How exactly has border security radically intensified? We passed a law to build a fence then abandoned it. See Byron York's piece from a few weeks back for evidence of how well border security is going. Not to mention recent reports of increased border crossings in Texas, no doubt due to the promise of "amnesty." and by the way, last time I checked, if a foreigner is undocumented, that makes them an illegal alien. You suggest we shouldn't enforce our laws due to cost. What is the cost of enforcement versus the cost in welfare being doled out to illegal aliens? How about, as my brilliant senator Ted Cruz suggested, we try enforcing current law before passing new ones. And this new bill comes with no cost? Oh, and you also might want to watch Oreillys interview with ICE's employee union president from a few days ago as well.

I think Mr. Goldberg needs to look up the definition of 'legendary.'

Just because we in Texas exhibit human decency and compassion to all people doesn't mean we don't share Californians disdain for illegal. We simply don't assume every Hispanic is illegal. The majority of texans do not support comprehensive immigration reform. We want the border secured, and only then can we start to discuss anything else. Immigration is one of the few issues Romney was sincerely correct about. The RNC is dead wrong on this issue.

Romney went for the jugular against Gingrich in Florida after Gingrich's Carolina victory, including airing blatantly false ads. Romney was never as vicious to Obama. So either Romney is schizophrenic, or he listened to his consultants, who took a large chunk of money, donated by the electorate, and promptly through it in the trash. The main problem is that consultants have broken down demographics to a micro level and try to appease everyone individually, inevitably contradicting their candidates views, rather than presenting a grand, principled portrait, and allowing their candidates to win people over.

Wow, I guess that "no budget, no pay" bill really worked out well for Boehner & company. I mean who saw this coming? I'm glad the Republicans are finally showing some fight, but can you say too little too late.

Christie endorsed Romney, who lost the national election and New Jersey.

Wow. A senator from the minority party, with little power to affect outcome, stood on principle, used what little power he had to make a bold stance against the president and holder. I hope Boehner was paying attention. Oh, and for any one who resides in McCain or grahams districts, now you know what a real senator looks like. Your guys opposed a far inferior nominee in hagel, and were demanding answers on Benghazi. And how did they set about their task, they went to the press and gave deference to the president.

I'm confused. You state that the party has chosen to exclude Christie, then you go on to state that CPAC is not an organ of the party. Can't have it both ways. Christie is a good fit for New Jersey, despite all of the shortcomings you listed he also has done a lot of good in a predominantly democratic state. But he is not a good fit for the country as a whole. As evidenced by McCain and Romney, the argument that more moderate Republicans will appeal also to moderate democrats and independents is bogus. If the point of CPAC is a strategy session for principaled conservatives, what point would inviting Christie make? To teach us how to betray our beliefs? No thank you.

Actually, the rate of growth is being cut, not spending. We will still spend more this year than last year. and to add insult to injury, they are going to prorate the sequester, essentially halving it. I still haven't figured out why, if they're allowed to prorate it, which seems fishy, then why didn't they schedule it at the end of the fiscal year instead of in the middle? Then they could demagogue all they wanted to and actually cut virtually nothing.

Actually, the rate of growth is being cut, not spending. We will still spend more this year than last year. and to add insult to injury, they are going to prorate the sequester, essentially halving it. I still haven't figured out why, if they're allowed to prorate it, which seems fishy, then why didn't they schedule it at the end of the fiscal year instead of in the middle? Then they could demagogue all they wanted to and actually cut virtually nothing.