I’m being forced, more and more, to dedicate blog time to those who I would simply rather avoid, but, once again, an anti-Romney post has made its way into the Planet Romney news feed, and that’s more than enough, in my opinion, to warrant a response. Surprisingly, the criticism is over “flip-flopping” – not a shock in itself, but it comes less than a day after the exact same author, on the exact same site, opined that Romney “May be our only hope”. That post on Race 4 2012, which touted Romney’s fund-raising ability and bank account as the potential keys to a GOP victory, had me believing that the site might be moving away from the Mitt-bashing and offering less biased view of the race. I was, apparently, mistaken.
The article uses this comment, which appeared on The Hill, to suggest that Romney has somehow changed his immigration position:
Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.” The article also quotes Romney as saying, “We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters.”
Of course, “immigration reform” encompasses any kind of change in our current policy – and few people, liberal, conservative, or independent, would deny that “reform” is necessary. “Reform” could be anything from complete Amnesty and open borders to immediate deportation and a halt to all further immigration. The only way this comment qualifies as a “flip-flop” is if Romney had previously said that the current policies were working just fine – and, as anyone who followed the 2008 race knows, that has never been the case.
So where does Kristofer Lorelli get the “flip flop” from? Since he didn’t include any further comments from the article, it appears that he is repeating accusations from The Boston Globe – a paper that was heavily anti-Romney during the 2008 race, and who’s liberal slant makes it best suited to lining birdcages. If Kristofer wasn’t already aware of the reputation of the paper, a quick glance over what was written in the editorial he linked to should have given him a hint:
This could be extreme political repositioning, even for Romney.
As governor of a blue state, he once said he favored a sensible path to citizenship. Then came the 2008 presidential campaign. During primary season, Romney hammered – you could say demagogued – rivals like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Huckabee for being soft on illegal immigrants. As a national candidate, he embraced a ship-them-back-home, tough-guy approach, even after the Globe reported that he employed a landscaping company that relied on illegal Guatemalan immigrants to care for his own lawn. When US Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado – who made a tough stand on illegal immigrants the centerpiece of his presidential campaign – dropped out of the race, he endorsed Romney.
How Romney gets beyond the flip-flop-flips of his multiple-choice positions on immigration and other issues is a mystery only he can solve.”
Perhaps next time, Kristofer should think for himself – or at least detail his arguments further – before repeating the unfounded accusations of a liberal rag.
More on the immigration issue soon.