[bootlegga]

Some of his thoughts;

Quote:

Gingrich said he did not want the Republican Party, which says it puts a premium on "family values," to promote immigration policies that would break up families that have been in this country for many years by expelling those who are here illegally.

Quote:

Gingrich said he would bomb Iran "as a last recourse" to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon and to overthrow the current regime. He also indicated that he would be willing to send U.S. troops into battle alongside Israeli forces in a conventional attack as an alternative to an Israeli nuclear strike on Iran.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1678.story

[Psudo]

Two issues where he's right, though the second one exists only as an implausible hypothetical. What of it?

[Bruce_the_vii]

Immigration reform

Newt Ginrich is apparently opposed to breaking up illegal immigrant families that have been in the USA many years.

There are some 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA and it was always obvious you couldn’t round them up, that the issue was a was of attrition. Approaches to this have been detailed by the Centre for Immigration Reform. Apparently half of illegal immigrants are legal immigrants that over stayed their visa and were going to go home eventually anyway.

Also the flow across the border seems to have dried up and is yesterdays issue. It’s hard for even illegal immigrants to find a job so they aren’t coming anymore.

Brilliant sound bite Newt, but not a complex policy.

http://www.economist.com/node/21538750

[bootlegga]

Psudo wrote:

Two issues where he's right, though the second one exists only as an implausible hypothetical. What of it?

Nothing much - I just thought his views were interesting. If I had to categorize it, I'd say almost honest.

[Zipperfish]

"Bomb Iran"? How will that solve anything? Look, it's clear I'm against starting yet another mideast war with Iran at this point, but even if you were to start a war, bombing ain't going to do the trick. You might knock off some of their nuclear facilties, but you will definitely not remove the regime.

Don't these people have military advisors of some type? Even better, foreign policy advisors?

[Thanos]

Romney hired all the Bush foreign policy advisors. Apparently, according to the GOP, there's always enough in the kitty for another $-trillion-plus war against Iran but none for any domestic concerns.

From what I can tell the other candidates, Huntsman excepted, all developed their own foreign policy platforms by whatever was trending most popular among conservatives on Twitter or from the reader comments section at World Net Daily.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Zipperfish wrote:

"Bomb Iran"? How will that solve anything? Look, it's clear I'm against starting yet another mideast war with Iran at this point, but even if you were to start a war, bombing ain't going to do the trick. You might knock off some of their nuclear facilties, but you will definitely not remove the regime.

Don't these people have military advisors of some type? Even better, foreign policy advisors?

It had to be said, thanks for posting it.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish wrote:

Don't these people have military advisors of some type?

Sure they do. I was asked about Iran earlier today and my advice was to let Britain or Israel deal with them.

Oh, and Newt is dead wrong on immigration. The USA did an amnesty back in 1986 and that was supposed to be a one-time thing. If amnesty is proposed in any way, shape, or form there will be hell to pay.

More or less, Newt touched a proverbial third rail with his defacto amnesty proposal and this one thing has put him out of the running with the conservative base he'd need to raise money from.

[Bruce_the_vii]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Don't these people have military advisors of some type?

Sure they do. I was asked about Iran earlier today and my advice was to let Britain or Israel deal with them.

Oh, and Newt is dead wrong on immigration. The USA did an amnesty back in 1986 and that was supposed to be a one-time thing. If amnesty is proposed in any way, shape, or form there will be hell to pay.

More or less, Newt touched a proverbial third rail with his defacto amnesty proposal and this one thing has put him out of the running with the conservative base he'd need to raise money from.

I think the illegal immigration issue is a technical discussion about how to reduce the numbers. You obviously aren't going to arrest 12 million. Newt has just glanced the topic. A real discussion would be helpful.

[Psudo]

Zipperfish wrote:

"Bomb Iran"? How will that solve anything?

If you bomb a nuke factory, that factory cannot produce nukes. That's a short-term, stop-gap solution to nuclear proliferation. That's something.

Zipperfish wrote:

Don't these people have military advisors of some type? Even better, foreign policy advisors?

I agree, no one in the GOP has a foreign policy of any depth or value. Nor does Obama or Hillary. I'm sure the foreign policy wonks of the world are rather depressed.

[andyt]

BartSimpson wrote:

Zipperfish wrote:

Don't these people have military advisors of some type?

Sure they do. I was asked about Iran earlier today and my advice was to let Britain or Israel deal with them.

Oh, and Newt is dead wrong on immigration. The USA did an amnesty back in 1986 and that was supposed to be a one-time thing. If amnesty is proposed in any way, shape, or form there will be hell to pay.

More or less, Newt touched a proverbial third rail with his defacto amnesty proposal and this one thing has put him out of the running with the conservative base he'd need to raise money from.

Stop hiring them and they won't come.