Tancredo Drops Out, Endorses Romney
The news is here.
Huh? (link is to official Tancredo YouTube vid called “Romney Supports Amnesty”)
Text at vid link:
TeamTancredo.org (Note: This IS the official Tancredo web site — Ed.)
Romney says he supports a temporary ID card for illegal aliens. That’s amnesty.
Added: July 26, 2007
Utterly unexplainable, even before you get to his other stands, at which point the mystery only deepens.
_________________________________
UPDATE: United Conservatives of Virginia — “Tancredo drops out. Loses mind in process….“
I’ve posted this at more than just this blog, but I definitely do not work for Romney’s campaign. I want some conservatives, who I feel haven’t given Mitt a fair shake thus far, to seriously reconsider their positions. Romney is clearly now the anti-illegal immigration candidate. What candidate can win the support of ALL conservatives…fiscal, defense, AND social? Mitt’s the man!
Comment by Cory — December 20, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
#1, I would be the happiest guy in the world to support Mitt, as at the surface level he’s a dream candidate.
The problems are below the surface, and those problems make him objectively unfit to be president.
If you can substantively respond to these serious problems, I’d like to see those responses. I don’t think it’s possible, but you’re free to try.
Here are the posts that lay it all out:
Myth Romney: On Reagan, Hyde and Abortion, His History Rewrites Are Virtually Smears
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=6266
The Romney Same-Sex Marriage Deception Boiled Down
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=6196
The NY Times’s Accidental Journalism Reveals the Full Scope of Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Deception, and His Unfitness to Be President
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=6199
Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions — Index to Posts and ‘Cliff’s Notes’ Explanations
http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=6164
The final item is supported by 5 posts that go through the SSM and subsidized abortion issues in detail.
Comment by TBlumer — December 20, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
I imagine that when you’ve irrationally decided to oppose a man at all costs (even going so far as to declare a decision that’s inherently _subjective_ – Who do you want to be President? – to be objective, so long as people agree with you), anything positive that happens for him seems irrational too.
Right now there is a very, very good chance that Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee for President? What will you do then? Support the Democrats? I just don’t understand why you’d constantly unleash such vitriol over a party primary.
Comment by Phil — December 21, 2007 @ 9:48 am
#3, I don’t use “objectively unfit” rashly.
When someone has made a campaign promise to violate his oath of office, and then does just that so militantly and forcefully, as Romney inarguably did, there is no reason to trust him to keep his oath of office as president.
That, my friend, is an OBJECTIVE standard, even before comparing the candidate to other competitors, none of whom have implemented non-existent “court orders.” There is nothing “irrational” about it whatsoever. What is irrational, in fact the height of irrationality (at least for someone who believes in the primacy of constitutions and the rule of law, as I assume you would claim), is to pretend that what he did to unilaterally impose Goodridge in MA doesn’t matter, or that he somehow “followed the law.”
To be “fair,” I should give his extra-constitutional imposition of SSM in MA as THE reason why Mitt is Objectively Unfit. Many of the remaining items I have cited would properly be called BizzyBlog Dealbreakers (reasons not to vote for someone regardless of his/her issue positions).
These would include:
- The Second Amendment items discussed at this post show that Romney is incoherent and can’t be trusted on gun rights (it’s the incoherence, not the issue position):
HERE
- His inarguable distortion of Reagan’s and Hyde’s prolife legacies:
HERE
- His advocacy of EXPANDED abortion rights (support of a Freedom of Choice Act) while running for Senator in 1994 (again, not the position, the stealth advocacy of expanded abortion rights while pretending he just wants to keep it as is):
HERE
I’m afraid I’m just warming up, as there are other items coming to the fore on a nearly daily basis.
Phil, Mitt Romney is Bob McEwen on high-powered steroids, and without the mostly agreeable issue positions.
My criticisms have been mostly measured, thought through, documented, and, as of yet, not refuted.
You are welcome to refute what I have written, as is anyone. Saying that I’m engaging in vitriol is not a refutation.
As to your final question, I never had to address it when I opposed McEwen, and I don’t expect to have to address it this time either.
Comment by TBlumer — December 21, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Blindly following an obvious fraud [for reasons I honestly don't want to know about] is even more egregious than taking a comprehensive view and finding valid, justifiable concerns to consider.
When Mitt needs to fill a void, he simply runs out and buys another endorsement. Never faces the music. Yeah, like we need wuss in the WH in a post 9/11 world…
Comment by Rose — December 21, 2007 @ 3:07 pm