Le Mars, Iowa – In a q & a at an Iowa restaurant this afternoon, Mitt Romney told a questioner that if he were president and Congress passed the DREAM Act, he would veto it. Romney has harshly criticized both Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich for their stances on immigration, but has also been endorsed by former Florida senator Mel Martinez, who co-sponsored the DREAM Act.
Good to hear...
Enabling illegal immigration is a mistake.
Mr. Romney is very strong.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, he was, OF! There was no quibbling effort to pander toward the Hispanic vote in the general. Very pleasing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAll I ask is that we treat Romney like we expect Obama to be treated... Don't look at what he says, look at what he did in office.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is very interesting. I am also hoping that going into SC, someone will question the candidates on whether they support photo ID for voting and -- and perhaps more importantly -- if they would be willing to try to end the special scrutiny that only southern states get on all matters relating to voting under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Few people -- even Southerners -- realize how professional civil rights advocates in the DOJ meddle in Southern election procedures as if the civil rights revolution had never happened. And Holder has moved to block SC from implementing photo ID, EVEN THOUGH NON-SOUTHERN STATES HAVE SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS.
These questions -- like questions on the Dream Act -- should be red meat heading into the South Carolina primary. And it would be a great test of whether my preferred candidate, Romney, really has the right stuff to stand up for conservative Southerners.
(It is also a test of whether NR has any inclination to stand strongly on the specifically Southern issue of the Voting Rights Act keeping the South permanently in a second class status subject to abuse by meddling federal bureaucrats.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood points ED...
Happy New Year.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCheers right back atcha, OF!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(And one more little off-topic thing, OF: I got kind of inflamed the other day with the idea that Romney was a lot like Eisenhower, methodical, steady, politically-attuned, whereas Newt was more like Patton, brilliant but bombastic and unpredictable. I was talking to a friend about this and he stunned me with the info that Mammie and Ike were pet names for Mitt and Ann in the family! I thought that this Ike comparison was strictly my own fantasy. A little while ago, my friend sent me a link to this old People Magazine piece on the Romney family which mentions this matter. But more than that, it is a ~sensationally~ positive piece on the Romney family. I guess it is well known....the campaign should be papering Iowa with this thing. External Link
)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with this. I'm glad there's a growing push for voter ID laws across the nation, but the bigger issue as it relates to South Carolina is the South's continuing, 35+ years-and-running subjugation to the DOJ under the Voting Rights Act, a subjugation which has outlived its purpose and is now used solely to promote and protect the Democrat agenda. I'm hoping at least one of the candidates shines a light on this during the SC primary.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse>>I'm hoping at least one of the candidates shines a light on this during the SC primary.
***
Terrific, CE.
Rarely do I post for the deliberate purpose of advancing a point-of-view or a candidate. Overwhelmingly, my posts are simply for the pleasure of expressing myself and with engaging others.
BUT...I am an unapologetic advocate on behalf of pushing this abuse of the South under the 65 VRA onto the national agenda. The SC primary coming up following Holder's outrageous effort to block the SC photo-ID law, provides an extraordinary opportunity to get a spotlight on this rubbish. I plan to post about it and perhaps even make some talkshow calls. Hopefully, the media will recognize this as an issue. Otherwise, maybe one of the candidates will seize on it.
Glad to see that you are right there!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis should be the uniform position of all Republican candidates. It's amazing to me how badly the rest of the field, with the exception of Bachmann, got outflanked on the right by Mitt with regard to immigration. I'd suggest in many ways the failure of the various "non-Romney" flavors of the month to hold their support was due to their comparative squishiness on the issue. Immigration was a huge plus for Romney and his campaign has thus far played the card well.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIndeed CE, Happy New Year...
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSame to you, Old Fan.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKudos to Mitt Romney. One of the main reasons I am supporting him is his strong record against illegal immigration. He is MILES better on this issue than pro-amnesty hacks Newt "red card" Gingrich and Rick "Dream Act" Perry.
Romney has also publicly endorsed E-Verify and supports a policy of attrition through enforcement of laws to deal with 12 million illegal aliens here -- an attrition policy that will decrease the illegal population over time negating the need for another amnesty or mass deportations.
Go Mitt!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Gov of MA Romney vetoed the Dream Act, Drivers Licenses, benefits and services for illegal aliens and entered into a 287(g) agreement with ICE that enables MA law enforcement to detain and process illegal aliens.
In addition to this he went into office facing a $1 billion dollar deficit and left a $2 billion dollar surplus. He increased benefits for National Guard members, cut taxes 19 times and had a 4.6% unemployment rate.
Michelle Bachmann on the other hand was pro-amnesty until Rick Perry dived in the polls because of his pro-amnesty Dream Act support and "heartless" comment. During the 2nd or third internet debate a Telemundo Reporter asked what each candidate would do about the illegal aliens already here - MB waivered and weakly said "well, it would depend on how long they've been here, if they had family and if they had a criminal record.." Michele, like Ron Paul, are sitting Members of Congress. She doesn't have to wait until January, 2013 to DO SOMETHING about illegal immigration like co-sponsor Walter Jones' H.R. 3168, "The Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act of 2011," but she hasn't yet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs Gov of MA Romney vetoed the Dream Act, Drivers Licenses, benefits and services for illegal aliens and entered into a 287(g) agreement with ICE that enables MA law enforcement to detain and process illegal aliens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn addition to this he went into office facing a $1 billion dollar deficit and left a $2 billion dollar surplus. He increased benefits for National Guard members, cut taxes 19 times and had a 4.6% unemployment rate.
Michelle Bachmann on the other hand was pro-amnesty until Rick Perry dived in the polls because of his pro-amnesty Dream Act support and "heartless" comment. During the 2nd or third internet debate a Telemundo Reporter asked what each candidate would do about the illegal aliens already here - MB waivered and weakly said "well, it would depend on how long they've been here, if they if they had family and if they had a criminal record.." Michele, like Ron Paul, are sitting Members of Congress. She doesn't have to wait until January, 2013 to DO SOMETHING about illegal immigration like co-sponsor Walter Jones' H.R. 3168, "The Illegal Alien Crime Reporting Act of 2011," but she hasn't yet.
No surprise. Romney has consistently opposed the Dream Act and as governor of far left Massachusetts vetoed & defeated in-state-tuition bills.
Perry, Gingrich & Huntsman support a Dream Act.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Texas Dream Act has absolutely nothing to do with the national Dream Act pushed by the pro-amnesty folks. Please get your facts straight, Perry does not support amnesty and has done more to protect the southern border than any other person in this race.
I also would like people like you that throw around the in-state tuition issue would actually say it correctly, Texas allows in-state tuition RATE for kids that have been in the primary education system for 3 years. You pretend that we are giving away the whole tuition amount, which is absolutely false.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRomney's continued pandering to the Tea Party wing of the Republican party will haunt him come the general election. Goodbye Hispanic vote! I'm sure we'll get someone from NR to tell us how Hispanics really love the anti-immigrant views of the Tea Party and like the Jewish vote, will abandon Obama in favor of someone like Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be interested to know what Scott Wilson thinks about the demographics.. but personally I don't think a Republican can ever again win the presidency without a majority of the Hispanic vote. And party-wide sentiments like those expressed above are making that possibility more distant all the time.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWe have a crazy situation in this country. A bitterly divided electorate leaves the balance of power in the hands of the largely clueless "independents." (They are "independent" mostly because they are too stupid or uninterested to figure out where which side they should be on.)
Along comes an invasion from a somewhat alien culture. (Okay...it is an "invasion" that many have invited for their narrow economic interests.) These people could not possibly be further from the American ideal of "town-meeting democracy." Their experience for generations has taught them that all politics is corrupt and is about the rich trying to use government to exploit the poor. It is the quintessential class warfare message of the Democrat Party.
Many sage observers (including the likes of Karl Rove from within our own number) advise us that our only hope is to roll over and pander to this invading horde and its "politics of the shirtless ones."
Hell will freeze over before I will throw completely out the window the American vision of "town-meeting democracy" in favor of the "democracy" of mobs in the streets. There comes a point where people with integrity are not interested in what the betting line is on whether they can succeed in a principled stand. They stand with the traditions that they believe in. That's where I stand. If winning the next election means merging our nation with Mexico via a cynically political appeal to Hispanic voters in which we promise to effectively obliterate the meaning of a border and of American versus Mexican citizenship, then I say to heck with winning the next election.
I'd rather be dead than be a part of merging my country with Mexico. (No disrespect to Mexico....just a furious defense of my own country.)
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse