Pat Buchanan once said that if, when the Rodney King Riots happened in April, 1992, President Bush (Senior) had sent in the Army immediately, he would have won the election right there. Instead, Federal troops didn't arrive until after four days of rioting. And Clinton was elected in November.
In exactly the same way, GOP Presidential nominee presumptive Mitt Romney could have won the election today. Instead, he may have lost it.
The Obama Administration has made official the Administrative Amnesty that we've been reporting on since last year. They have announced that they will not deport the young illegals who would have been given amnesty by the DREAM Act, if it had passed through Congress and become law, which it didn't.
Romney could have responded to this as the act of treason and/or corruption it actually is, by condemning Obama in the strongest terms, and saying that a Romney administration would never do any such thing.
But Romney didn't. And it's possible, because of that, that there won't be a Romney administration.
Daniel Horowitz, the young man mentioned in Patrick Cleburne's blog RedState Comes Through On Obamacrat Administrative Amnesty, has followed up:
Call me naive, but I was expecting top Republicans to come out with both guns blazing against Obama’s outrageous and illegal administrate amnesty that was announced earlier today.
All right, I will call him naïve. The problem of illegal immigration is bipartisan—vote-hungry Democrats and cheap-labor hungry Republicans. Romney belongs to the latter class—when he's not trying to be President, he's a wealthy businessman. And like many in the Republican Establishment, he's "diversity-whipped", to use John Derbyshire's phrase, afraid to say anything that might be interpreted as "racist."
Romney's statement was particularly wimpy:
I believe the status of young people who come here through no fault of their own is an important matter to be considered, and should be solved on a long term basis so they know what their future would be in this country,"
Romney: Obama immigration move makes long term fix harder, CNN.com, June 15, 2012
He's also showing signs of agreeing with Marco Rubio over a Republican DREAM Act.
Daniel Horowitz complains that
"But at the very least, you would expect him to attack the fact that Obama violated the Constitution by cutting out Congress and deciding not to follow a law – instead opting for a law that was defeated by the Senate in 2010. All Romney had to say is that it’s only a short-term fix and can be reversed? So the only problem he has with Obama’s announcement is neither the underlying policy nor the illegality, just the fact that it is only a temporary fix? But, a fix nonetheless!
The bottom line is that Romney ran all the way to the right on this issue in order to win the nomination. [Emphasis added] Now that Obama has issued an illegal amnesty, he has nothing consequential to say about it other than agreeing with it."
According to Buzzfeed, Romney "did not respond to questions shouted to him by the press corps about whether he would reverse Obama's decision."
Remember, the problem isn't that the Democrats want this amnesty—the problem is that while Republican voters don't want amnesty, Republican businessmen do. Republican politicians only refrained from passing Amnesty in 2007 because the voters made it very clear to the Senate that if they passed it, they'd be looking for new jobs in the private sector. Consider that Obama's illegal amnesty was condemned by John McCain, Rick Perry, and Lindsey Graham—all of whom have favored a legal amnesty in the past.
So Romney could have won the election today, by standing up to Obama over his illegal amnesty. But he didn't, and he may have to go back to corporate life this November—with Obama in the White House, and millions of illegals living the DREAM.
James Fulford [Email him] is a writer and editor for VDARE.com.