23 Comments

• 1. opeck  |  February 1st, 2008 at 2:22 pm

  Mitt Romney is a master at fixing things that are broken. Failing companies, the 2002 Olympics, The state budget for MA. The 2002 Olympics was a disaster going somewhere to happen. The first large international event after 9/11 and then rocked by scandal. Mitt was instrumental in turning that impending disaster into the first winter olympics that ever made money. Mitt Romney has the best chance to do the same with the mess that is the federal government.

• 2. Joe  |  February 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pm

  Fixed failing companies — by buying them cheap, laying off most of the workers, send the jobs to China and resell the company at a profit. Makes you wonder how he promises all those auto jobs are going to return to Michigan. Or was that just pandering?

  The 2002 Olympics — Great job. That ain’t the federal government.

  The state budget for MA — have you looked at the state budget for MA??? What the hell did he fix? Property taxes skyrocketed under ol’ Mitt. The roads and bridges are a freaking disaster.

• 3. Adrian  |  February 1st, 2008 at 2:36 pm

  If the problem is the economy, and that is on a lot of minds, then Romney is the answer. McCain freely admits not knowing much about the ecomony (though he is planning to read a book on it) so he’s the wrong choice for that.

  McCain expects us to believe that he has completely done a 180 on his immigration beliefs. I simply do not believe that he’s gone from “amnesty for everyone” to “we have to secure the border.” The man has no credibility on this issue. He does know what conservatives want to hear though so he’s trying to Clinton his way through it. If he wins the nomination that will be the last you hear from John McCain about a secure border.

  Romney has always been for border security. He tried to enact some decent policies here in MA, allowing the State Police to investigate/arrest illegals, but all of that was undone by Gov. Patrick.

• 4. Joe  |  February 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm

  Romney has always been for border security. He tried to enact some decent policies here in MA, allowing the State Police to investigate/arrest illegals, but all of that was undone by Gov. Patrick.

  Those “policies” were one thing… allow the State Police to hold anyone they feel may be an illegal immigrant. So if someone sounds or looks like a non-American, they can be held if they don’t have any proof immediately accessable proving they are here legally.
  Sounds a bit like racial profiling, don’t it?

  And another thing… Romney did this in the last month of his tenure as Gov. This was a last ditch effort to appeal to conservatives before his Presidential bid. Meanwhile…. the Romney grounds of his house were being maintained by illegals.

• 5. Christopher Estep  |  February 1st, 2008 at 3:23 pm

  Romney didn’t hire the illegals, he hired the company, which isn’t owned by legals. It’s not his responsibility to vett every person that steps on his lawn. In fact, it would have been illegal for him to do so.

  The reason to support Romney is that everything always comes down to the economy. He’s the only one of the candidates in either party (Ron Paul’s not a candidate, he’s a joke) who hasn’t either raised taxes or fought tax cuts.

  And before anyone objects, raising a fee isn’t a tax increase. When I pay my toll every morning on the way to work, it’s a fee. I’m not taxed 50 cents. In the private sector, it’s called raising prices. A fee is a specific expense for a specific purpose. A tax is an add-on to a purchase or the involuntary taking of money through the force of law.

• 6. Joe  |  February 1st, 2008 at 3:28 pm

  Romney didn’t hire the illegals, he hired the company, which isn’t owned by legals. It’s not his responsibility to vett every person that steps on his lawn. In fact, it would have been illegal for him to do so.

  I agree. That would be the first time. Then when it was pointed out that the company hired illegals, why did he continue using the same company?

  And under Romney my property taxes went WAY up.

• 7. Adrian  |  February 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm

  Sounds a bit like racial profiling, don’t it? No. And you sound like you have the basics of it wrong anyway. They weren’t allowed to grab anyone they suspected of being an illegal and lock them up. But if “during normal police duties” they had reason to suspect someone’s immigration status then they were allowed to check with ICE to verify the person’s status.

  Yeah, there were illegal aliens working on his property. Because they were hired by the contractor how he then hired. A customer, any customer, is not and should not be required to verify that the contractor they are using are following proper hiring practices. Otherwise everytime we order from McDonald’s or wherever we’d have to ask for proof of citizenship or a work visa and that’s obviously ridiculous. That’s why sanctions against employers who hire illegals has to be part of any reform plan.

• 8. Zach  |  February 1st, 2008 at 3:38 pm

  “The 2002 Olympics — Great job. That ain’t the federal government.”

  Did Obama handle anything close to this?

  “Sounds a bit like racial profiling, don’t it?”

  I really dont care if it is racial profiling. There I said it..I’ll guess I’ll take the title of Bigot..or asshole…whichever

  We’ve got a problem with Illegal crossings..Everyone knows it. Where do most of them come from? hmm?

  If I’m an officer, I know this and If I happen to pull over an mexican immigrant and he cant speak very fluent english and doesnt have an I.D. The first thing I do is call I.C.E.

• 9. Brian G.  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  I’m still waiting to be persuaded. I’m an Independent…someone please convince me as to why I should support Romney.

• 10. Joe  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm

  Adrian,
  I will give you that they can not just pluck anyone they want, it does have to be during police activities. Sorry, I thought that was implied.

  For the rest, I don’t have the basics wrong. I believe you do. The thing that Romney put in place removed the necessity for the troopers to call ICE.

  Currently, state troopers have no power to detain people for violations of their immigration status alone, said the spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom. If troopers stop people who they suspect are illegal immigrants, they can call a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Vermont to check on their status and detain them if federal officials request it, he said.
  Under the deal, brokered after months of negotiations, troopers can detain people they determine are illegal immigrants during regular police duties, Fehrnstrom said.

  Thanks for proving what I thought Zach.

• 11. Adrian  |  February 1st, 2008 at 4:43 pm

  Joe, did you get the clip from boston.com? That’s were I read it too. My reading of it is a little different though. Previously troopers were not permitted to detain illegals just for being illegal. But after the deal they could, if their illegal status was discovered in the normal course of duties.

  So you have this scenario: A trooper stops someone, either for a MV violation or under reasonable suspicion that the person may have committed a crime. Then in the course of the interview the trooper discovers that a.) this person did not commit the crime that they were stopped for, but b.) they are an illegal alien.

  Before Romney’s plan went into play, the person was free to go. They could not be detained because in this case the only crime they’d committed was being an illegal alien.

  After the plan, they could be detained for being an illegal, even though they were innocent of whatever led to the stop. Their status as I understood it still had to be confirmed through I.C.E.

• 12. Joe  |  February 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  Adrian,
  I did get it from Boston.com. I guess definitely read it differently. Not sure who is right or not, but either way, my opinion is that the new rule just leads to racial profiling. So if you are a Mexican, legal or illegal, you now have more of a chance of getting pulled over for the most minor of things. That is my problem with it. Of course, I am not Mexican, so I really have no clue of the side-effects of this policy.

  I do have an issue with the fact that Romney comes up with this a month before he leaves office in something that appears to be an attempt to prove his conservativeness (if that is a word) to the consertative base. This for the sole purpose of gaining their votes for his Presidential run.

• 13. Adrian  |  February 1st, 2008 at 5:05 pm

  I do have an issue with the fact that Romney comes up with this a month before he leaves office in something that appears to be an attempt to prove his conservativeness (if that is a word) to the consertative base. This for the sole purpose of gaining their votes for his Presidential run.

  That part I won’t disagree with. He should’ve done it sooner for it not to be a more or less empty act.

• 14. NeoClown  |  February 1st, 2008 at 5:33 pm

  Romney could use his magic Mormon Peep Stones to help him make decisions. Anything is better than Dubya and his magic eight ball.

• 15. Gozer the Carpathian  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:15 pm

  I’ll probably vote for Romney because he’s the only one left I like. I did like the fact that Sheriff Joe Arpajo endorsed him, and even though he only enacted those immigration policies in the last month of his term at lesat he DID enact them.

  As I’ve said before NONE of the canidates are pefect or even great in my book. (I’m not running after all. :) ) So I’ve gotta deal with what’s here.

• 16. jules  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:30 pm

  RE: 9. Brian G. | February 1st, 2008 at 4:08 pm

  Brian, why not visit Romney’s campaign web site? There is a lot of information there, including many videos of townhall meetings etc. I recommend you watch as many as possible. You’ll get a good idea of where he stands on many issues.

• 17. Max Power  |  February 1st, 2008 at 8:40 pm

  He wears magic underwear.

• 18. phnx  |  February 1st, 2008 at 11:32 pm

  Joe,

  Sounds like you are blaming the profligate spending of the Dem legislature and local townships on Romney. Get a clue.

• 19. StopJohnLiberalMcCain  |  February 1st, 2008 at 11:37 pm

  Max:

  You’re a bigot. You make fun of others faith belief systems.

• 20. Max Power  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am

  Stop:

  Actually, I like living in a free country where people are allowed to believe in fairy tales, and I’m allowed to mock them for it.

  That’s religious freedom.
  love it or leave it….

• 21. Pete_Bondurant  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 10:11 am

  What are you babbling about Joe? Governor Romney’s position on illegals is consistent. His position did not just come out of the blue as you suggest. Try studying his record instead of relying on the Boston Globe.

• 22. Nietzsche-Is-Pietzsche  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 10:25 am

  Romney, the life long NRA supporter and hunter who said he was a hunter but guess what, he’s never hunted.

  Romney, the defender of morality and marriage who wrote….

  “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern,” Romney wrote. “My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”

  Stem cell research? He was for it then he was against it

  Abortion? He was for it then he was against it.

  You know, I’m beginning to think that the only thing on Romney that stays in one place would be his hair.

• 23. Almiranta  |  February 2nd, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  Nutsy-is-Putzy—you are going to have to come up with something better than the tired old whine about flip-flopping if you ever hope to make any rational point.

  I was a liberal hippie chick, and now I am a conservative. Doubt that? Read the archives—the closest I have come to a liberal position, ANY liberal position, was probably a comment that we should legalize agricultural hemp.

  Ronald Reagan was a Democrat. Doubt his conservative creds once he saw the light?

  And so on. Mitt has evolved in his political positions. Good for him. By the way, he was never “FOR abortion”. He was just not in favor of making it illegal—what is called “pro-choice”. He then realized that this was doublespeak for “pro-abortion” and that this so-called “choice” denied the most basic choice of all, that of life, to the most innocent among us. He admitted he was wrong, and has never wavered from that stance.

  I think Mitt is the most competent of the candidates. I don’t have to agree with his religion or every single thing he has ever said or done in his entire life or political career.

  One thing about being a successful businessman (or woman) is that you have to be able to handle what is thrown at you, which is often unpredictable. There is a characteristic which some have and some don’t, to be able to think fast, to react quickly, to see each new problem clearly and to focus on solving that problem. I don’t see that in McCain. I do see it in Romney, and I think it has been proven in his many successes.

  McCain was a hero, on a very personal and individual level. But it is possible to be an excellent military person, even a hero, to excel at some levels of military service and action, and still lack the leadership qualities which are so necessary at higher levels. I resent the accusations that failing to believe in McCain’s leadership qualifications at levels which were never tested in his military service is the same as attacking his military career or service or heroism.

  There was once a book called “The Peter Principle” which explained, according the author, Dr. Peter, that the natural tendency is to promote people as they succeed, based on their successes, till they are promoted a step above their talents, when they stall because they are no longer excelling. His concept was that this explains the general lack of excellence in business—that pretty much everyone is occupying a position one level higher than that of their competence It wasn’t nasty, it wasn’t snotty, it wasn’t an attack on anyone–it was merely an observation that not everyone who is successful at one level can succeed as well at the next level.

  I am reminded of this when I see McCain. He was very very successful at his achieved level of military service, but that does not guarantee that he would be as successful at any higher level of leadership. There are just some people who are brilliant at middle management and who fall apart when they are promoted into positions demanding more responsibiltiy, more decision-making, and more authority.

  Mitt has, so far, met the demands of every level of management he has been asked to fill. There is no reason to think he has peaked. While there is absolutely no way to predict at which point a previously successful person might exceed his level of competence, Mitt has the indications of having a long way to go to get there, based on his grasp of new problems as he has faced them and his successful analysis of those problems and his focus on solving them.

  McCain, on the other hand, did very well in military middle management, but in the Senate has not really led as much as compromised, often in very strange and counterproductive ways. He has sought approval more than accomplishment. He has shown either a lack of understanding for or a disregard for the Constitution, in McCain-Feingold. His embrace of the Kennedy immigration amnesty bill was downright scary. He seems to be more interested in having his name on a bill which shows
  “bipartisanship” than in actual results, much less the dreaded Unintended Consequences.

  Bipartisanship has to be a pathway to solving a problem, not an end in itself.