Does anyone else besides me see what the difference is…


(Rick Perry) strongly defended his decisions to grant in-state college tuition to illegal immigrants and to oppose a fence along the entire Texas-Mexico border.

“If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said. Otherwise, he said, “they will become a drag on our society.”

Romney didn’t buy it. Giving “illegal aliens” a tuition discount, he said, is a magnet that “draws people into this country to get that education, to get the $100,000 break. It makes no sense.”

Romney, who spent four years as Massachusetts governor, again had to defend his initiative that required residents to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Perry called it a model for “Obamacare,” the 2010 federal health care overhaul that all the GOP candidates oppose.

Romney said his position all along was “this is a state plan for a state, it is not a national plan.”

I might not agree with Perry’s decision to allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Texas colleges and universities, but I can see where he was coming from there. I also see where Mitt Romney’s coming from when he says such draws more illegals into the country.

However, vis-a-vis this part of Perry’s record, he has one big advantage over Mitt Romney and RomneyCare — at least Perry can defend in-state tuition for illegals on a pragmatic basis. Mitt Romney apparently can’t defend his socialized medicine program on that basis. If he could you’d see him doing it. As I’ve said before, regarding a certain “conservative” pundit,

“I really don’t understand where the one-state-versus-the-whole-country or ‘states’ rights’ thing comes in here. So many people advocate the very thing conservatives decry — a big, strong central government — to protect certain groups of people from the depredations of the state, and here (Mitt Romney) comes, saying certain depredations of the state are perfectly okay just because they’re on the state level. One wonders what (Romney) would have said if certain states voted to tax people based on their religions. Hey, as long as it’s on the state level and the folks in those states approved such, it’s peachy-keen, no? Sorry, but I don’t think a little consistency is too much to ask.”



One Response to “Does anyone else besides me see what the difference is…”

  1. mick Says:

    Romney apparently can’t defend his socialized medicine program on that basis. If he could you’d see him doing it.

    The same argument can be made for heath care as can be made for education. I think he’s not defending it because it’s politically awkward to defend. Just about anything he could say, besides the “state plan” bit, would look like support for Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: