Below is a quote from the link that you provided. Thank you for proving my point. A very careful examination of the quote will reveal that Gov. Romney said “for a lot of people”, not for the entire 20 million illegal population.

I support his position on deporting “immediately” any recently arrived illegal aliens. Obviously, there is a world of difference between that and deporting everyone who is here without documentation. Based on the three remaining presidential candidate’s positions, if the laws of the United States of America are going to be enforced, it will be because the voters exert enough pressure on the White House and Congress. We must remain engaged in the political process or this country will lose it’s sovereignty within the next decade.

“He said illegal immigrants who arrived very recently would be deported immediately but that he would support allowing a slower deportation process for those with families and deeper roots.

“That would be negotiated,” he said. “For a lot of people, it would be immediate. They have been here a short time, they are not paying their taxes, so [they should] just go right home.” He said this could be as quick as 90 days.”

By the way, you said that nobody is talking about Poles and Swedes; sure they are. There are a lot of propagandists who are trying to frame the illegal immigration debate as having racial overtones. So, since it seems to bear repeating, I’ll say it again. “It wouldn’t make any difference to me if there were 20 million Swedes here illegally, they would have to go as well.”

In conclusion, this hasn’t been a “pointless argument”. The argument is over whether America gets to control who comes here or whether we lose control of our democracy. Hardly a pointless argument.

I failed to discern a note of thanks in your response for enlightening you as to your malapropism regarding croc tears but perhaps that will be forthcoming.

I am also astonished that you would fail to recognize the Romney position to which I alluded with my “90 days” quote, I can only conclude you are being disingenuous since a widely known Romney expert could not be so poorly informed.

http://idexer.com/2008/01/07/romney-i-will-boot-many-illegals-in-90-days.html

I was not, however, surprised that you are humorless and literal-minded, under the circumstances. My reference to Mexicans was intended to capture the impression left by Romney’s position in the minds of the electorate. Nobody but wounded, would-be policy experts trying to win pointless arguments in comment boxes are highlighting Poles and Swedes when discussing Romney’s immigration positions.

Mexicans are not “high on the list,” by the way. They are at the top of the list. That is why they could be such a fine resource in the terror war.

http://www.cleveramerican.com/2006/01/illegal_alien_antiterror_squad_1.php

As for the South Park voting bloc, they evidently lean conservative.

http://books.google.com/books?id=EOt26lBpC9wC&dq=south+park+conservatives&pg=PP1&ots=CE-oy6LTtk&sig=QzUAbVfdZCV4cQG7-ZhNj0wMDM8&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_en___TW247&q=south+park+conservatives&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail

I am not aware of Mitt Romney saying he would “expel Mexicans within 90 days.” Please give us a reference or a link for the quote. What I heard him say was that if we enforce existing laws against employers, we would “turn off the jobs magnet” and that most illegals would “self deport” once they could no longer work here and continue to break US law with impunity.

As to your unfounded allegation that Mitt Romney wants to deport Mexicans, since you like to do research, why don’t you find out who is here illegally? When you do, you will find that Mexicans and Central Americans are high on the list, but you will also find illegals from Poland, China and the Middle East. If security is one of the voter’s hot button issues, then closing BOTH BORDERS seems to be a logical thing to do. If we don’t know who is here, then we don’t know if we have potential terrorists in our midst or not. It wouldn’t make any difference to me if we had 20 million Swedes here illegally. They would have to go as well.

I honestly have to say that I haven’t considered the “South Park” voting bloc in this election. Do they lean Republican or Democrat? What percentage of South Park’s viewers are registered voters? I’d appreciate any insights and any hard facts that you can provide.

I love you write up. I have also thought along most of these same lines. I feel McCain’s best chance at making the White house is with Mitt as VP. We need to, via what ever means we can, convince McCain of this as well. I am going to vote for Mitt one way or the other, whether a Write in for President, or as VP for McCain. If McCain gets wind of this fact, he’ll have no choice but to concede.
Carry on folks!

Go Mitt

Thank you for the Social Security facts. I have shared it with my children and those on my email list. Hope it gets around quickly.

On the McCain for President topic -I have been following the back and forth between Nancy French and Charles Mitchell at Evangelicals For Mitt - check it out. I wrote this response to Charles and would be interested in how many others feel we can have an impact on the decision to name Mitt as the VP.

Mr. Mitchell:

I commend you for being able to “prioritize” those most challenging issues to us as a country and a culture.

My position is this - If John McCain is the nominee - what are his chances of being elected and IF he has a chance WHO would be the most appropriate Vice Presidential running mate to make a MEANINGFUL impression on the american electorate - EVEN those who, at this time, may feel they will follow an Obama or a Hilary?

I, my family and friends, WILL NOT VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN UNLESS MITT IS HIS VICE PRESIDENT. To settle for anyone less will not result in a President John McCain. It will result in a President Hilary or Obama - both disasters for our country and our culture.

I have spent a great deal of time these past few weeks ( more since Mitt announced his suspension and his endorsement of McCain) reading comments and opinions of what it would mean if Mitt was the VP candidate. The opinions have run the spectrum of good to worse and everywhere in between. Mitt as the VP would achieve infinitely more positive results than negative, in my opinion:

1) He would be an ideal balance to McCain’s temperament, especially when it came to foreign relationships and bridging the huge divide between conservative Republicans .
2) He is extremely intelligent and articulate - only pluses for America
3) He represents a strong role model for pro choice conversions to pro life - he was there, grew older and wiser with information and facts and made a positive conversion to pro life - supporting it at every turn during his governorship and thereafter publicly acknowledging and supporting his conversion as being the right thing to do.
4) He is an expert on the economy and how it affects all phases of life not just at the level of government viewpoint . McCain is not strong in the area of overall impact of the economy.
5) Mitt is a very strong positive role model for the younger generations yet to make decisions about the sanctity and responsibilities of marriage and family. We have lost so much of our family values with the dominance of liberal, progressive philosophies in our culture. We are desperate to have a rebirth of the goodness we have lost.
6) Mitt would have a chance to increase the public’s observation of his ability to perform as an executive and thereby increase his chances of being elected after McCain. They need more time to witness the good points about him that we as his supporters found so important to our country.
7) Mitt had more than 4,000,000 voters who supported him prior to the suspension of his campaign and many, many more who wanted to vote for him but were denied that opportunity. IN SPITE OF the high profile endorsements from Governor Crist et al in Florida and the last minute “lie” by John McCain, Mitt STILL received 31% of the votes here in Florida - the “system” of winner take all derailed him at that point. That amount of support would only increase the chances that McCain would be elected - no other candidate whom they might select could offer that amount of IMMEDIATE attention and support as the general election draws near - particularly since Huckabee has so selfishly muddied the waters.
Should anything unexpected happen to McCain at his age - Mitt would move comfortably and effectively into the role of President.
9) We simply must fight the possibility that an Obama or a Hilary could be President. The strengths of McCain and Romney are the two major issues we face - terrorism and economic woes. A carefully thought out and executed campaign would constantly alert the electorate to the seriousness of these issues by making clear that neither Hilary or Obama have the leadership experience or the practical experience to satisfy the needs that these two issues create. No other VP candidate choice would be able to make that impression and have the same impact on the electorate.

I think we MUST encourage the McCain campaign in every way possible to have him choose Mitt as his running mate and have a darned good plan for creating and executing a campaign that will diminish the emphasis on “flip flop” and “mormonism” and focus on “turning the heads” of the electorate to the serious nature of the issues we face and how not having the experience and expertise of McCain and Romney will impact THEIR lives. I constantly focus on this when I make comments in response to articles, I have emailed Beth Myers and Mitt;s brother in law - Rod Davies(whom I worked closely with here in Florida)

If you agree, what more can we do to make this happen? I cannot and do not rely on the MSM or other pundits to change my mind on this. I believe they do not want a serious minded person like Mitt in Washington to change their “cushy” lives. Therefore, we must make decisions and act independently of them. I am ready to do what I can and I feel we can enlist many others to do the same. What do you think?

Sincerely,
Brenda Copely
Orlando, FLorida
321-299-6316

You may be misinformed as to the meaning of the colloquialism “crocodile tears,” which generally suggests “faked” tears. I believe your statement would have made more sense, in context, had you oMITTed the word “crocodile.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile_tears

Oh yeah… and McCain is the most appealing candidate to independents because they don’t perceive him as a conservative extremist.

Preaching to the choir and alienating the Latino vote is not the way forward if the Republicans seek to control the White House. I think it’s pretty obvious that Romney planned to tack hard to the left had he won the nomination but it would have been too late. He had already squandered any residual moderate cred he had from his pre-conservative days as Mass governor with all of the talk of expelling Mexicans within 90 days and coming to Jesus on abortion.

Assuming Obama will be the nominee on the other side the Dems would have just played an unrelenting loop of video showing Romney interacting with that black baby and referring to his “bling bling” as evidence that the guy is just painfully out of touch.

Add in a mass mailing of South Park’s take on Mormonism and it would have been all but over among the youth vote.

http://southpark.comedycentral.com/video_by_episode.jhtml?episodeId=103933

Scary thing is, I think Obama could win this thing despite not even remotely having the chops to deal with what this author describes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/magazine/27world-t.html?_r=1&ex=1202274000&en=20d3da57abffe2f2&ei=5070&emc=eta1&oref=slogin

If this blog is intended to be limited to those with strictly pro-Romney views I apologize for the intrusion. Feel free to delete.

In my opinion, we Republicans lost the election the night McCain won Florida. That was the beginning of the end. Super Tuesday and the loss of Missouri and California sealed the deal. As many pundits have pointed out, Democrats are much better at being liberals than Republicans are. It’s in their bones. McCain has some conservative positions, but he also has McCain-Feingold, McCain-Lieberman and McCain-Kennedy as his signature legislation. From this point on, no matter who wins the election, we are going to get very similar policies.

If McCain wins, we are going to have “open borders”.

If Obama wins, we are going to have “open orders”.

If Clinton wins, we are going to have “open borders”.

Many will point to McCain as being a hawk on Iraq. Staying in Iraq until their government can stand on it’s own is a position that I support, but McCain’s bellicose attitude toward Iran and his own statement that “their will be more wars” leads me to believe that we will be at war with a possible nuclear power before we have even cleaned up the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Our military is stretched thin enough as it is.

The most frustrating part of the whole process is that because of the number of open primaries and all the Indies and Dems crossing over, we didn’t get to pick our own nominee, the liberals did that for us. My plan is to write-in Romney, concentrate on getting Republicans elected to Congress, limiting the damage done by McCain/Clinton/Obama and making sure we get off to a fast start for Team Romney for the race in 2012.

Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. It’s easy to check out, if you don’t believe it. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what .and it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are Facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put
I nto the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
Would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month —
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to ‘put
Away’ — you may be interested in the following:

————————————————————-

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from t he
Independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.

——————————————————————–

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

———————————————————————–

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US

——————————————————————-

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
Annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!

————– ————————– ——————————
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
Sure of what isn’t so.

But it’s worth a try. How many people can
YOU send this to?

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Thomas Jefferson

Everybody did, from Limbaugh to Coulter. 2012 will be a closet full of endorsements from the following, and they will come early:

Hugh Hewitt
Rush Limbaugh
Ann Coulter
Sean Hannity
Joe Scarborough
Laura Ingraham
Thomas Sowell
Glenn Beck

The list will be incredibly long and believe me, CPAC was the passing of the torch to Romney. Romney now stands proud and basks in the glory of being the leading conservative in 2012.

Do not worry about Huckabee my friends (McCain quote, lol). Everybody is seeing his ego show and are incredibly aware of his loathing of our man, Willard Mitt Romney.