Jump to content

Wow, Romney Spokesman Flubs Immigration Badly. This Is Brutal.


Recommended Posts

GORKA: "The governor supports the states' rights to craft immigration laws when the federal government has failed to do so. This president promised as a candidate to address immigration in his first year and hasn’t, and waited actually ‘til four and a half months before the election to put in place a stopgap measure."

QUESTION: So does he think it's wrongly decided?

GORKA: "The governor supports the states' rights to do this. It's a 10th amendment issue."

QUESTION: So he thinks it's constitutional?

GORKA: "The governor believes the states have the rights to craft their own immigration laws, especially when the federal government has failed to do so."

QUESTION: And what does he think about parts invalidated?

GORKA: "What Arizona has done and other states have done is a direct result of the failure of this president to address illegal immigration. It's within their rights to craft those laws and this debate, and the Supreme Court ruling is a direct response of the president failing to address this issue."

QUESTION: Does (Romney) support the law as it was drafted in Arizona?

GORKA: "The governor supports the right of states, that's all we're going to say on this issue."

QUESTION: Does he have a position on the law, or no position?

GORKA: "The governor has his own immigration policy that he laid out in Orlando and in the primary, which he would implement as president which would address this issue. Whereas Obama has had four years in the office and has yet to address it in a meaningful way."

QUESTION: But does the Governor have a position on the Arizona law besides supporting the right of states?

GORKA: "This debate is sprung from the president failing to address this issue, so each state is left and has the power to draft and enact their own immigration policy."

QUESTION: But the Arizona law does very specific things, does the governor support those things that the Arizona law does?

GORKA: "We've addressed this."

QUESTION: What is his position on the actual law in Arizona?

GORKA: "Again, each state has the right within the Constitution to craft their own immigration laws since the federal government has failed."

QUESTION: But does he think about the law in Arizona? You're just talking about the states right to have a law but you're not giving any position on the actual law.

GORKA: "Ultimately this debate comes back down to the federal government and the president failing to address this. If the president followed through on his campaign promise to address illegal immigration in the first year, this debate wouldn¹t be necessary."

QUESTION: Is it fair to say that he has no opinion on the Arizona law?

GORKA: "Look, again, I¹ll say it again and again and again for you. The governor understands that states have their own right to craft policies to secure their own borders and to address illegal immigration."

QUESTION: You're not answering – what does he think about the policy in Arizona? Is it fair to say he has no opinion? You're refusing to give us an answer.

GORKA: "Arizona, like many other states in this nation, take it upon themselves to craft policies for their own specific states. Governor has said repeatedly that states are a laboratory of democracy, what one state crafts may not work in others but ultimately this, again, goes back to the president failing to deliver on his campaign promises. As candidate Obama, he said he would address immigration in the first year and hasn’t and instead put in a stopgap measure four and a half months before the election."

QUESTION: The statement that Mitt Romney released this morning doesn't say one way or another whether he agrees with the Supreme Court decision. Does he have a reaction as to whether he agrees with this decision?

GORKA: "Again, Jim. The states have the right to craft their immigration policy when the federal government has failed to do so."

QUESTION: But the Supreme Court just said three out of four of those, the states didn’t have the right to do that, so how does that square with the governor’s statement?

GORKA: "States have the right to craft their own immigration policies….and those [inaudible] went through the process."

QUESTION: But we don't have a statement one way or the other whether he agrees with this decision today by the Supreme Court-the statement itself doesn't say.

GORKA: "This country would be better served if the president wasn’t suing states but the president was actually fulfilling his campaign promises to enact an immigration policy."

QUESTION: So if your statement stands as you expressed it then, you want to remain silent as to whether or not Romney accepts today’s decision.

GORKA: "Arizona has the ability under the 10th amendment to address an issue that the federal government—"

QUESTION: But that wasn’t part of – the judges were not ruling whether or not the 10th amendment exists today. They were ruling on an Arizona statute. And you’re saying that his support for the 10th Amendment is effectively silent on today’s discussion, are you not?

GORKA: "The bottom line, Carl, is that if the president followed through on his campaign promise and addressed this issue, we’d be better off. The governor’s put forward his own proposal."

QUESTION: But it’s safe to say he sides with the state of Arizona in this case before the court today.

GORKA: "I think states have a tough job. The federal government has failed to secure the borders and to enact policy on this issue, and the states are left to protect their own borders and to work within their own system and to come up with a policy that works for them."

QUESTION: Can states do anything, even if it defies the Constitution?

GORKA: "That’s not what I was saying."

QUESTION: But tell me where the distinction is.

GORKA: "The bottom line, the fundamental problem of this debate is that the president has failed to enact a policy, has failed to address this, has failed to live up to his campaign promise again and again and again. This stems from states having to deal with an issue like illegal immigration, and come up with a policy that actually works for them."

QUESTION: Can you -- (overtalk)

GORKA: "We have to get going. I'm more than happy to talk about-- I'm with you guys all afternoon at the hotel. We can--"

QUESTION: Why isn't the governor up here talking about this. He's not addressed any of this.

GORKA: "The governor has issued a statement and if there is ah" (Overtalk: The statement doesn't explain...) GORKA: "It’s still a long day. And there's still an opportunity."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 70
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Deisel

I think his answer was perfectly acceptable. I don't understand why the reporter just didn't move on.

He basically gave the exact same answer that Antonin Scalia gave.

The reporter didn't move on because they were trying to get a sound bit. I 100% agree with the States rights approach given the light that this DOJ and white house will not ENFORCE laws, on the books, that THEY deem bad. This is not a game. People in AZ and on the border are being killed by illegals and drug mules. The individual states have Every right to protect their citizens and if the Imperial federal govt won't do it, the Local govt WILL and should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reporter didn't move on because they were trying to get a sound bit. I 100% agree with the States rights approach given the light that this DOJ and white house will not ENFORCE laws, on the books, that THEY deem bad. This is not a game. People in AZ and on the border are being killed by illegals and drug mules. The individual states have Every right to protect their citizens and if the Imperial federal govt won't do it, the Local govt WILL and should.

Except that Roberts and Kennedy both said you're wrong and overturned most of the AZ law. Which begs the question regarding Romney...what are his thoughts on the Supreme Court decision? That's what the reporter could not (or would not) answer repeatedly.

This is a typical example of a politician wanting to spout a soundbite without any real policy ideas behind it. Nothing new for either side, but the extent to which the spokesman dodged a simple question is kind of remarkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except that Roberts and Kennedy both said you're wrong and overturned most of the AZ law. Which begs the question regarding Romney...what are his thoughts on the Supreme Court decision? That's what the reporter could not (or would not) answer repeatedly.

This is a typical example of a politician wanting to spout a soundbite without any real policy ideas behind it. Nothing new for either side, but the extent to which the spokesman dodged a simple question is kind of remarkable.

No...it's not. it's remarkable that the reporters didn't move on.

Politicians have been dodging the gay marriage question with "it's up to the states" forever, nobody ever nails them to the ground on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Except that Roberts and Kennedy both said you're wrong and overturned most of the AZ law. Which begs the question regarding Romney...what are his thoughts on the Supreme Court decision? That's what the reporter could not (or would not) answer repeatedly.

This is a typical example of a politician wanting to spout a soundbite without any real policy ideas behind it. Nothing new for either side, but the extent to which the spokesman dodged a simple question is kind of remarkable.

Scalia said I'm right and so is Romney....States have to be able to defend themselves, and illegals raiding our borders falls directly in line with the Federal responsibility's. States Have to protect their borders, and wether You agree with that or not, is not the question. Roberts and Kennedy can have their opinions as well, but if I;m a border state and the feds won't handle the problem, I would have My law enforcement agency do the job, and call out the national guard if need be. This is out of hand and disasterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Yet the problem is Romney is being criticized for not having a stance on anything

Summer, with all due respect, I don't think you listen to Romney more then soundbites, therefore you don't know his stances. The man has been very vocal, laid out a number of stances, plans, and the MSM laughs and poo poos them as OUT OF TOUCH without vetting any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No...it's not. it's remarkable that the reporters didn't move on.

Politicians have been dodging the gay marriage question with "it's up to the states" forever, nobody ever nails them to the ground on it.

It was a simple question about the Court decision. He twisted himself into a pretzel to dodge answering it. The extent to which he did is pretty remarkable. I haven't seen that kind of twisting in a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the Obama administration shortly after the ruling suspending their 287(g) cooperation with the state of Arizona?

This would be another example of choosing not to enforce laws to avoid participating in laws they disagree with. Must be fun to be able to usurp that which you don't like without having to put the effort forth to change or enact laws. Hooray for executive power!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scalia said I'm right and so is Romney....States have to be able to defend themselves, and illegals raiding our borders falls directly in line with the Federal responsibility's. States Have to protect their borders, and wether You agree with that or not, is not the question. Roberts and Kennedy can have their opinions as well, but if I;m a border state and the feds won't handle the problem, I would have My law enforcement agency do the job, and call out the national guard if need be. This is out of hand and disasterous.

There is no Arizona-Mexican border. You realize that, right? That is an INTERNATIONAL border and the federal government is responsible for enforcing immigration issues. States don't have the constitutional authority to take over federal powers just because they don't think the feds are doing a good enough job.

Suppose the good state of Georgia thinks that Obama is being too soft on Saudi Arabia. The feds aren't doing their job in protecting Georgia from international terrorism and protecting Georgia from foreign threats abroad. By your logic, the governor should send the national guard to invade Saudi Arabia and would be perfectly within their rights because, you know, the federal government isn't adequately protecting their state sovereignty.

And from what little I've read so far of Scalia's dissent, it's not one of his more coherent ones. The state of Arizona would never have entered the union if it knew this would be the result? Okay, so I suppose that means that Arizona will immediately secede from the union. No? Oops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

It was a simple question about the Court decision. He twisted himself into a pretzel to dodge answering it. The extent to which he did is pretty remarkable. I haven't seen that kind of twisting in a long time.

Every day we see Twisting like this out of the White house. Jay Carney is a human pretzel and the press won't even ask hard questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the Obama administration shortly after the ruling suspending their 287(g) cooperation with the state of Arizona?

This would be another example of choosing not to enforce laws to avoid participating in laws they disagree with. Must be fun to be able to usurp that which you don't like without having to put the effort forth to change or enact laws. Hooray for executive power!!!

Where was your outrage over Bush's signing statements that effectively did exactly the same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where was your outrage over Bush's signing statements that effectively did exactly the same thing?

The same place it's always been. With great concern over the continued consolidation of executive authority (check the recent "King Obama" thread"). I've said as much on multiple occasions, and recognized that during the War on Terror, is when it began an exponential increase. My biggest concern and differentiater for the Obama Administration is that where most of the Bush actions involved military and security measures, something that could tangentially be explained under the roles of the executive branch (not that I agree with it), the Obama Administration has done more in the arena of domestic policy, which is typically the territory of the legislature.

But I'm curious about this argument made by people. Are you saying you were outraged at Bush's signing statements and consolidated executive authority, and you are okay with Obama doing it because you align with him? Or are you simply deflecting from shortcomings from the guy you support by using the "you too" argument? Or are you concerned with both, and if so, where's your outrage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same place it's always been. With great concern over the continued consolidation of executive authority (check the recent "King Obama" thread"). I've said as much on multiple occasions, and recognized that during the War on Terror, is when it began an exponential increase. My biggest concern and differentiater for the Obama Administration is that where most of the Bush actions involved military and security measures, something that could tangentially be explained under the roles of the executive branch (not that I agree with it), the Obama Administration has done more in the arena of domestic policy, which is typically the territory of the legislature.

But I'm curious about this argument made by people. Are you saying you were outraged at Bush's signing statements and consolidated executive authority, and you are okay with Obama doing it because you align with him? Or are you simply deflecting from shortcomings from the guy you support by using the "you too" argument? Or are you concerned with both, and if so, where's your outrage?

It depends entirely on what programs you're talking about. The immigration stuff bothers me not one bit because that's simply reshuffling of resources to focus on some cases more than others. It's a matter of agency priorities, which is absolutely within the realm of administrative power.

The "kill list" and the continuation of the arbitrary "enemy combatant" designation bothers me the most because it is extra-judicial and a true consolidation of executive power. Like the warrantless wiretapping, there is little or no independent oversight with those types of programs.

The problem we have is one of perspective. You have people running around "ZOMG looks obamas did recess appointments HE'Z A KINGZ NOW!!!" That kind of idiocy makes a "scandal" out of something that every administration has done and masks the more insidious and real problems of consolidated executive power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summer, with all due respect, I don't think you listen to Romney more then soundbites, therefore you don't know his stances. The man has been very vocal, laid out a number of stances, plans, and the MSM laughs and poo poos them as OUT OF TOUCH without vetting any of it.

Wow really he has had so much to say and seems to be the guy you are going to vote for yet you grace us with 5 to 6 anti obama/dems threads and how many pro Romney threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow really he has had so much to say and seems to be the guy you are going to vote for yet you grace us with 5 to 6 anti obama/dems threads and how many pro Romney threads.

Just look at how much he has to say about the Court decision through his spokeman's comments in this very thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

Wow really he has had so much to say and seems to be the guy you are going to vote for yet you grace us with 5 to 6 anti obama/dems threads and how many pro Romney threads.

Romney is Not in charge of our economy and our ship. Obama is and decisions he makes Count and a candidates don't. See, there's this logical process I follow that means, when a decision is being made in the here and now, it is worthy of comment, condemnation or Praise at this moment as it effects us NOW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Romney is Not in charge of our economy and our ship. Obama is and decisions he makes Count and a candidates don't. See, there's this logical process I follow that means, when a decision is being made in the here and now, it is worthy of comment, condemnation or Praise at this moment as it effects us NOW.

But any decision made in the past that effects our present isn't. Gotcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Deisel

But any decision made in the past that effects our present isn't. Gotcha.

Decision made by politicians effect us daily. They are fair game. What isn't relevent is saying, "But Bush did it" or "Clinton did it". If your talking abt laws we are toiling under, ie the tax code, money in politics because of it, its very much in the line of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest....there are very few...and I mean VERY few, politicians with a coherent policy on immigration. So Mitt's not alone there.

It's because they all want the ever increasing Hispanic vote. Still don't understand why Hispanic-Americans are for illegal immigration. They suffer the same burden and societal ills as everyone else. Hmm, could they be putting their race over their country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Decision made by politicians effect us daily. They are fair game. What isn't relevent is saying, "But Bush did it" or "Clinton did it". If your talking abt laws we are toiling under, ie the tax code, money in politics because of it, its very much in the line of fire.

If decisions they made effect out current situation, then it most certainly is relevant. Your selective outrage is what tires on many people here, among other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...