Posted on 06/25/2012 7:51:24 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the federal government has no basis to nullify the "show me your papers" provision of Arizona's immigration law. Conservatives Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, moderate Anthony Kennedy, liberals Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- even Obama appointee Sonia Sotomayor -- all shot down the administration's effort to stop that part of the law. (Obama appointee Elena Kagan stayed out of it because she had taken part in the action as a member of the administration.)
Yet even with that unanimity -- a position supported, if the polls are correct, by a solid majority of the public and an overwhelming majority of Republicans -- GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would not specifically say he agreed with the court's view on "show me your papers."
[...]
Romney's words again suggested he agrees with the court's opinion on "show me your papers." But again, he offered nothing to make clear his position on the central issue of the Arizona immigration fight.
Perhaps Romney was just exercising his legendary caution. But if Scalia and Sotomayor can agree on something, what would be the risk in Romney agreeing with it, too?
Though it touched on many questions, the political fight over the Arizona immigration law focused on a very specific issue: Should police who have stopped a person for some legitimate reason then check that person's status if they have reason to believe he or she might be in the country illegally? On Monday, Mitt Romney had the perfect opportunity to align himself with the conservative -- and popular -- side of the question, and declined to take it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
It would be nice to think that the Tea Party could pull Romney to the right but I highly doubt it. The Romney family contempt for conservatives runs deep. I believe that Romney's liberal tendencies will draw him into a left-of-center coalition with the Democrats and RINOs with Mitt claiming the mantle of the great reconciler. He'll pick a couple of fights with the Tea Partiers to claim to be the "reasonable" one who will stand up to the radical right. When it's all said and done, Romney will probably accomplish more of the leftist domestic agenda than Obama could have with unified Republican opposition.
Prudence says make the best with the cards dealt in your hand.
You might want to skip that card analogy. That's a great strategy to lose all your money. Prudent poker players will generally fold when they are dealt a junk hand.
That’s why the primaries should be held on the same day. By the time a lot of states vote, the damage is done.
My hope is Mitt is a politician through and through. In liberal Mass he acted liberal. As president, he may shift to center-right where the country is. Only time will tell. I am not going to pigeon hole Mitt based on his Massachusetts performance. Even there he exercised hundreds of veto’s. So there is hope.
You’ve been told that Hitler committed suicide in 1945, haven’t you? Can you think of anyone else who might actually be on the ballot this November?
I heard with my own ears Rush said today on his radio talk show that Romney was doing a great job of running the campaign, especially his rapid response is very effective.
I will defer to Rush’s opinion over any one here, no offense intended to anyone here..
We'll be wishing Obama had won.
>”We’ll be wishing Obama had won”<
Must be Happy Hour...
About a dozen third party candidates.
But you don’t get sarcasm do you?
Oh, was that sarcasm? I’ve seen better.
When it's all said and done, Romney will probably accomplish more of the leftist domestic agenda than Obama could have with unified Republican opposition.
The guy is a Bishop and member of one of the founding family's of the Mormon Cult, they believe Jesus is coming to Missouri.
A total snake oil salesman, he will push the same homosexual liberal social agenda as the Kenyan (Happy "Pride Day" at the Pentagon today), appoint liberal judges like he did in Massachusetts, and do nothing about abortion.
He'll make it easier for his fellow cult members and wall street to game the system, but don't look for any tax cuts for the working man from this character.
Please explain what you think this chump is going to do to implement conservative principles?
In Mass., Romney raised taxes, fees
DEROY MURDOCK-Manchester Union Leader
Hot on the heels of his eight-vote Iowa-caucus landslide, Willard Mitt Romney is crisscrossing New Hampshire before Tuesday’s key primary. Romney is masquerading as a limited-government, free-market executive from next-door Massachusetts. From the Golden Gate to the Granite State, voters should greet Romney’s impersonation with a quarry full of skepticism.
In fact, Romney increased taxes by $309 million, mainly on corporations. These tax hikes, described by Romney apologists as loophole closures, totaled $128 million in 2003, $95.5 in 2004, and $85 million in 2005. That final year, Romney proposed $170 million in higher business taxes, the Boston Globe reports. However, the Bay State’s liberal, Democratic legislature balked and only approved an $85 million increase.
Tax rates on many corporations almost doubled because of legislation supported by Romney, Boston Science Corporation chairman Peter Nicholas explained in Jan. 6, 2008’s Boston Herald. Also, from 5.3 to 9.8 percent, Romney raised the tax on subchapter S corporations owned by business trusts, an 85 percent hike. Romney went further than any other governor in trying to wring money out of corporations, the Council on State Taxation’s Joseph Crosby complained.
Romney also created or increased fees by $432 million. He was not dragooned into this by greedy Democratic lawmakers; Romney himself proposed these items. In 2003 alone, Romney concocted or boosted 88 fees. Romney charged more for marriage licenses (from $6 to $12), gun registrations (from $25 to $75), a used-car sales tax ($10 million), gasoline deliveries ($60 million), real-estate transfers ($175 million), and more. Particularly obnoxious was Romney’s $10 fee per Certificate of Blindness. Romney also billed blind people $15 each for discount-travel ID cards.
While Romney can take credit for a $275 million capital-gains tax rebate, property-tax relief for seniors, and a two-day, tax-free shopping holiday, he also must take responsibility for signing $740.5 million in higher taxes, plus that $85 million in business taxes that he requested and legislators rejected.
Romney did not even fight higher Death Tax rates, notes former State Assembly Minority Whip Steve Baldwin, R-Calif., a Romney critic. When the legislature considered this issue, Romney’s official position was no position. This echoed Barack Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois State Senate.
As Romney drained his constituents’ pockets, the Public Policy Institute of New York’s Cost of Doing Business Index rated Massachusetts in 2006 as America’s fourth costliest state in which to practice free enterprise. The Tax Foundation dropped Massachusetts from America’s 29th most business-friendly state to No. 36. The Tax Foundation also calculated that, under Romney, Massachusetts’ per-capita tax burden increased from 9.3 to 9.9 percent. In real dollars, the Romney-era per capita tax burden grew $1,175.71.
As if impoverishing his own taxpayers were not bad enough, Romney’s March 5, 2003 signature raised taxes on non-residents retroactive to that Jan. 1. Perpetrating taxation without representation, Romney’s law declared that, gross income derived from any trade or business, including any employment, would be taxable, regardless of the taxpayer’s residence or domicile in the year it is received. Consequently, according to data furnished by the Massachusetts Department of Revenue, between 2002 and 2006, New Hampshire residents who work or do business in the Bay State shipped Massachusetts $95 million above what they paid when Romney arrived. The average tax paid by Granite Staters into Massachusetts grew $458 from $2,392 in 2002 to $2,850 in 2006, up 19.1 percent.
Notwithstanding the higher taxes and fees that Romney himself advocated, he claims that he was a powerless victim of a left-wing legislature. Nonsense. The profusion of Democrats on Beacon Hill did not prevent Romney’s GOP predecessors from dramatically cutting taxes. Former Republican governors William Weld and Paul Cellucci signed more than 40 tax-cut bills while Democrats ran the state house.
Romney seems stuck at 25 percent support among Republicans. That’s because 75 percent of GOP voters simply dont trust him. There are at least 740.5 million reasons not to trust Romney on taxes, either.
>”We’ll be wishing Obama had won”<
To paraphrase Tonto, What you mean WE Kemosabe?
Happy Hour has turned into a bender.
Well if Rush has an opinion then it must be fact. We know he would never engage in pure cheer-leading,
OH except maybe election night 2006 when he went on Levin's show about 7pm EST and said the polls were turning in mass in Republicans favor, Oh and in 2008 when he similarly sounded optimistic about the outcome on election night again and had to switch themes 180 degrees the day after, AGAIN.
I think I will look for metrics independent of Rush's opinion to judge from. Rush has a business to promote.
Keep telling yourself that and maybe it will come true. I remain skeptical.
I like Rush but despite his self-promotion, he's not always right. He was the chief architect of the government shut-down which proved a disaster for the Republicans and Operation Hillary which led to someone even worse in Obama.
When you factor in the damage that Romney will do to the conservative movement, I agree. Just don't say that around the ABO crowd, they go nuts.
Ya. Rush, Levin,all Conservative Talk show hosts, Palin, Walker, all Conservative Politicians, are all ABO.
You're not surprised by this, are you? Conservative politicians can't jeopardize their standing in the Republican Party if they might harbor long-term political ambitions. Conservative media people have a stake in not offending the Republican Party. If you look at the earlier comments made by most of these people about Romney before he became the nominee and it is clear that their support of him now is nothing more than a tepid marriage of accomodation.
I can understand why they "support" Romney given their vested interest in aligning themselves with the Republican Party. What I can't understand is why conservatives who have no such vested interests can support someone who should be anathema to conservatives.
You wrote that yesterday.
So today did Rush acknowledge those new polls that the different shows on the Romney Channel (FNC) were showing today that show Obama beating Romney in a number of the swing states, FL, OH, etc?? The reason? Recent Obama campaign ads nuking Romney on the Bain stuff making him out to be a rich robber layoff baron (much like the Newt campaign did.)
Or did Rush stay on the Pollyanna line about everything going great in Romney-land?
Romney's lame campaign trying to avoid any specifics and sneak in under the radar screen is not working. I did see Rove (same Romney Channel) last week predicting that Obama will run out of money because his campaign is burning it way too fast with these commercials. So we will see.
First, Rush was commenting on the Romney’s rapid response team.
Second, look carefully behind the curtain, those 3 polls in FL, OH & PA respondents were registered voters, not likely voters. And the polls were not done by a neutral/republican leaning pollster. Do we know what percentage of respondents were democrats?
I am seeing a Romney landslide in the making. However I am also fully aware that 4+ months before election day is eternity and anything can happen.
Did you catch Frank Luntz on Sean Hannity TV show today? What stood out for me was how many voters who pulled the lever for Zero in 2008 will not repeat that in 2012, including A-A voters.
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.