Within the party, there are plenty of opinions about this and I think there’s plenty of time to talk about how we address this. There’s no easy solution and I think he said that all along. He has also said that he’s open to hearing other solutions like the DREAM Act. I think the more he’s heard from others, including Marco Rubio, the more he’s opened to broadening the idea of what we need to do with the folks, the young people, who are here through no fault of their own. If nothing else, we also see today, his opinion is the same, essentially in some degree, to President Obama’s.
This weird, rancid word salad and the sentiment behind it probably will do Mitt Romney no favors. If you slice through the incoherence, Wall’s basically rooting for failure. “[T]here’s no easy solution” suggests that her boss, when confronted with evidence that he would veto the DREAM Act, will chalk it up to the legislation being so darn complicated — which is moderately less pathetic than admitting he’s been mugged by his nativist base.
“There’s plenty of time to talk” means Romney will do his best to never address this during the campaign. Do not expect him to work “Justice delayed is justice denied” into his stump speech. I dare say Romney would rather discuss posthumous baptisms than his stance on immigration.
I’m also intrigued by Wall’s contention that Romney’s “opinion is the same, essentially in some degree, to President Obama’s.” Forget for a moment that it’s a lie: contra Romney, Obama never threatened to veto the DREAM Act.
What interests me is her eagerness to draw a parallel between Romney and Obama. Rick Santorum pulled the same trick when he claimed “President Obama says he has the same position I have on gay marriage.” (This, too, was false.)
I’ve never figured out for whom this rhetorical stunt is intended. Is it supposed to mollify Republican activists? I can’t imagine it does; they tend to oppose Obama simply on principle.
What say you, PA readers?