Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More Mitt Malarkey
Newsweak ^ | 12/29/07 | Brooks Jackson

Posted on 12/29/2007 9:10:23 PM PST by freespirited

Summary

Romney's latest ad attacks McCain in New Hampshire with false and misleading claims:

It claims McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." That's untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security benefits under McCain's immigration bill.

It implies McCain supported "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That word isn't accurate. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have received a blanket pardon under McCain's bill. Instead, they would have had to pay thousands in penalties and fees to gain legal status. In fact, in 2005 Romney called McCain's proposal "reasonable" and said it wasn't amnesty.

The ad says Romney "cut taxes" in Massachusetts. While he did cut some taxes – for example, enacting business tax credits – tax rates remained unchanged. Plus, Romney raised state revenues by hundreds of millions of dollars per year by increasing fees and closing corporate tax loopholes.

Analysis

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney announced his ad attacking Arizona Sen. John McCain Dec. 28. It is set to run in New Hampshire, where the two face each other in the Republican presidential primary scheduled for Jan. 8.

Social Security for Illegal Aliens

In contrasting supposed differences between the two men, the ad's announcer falsely states that McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." This tired and misleading claim was used by several Republicans against Democrats in the 2006 elections. We debunked it then, and it is no more true now that it is being used to attack a Republican.

The claim is based on the immigration bill that McCain cosponsored in 2005 and 2006. The bill died, but as we said before, the measure did not propose to pay Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants, not until and unless they become U.S. citizens or are granted legal status. Under current law, illegal immigrants who work and pay Social Security taxes may later receive credit toward future benefits for the amounts they have paid, if they become legal residents or citizens. The McCain measure wouldn't have changed that.

During the immigration fight Republicans proposed an amendment that would have prevented anyone who became a legal immigrant under the McCain bill from receiving credit toward future Social Security benefits for the taxes they paid and the time they had worked while in the U.S. without legal permission. McCain was one of 11 Republicans who voted to kill that amendment.

Thus, the statement that McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security" is false. Nobody proposed to pay benefits to anyone who is in the U.S. illegally. To be accurate, the ad might have said that McCain "voted against a measure that would have denied illegal immigrants Social Security credit for their work once they gain legal status." But such a truthful statement might not strike New Hampshire voters as so damaging.

"Amnesty" Again

The Romney ad also misleads by using the inaccurate and emotionally laden term "amnesty" to describe what the immigration bill would have offered illegal immigrants. As we've said any number of times, the dictionary definition of "amnesty" is a pardon for past offenses, and the McCain bill did not offer a simple pardon. Rather, it would have imposed thousands of dollars in penalties and fees on any illegal immigrant wishing to gain legal status.

The ad's wording is technically accurate on this score. It says, "He [Romney] opposes amnesty for illegals." What's misleading is the suggestion that McCain embraces "amnesty," when he doesn't. Romney's ad might truthfully have said he currently takes a tougher line on illegal immigrants than does McCain, but characterizing his opponent as favoring "amnesty" isn't accurate.

Also, while the former governor has hardened his stance on immigration, it's worth noting that he once called the legislation for which he now attacks McCain a "reasonable" proposal. In a 2005 interview with the Boston Globe after McCain's bill was introduced, Romney also said he didn't believe the legislation granted "amnesty."

Boston Globe (March 2007): In a November 2005 interview with the Globe, 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.

McCain's Position

McCain issued a response to the Romney attack, alluding to the somewhat tougher stand on immigration that the senator has embraced since the defeat of his immigration plans. He said he now favors securing U.S. borders and instituting a "temporary worker program" before attempting to deal "comprehensively" with immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally.

John McCain: I'm familiar with tailspins and I think he's [Romney is] in one. Look, on the issue of immigration, my position is clear: We have to secure the borders, the borders have to be secured first. As president I would have the governors in the border states certify that the borders are secure. We learned a lesson and the message is they want the borders secured first. Then we go on to a temporary worker program and addressing the issue comprehensively.

A Misleading Claim About Taxes

We also find the ad's claim that "Romney cut taxes" to be misleading. It is true that Romney proposed some income tax cuts that the Democratic-controlled Massachusetts Legislature rejected. And he did succeed in cutting some taxes – for example, he enacted property tax relief for seniors and approved business tax credits – but overall tax rates remained the same. The conservative Club for Growth said his term included "some solid efforts" but that "overall, Romney's record on tax policy is mixed." Indeed, he increased state revenues significantly.

Technically, Romney's often-repeated boast that he didn't raise taxes is true, but it's also misleading, as we discussed in our critique of the second Republican presidential debate back in May. In 2003, to help close a big budget gap, he pushed through a number of increased state fees that brought in $400 million in their first year. For example, he doubled fees for marriage licenses and other court filings. He also quintupled the per gallon delivery fee for gasoline (money that is supposed to be for cleaning up any leaks from underground fuel tanks). Romney also "closed loopholes" in the corporate tax structure, a move that generated another $150 million in increased revenue.

Romney also shifted some of the state tax burden down to the local level, by cutting local aid revenues. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state's cities and towns, said Romney's cut "forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees." The exact amount of the local increases hasn't been determined, but Romney at least partly avoided increasing state taxes by forcing Massachusetts cities and towns to raise theirs.

Sources

S. 2611, 109th U.S. Congress, 2nd Session.

U.S. Senate, 109th Congress, 2nd Session. Vote No. 130.

S. 1639, 110th U.S. Congress.

Helman, Scott. "Romney's words grow hard on immigration." Boston Globe. 16 Mar. 2007.

Bovbjerg, Randall R. State Responses to Budget Crises in 2004: Massachusetts. 1 Feb. 2004. The Urban Institute. 16 May 2007.

Cardozo, Carol L., et al. State Budget '04: The Long Road Back. 1 Jan. 2004. The Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation. 16 May 2007.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; 2008; election; elections; mccain; mittromney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
My personal opinion: it would be a big mistake to nominate this guy.
1 posted on 12/29/2007 9:10:23 PM PST by freespirited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Myth Romney and sHuckster. They deserve each other.


2 posted on 12/29/2007 9:15:01 PM PST by papasmurf (I'm voting for FRed, even if I have to write him in.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I’m no Mitt fan, but when he says that McCain supported Amnesty for illegals, he is spot on. McCain wrote the Amnesty bill for Pete’s sake. And under McCain’s bill after a quick touch back and citizenship application illegals would have indeed been eligible for social security benefits. McCain is Mr. Amnesty plain and simple.

Of course, Romney is only a half step behind in his support of Amnesty.


3 posted on 12/29/2007 9:15:53 PM PST by NavVet (If you don't defend conservatism in the Primary, you won't have it to defend in the Election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Newsweek? The libs at Newspeak want to see Romney defeated so they can get someone they can dismantle in the general election, like Huckabee or Giuliani.


4 posted on 12/29/2007 9:21:38 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optimittstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavVet

McCain is an amnesty father. He is unfit to be President. Mitt is one I could easily support.


5 posted on 12/29/2007 9:21:47 PM PST by Donnaplume
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Newsweek now shilling for McCain. Everthing Mitt sad is accurate. Why do you keep posting articles from the leftest MSM who obviously want McCain to derail Romney?


6 posted on 12/29/2007 9:22:54 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NavVet
Of course, Romney is only a half step behind in his support of Amnesty.

Nail on head here. Romney called the proposal reasonable and denied that it was amnesty late in 2005. Therefore attacking McCain is pure hypocrisy ... worse than all of his flip flopping.

I believe Mitt has alienated the press more than the average GOP candidate. This could make him a nightmare nominee.

7 posted on 12/29/2007 9:23:23 PM PST by freespirited (Still a proud member of the Stupid Party. It beats the Evil Party any day of the week.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

I don’t subscribe to your kind of censorship.

I don’t like either one of these guys but will vote for the GOP nominee. Of the two evils, it is pretty clear that only McCain has a prayer of defeating Hillary.


8 posted on 12/29/2007 9:28:08 PM PST by freespirited (Still a proud member of the Stupid Party. It beats the Evil Party any day of the week.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
The libs at Newspeak want to see Romney defeated so they can get someone they can dismantle in the general election, like Huckabee or Giuliani.

Have you looked at the head to head match ups? No one does worse than Romney.

9 posted on 12/29/2007 9:29:59 PM PST by freespirited (Still a proud member of the Stupid Party. It beats the Evil Party any day of the week.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

The left sure supports him! They support him and trash Mitt....that doesn’t tell you anything?


10 posted on 12/29/2007 9:31:31 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Are you serious, at least Romney pretends to be conservative. McCain celebrates the fact that he has stabbed conservatives in the back at every opportunity.


11 posted on 12/29/2007 9:35:46 PM PST by NavVet (If you don't defend conservatism in the Primary, you won't have it to defend in the Election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

Who are you supporting in this primary?


12 posted on 12/29/2007 9:38:25 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optimittstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Donnaplume
I can't support either of them. McCain because of amnesty, Mitt because he's an unrepentant gun-grabber (the only position he never flip-flopped on).

Either of them would be better than that incompetent ass Huckabee, but I'm still supporting Fred.

13 posted on 12/29/2007 9:42:01 PM PST by lesser_satan (READ MY LIPS: NO NEW RINOS | FRED THOMPSON - DUNCAN HUNTER '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

The Dims would eat Flip Flop Romney for lunch . He is the Republican John Kerry, only worse ....


14 posted on 12/29/2007 9:43:08 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (Anti - Fred dissent and RINO / Romney propaganda should be crushed like a Huckster Hard Drive ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
....but as we said before, the measure did not propose to pay Social Security benefits to illegal immigrants, not until and unless they become U.S. citizens or are granted legal status. Under current law, illegal immigrants who work and pay Social Security taxes may later receive credit toward future benefits for the amounts they have paid, if they become legal residents or citizens. The McCain measure wouldn't have changed that.

During the immigration fight Republicans proposed an amendment that would have prevented anyone who became a legal immigrant under the McCain bill from receiving credit toward future Social Security benefits for the taxes they paid and the time they had worked while in the U.S. without legal permission. McCain was one of 11 Republicans who voted to kill that amendment.

McCain was ready and willing to shell out the social security to freshly approved "immigrants" (which was basically all illegal aliens who applied for "Z visas" under his bill) and credit them for "time served" as illegal aliens.

McCain is a loser.

15 posted on 12/29/2007 9:44:22 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
AS far as the final outcome after the general election would go, Mitt and McCain would have, for most of the issues, the same federal policies as we had in place last week. Except both would give us national health care and illegal immigration amnesty. Abortion would be untouched and governance would follow a PC consensus whenever possible. e.g., same ol', same ol'.

Only Thompson and Hunter would give us a conservative approach to government.

16 posted on 12/29/2007 9:44:32 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

“Why do you keep posting articles from the leftest MSM who obviously want McCain to derail Romney?”


You must not have noticed, but one of the goals here at freerepublic if I interpret JR and most freepers correctly is to derail Romney.


17 posted on 12/29/2007 9:44:45 PM PST by ansel12 (Washington:I cannot tell a lie,Clinton:I cannot tell the truth,Romney:I cannot tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Yep, and playing right into the Democrat plan.


18 posted on 12/29/2007 9:46:01 PM PST by TheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
It implies McCain supported "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That word isn't accurate.

Yea what word isn't accurate? Amnesty, illegal, supported, or immigrants? Cause McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.

19 posted on 12/29/2007 9:46:47 PM PST by Domandred (Eagles soar, but unfortunately weasels never get sucked into jet engines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

By the way, what is this bogus “factcheck.org”?
Is that a McCain outfit?


20 posted on 12/29/2007 9:46:56 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Of the two evils, it is pretty clear that only McCain has a prayer of defeating Hillary.

Are you on LSD?

21 posted on 12/29/2007 9:49:23 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I don’t know how you could judge that from the present polls. it is a long time until november.


22 posted on 12/29/2007 9:50:21 PM PST by libbylu (I am voting for the prettiest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TheLion

“Yep, and playing right into the Democrat plan.”


The plan at freerepublic as best I can tell, is to fight for Thompson and Hunter in the primary, and knock off all of the rinos.

The consensus here is that the Democrat plan is to get someone besides those two, to win the republican nomination.


23 posted on 12/29/2007 9:52:49 PM PST by ansel12 (Washington:I cannot tell a lie,Clinton:I cannot tell the truth,Romney:I cannot tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: freespirited

I usually agree with FactCheck, but not always. This is one of those cases.

First, on Social Security for illegals. It is true that the Republicans tried to make it so illegals could not EARN social security while they were illegal, and McCain blocked them.

It is also true that illegals living in the United States could not collect that social security unless they became legal.

BUT, we have an arrangement with Mexico, where credited social security benefits are passed to Mexico for their citizens. Because of McCain’s blocking the amendment, those benefits would have included social security earned by illegals, to be paid to them by the United States through money sent to Mexico.

Therefore, McCain’s vote meant that illegals would get paid Social Security. ROmney is right, FactCheck (and McCain)were wrong.

On the second issue, amnesty. It is true that, as FactCheck says, in order to get citizenship or permanent legal resident status, you had to pay fines.

However, the bill that was about to pass in the Senate, which McCain was sponsoring, had another provision. If you were here illegally, you could file paperwork to get a temporary visa, and you just had to pay a fee for the paperwork, which is NOT a criminal penalty.

You may also have been forced to pay your taxes, but taxes are not a penalty, we all have to pay them.

So McCain’s bill provided “amnesty”, in that an illegal could stay here for years with a real visa, and therefore be “legal” for a time period, without having to pay any penalties — the definition of “amnesty”.

I would also note FURTHER that the bill originally considered, the one that was talked about at the time Romney said he thought the bill sounded reasonable, did not have the de-facto amnesty.

In fact, most people didn’t know it was in THIS version until Jeff Sessions put out his fine paper detailing all the bad things in the bill.

So I’m sorry, Factcheck was wrong, as we pointed out before, and just because they are goring Romney now is no reason to abandon our principles and agree with them.


24 posted on 12/29/2007 9:53:33 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lesser_satan

Romney’s never grabbed a gun, he’s never passed a bill that took away anybody’s gun, and when he DID pass a bill which restricted the new purchase of some weapons, he did so with the support of the NRA, in a way that prevented the liberals from enacting a much more severe measure.


25 posted on 12/29/2007 9:55:58 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
It is ooh so simple. When one follows the false god, he is capable of all kinds of lying and it seems right to him. I’m certainly no McCain supporter but I’m am sick to death of Romney lying about his religion, saying Christians and Mormons serve the same god. It isn’t true, has never been true and unless they drop all that Joseph Smith crapola and trust the One True God, it will never be true. And his lies just keep growing. As if he says it enough, it will make it true. Ain’t gonna happen.

But it's all OK. Let him dig his own political grave.

26 posted on 12/29/2007 9:56:42 PM PST by Picklezz (HUNTER: SOLID - A Conservative's Conservative. He's the man for the job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neu Pragmatist

Fred is hovering at 10.8% in Iowa and 3.8% in NH. He couldn’t defeat Edwards at this point. Get a grip.

The day is coming when the defeated Thompson will withdraw and endorse Mitt.


27 posted on 12/29/2007 9:58:17 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optimittstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Picklezz

Don’t you have some Jews to bate or something?


28 posted on 12/29/2007 9:59:31 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optimittstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
The day is coming when the defeated Thompson will withdraw and endorse Mitt.

You're too much with the comedy! No way does Thompson endorse a liberal weasel like Romney.

29 posted on 12/29/2007 10:02:38 PM PST by Lancey Howard (BTW, "bate"? Spell check is your friend.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I thank you for your honesty. But it is a foundation of conservatism that we not adopt the left’s “end justifies the means” yellow journalism simply because we think our job is to “derail” someone.

I realise that leaves some here with a conundrum. Their principles of conservatism require they defend conservative values, respect the facts, and judge people fairly.

But if they do that, they can’t fulfil their “mission” to “derail Romney”, so they throw their own principles out the window. Some of them can’t bring themselves to do it directly, so they instead find liberal newspaper articles to do it instead — because the liberals never had any trouble making wild assumptions and misrepresenting the facts.

Once they have some “news article” that has completely misrepresented the facts in what they rarely label their “analysis” section, the freepers feel free to quote liberally from the liberals, after all it’s “just what was in the article”.


30 posted on 12/29/2007 10:04:09 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

My plan is to fight for conservative principles, support candidates who are pushing those conservative principles, and get those candidates elected.

It is unfortunate that you believe a conservative site has decided to work a cross-purposes with the conservative mission, simply because they don’t like a candidate.


31 posted on 12/29/2007 10:05:41 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts (home of "gay marriage" and "Fisting for Third-Graders") signs socialist health-care into law. Governor Romney is shown here surrounded by chuckling, ecstatic, disbelieving Democrats, including Senator Ted Kennedy:


32 posted on 12/29/2007 10:07:04 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

It all sounds good in theory , but the problem is that Romney is not , nor has he ever been a Conservative. You can’t trust him in his lust for power , as he will do and say anything to acquire it .


33 posted on 12/29/2007 10:09:43 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (Anti - Fred dissent and RINO / Romney propaganda should be crushed like a Huckster Hard Drive ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Yep , Romney was a pleaser for the Libs and a teaser for Conservatives ...


34 posted on 12/29/2007 10:11:40 PM PST by Neu Pragmatist (Anti - Fred dissent and RINO / Romney propaganda should be crushed like a Huckster Hard Drive ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

Soon there will be weeping and wailing arising from the Fred bully boys here, as their candidate goes down and out in Iowa and NH. Now that’s comedy!

And it’s only a matter of days.

McCain and Thompson in the battle of their lives for 3rd place in Iowa. Thompson with a death grip on 6th place in NH.


35 posted on 12/29/2007 10:15:26 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optimittstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“My plan is to fight for conservative principles, support candidates who are pushing those conservative principles, and get those candidates elected.

It is unfortunate that you believe a conservative site has decided to work a cross-purposes with the conservative mission, simply because they don’t like a candidate.”


I of course aren’t much fond of your goal of getting Mitt Romney elected and selling that to us here at FR, but really, sell it to JR not to me, I never care about your fluffy opinions.
When I read Jim Robinson’s posts 229 and 256, at this link I accept his statement as the truth, of what he desires for and from freerepublic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945602/posts?q=1&;page=201


36 posted on 12/29/2007 10:20:30 PM PST by ansel12 (Washington:I cannot tell a lie,Clinton:I cannot tell the truth,Romney:I cannot tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Well, with this headline I was ready to read another well-deserved assault on Mitt. Then I read the first two points in the assault:

1. "It claims McCain "voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security." That's untrue. Nobody who is in the country illegally could be paid any Social Security benefits under McCain's immigration bill."

Nobody who is in the country illegally under McCain could be paid any Social Security benefits...well,duh, McCain would makes the illegals LEGAL, then give them Social Security benefits. This shot at Mitt misses, Romney is correct.

2."It implies McCain supported "amnesty" for illegal immigrants. That word isn't accurate. Illegal immigrants wouldn't have received a blanket pardon under..."

Only devious dishonest people define amnesty as a "blanket pardon". This shot also misses. This assault on Mitt is oh for two, I didn't bother to read further.

Full disclosure, my GOP candidates go in this order: Hunter, Thompson, Romney, Guliani, Paul, McCain.

37 posted on 12/29/2007 10:22:22 PM PST by Jabba the Nutt (Just laugh at them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Whatever are you going to do when your candidates are out?


38 posted on 12/29/2007 10:41:15 PM PST by claudiustg (You know it. I know it. I'm optimittstic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Good post about FactCheck.

>>You may also have been forced to pay your taxes, but taxes are not a penalty, we all have to pay them.<<

In the Senate “comprehensive immigration” bill, some weasel sneaked in a provision so that the Z-visa people would not have to pay back taxes. If I remember correctly, McCain found out about it, and wrote an amendment, but I think his amendment required Z-visa people to pay back taxes only if they applied for “permanent status” (I. e. green card). I’m not sure if McCain and Bush really thought that was good enough (if they were “Z-immigrants” forever they would never have to pay back taxes), or he wanted to fool us by claiming that the requirement to pay taxes was one reason that the immigrations bill was “not amnesty.” Bush’s “comprehensive immigration reform” talking points (mistakenly or dishonestly) claimed that “they would have to pay back taxes” even before McCain’s amendment passed.

At that time, I adopted the tagline:

“Illegals: representation without taxation. US Citizens: Taxation without representation.”

Just a small sample of what a mess the entire McCain immigration bill was.


39 posted on 12/29/2007 10:42:54 PM PST by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (I want to "Buy American" but the only things for sale made in the USA are politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg; Jim Robinson

“Whatever are you going to do when your candidates are out?”


I will answer by using JR’s post 263 from the link below.

“Uh, this is Free Republic. We advocate for conservatives/conservatism not RINOS/liberalism. We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election. You can shove your dose of RINO reality where the sun don’t shine. I’m sure it’ll do wonders for you.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945602/posts?q=1&;page=201


40 posted on 12/29/2007 10:52:01 PM PST by ansel12 (Washington:I cannot tell a lie,Clinton:I cannot tell the truth,Romney:I cannot tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Nope.


41 posted on 12/29/2007 10:56:00 PM PST by Picklezz (HUNTER: SOLID - A Conservative's Conservative. He's the man for the job.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg

Maybe a 3rd-party “draft Alan Keyes” movement. :-)


42 posted on 12/29/2007 10:59:38 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Right on brother, right on.


43 posted on 12/29/2007 11:03:58 PM PST by Prophet in the wilderness (PSALM .53 : 1 The FOOL hath said in his heart, there is no GOD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election.

Oddly, that is exactly what I am advocating for in this election. And I am supporting a candidate who supports the right to life, opposes abortion, backs strong families, school choice, marriage between one man and one woman, liberty, the 2nd amendment as defender of that liberty, limited government, the Bush tax cuts, reigning in government spending, free trade, originalist judges, repeal of McCain Feingold, opposition to the Kilo ruling, strong national defense, increasing our military force, fighting radical islamists, winning the war in Iraq. If I didn't conclude by saying I support Mitt Romney, we would be in perfect agreement I believe on those principles I am pushing above. And It is clear that those are the exact things Romney is advocating for and running for office to implement. He COULD be lying, but I don't think so. But he is RUNNING on a strong conservative platform, and stands on the RIGHT side of the list you posted. His biggest weakness in his platform is his willingness to sign a limited AWB. But that is countered by a much stronger stand than the other conservative on the 1st amendment, specifically promising to work to repeal CFR. No candidate is perfect, but on the issues the candidates are espousing, Romney is solidly in the conservative camp. The reason he is opposed is matters of opinion on trust, not his platform. I understand that, and that is why I don't push to change minds here. I simply post the facts about his actual record and his positions, because I see people who have their marching orders and think that includes misleading to acheive their goals.

44 posted on 12/29/2007 11:08:32 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“We will continue to advocate for life, family, liberty, national security, individual freedom, limited government, low taxes, originalist judges and the constitution, etc, regardless of who wins the current election.”


The author is at this link post 263, I’m not much interested in your musings and it makes more sense to speak to the guy who just said it on FR tonight.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945602/posts?q=1&;page=201


45 posted on 12/29/2007 11:23:38 PM PST by ansel12 (Washington:I cannot tell a lie,Clinton:I cannot tell the truth,Romney:I cannot tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

You said you agreed with it, and I’m responding to your post. As I did not address his OPINION about that, only MY opinion about what you wrote, I have pinged the appropriate people and answered to the appropriate post.

If you want to address another freeper in a reply to me, it is customary for you to ping that freeper.

In case you didn’t notice, I give religion forums and discussions a WIDE BERTH on FR, as I see this as a conservative political forum, not a religious debating society.

I’m not objecting to others who wish to engage in that type of activity, it’s fine with me, it’s just not something I’m interested in. So I don’t read or post to them.

FR is a valuable resource for the conservative community, and I am doing my part to provide conservative opinions and facts supporting conservatives for this community.


46 posted on 12/29/2007 11:31:59 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Prophet in the wilderness

“Right on brother, right on.”

Thank you, JR’s statement makes me feel good about the future.


47 posted on 12/29/2007 11:37:25 PM PST by ansel12 (Washington:I cannot tell a lie,Clinton:I cannot tell the truth,Romney:I cannot tell the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: freespirited
It's very scary when Republicans start parsing a word in order to gain points, like the little dance Romney and McCain are doing with 'Amnesty". That's what Democrats are supposed to do.

Integrity does not require parsing.

49 posted on 12/30/2007 4:00:24 AM PST by Bernard (If you always tell the truth, you never have to remember exactly what you said.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
Illegal immigrants wouldn't have received a blanket pardon under McCain's bill. Instead, they would have had to pay thousands in penalties and fees to gain legal status.

More Newsweak propoganda. You've got to wonder when they come to the defense of McCain. Mitt is certainly not as good as Duncan Hunter or Fred Thompson on this issue, but at least he gets popular demands for border enforcement first.

If we are in the business of selling American citizenship for token fines, then at least we could sell it to people from Asia willing to pay more. < / sarcasm >

50 posted on 12/30/2007 5:11:12 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson