Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has endorsed Mitt Romney to become the GOP’s 2008 nominee. Remembering that, consider what Fox News reported yesterday:
The $146 billion stimulus package intended to jolt the economy by giving taxpayers rebates up to $1,200 includes cash returns for illegal immigrants who pay taxes. Under the plan passed by the House, illegal immigrants who qualify as “resident aliens” and earned a minimum of $3,000 would be eligible for rebates of between $300-$600.
In a statement issued by his office, Congressman Tancredo, in part, said this:
“Regrettably, the legislation was considered under a procedure in the House of Representatives that did not allow for any opportunity to amend the bill to restrict payments to illegal aliens,†Tancredo said. “I believe most Members would have been glad to vote for such a change if given the chance.
…
“Whether the total amount of checks cut to illegal aliens from the U.S. Treasury amounts to $600 or $6 billion, I do not believe the American public supports a stimulus package that reinforces the idea that there is really no difference between illegal aliens and American citizens,†Tancredo said. “Worse, given the well documented tendency of illegal aliens to send large portions of their earnings back to relatives in their home country, it is quite possible that the lion’s share of any payments sent to illegal aliens will simply be sent abroad –- stimulating a foreign economy rather than our own.â€Â
Mark Levin talked about that last night and reminded listeners about the 2007 version of McCain-Kennedy. In addition, Debra Burlingame called in to mention the lengths McCain, Kennedy, and many in Congress went to in their attempt to sneak amnesty passed the American people:
The following is a 14-second clip of audio from Sunday, January 27, 2008, of John McCain on Meet the Press with Tim Russert asking him a question. I repeat the beginning of Senator McCain’s answer to help you hear it, it was real quick and you might miss it the first time:
“Yes, but…” Yes. but. hell!. If John McCain becomes President and McCain-Kennedy, version 2009, reaches his desk, he will sign it. Remember that and remember Congressman Tom Tancredo’s endorsement of Mitt Romney.
We need a President who will finally secure our borders, end de facto amnesty, and stop illegal immigration, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Update: Michelle Malkin reports, that, “House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) today issued the following statement after a number of press reports…”
“The legislation that we authored, and which passed the House Tuesday with overwhelming bipartisan support, would not allow any taxpayer funds to be distributed to illegal immigrants. In fact, the bill includes language similar to the provisions included in the 2001 and 2003 tax relief bills to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving any benefits. We will take legislative action to clarify and underscore this prohibition so we can expedite the rebates to millions of eligible Americans.â€Â
.jpg)
I said this weeks ago and thought that it would play well but the MSM made sure few people heard it.
What irks me most is that Tancredo did the right thing for the right reason. He believes in what he stands for so much that he endorsed someone that embodies his own beliefs. That is a real endorsement.
Now lets talk about the other endorsements, the McCain endorsements. These are the endorsements by insiders looking for favors. They are made by politicians who are political “sluts” looking to advance their own careers and not what they believe is right.
Take Giuliani. Here is a man that boasted during a debate that a NY Slimes negative characterization of himself was really an endorsement because they are a liberal paper. Fine. Now he endorses McCain who got the endorsement from the NY Slimes. What does that say? That is a sellout of principle.
Other than Tom Tancredo all these McCain endorsements represent ostentatious and serious conflicts of interest. They want us to vote for McCain based upon an endorsement that they give that will afford them future jobs in a McCain Administration. Sounds just like politics as usually and it resounds with the Romney conclusion that Washington is broken. This is the same network doing things the same way and as such guarantees the least change and represents the most grievous example of the status quo looking to secure its future at our expense.
Disgusting!
It’s like someone lined up dominos and is now watching them fall into one another.
There are 3 broadcasting days left before Super Screwsday.
We need a miracle.
All who haven’t drank from McCain’s phony ‘I heard the American people’ cup need to pass the word about him to everyone they know between now and Tuesday.
Task, that is such a great point that you made re: the NY Slimes and Giuliani. Rudy definitely failed the “principle” test. Now I wonder if he would even have made good on his promise to appoint the right kind of judges in the event he won the presidency.
It’s become increasingly obvious that all three of those guys, McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee, have from the beginning united against the true conservative in the race to keep his chances of winning down. I’m sure they all made their little side deals with one another, which is why Huckabee is still in the race today, to siphon away votes from Romney.
I too am very disgusted with this bunch.
For a while, I thought I was the only one to notice McCain’s statement to Russert that he would still sign the amnesty bill. I was so mad last night that I wrote this letter:
Senator McCain,
Over the years I have been an admirer of your courage as a POW. I have also been impressed when it seemed that you were a man of integrity in the Senate, in spite of your opposition to many Republican and conservative positions. However, during the course of the current campaign, I have become convinced that I was wrong to think so highly of you. I no longer recognize you as the hero who long ago stood up to your Vietnamese captors and defended what was right. Let me explain why.
I have observed your recent debates and political posturing, including your dishonest attacks on Governor Mitt Romney’s position on Iraq. I say dishonest because I have read the entire transcript and watched the video of Romney’s April 2006 Good Morning America interview, upon which you based your attack. Frankly, I do not see how any honest observer could conclude that Romney ever supported the Democrats’ proposed legislation imposing a timeline for a withdrawal from Iraq. In that interview Romney specifically stated that as president he would veto any such proposal. What part of veto did you not understand? Romney went on at some length to explain exactly why he would veto that type of “timeline for surrender”. Romney did also discuss some private timelines and benchmarks that he would apply in dealing with the Iraqi government. Haven’t President Bush, General Patreus and even you also supported such plans as part of our war strategy? You even said that if your benchmarks were not met you would withdraw the troops. Couldn’t that be misconstrued as your own timeline for withdrawal? Your continued attacks on Romney on this phony issue say nothing about Romney, but do raise troubling questions as to your own honesty, character and intellect.
Why is this all so important to me? It goes far beyond an honest debate on Iraq policy or mere election year politics. It goes directly to the character issues that I believe are of utmost importance in selecting a president. I know that you never attended Harvard Law School, but most Americans know, either from jury duty or from inherent good sense, that a person who is intentionally untruthful on one important matter may be distrusted on all others. If you can look the American people in the eye and blatantly lie about Romney’s Iraq position, how can we trust you on other important issues facing our country? Frankly, your campaign tactics reek of Clinton-style ethics.
Beyond your lack of honesty, I am concerned by your pathological inability to concede any error in political judgment. Your lie about Romney is just one example where you stubbornly cling to a position even when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that you were wrong. You somehow believe that you are always right, even when your current position has changed 180 degrees from what your have said in the past. On the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill, which the American people rejected so vehemently, you now say that you support securing the border first. But, if you can’t admit that you were wrong previously on amnesty, how can we believe your election year conversion to border security? In fact, on Meet the Press on January 27, 2008, you told Tim Russert that, if given the opportunity as president, you would sign the Kennedy/McCain amnesty bill. So, how can we know which is the real McCain policy?
On the issue of the Bush tax cuts that you voted against, you have changed your public justification for your votes. Do you think that we don’t remember what you said at the time about “tax cuts for the rich”? Why should we believe you when you say that your real reason for voting against the tax cuts was because spending was not being controlled? Inexplicably, you also say now that you support making the same tax cuts permanent. Were you wrong before, or do you think that spending is suddenly under control? If Romney took such inconsistent and illogical positions you would deride him as a “flip-flopper”.
Your choices on campaign tactics, amnesty and tax cuts show that your judgment is seriously flawed. Your inability to even recognize such errors is itself a flaw in character. What is it about your psyche that prevents you from saying, “I was wrong.”? Integrity is not believing you are never wrong. Humility is not weakness. Stubborn adherence to a known mistake is simply foolish. As president, how could you objectively deal with complex legal, diplomatic and economic issues if you ignore the plain facts and only see what you want to see? In a time of crisis, will you misconstrue a foreign leader’s words to fit your own preconceived notions or to justify your own past mistakes? Where will that lead us?
It is now clear to me that you lack the personal integrity, judgment and intellect the presidency requires. I cannot support you in the primary, and I will not vote for you if you are nominated. You are manifestly unfit for office. You may not like to hear it, but that is straight talk.
Sincerely,
Concerned Voter