.... or pandering. McCain's and Romney's Pander factors are out of the park.
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.
Nope.
Maybe a 3rd-party “draft Alan Keyes” movement. :-)
Right on brother, right on.
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.
“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
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.
“Right on brother, right on.”
Thank you, JR’s statement makes me feel good about the future.
Integrity does not require parsing.
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 >
.... or pandering. McCain's and Romney's Pander factors are out of the park.
No man, we can’t go for Keyes, he supported paying Slavery reparations when he was running for the senate. I can never forgive him for that...
Robbin
I agree - I do not trust anyone who is willing to work with Ted Kennedy on anything.
And .. let us never forget that McCain considered being John [I was in Vietnam] Kerry’s running mate. What does that say about McCain’s character ..? To think that McCain would take sides with such a traitor to our military, is mind boggling..
McCain is a snake in the grass .. and when he was campaigning in 2000 - HIS WIFE WAS WEARING A “HILLARY” PIN. What does that say about McCain’s relationships with democrats.
At this point, I like Fred the best but am not sure he’ll still be around by the time my state primary rolls around (mid Feb).
Of the top five, I like Huck the least.
I agree on Huckabee. I started out anyone but Giuliani, but I think Huckabee is an even worse choice now.
I think this is a project of the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania. Something to do with the Journalism School.
Has been around for a couple election cycles. Claims to be nonpartisan and totally objective. I would not give it that much. It does tilt left but not nearly as much as the MSM and not all of the time. It will sometimes slam RATS.
Are you on LSD?
LOL. I'm strictly numbers-driven. The head-to-head test match-ups speak for themselves. I have seen state poll after state poll where GOP candidates are in the 40 percent range against Hillary or other RAT candidate but Mitt is only in the high 30s. He is the lowest vote getter in these tests.
I have great regard for his business acumen but facts are facts.
Actualy I like Duncan Hunter the best but was only picking from those considered viable. I’m not able to kid myself into believing he has a snowball’s chance. But if we could just hold the WH he could be Sec Def.
Can we find a pix of this?
And polls are far from "facts".
Mitt's an untrustworthy weasel, that's for sure, but no way does America elect Hillary Clinton as President and Commander-in-Chief. The mindless chattering class in this country is capable of electing some real garbage, but electing Hillary as President is simply beyond the pale and not a realistic possibility.
FRegards,
LH
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.