Romney v McCain on Amnesty....was Mitt pandering again?

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Romney has run a head-scratching-inducing campaign from the beginning. For example, his healthcare reform, when I was paying attention 6 months ago, he was avoiding mentioning anything about it, presumably because it was not going to appeal to hard-core conservatives.

I've never had the impression that he was running on his record as governor. I'm sure he's mentioned all sorts of stuff about it. But the fact is he has spent a lot of time trying to convince conservatives that he has "converted" to conservatism. No other candidate is making this same conversion claim. Many have stuck to controversial positions, despite their unpopularity.

Can you name one example where Mitt has stuck to a left-leaning policy/belief? I can't think of one.

I have been following Romney's run since two years ago when it became apparent that he was most likely to run. When he announced last year, he was very keyed on his health plan out of Mass. That was one of the big issues he drilled into the media as being something he did that no one else had. Six months ago, he was focused on other issues, so it would make sense that you would not have seen to many sound bytes, or discussions on his health care plan. However he has constantly brought it up during the debates, so if you watched those it would be interesting to understand why you missed it.

Also did you ever spend time on each of the politicians sites gleaning their policies and what they would be running on? If you did, it has been there on Romney's site since the beginning.

[MikeWaters]

Hmm, still can't name a moderate to liberal policy or belief that Romney has defended.

Interesting.

That would make him the only major candidate to not do so.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by exUte

They got here illegally and if they pay some money they can stay. Romney should have just said, yeah it's amnesty. Thompson did.

That is not the issue being discussed....whether it is amnesty.

It is trying to figure out why Mitt would blatantly lie about whether he said something. He had nothing to lose by simply telling the truth. His lie is puzzling. What is the point?

[TripletDaddy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20...g/azm9gmpkrfra

Mitt comes clean. Sort of.

He says he wasnt aware of the ad content because he had not seen the ads.....his OWN ads....he was unaware what his own ads are saying.

I am glad he admitted he was wrong....shows humility....something W seems to have a hard time doing. But how credible is the claim that he didnt know what his own ads are saying?

I think I am officially bored of Mitt. The NH primary cannot come fast enough.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you don't have a fair/humane way of dealing with illegal immigration, I will assure you that the GOP will be in the minority for a LONG, LONG time.

The mistake is believing that sending them back home will somehow be inhumane. Sorry, but if you have spent time in the "illegal" community, you will quickly understand that very few of the impoverished (living without enough food, running water, access to medicine,etc ever make it across the border.

Many have family still in the old countries, and these are people that were able to afford to get members of their family far enough north to get them across the border. Cost to get to the border depending on where the start of the voyage begins can range from $2000 to $20000 per person. To be able to come up with that kind of capital with no guarantee that it will actually get you to the border (the number of smugglers who take the money and leave the people stranded, in the arms of the local authorities or even worse in the hands of criminal groups looking for prostitutes, plantation and lab workers for their drug businesses, or mules to run drugs across the border.

So if they can produce this capital to bring themselves over to the other side so to speak, going back to your home country where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is here in the US, means an adjustment, but it is far from inhumane.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

The mistake is believing that sending them back home will somehow be inhumane. Sorry, but if you have spent time in the "illegal" community, you will quickly understand that very few of the impoverished (living without enough food, running water, access to medicine,etc ever make it across the border.

Many have family still in the old countries, and these are people that were able to afford to get members of their family far enough north to get them across the border. Cost to get to the border depending on where the start of the voyage begins can range from $2000 to $20000 per person. To be able to come up with that kind of capital with no guarantee that it will actually get you to the border (the number of smugglers who take the money and leave the people stranded, in the arms of the local authorities or even worse in the hands of criminal groups looking for prostitutes, plantation and lab workers for their drug businesses, or mules to run drugs across the border.

So if they can produce this capital to bring themselves over to the other side so to speak, going back to your home country where the cost of living is a fraction of what it is here in the US, means an adjustment, but it is far from inhumane.

DJ, surely you can appreciate the complexity of the issue. Your response focuses on a sole person who has not attachments here. What of the illegal mom and dad who have 3 children here? the kids are US citizens and are in elementary school and junior high school. the parents have lived here for over a decade, not paying taxes, but not committing crime (other than illegal immigration). Are you advocating that the 3 kids get sent to Mexico? Or that the parents and kids get split up? What for? What does that solve?

I see your point that a single, unencumbered adult be sent back. But once families are involved and some of them are US citizens, then it would seem that even from a gospel perspective, we should be looking for a solution that addresses the needs of the family unit, as opposed to clinging doggedly to the letter of the law.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Hmm, still can't name a moderate to liberal policy or belief that Romney has defended.

Interesting.

That would make him the only major candidate to not do so.

He skated on thin ice to win the governorship in Mass. as a Republican, and he is paying for his rhetoric which admittedly was moderate. Had he run tying his personal views on abortion to his public campaign, he would have never been elected as Governor. His words are haunting him, and since the media runs on sound bytes vs. actual research, Mitt is running in a swimming pool that is barely balanced by his checkbook.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

He skated on thin ice to win the governorship in Mass. as a Republican, and he is paying for his rhetoric which admittedly was moderate. Had he run tying his personal views on abortion to his public campaign, he would have never been elected as Governor. His words are haunting him, and since the media runs on sound bytes vs. actual research, Mitt is running in a swimming pool that is barely balanced by his checkbook.

So he put politics over principles in Mass? Is that what you are saying?

Archaea, et al. please spare me your knee-jerk responses that all politicians put politics over principles.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

DJ, surely you can appreciate the complexity of the issue. Your response focuses on a sole person who has not attachments here. What of the illegal mom and dad who have 3 children here? the kids are US citizens and are in elementary school and junior high school. the parents have lived here for over a decade, not paying taxes, but not committing crime (other than illegal immigration). Are you advocating that the 3 kids get sent to Mexico? Or that the parents and kids get split up? What for? What does that solve?

I see your point that a single, unencumbered adult be sent back. But once families are involved and some of them are US citizens, then it would seem that even from a gospel perspective, we should be looking for a solution that addresses the needs of the family unit, as opposed to clinging doggedly to the letter of the law.

Personally I think that in situations like these where the familial relationships are tied (meaning that parent and children do live with each other and have a bona fide relationship i lieu of someone spreading their seed and claiming I have children here) that the parent could receive a residential visa, but no green card. They could be on a delayed ticket home which kicks in when their children have become of legal age.

During their sojourn in the US, they would not be eligible for welfare benefits, social security, etc. When my wife was applying for her green card, she was told that she during her first 3 years living in the US could not apply for any welfare type programs. She had to prove that she could provide for herself (either on her own or via me and my family). So demanding that should not be considered as being unfair.

I would also put people in these situations on a slow track category amongst those applying to come into the US legally. Reason? Because they enjoyed a favored status due to having children born in this country. For families who brought their children over where the children were over the age of five should be able to go back to their home country with children in tow. It may sound harsh, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and amnesty is not the right answer.

I still remember when my stepfather (Mexican American born in San Antonio who was branch president in a spanish branch in Southern California) had all the illegals who were attending hide out in the chapel during Reagan's amnesty deadline. The final day where La Migra was out in force, the chapel was literally full (about a third of those were actually members of the church, the rest were "buddies" or family members)

I agree it is Bravo Foxtrot as we say in the Army, but the US's lackadaisical immigration policy is not an excuse to Carte Blanche those that took advantage of it.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So he put politics over principles in Mass? Is that what you are saying?

Archaea, et al. please spare me your knee-jerk responses that all politicians put politics over principles.

Regarding Abortion I say he was naive in believing that he could separate his personal views with a public responsibility as a servant to the people of a state that starkly supports Roe v Wade. He did clarify that he was not going to seek to limit the current laws on the books. What he did not disclose was that he would do nothing to expand upon the current laws. So everything that came across his desk that would expand upon abortion laws was vetoed. He killed (fraudian slip?) all pro abortion legislation while serving.

Now I have often thought about running for public office, and I always ask myself, is my duty to getting elected to my own views, or to serving the views of the people in which I serve. That is a tough balancing act. We all realize that with few exceptions no LDS politician would be elected if they were to vocally advocate a staunch LDS-centric agenda. It would only be supported by a small percentage of the public. I can imagine the difficulty that many of the Nephite leaders had during the generations after Christ's coming to the Americas had when having to serve the people when a large portion of them were much like the people we are today as a collective society.