Look, I'm a Romney supporter too, but we can't escape the fact that our man's positions are also recent. As recently as 2006 he was supporting "path to citizenship" for illegals.
Just about all politicians change their positions on most issues according to the way the political winds blow. I don't like it any more than you do, but it's the way the world works. Our man does it no less than Fred.
But so long as they follow through on their politically-motivated promises, what does it matter that they're not based on conviction? I don't care whether a President Romney or President Thompson curbs illegal immigration and vetoes an amnesty because he really believes it's the right thing or because it's politically expedient. All I care about is that it gets done.
Now you may argue that it's better if he does it out of conviction, because then he'll do it regardless of how the political winds blow. Perhaps, but even there, I don't see much of an advantage. The fact is, without the political winds blowing our way, we can't win this fight even if we are lucky enough to have president who would stick to our side through thick and thin.
Where were they when Tancredo and Hunter were fighting the good fight before it became popular?
There's a reason those two guys, God bless 'em, are destined to spend their whole political careers as congressmen.
Now don't get me wrong. There's a very important place for people like Tancredo and Hunter, and I am very grateful to them for their service to many causes I like. But alas, political reality dictates that people like that almost never make it to higher office.
Second, Thompson is still opposed to stiff penalties against employers who are breaking the law by hiring illegals.
I don't think that's true. Do you have a source?
To answer your closing question first, I’ve heard it from so many sources I thought it was common knowledge that Fred doesn’t want to go after employers who illegally hire illegals. However, I’ll cite just one:
“Thompson said he didn’t favor tougher penalties for businesses who employ illegal workers.” — Atlanta Journal Constitution. October 18, 2007.
Relative to your comment about it being acceptable for candidates to just adapt to current trends with or without conviction, I find that very disturbing. In fact there’s (too much used!) an expression for that: “flip-flopper.” I’m not suggesting that it’s wrong for a politician to change his positions provided it’s based on observation of factually changed realities, maturity, or from genuine conviction. That’s sometimes difficult to discern but I think the best guide is the totality of the candidate’s past public record. I think Romney and some others have a very questionable record on the illegal immigration issue. I’m a Tancredo (Hunter) supporter and I hear it all the time that they “can’t win,” so why bother. I think John McCain gave the best answer to that when he said that “it’s better to lose an election than to lose principles and convictions.” That observation is very apt for conservatives. We’ve chosen the “lesser of two evils” so often that we’ve ended up with RINOs and opportunists who are just liberals-lite, and sometimes not so lite. What’s sometimes preserved is the GOP, not conservatism.