Usual Suspects Use Governor Palin’s 2008 Immigration Quote to Undermine Her Credibility; UPDATE: Wurtzel Supported Same Candidate As Palin for 2012 Primary

Since Governor Palin put the GOP on notice yesterday and followed up with a mock-tweet to Marco Rubio about the congratulatory call he received from Barack Obama on his ability to ram through an amnesty bill, some of the usual suspects are already jumping on her.

Many tweeted out a Hot Air article from 2008 that stated she supported a “path to citizenship.”

On whether or not to deport the millions already here, she said:

There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

On whether or not she supported amnesty, she said:

No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great  country provides.

Rather she talked about a “path to citizenship,” she was asked if she supported it:

I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

Other tidbits of her statement included:

We secure our borders first. But then with a comprehensive approach we must deal humanely with those who are here, and we must allow the steps to be taken to protect the families of those who are here, maybe as illegal immigrants today.”

First securing our borders has always been her position.  When the immigration debate began earlier this year, Governor Palin held tight to that position.

Did you hear that?

If they first will make sure that the borders are secure then I think the American public will be open to hearing what their bureaucratic regulatory solutions are but first and foremost is securing the border.

Nevertheless, the usual defenders of the GOPe were out in full force yesterday.  Certainly no stranger to nonsensical Palin-slamming, Nathan Wurtzel tweeted on it which led to the following exchange between him and myself.

twitter06.28.13

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wurtzel is trying to parlay the very broad phrase of “path to citizenship” to suggest Governor Palin would have supported the latest disaster bill to come out of the Senate.  First, does someone saying they support a “path to citizenship” mean that they’re referencing all illegals?  Second, does Governor Palin saying she supported a “path to citizenship” mean that she supported a Rubio-cheered amnesty disaster that exempts illegals from portions of ObamaCare that the rest of us are stuck with?

Of course not.  Governor Palin was quite clear on this portion of the immigration debate back then and even more recently during her speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition when she said that there are other ways to debate this, which is what I said to Mr. Wurtzel.

Yes, we have to be “humane.”  As such, I wonder if these folks have any recollection of the 2012 primary.

Candidate Newt Gingrich did not want amnesty, but talked about allowing residency accompanied by a paid penalty for some illegals while deporting others.  He talked about making deportation easier for those who didn’t meet the criteria of his immigration plan which used the citizen review model implemented by the selective service (leaving it to local governments and citizens).  His argument was that if they were here for 25 years and had families and strong community ties, that no American would humanely rip those fathers, mothers, etc. out of their homes for deportation.  Through residency, they could have been paying taxes and giving back to the community.  The rest of the illegals who did not fall under the standards of the citizen review panels would be deported.  Of course, Romney scoffed at it.  So did others.  I mean, who needs actual citizens and local governments working to be part of the solution when we can have one giant federal government who’s never enforced the current immigration laws, enforcing the new ones suggested by Rubio and Company?  Gingrich and Romney debated here:

Maybe Gingrich’s plan wasn’t perfect.  But it did in fact approach the very complex matter with a solid solution of weeding out the good from the bad and engaging with local communities.

Candidate Romney, endorsed by Marco Rubio took the hardline position.  He told the voters what he thought they wanted to hear — that he’d actually deport all of them as he indicates in the video above.  After coming off a massive win in South Carolina, Gingrich responded to Romney’s unrealistic rhetoric by calling him “anti-immigrant” during the week of the Florida primary where Gingrich was outspent by Romney 17-1 in negative attack ads.  And guess who jumped in to attack Gingrich and to back Romney?  Our favorite Florida Senator, of course — by joining others like John Sununu and Bob Dole in their criticism.

Now that the election is over and Romney has gone back home, isn’t it amazing how Rubio’s rhetoric during the primary contrasts with what he actually did on the issue of immigration just this week?

In that race, Governor Palin voted for the guy with the plan.  Marco Rubio voted for the guy with the empty rhetoric for whatever empty promises were made in exchange.

While not necessarily perfect, Gingrich’s plan sort of illustrated Governor Palin’s words in 2008.  There can be other solutions, there can be more ideas, more debate, and more common sense that rejects the idea of granting what is now ultimately blanket amnesty for all who have come here illegally without first securing the border and second, allowing us to weed out the good from the bad.

Governor Palin’s approach to complex matters like this are consistent.  In no way does her 2008 quote suggest that she’d have backed this 1200-page disaster of a bill that contains pork, special favors, and more politics as usual.

Who’s truly exposed here, once again, is Marco Rubio whose unconditional support for Romney’s empty campaign rhetoric reveals him as just another D.C. shuck-and-jiver.

As such, the Twitter kids (Wurtzel, Rubin, etc.) might want to take a moment and really think this through before digging themselves in any further.

 

Update (by Mary Beth):  Wurtzel Supported Same Candidate As Palin for 2012 Primary

I have been following a fascinating exchange between Steve and Nathan Wurtzel and thought it might be a good idea to copy and paste it for your reading pleasure:

wurtzel-flesher

Apparently, Mr. Wurtzel has a problem with reading comprehension.  Nowhere in the piece above did Steve suggest that Wurtzel supported Romney.  In fact, Steve made no mention as to whom Wurtzel did or did not support.

Since he’s so emphatic about the fact he’s on the record as having donated to and supported Newt Gingrich, I felt it only appropriate to highlight the fact that both he and Governor Palin supported the same candidate for the 2012 primary, and that’s former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich.

I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before Mr. Wurtzel recognizes publicly that he was wrong in accusing Steve of lying about who he supported in 2012, and doubly wrong for threatening legal action.

So please, for the record, let me emphasize the following so that Mr. Wurtzel’s knickers can start to un-twist (which is pretty darn uncomfortable):

Nathan Wurtzel joined former Vice Presidential Nominee Governor Sarah Palin in supporting former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for the 2012 primaries.

Whereas Steve made no mention as to whom Wurtzel did or did not support, apparently Nathan thought his intentions during the last election cycle were so unclear as to threaten legal action.

Is that clearer for you now, Nathan?

PS…perhaps next time, rather than threatening to sic lawyers on a post written about you, you might simply gently request an update or correction.  Or better yet, you could actually read said post to see that the thing you’re freaking out about wasn’t even an issue in the first place.

 

 

 



(1302 Posts)

Leave a Reply