« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney off the record?

In an article by NBC’s Garrett Haake in FirstRead on MSNBC about off the record commentsmade by Mitt Romney an interesting picture is painted of the candidate.  While there doesn’t appear to be any way to verify this, and I wouldn’t trust anything from MSNBC I think there are some points here worth mentioning. Just in case the Romney campaign is seriously considering them.

“I’m going to take a lot of departments in Washington, and agencies, and combine them. Some eliminate, but I’m probably not going to lay out just exactly which ones are going to go,” Romney said. “Things like Housing and Urban Development, which my dad was head of, that might not be around later. But I’m not going to actually go through these one by one. What I can tell you is, we’ve got far too many bureaucrats. I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states.”

I will send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states. If only this is true! If we stopped there I am certain that the Romney campaign would win my vote. The article continues

“”The Department of Education: I will either consolidate with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller. I’m not going to get rid of it entirely,” Romney said, explaining that part of his reasoning behind preserving the agency was to maintain a federal role in pushing back against teachers’ unions.

I want to hear more about how you will use “what is left” to push back against the teacher unions, but I would feel a lot better with a different answer. Give the state control over education, period. You can do this by eliminating funding and mandates from the federal government. You don’t have to eliminate the department if you eliminate it’s power to corrupt. Unfortunately things turn ugly towards the end of the article. And if this is true, I can tell you I will not be voting for anyone for President in the fall.

Predicting that immigration would become a much larger issue in the fall campaign, Romney told his audience, “We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party,” warning that recent polling showing Hispanics breaking in huge percentages for President Obama “spells doom for us.” Romney said the GOP must offer its own policies to woo Hispanics, including a “Republican DREAM Act,” referring to the legislative proposal favored by Democrats that would offer illegal immigrants a limited path to citizenship, to give Hispanic voters a real choice between parties.

If you really want to win the hispanic vote start by getting rid of that term. We need the Cuban,  Mexican, Central American and Puerto Rican vote. We want South American vote. But we want that vote from people who are here legally because we also want respect for our immigration laws.

There should be no amnesty, do not even talk about amnesty . This is not just a conservative view point, it is a mandate of the independent voter, and let me remind you, Obama did not pass any laws. Oh he is dictating through policy violations of our sovereignty, but he did not sign anything.  And when the election comes around Obama will run away with the independent vote if they think you are selling out to the foreign invaders who are taking all the good jobs. That is how they will see it. If you want the votes of Mexicans promise Mexicans a return to growth and prosperity and an effective way to allow our honest hard working neighbors to come here temporarily for work. But don’t promise amnesty, or forgiveness for past violations, or anything like that.

If the Romney campaign offers another Republican version of amnesty, which has not in the past bought us wholesale support, I promise you that I will be voting in the fall for every position I can, except for President.  I can live with a house and senate majority but no Republican president if that is the price of  real “difference” between the Democrats and the Republicans on immigration.

Overall my opinion of Romney went up, although I know this is from MSNBC.  But I am worried about some of these things, if any of them are true.

Time will tell.

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • rightwingnut2

    I’d much rather see Rubio on the ticket to sell conservative principles, rather than see Romney pander by trying to out-Obama Obama.

  • clintonformccain

    …. who are still slow to get on board.

    Given that reality, I applaud Romney for thinking about policies that will maximize votes in general (and Latino votes in partcular) in fall election. You have a number of solid Republican leaders (Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio) all saying that the Party is headed for disaster if it does not soften the rhetoric and change the impression that it is anti-immigration and anti-Latino. I don’t believe these leaders are just flappin’ their gums. They are absolutely right.

    The reality is that we are not deporting 10 million people. So, why alienate voters beating your chest about “shipping ‘em back home” when you know it’s not going to happen? Clearly, solutions have to focus on entry into the country.

    • WmCraig

      The truth is, Republicans as government leaders are not interested in sending hard working foreign nationals home. But you have to deal with the criminals, and lets face it, when you take a bunch of people that skirt the law you get a high percentage of criminals in the bunch.

      I have in the past posted an easy way to solve this problem. Both social conservatives and liberals reject the idea because it is not magnanimous. It is based on a fee and qualififcations.

      The fee is social security taxes. In exchange for easy entry and easy retention a foreign national can stay and work as long as they are gainfully employed did not and do not engage in criminal behavior, are remain healthy and remain that way. The fee is that social security taxes are collected, but benefits are forfeited as long as the individual does not become a citizen.

      I am all for a temporary worker program but everything has value, I am all for getting people here to work, and for bring manufacturing and industrial jobs back to this country. America will need Immigrants to succeed at that. We have always depended on immigrants to enter into our system and work their way up the ladder of success. It isn’t Republican policies that are destroying the gate way industries and jobs that offer so much opportunity to foreign nationals.

      But Amnesty remains a third rail issue that I hope the Romney campaign will avoid with a better solution.

      • YnotNOW

        in your statement:
        a foreign national can stay and work as long as they are gainfully employed did not and do not engage in criminal behavior, are remain healthy and remain that way.

        Is this remotely in any scenario enforceable?

  • samcoastie

    Romney has come out publically in favor of one aspect of the Dream Act. If you serve honorably in the military he is in favor of granting citezenship. I’ve never heard anything from him other than that.

    • WmCraig

      There is no question in my mind, and I think in any conservative’s opinion that serving honorably in the military earns a person the right to citizenship.

      A military person who serves his country deserves the highest respect from all that benefit from their protection. And no greater price can be paid, nor greater respect can be shown then to give to your country that service.

      And if someone adopts my country and fulfills that service honorably I cannot think of them as a foreign national.

      But that is just my opinion

  • Darin_H

    So this should come as no surprise, but I don’t know why he hasn’t run on it this year.

    • aesthete

      without reducing regulations is a terrible idea — after all, businesses and people still need to get permits and the like to remain in compliance with the law.

      “The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.” — Oscar Wilde

  • lastgopinillinois

    He actually said those at an event televised by C-Span a few weeks back. Dont remember if it was a campaign rally or if it was an interview.

    The third quote (if its true) I believe could have been more effective had it not sounded so much like pandering. Why can’t we just say that Republicans are in favor of ALL LEGAL immigrants, and that we promote policies that will deliver freedom and opportunity to all our citizens.

    • WmCraig

      You should expand that, the truth is that Republicans are not anti-immigration because we are pro-business. If we are ever going to get our industrial base back and rebuild our manufacturing sector Republican policies, not Democrat pandering to union and anti-growth greens are what is needed.,

      And by now even foreign nationals that returned home must realize that there are only a miniscule fraction of long term high paying “green jobs”.

      The problem as you pointed out isn’t what Republicans want, but clumsy way they ago about it.

  • Kyle-MI

    The Dream Act proposed by Obama and the Dems included amnesty for illegals who completed military service or college. I don’t think there was a very big fuss from conservatives about the military service, but the deal on completing college was a huge loophole. Can you imagine how many fly by night diploma mills would have sprung up? And that is not even mentioning how different military service if from college. The whole reason people support amnesty in return for military service is the huge potential for loss of life or terrible injury.

    Anyway it is impossible to judge Romney on this issue without knowing the details. We do need to find out what those details are.

  • WmCraig

    “Anyway it is impossible to judge Romney on this issue without knowing the details. We do need to find out what those details are.”

    This is our forum for finding out more about our candidate, one I think we all agree that we can trust, We may not all agree on our candidate (and Romney was not my choice) but we all want a “Red State” leader.

    So lets hope his staff can benefit from your thoughts, and from others here and develop sound solutions that do not give any advantage to Obama by really pissing us off.

    I look forward to hearing more about what he has in mind. Even if he has to float it for MSNBC just to see how it plays in Peoria.

  • rightwingnut2

    “He was just discussing ideas that were coming up on the campaign trial,” Talent said about Romney’s closed door comments. “he talks about … different ideas as they’ve come up on the stump. He wasn’t announcing a policy yesterday.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/04/talent-romney-was-spitballing-on-policy-ideas-at-fundraiser-120649.html

  • WmCraig

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I won’t make my decision on anything that MSNBC says someone said someone said about Romney.

    Never the less, maybe he is thinking about some of these things. And maybe his campaign staff monitors our discussions here at RS. And maybe if that is the case, we have the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

    I don’t have the answers and right now I don’t have a horse in the race. It looks like Romney will get the nomination. Maybe this is just his way of floating a trial balloon.

    It makes sense to me that we discuss these here, get this venue’s response because I would rather he come up with programs to win that we all can support.

    I would like to believe that he didn’t solicit the base because he believes that once the nomination is over his actions will win us over. I hope he is right. And discussing these things will help him to tap into the base when he needs us the most.

    Even if we don’t agree with Romney’s ideas or each other our discussions serve to improve his chances by giving him our thoughts to work with.