The biggest news coming out of Mitt Romney’s speech to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials conference today is that he appeared to soften his stance on illegal immigration (as expected after the primary) and even endorsed a key portion of the DREAM Act that provides a path to citizenship. The Hill reports:
He also reversed course on a key part of the DREAM Act, pledging to provide permanent residency for illegal immigrants who came to the United States and children and graduate from college. This is a major shift from Romney’s message in the GOP primaries, when he only pledged to provide that path for illegal immigrants who serve in the military.
Will this be enough to convince Hispanic voters, after the tougher tone Romney took during the primaries? Maybe not, but one possible saving grace for Romney is that his opponent has also been far from perfect on these issues. Immigration reform advocates had placed enormous hope in Obama after his repeated promises in 2008, and he never came through. It’s not lost on them that the president waited until mere months before his next election to issue some quick-bandaid deportation guidelines — and only when he was backed into a wall by the possibility that Sen. Marco Rubio could co-opt the issue.
Romney highlighted Obama’s broken promises, playing into a concern that many Hispanic leaders have held for awhile. Namely, that politicians talk a good game to them during election seasons, but don’t follow through and never expect any electoral consequences:
“Tomorrow, President Obama will speak here, for the first time since his last campaign. He may admit that he hasn’t kept every promise. And he’ll probably say that, even though you aren’t better off today than you were four years ago, things could be worse,” Romney said.
“He’ll imply that you really don’t have an alternative. He’s taking your vote for granted,” Romney continued. “I’ve come here today with a simple message: You do have an alternative. Your vote should be respected. And your voice is more important now than ever before.”
This is probably the strongest case Romney can make to Hispanic voters, as long as he couples it with serious proposals on immigration reform and keeps the emphasis on the economy and unemployment. He’s obviously never going to win the Hispanic vote, and he probably won’t even come close. But if he can convince people that he’s not an anti-immigration zealot, and that there should be consequences for Obama’s broken promises, then maybe he can make a dent in the huge wave of Hispanic support the Obama campaign is counting on.
We will just have to teach Myth Romney like we taught baby Bush, there will be no Amnesty for the illegals!!
So much for the "I really am a conservative, I promise" stuff. n nHe well may get elected only to find himself in the unique "man without a country" situation where neither party really supports him. Or worse, for him, would be the Dems bringing in a new candidate should Obama's current involvement in F&F make him an untenable nominee, which could well happen. n nThis could become quite interesting….
That and a Dream Act supporting VEEP selection such as RUBIO or Brownback is enough to convince ME to NOT vote for Romney. n nI don't need to vote the GOP MIRROR of Odrama Queen such as McCain and his SHAMNESTY and his Reconquista associations. n nIf Romney thinks that is what the Voters wikll go for, he should go that way. But since he saw where it took McCain, he shouldn't be surprised where it will take him, also.
I hesitate to respond to a Romney basher – I've made that mistake before. It results in some interesting pyrotechnics. But, Rose, to call Romney a GOP MIRROR of Obama is downright silly. Immigration is certainly an important issue, but even the most inflexible partisans must admit that is damnably complex – there are no easy answers. More importantly, however, is the reality that there are many other very important issues out there on which the President and Romney differ more than perhaps almost any pair of presidential candidates in our nation's history. From health care reform to foreign policy to government spending and more, the differences between these two men are significant. nSo go ahead and get angry about Romney's position on immigration, but then get over it and come back down to solid ground.
I agree – most of them turn out to be Paulbots. nI'm very upset, today. I've seen too many various articles indicating Romney is "appealing to Hispanics" – usually means they are promising a SHAMNESTY program. And several of the names being bantered for VEEP about are also pro-Shamnesty. nI voted for Romney in '10, and I know that the GOP voters were at WORST Tied for Romney with McCain – that most of the other candidates were ONLY DRAFTING for McCain – and he only "won" the nomination because the front loaded OPEN Primaries in January all had almost EXACTLY 20% crossover Dim voters who ALL just so happened to vote for McCain! "Just so happened" looked like a Hugo Chavez election, frankly my dear! nI live in South West Texas. And on top of that issue, a lot of GOP candidates are out there BRAGGING about their DIM STANCES for various other issues. n nI am an unhappy lady and I have been fussing a lot this last week with Paul Bots celebrating Ron Paul's PLANNED COUP at the GOP CONVENTION. nI come out of those arguments to see them saying Mitt Romney is making nice with SHAMNESTY policies, and I have been quite disappointed, this evening. n n I apologize – but I remain a very unhappy Conservative. nAnd I am praying very very hard, I tell you.
As a self-styled conservative," don't be too disappointed. Romney a) hits harder and campaigns more efficiently than McCain, b) isn't found to be eccentrically and PERSONALLY liberal on various issues such as campaign finance "reform" (where he has taken what might be seen as a liberal political stance I'm sure local politics has mostly dictated it), and c) has in his varied, less-ideological record (I'm inclined to call Romney technocratic) insulation somewhat from charges of any kind of extremism. n nYou also shouldn't demand too much adherence to what you see as fundamental conservative positions, but only to what you see as fundamental positions. (I see national security and foreign policy as needing to be handled a certain way.) Well, for the record, as a member of the party, you can't demand too much of a party leader anyway (and perhaps they are a party leader for a reason, either their effectiveness or intellectual leadership).
The problem is that I regard many of my fundamental positions as ESSENTIAL to the Survival of the Nation AS A UNION BASED UPON THE USA CONSTITUTION. n nMy location on the Mexico Border Region of Texas may be affecting my opinion on Border Security, Illegal Aliens and Abortion – but I am pretty reasonably sure I would fee this way were I to live anywhere else, ether. We are talking about ESSENTIAL boundaries. n nI think the only reason some don't think it is part of an essential package of the Bonds of Community is because they are so focused on their own yard they don't bother to think it through. They certainly are not thinking about these issues in terms of their "DOMINO" relationship to other issues. n nBut right now, the Government and the Laissez Faire group are on the last nerves of a lot of folks who feel those issues are already so shredded that so are the Bonds, and the more folks give in to the oppressiveness of the Marxists on the Left with a STATED GOAL of Destroying this nation – Sorry, we just are not feeling the obligation to go off the cliff WITH you all. nWe may be as "done in" by these destructions, we just don't feel like "playing along" on the road off the cliff. n nAnd when passiveness has destroyed everything, the passive are not going to find an accommodation in the enclaves of the True Conservatives. The FOOTHOLDS for Marxists simply is going to be sealed over. nIf that was too soft-spoken for you, let me rephrase that: nPASSIVE NON-RESISTANCE = FOOTHOLD for MARXIST DESTRUCTION. n nYou can talk all day about having Conservative attitudes, but it doesn't matter what the attitudes are of a doormat. Who cares what a doormat thinks! NOT THE TRAMPLERS. n nSo, the doormat doesn't need to think of itself as being on ANY side. They are UNDER every side. n nNow, please don't mind my offensive talk. You see, I am from Texas since her birth – I just found out today: n "Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may." – Sam Houston n