Card pleads with Romney over illegal immigration
Orson Scott Card has once again posted an opinion on the 2008 presidential race. Although Card indicates that the war is still one of the major priorities of this election, he speaks mostly concerning “illegal” immigration. The portion that really jumped out at me was the following (penned before the New Hampshire primaries).
I hope you lose in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney. I hope you realize that taking Tancredo’s place as the leader of the xenophobic wing of the Republican Party is a losing proposition.
Then maybe you’ll become again what I think you really want to be, at heart: A true moderate, a man who could preside over all the people of America — even the ones who came here from Mexico under the wire, most of whom long to be citizens just like your ancestors and mine.
Only then will you deserve a shot at being president.
This is kind of how I feel. Mitt Romney has run this campaign seemingly willing to say anything in order to get into the White House. He has pandered to the far right on several issues that really need a good moderate voice. But deep inside, I think Mitt is a good guy. I would hope that he would be the mostly likely Republican candidate to change the immigration laws.
It’s as if he is “playing the game” in order to win it, but once in office will choose what is right for the country. Perhaps I’m just blinded and he is really in the pocket of the right-wing. He has, however, said some things that make me wonder if that’s true.
It’s very apparent how Card feels about immigration as well as the war. He hasn’t come out in support of a specific candidate, but has admitted that he can’t support any Democrats as long as they promise to pull troops from Iraq within their first year.
If you want someone that represents the moderate wing of the Republican party, your candidate is John McCain. I agree that Romney would likely be the best to manage the country from a fiscal standpoint, but that politically he is willing to say anything. One new example is to tell Michigan that he will bring all the jobs back that have been lost. McCain, on the other hand, was very comfortable saying the truth: there are jobs that have left Michigan that aren’t coming back in the auto industry. However, there are other jobs that can be created.
It’s a good think Romney wasn’t president when the lamplighters wanted the government to protect their jobs from Thomas Edison’s lightbulb.
I don’t like Romney’s stance on torture either; see http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/4796.
McCain and Romney have been my two options for the most part. I thought McCain was going to totally fall apart a few months ago, but he seems more willing to compromise as well as seems to speak the truth rather than play the politics game.
It’s a good “thing” I know how to write.
Those are the main differences between Romney and McCain that definitely make me more likely to vote McCain than Romney (if I have the choice, but I don’t since I’m not a registered Republican): immigration and torture. These are huge issues in which human decency and Christian values need to trump political expediency. McCain has a much better stance on these issue.
Right now it’s mainl
McCain represents the more humane and Christian values when compared to Romney on both the immigration and the torture issues. Really there is no doubt who I would vote fore (if I could, but since I’m not a Republican I can’t vote in the primary…Dan, will you vote McCain for me?). There pretty much the same otherwise, except McCain can handle the truth.
Sorry, I didn’t think that prior comment made it through. Sorry about the repetition.