From immigration to Israel.
"Romney once advocated softened immigration stance; Position in ’06 nearly identical to Gingrich’s" November 29, 2011|By Matt Viser and Michael Levenson, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney has recently started attacking Newt Gingrich for saying that some illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the country, deriding the position as “amnesty’’ as he tries to stem the rise of one of his strongest rivals for the Republican presidential nomination.
Related: Gingrich Got Rich From Freddie Mac
But just five years ago, Romney advocated a nearly identical position, and his evolution to a more hard-line position is exposing the former Massachusetts governor to the flip-flop charges that have been seen as one of his major vulnerabilities.
In 2006, Romney told Bloomberg News’s Washington bureau that those in the country illegally “are not going to be rounded up and boxcarred out.’’
“We need to begin a process of registering those people, some being returned, and some beginning the process of applying for citizenship and establishing legal status,’’ Romney told Bloomberg on March 29, 2006, before he was a presidential candidate.
Romney also added, “We’re not going to go through a process of tracking them all down and moving them out.’’
The comments, which Bloomberg reported yesterday, are similar to ones Gingrich made at a debate last week, when he said the United States should have a “humane’’ immigration policy that enforces the law without separating families who have been in the country for decades.
Romney pounced, labeling Gingrich’s policy “amnesty.’’ Minutes after the debate, Romney’s advisers sensed that Gingrich made a major mistake by advocating a path to legal residency for some illegal immigrants. “Mitt Romney is against amnesty, and Newt Gingrich made it very clear he was for amnesty,’’ Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior Romney adviser, said after the debate.
But Fehrnstrom declined to answer repeated questions about what Romney would do with the 11 million illegal immigrants currently in the country.
“He doesn’t believe in granting them amnesty,’’ Fehrnstrom responded several times. He then said that if all incentives for illegal immigrants to be in the United States were removed, “they will go to their native countries.’’
“You turn off the magnets - no in-state tuition, no benefits of any kind, no employment,’’ Fehrnstrom said. “You put in place an employment verification system with penalties for employers that hire illegals, that will shut off access to the job market, and they will self-retreat.’’
As repulsive as it sounds he's right about the magnets.
During campaign stops earlier this year, Romney has frequently mentioned building a fence along the Mexican border, adding more border patrol agents, and cracking down on employers who hire those they know are in the country illegally.
See: Arizona's Number Comes Up
But even while Romney has talked about things he would do to make the country less hospitable to illegal immigrants, he has generally avoided saying explicitly what he would do with the millions who are currently in the country illegally....
Related:
"illegal immigrants, who mow the lawns, trim the hedges, clean the swimming pools, park the cars, serve the hors d'oeuvres, tidy up the mansions, and do many of the other things that make life so enjoyable for the rich"
That would be Mitt.
Oh, THAT'S WHY the "problem" is NEVER REALLY SOLVED.
Immigration, which rarely came up in the early part of the campaign, has proved to be a resilient issue in the Republican presidential race....
The media may be trying to force it as an issue, and I'm not denying its important; however, other issues are more important right now (like the wars and economy).
--more--"
"Gingrich’s surge gives Romney camp pause; Ignoring his rivals could be hurting" by Michael Kranish | Globe Staff, December 02, 2011
WASHINGTON - Perceived for months as the Republican front-runner, Romney seems stuck at around 25 percent in national polls and is battling for the lead with a competitor once relegated to the low single digits, former House speaker Newt Gingrich....
That would be enough to win the nomination over time, wouldn't it?
That's your story line: Mitt outla$ted them all.
The Romney campaign declined to comment. But analysts said the campaign realizes this week is a potential turning point that may require a major strategic shift that includes directly taking on Gingrich....
In a whirlwind development over the past two weeks, Gingrich has leaped from near the bottom of the pack to seize the lead in polls in three key early-voting states - Iowa, South Carolina, and Florida - and has climbed to within 10 points behind Romney in the first-primary state of New Hampshire.
I find it so disgusting that the AmeriKan media is shoving this grotesque creature down our throats with false polls. Given the choice between the two I would rather have Romney. When you think about it he's the perfect president for this government: a corporate cut-out.
Unlike other competitors who have briefly vied for the hearts of conservatives and the role of “anti-Romney,’’ Gingrich seems to have survived initial rounds of critical reviews and is using his experience gained in winning and losing the speakership to take on Romney.
Meanwhile, Romney is battling the perception that he stumbled during what is seen by many as a de facto pre-primary contest for Republicans: appearances on Fox News Channel. Romney has limited his interviews, refusing to appear on Sunday shows such as “Meet The Press’’ for 20 months, and only recently has increased the number of times he has appeared on a favored venue such as Fox. But on Tuesday Romney had a testy interview on Fox in which he appeared rattled by a seemingly standard question about his support of his health care plan in Massachusetts.
“I don’t know how many hundred times I have said this,’’ Romney responded. “This is an unusual interview.’’ Asked what book he read most recently, he said it was a “fun one’’ but declined to give the title, then said he read George W. Bush’s memoir. Afterward, Romney chastised interviewer Bret Baier.
I don't think he's reading books.
See: The Boston Globe's George Bush Book Tour
I wouldn't read that one.
“He didn’t like the interview and thought it was uncalled for’’ and “overly aggressive,’’ Baier later told Fox viewers.
A number of conservative commentators, including Fox’s own analysts, blasted Romney’s performance. Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large for National Review, wrote: “There’s absolutely no excuse for Romney to be so flat-footed in his responses.’’
Goldberg, who just returned from a Caribbean cruise with 500 conservatives that was sponsored by National Review, said in an interview yesterday his shipmates typically had an attitude of “I’ll vote for Romney if I have to.’’
The cruise, he said, provided a window into Romney’s problem. While Romney has “checked the boxes’’ on conservative issues, he said, many conservatives do not love him.
“They don’t have an organic connection to him,’’ Goldberg said. “He doesn’t come out of any of the established conservative tribes.’’
As if you were savages, Americans.
Of course, Goldberg comes from a certain tribe himself.
********************
Could corporate Mitt really be in trouble?
Gingrich, meanwhile, sat for an hourlong interview on Fox on Wednesday with Sean Hannity in which he variously sounded humble, professorial, and bombastic. He said he had been “immature’’ in arguing with his then-wife when she was hospitalized and they were about to be divorced, and that he was “stupid’’ when he appeared alongside then-speaker Nancy Pelosi in an ad declaring the need to tackle climate change. Gingrich also said he is now the man to beat.
“Whereas I would have thought originally, it was going to be Mitt and not-Mitt, I think it may turn out to be Newt and not-Newt,’’ Gingrich said.
Pride goeth before a fall.
The danger analysts see for Romney is that the narrative he wants - that he is a business specialist who is best equipped to turn around the nation’s financial fortunes - will be undone by a repeat of the 2008 complaint that he lacks authenticity and cannot win over skeptical conservatives. A number of prominent publications are highlighting Romney’s vulnerabilities. The cover of Time magazine shows Romney beside the headline, “Why don’t they like me?’’
To be sure, Romney has many factors in his favor. There is a month before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. Romney has a far more solid financial and political infrastructure than his competitors. If things go Romney’s way, his competitors will split the social conservative vote in Iowa and leave him enough support for a victory, and his game plan of winning New Hampshire remains reasonably intact. As Gingrich continues to be scrutinized for myriad controversial statements, as well as his receiving millions of dollars from corporate clients, his poll numbers could decline.
Setting the stage for Newt's drop.
Linda Fowler, a Dartmouth College professor of government, cautioned yesterday that polls could shift just as quickly against Gingrich as they did for him. Female voters might dislike the fact that Gingrich has been married three times, she said.
Moreover, she said, “Gingrich still is missing the basic ingredients of a primary campaign, money and organization, so if I were Romney I wouldn’t be worried about him.’’
R.C. Hammond, a Gingrich spokesman, denied that characterization.
“We don’t have those problems anymore,’’ he said, adding that the campaign is bringing in contributions at a steady clip and setting up a solid organization....
Romney also faces the risk that some of the lower-level candidates could do well enough to upend his game plan. Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman has climbed in the New Hampshire polls....
To 8%?
Related:
"Huntsman’s polling numbers remain stuck in the single digits - around 8 percent in New Hampshire, and lower nationally"
C'mon, Globe, WTF?!!!
--more--"
What gives me pause is who he is sitting with there.
"System purged trove of e-mails; Romney, Swift, Cellucci data lost; Computer deletions made automatically" December 07, 2011|By Matt Viser, Globe Staff
WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of e-mails authored or received by Cabinet secretaries in the last three Republican gubernatorial administrations were automatically wiped off state computers after the officials left office, destroying a huge trove of public records about major decisions of state government.
Computer systems erased the e-mails from the administrations of Acting Governor Jane Swift and Governors Paul Cellucci and Mitt Romney because state officials did not store the contents of their accounts by backing them up on central computers, according to state officials. In the case of the Romney administration, the automatic deletions occurred despite state guidelines that were updated in 2004 that require certain electronic records be preserved.
Related: Romney Erased Mass. Records
Just giving you a hint of what he will do in the White House.
Also see: Nominating Romney Means Return of Bush
Come to think of it, they also "lost" some e-mails.
That includes at least four of Romney’s top Cabinet officials. Thirty days after they left office, their e-mails were automatically purged from the state’s central computers, wiping out records of decisions on an array of sensitive topics, from health care to raising state revenues.
Romney Cabinet secretaries said in interviews that they were never told by administration or state technology officials that they needed to take any steps to protect their e-mails.
“No one came over to me and said, ‘Do this, do this, do this, do this,’ ’’ said Tim Murphy, who as secretary of Health and Human Services helped formulate the state’s landmark health care law. “I just turned my computer off and went home. That’s the end of it.’’
The gaps in public records came to light as attention has turned to Romney’s years as governor, a cornerstone of his campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. The Globe filed formal requests in recent weeks to review e-mails under the state Public Records Law....
--more--"
And Mitt sure is going all out:
"Romney vows to boost Israel support; At Jewish forum, blasts Obama on foreign policies" by Tracy Jan | Globe Staff, December 07, 2011
WASHINGTON - Mitt Romney, touting himself as an unwavering supporter of Israel and a family man committed to his faith, spent most of his speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition yesterday hammering President Obama for his foreign and domestic policies.
“For the last three years, we’ve had a lot of change. We just haven’t had much hope,’’ Romney said to applause and laughter.
He means a lot of hope and no change.
Romney asserted the president had weakened America’s military and world standing by what he called bowing to foreign dictators and by withdrawing troops.
Who has be bowed to? The Chinese guy? Did he bow to Khadafy?
He also chastised Obama for not finding the time in his diplomatic travels to visit Israel, “our allies, our friends.’’
Then why have they spied on us, and why did they do 9/11?
“He rushed to apologize for America, but he’s hesitated to speak out for democracy and freedom,’’ Romney said, promising to make Israel his first foreign destination if elected president.
So he could bow before the masters.
“I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable.’’
Romney was one of six GOP contenders scheduled to appear at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s presidential candidates forum at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington. Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann were also on the docket. Each spoke and took audience questions for 30 to 45 minutes. US Representative Ron Paul of Texas was not invited....
I can't think of a clearer reason to vote for the guy then.
Romney faulted Obama for adopting what he called an appeasement foreign policy strategy because Obama offered to engage with the world’s dictators.
Like who? Assad?
“The course of appeasement has long been the path chosen by the weak and by the timid,’’ Romney said. “It’s a path the nation chooses at its own peril.’’
As president, Romney vowed, he would not meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, saying that the Iranian president should be excluded from diplomatic society and indicted for genocide.
I haven't seen Obama saying he will meet with him, and who has Ahmadinejad attacked and killed?
Under his watch, Romney promised, Iran’s ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons.
Well, they aren't building one, so....
“A nuclear-armed Iran is not only a threat to Israel, it’s a threat to the entire world,’’ he said....
Romney also hinted at a possible post for someone the likes of former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani in his administration.
The guy who destroyed the 9/11 crime scene and had the steel shipped off to China to be melted down?
“We’ve wandered, we’ve drifted,’’ he said. “I will lead us to a better place.’’
--more--"
Debate comments:
Romney bowed low a little over an hour in when the candidates were required to show their fealty to Israel.
Romney also noted that anytime there is a debate there are always the Ron Paul people with their signs no matter what the weather.
