Man-up Or Play It Safe
Here is Newt Gingrich steadily and successfully climbing back into
the GOP race for president and he pulls a stunt like this.
During the 789th debate of the early political season, the former
House Speaker took a stance on immigration that will open the
floodgates of criticism from the far-right.
He suggested that if a person came to this country illegally
twenty-five years ago, established a family, paid taxes, went to church
and did all the things that "regular" Americans do, they should not be
booted out of the country.
He didn't use the word amnesty, but lots of other candidates on
the stage did. Any fool knows that the "A" word for the ultra's is as
incendiary as it gets. Yet Mr. G. took a stance, would not budge and
sort of lectured those who did not share his enlighten position that
the GOP was the party of families and ejecting someone who broke the
law a quarter of a century ago should not be held accountable for that
He get's style points for saying what he believes even though it
could cost him votes with the anti-amnesty crowd which is rabid.
Remember how they dumped on former President George Bush and former
U.S. Senator John McCain when they tried to work a new immigration law?
They took a hit and the Newster will, too.
In strong contrast, Mr. Play-It-Safe refused to embrace the
Gingrich gambit, but then what else is new with Mitt Romney? He did
not adopt the pro-family notion and apparently would be comfortable
expelling such a person who sneaked in here years ago. He did wax on
about how we have to "secure the borders" which is about as safe as it
Candidates have two choices when it comes to controversial issues
that could cost them votes: They can pander or they can stand-up, take
a risk and profess what they believe.
Maybe that's why Mr. Speaker is moving on up and somebody else is
stuck where he's been for months.