Well, this is interesting:
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney gave a speech in Florida Friday in which he talked a tough game on immigration, saying that “our country must do a better job of securing its borders.” He said it was time for “a high-tech fence” and insisted the country needs to “get tough on employers who hire illegal immigrants,” reports ABC News. Although Romney never mentioned Rick Perry by name, it was clear he was referring to the Texas governor who has what Time’s Michael Crowley characterizes as “a relatively moderate record on the issue.” Perry has supported granting in-state tuition to children of illegal immigrants, has qualified the idea of a border fence that covers the entire border as “ridiculous,” and even supported a guest worker program.
You mean, Rick Perry, who seemed to have been assembled in a lab from pieces of dead right-wingers, is actually more like John McCain on this issue?
Or perhaps I should say, like George W. Bush? Maybe there’s something about living and growing up with actual Mexicans, having them for a long time as integral parts of your community, that causes Texans to be a little more realistic on the issue than Republicans from, say, Massachusetts. Or, in many cases, from South Carolina…
Related Posts
Except that there are plenty of illegals in Massachusetts–lots of lissome Irish lasses seeking nanny gigs. Somehow not as attractive an issue to Republicans…
Lissome Irish lasses… every time Kathryn mentions them, I get distracted from the issue at hand.
Same thing happens with the toothsome ones…
“Maybe there’s something about living and growing up with actual Mexicans, having them for a long time as integral parts of your community, that causes Texans to be a little more realistic on the issue than Republicans from, say, Massachusetts.”
Or maybe there’s something about being a Texas crony capitalist whose rich buddies like the cheap labor they can get from across the border. Don’t get me wrong; I’ll take my moderation on this issue where I can get it. Politicians do the right thing for the wrong reasons far more often than not. But it’s really of a piece with who Perry really is; a guy who serves the interests of the rich and powerful [and gets well compensated for it] while using the culture-war and white-Texas-identity-politics rhetoric to keep everybody else in line.
What does Kathryn have against nannies? She gets worked up over a handful of Irish girls but has nothing to say in regard to the tens of thousands (low estimate) of Mexican females and their litter of kids in the other 49 (or Obama’s 56) states.
“(or Obama’s 56) states.” Can you state any other ‘fact’ in you comments? You’re fixated on this as you repeat it so often. Your “litter” comment is irrational unless you’re referring to them as animals.
You all might consider the thoughts of a retiring, 30-year professional Republican staffer, Mike Lofgren, who served both the Senate and House Budget Committees.
http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-reflections-gop-operative-who-left-cult/1314907779
The Lofgren piece was so disturbing I couldn’t read it all. As a Republican, I feel I’ve lost my party.
Let’s face it, if the Democrats could run a decent, non-polarizing, non-extremist, middle-of-the-road candidate instead of Obama, he/she could get easily get elected, and might be named King/Queen. Instead, one side or the other will win with a tiny majority, and we’ll be without a real leader for another 4 years. With a do nothing, soap box Congress not helping at all.
I see Obama as exactly the candidate Greg pines for – except, well, he’s Obama. The only thing polarizing about him is his visage.
Of course he does have a habit of continually compromising beyond expectations; that’s inflammatory in today’s polarized environment. Clearly.
It certainly seems to infuriate the Democrats…
Obama is so middle-of-the-road, he should have yellow stripes painted on him!
I’m not really old enough, or enough of a student of political history to know the answer to this: Has there been a president of EITHER party post-World War II that was truly unifying? And for how long? I sense Kenndey was, at least for a while. I do remember hearing my parents say that if Goldwater got elected in 1964, we’d end up in a nuclear war. I actually handed out campaign literature for Nixon, but remembered being asked for a lot of Wallace stuff.
Nobody from then on was that unifying figure that I’m looking for. Can we actually find that candidate?
Greg, I was too young to remember but Eisenhower comes across historically as a unifier. Although he was a Republican he seemed largely apolitical. Kennedy may have been at times, especially during the Cuban missle crisis. Reagan had his momments but he was not above playing political hardball at times. Clinton was a unifier with most of the public but his shameful detractors in congress probably rule him out. Bush Sr. was a very popular, and unifying force for a time before the economy went south. The nation briefly rallied around Bush Jr. in the days after 9/11 before he completely threw the country under the bus.
All in all only Ike was the only true unifier during the majority of his presidency. At least that’s the way I see it.
Eisenhower? Gerald Ford?
@ Steven–I’m not worked up about nannies or any other illegal immigrant. I find it interesting that people get all worked up about brown people who are illegal, but not pale ones.
and don’t the Irish famously have so many kids that there is a thing called “Irish twins”? Talk about litters…