Skip to comments.More Mitt Malarkey
Posted on 12/29/2007 9:10:23 PM PST by freespirited
click here to read article
Myth Romney and sHuckster. They deserve each other.
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.
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.
McCain is an amnesty father. He is unfit to be President. Mitt is one I could easily support.
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?
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.
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.
Have you looked at the head to head match ups? No one does worse than Romney.
The left sure supports him! They support him and trash Mitt....that doesn’t tell you anything?
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.
Who are you supporting in this primary?
Either of them would be better than that incompetent ass Huckabee, but I'm still supporting Fred.
The Dims would eat Flip Flop Romney for lunch . He is the Republican John Kerry, only worse ....
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.
Only Thompson and Hunter would give us a conservative approach to government.
“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.
Yep, and playing right into the Democrat plan.
Yea what word isn't accurate? Amnesty, illegal, supported, or immigrants? Cause McCain supported amnesty for illegal immigrants.
By the way, what is this bogus “factcheck.org”?
Is that a McCain outfit?
Are you on LSD?
I don’t know how you could judge that from the present polls. it is a long time until november.
“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.
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.
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.
But it's all OK. Let him dig his own political grave.
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.
Don’t you have some Jews to bate or something?
You're too much with the comedy! No way does Thompson endorse a liberal weasel like Romney.
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”.
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.
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 .
Yep , Romney was a pleaser for the Libs and a teaser for Conservatives ...
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.
“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 dont 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.
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.
Whatever are you going to do when your candidates are out?
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.
“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 dont shine. Im sure itll do wonders for you.”
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.
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 >