Since Newt said that he was prepared to “take the heat” for his immigration policy, Mitt Romney has attempted to hit him hard with accusations that Newt is soft on immigration. I say attempted because, like with many things, Mitt’s talk is conservative but his actions are anything but.

Here’s what FactCheck said about Mitt’s tough-on-immigration bloviating. First, here’s Mitt’s quote:

Romney: As governor, I authorized the state police to enforce immigration laws.

Here’s FactCheck’s reaction to Mitt’s quote:

Well, yes. But, as we noted in August, he didn’t do so until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement.

Mitt the hardliner is total fiction. It’s Mitt’s latest sales pitch, his latest attempt to win over conservatives.

It goes further:

Romney began talking about giving troopers the power to make arrests on immigration charges earlier in 2006, but he didn’t sign an agreement with the federal government, a necessary condition for that authority to be granted, until Dec. 13 of that year. Romney was scheduled to leave office Jan. 4, 2007.

That’s amazing. Officially, Hardline Mitt was an immigration hardliner for all of 3 weeks. Now that’s a principled commitment. Then again, that’s probably longer than some of his other flip-flops. But it doesn’t stop there:

During his tenure, at least four Massachusetts cities enacted or renewed legislation declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegal immigrants. Brookline and Cambridge reaffirmed their longtime status as sanctuary cities in so many words. Somerville and Orleans didn’t officially deem themselves “sanctuaries,” but Somerville affirmed its “long-standing policies in support of all immigrants,” while Orleans forbade city officials from turning in illegal immigrants without probable cause.

We asked Romney’s campaign if he had acted against these cities, but they didn’t provide us with any examples. As far as we were able to determine in our own research, Romney made no attempts to penalize, censure, or cut funding to them.

Mitt the immigration hardliner is fiction. He isn’t reality. Maeve Weston’s LATimes article sums things up perfectly:

For many GOP voters in early primary states, hesitation about Romney comes back to one thing: their perception that he has routinely molded his views to suit the political mood, with ambition his overriding principle.

That’s why Mitt hasn’t broken the 25% barrier in polling. It’s why he likely won’t eclipse that mark, either. That’s the biggest reason why his electability argument is fiction, too. The people want someone that’s principled, who says what he’ll do, then does it. That isn’t Mitt.

One reason why people don’t trust Washington is because they’re seen as too unprincipled, too willing to say anything to get elected. That fits Mitt perfectly.

President Obama has talked a great centrist game. What’s gotten him in dire straits is that he’s acted far left. Mitt isn’t far left but his words haven’t consistently matched his actions.

Mitt the Hardliner is myth. So is his electability argument. It’s time to chuck him to the side.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Mitt Romney: Hardline Blowhard”

  • eric z. says:

    Is it really boiling down to Newt and Mitt, and the rest stage props? Your drumbeat on it is not much different from the MSM intent to focus the field. I still think Ron Paul and Huntsman are the only two with ideas that expand the “playing field.” I guess much of the GOP wants it narrowed and not expanded, but from the outside looking in …

  • Gary Gross says:

    Huntsman & Paul are liberals. So is Romney. Period. Personally, my top tier is limited to Newt & Rick Perry. It’s just that we’re stuck with Mitt as a frontrunner because the elitist wing of the GOP can’t kiss Mitt’s ass enough.

Leave a Reply