand by and let this happen. This is the GOP moment to prevent a 2008 election catastrophe. Do we really need another November 2006? Well, relax. It won't happen. It'll be much worse for the GOP next time if they don't do the right thing. They can choke on their special interest money for all the good it will do them. |
|
These next 2 years are vital to the future of this country. For 2007 we must make certain that McCain/Kennedy or whatever it's called this year does not pass the House. It will pass the Senate. The President will sign it, followed by the Totalization Treaty with Mexico, which qualifies former illegals with just 6 qtrs(18 mo) even if worked illegally, the benefits that we had to work 40 qtrs(10 yrs) to qualify for.
In 2008 we must make the candidates address border security and immigration enforcement.
20-30 million citizens of other countries are in our country illegally, 55% from Mexico, most of the rest from other Central and South American countries. Let's not ignore the leftward voting trends of these countries. It is notable that they picked May Day, an old communist day of celebration for their marches.
Most polls show at least half of the American citizens of Hispanic descent want the borders and laws enforced. Republicans will not win by alienating their current voters to get 40% of a new small block that will grow very large, very fast if amnesty is granted. That will grow the Democrats vote larger and faster as the influx increases exponentially as the result of another amnesty. It will spell the end of the Republican Party. The people who used to vote Republican will stop voting or form a new party. Conservatives will lose political influence and we will slide inexorably towards socialism (it has already started).
Most of what you hear about this issue is political propaganda that tries to convince you to give up your country without a fight, including on Fox News. The big money players are all on board the cheap labor express, they care not that American citizens do not want another amnesty. We know the last one resulted in 10 times the number of illegal aliens and a general disregard of our laws. The next one will be equally successful.
We need Comprehensive Immigration Enforcement, not reform. We need to restore respect for the law and the faith of the American people that their government is not selling them out. Amnesty for the illegal aliens is also amnesty for the corrupt companies who have been employing them. Money trumps everything, including love of country. Multi-nationals have no loyalty to country by definition, they see us as a market, not a nation. They see people as workers, documented or undocumented, no difference. If they can't send the work to where the labor is cheaper, then they want to bring the cheap labor here. Citizenship is meaningless.
If we love our Constitution and our representative Republic and we intend to keep it we must not surrender our sovereignty or abandon the rule of law. Profits must not supercede security. We should not create a new path to citizenship. We have a path to citizenship, more generous than any other country, illegal aliens have ignored it and bad choices do have consequences.
|
|
|
|