Newt Gingrich Takes a Trip Down Selective Memory Lane

newt-gingrichNewt Gingrich has taken a bit of heat for his comments on immigration the other night. More than a few have equated his comments with amnesty.

I would normally leave this topic alone, except that Newt Gingrich has decided to hit back against Romney by tweeting the following:

@Newt Gingrich: .@MittRomney Here’s a trip down memory lane: So what’s your position on citizenship for illegals again? (I oppose it.)

The video takes you to a 14 second youtube clip that makes it appear like Romney supports amnesty for illegal citizens. The problem is the video is clipped mid-sentence and is taken entirely out of context.

Here is a transcript of the Romney answer on immigration – the bolded part is what the clip left out:

My own view is consistent with what you saw in the Lowell Sun, that those people who had come here illegally and are in this country–the 12 million or so that are here illegally–should be able to stay sign up for permanent residency or citizenship, but they should not be given a special pathway, a special guarantee that all of them get to say here for the rest of their lives merely by virtue of having come here illegally. And that, I think, is the great flaw in the final bill that came forward from the Senate.

AND here’s video that shows both the deceptively trimmed portion plus the rest of the answer (more than what was quoted above) for the entire context:

So to answer Newt’s question on what is Romney’s stance on citizenship for illegals… he is against it, and you knew that Mr. Gingrich. Your trip down selective memory lane is nothing but a false attempt to tag Romney as something he is not in order to promote your own candidacy.

Unfortunately the shortened clip of that make it appear that Romney supports amnesty has racked up 10,000 views in the last 24 hours since it has replayed on a number of news sites. It will be the duty of Romney fans to share the correct information with those who continue to try to cast Romney as pro-amnesty.

~Nate G.

Nate owns and manages a small souvenir manufacturing business. He and his wife of 12 years have 2 children. Nate has been blogging for Mitt Romney since late 2006 and is co-founder and editor of
View Posts | View Profile

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Google+ YouTube 

About Nate Gunderson

Nate owns and manages a small souvenir manufacturing business. He and his wife of 12 years have 2 children. Nate has been blogging for Mitt Romney since late 2006 and is co-founder and editor of View Posts | View Profile
Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Newt Gingrich Takes a Trip Down Selective Memory Lane

  1. stefano says:

    no amnesty AT ALL !

  2. Johnny-Come-Lately says:

    MRC is attacking another campaign for taking a quote out of context? haha… Here is the only question I want answered: If Mitt is against amnesty, is he willing to round-up the millions of illegal aliens in the country and deport them? If he’s not, there is no difference between him, Newt, and Perry on this issue. If he is, well, he just lost the general election.

  3. RJPeck says:

    If someone is here illegally and can not get a job or any social service because they have broken the law by being here, most will self deport, those that are caught trying to further break the law can then be helped on the trip home. There are people that I would not expect to be against amnesty, a man that I work with is liberal through and through, but is 100% against people being here illegally, he wants the boarder sealed and the illegals rounded up and thrown out. I think that this is how more people feel than I thought.

  4. stuntman says:

    Johnny: no amnesty, possible deportation for criminals but back of the line for all illegals behind legal immigrants trying for citizenship.

    Got the concept or still lately?

  5. fab807 says:

    The late Tim Russert was attempting in my opinion, to show empathy towards the millions of “illegal” (emphasis added) immigrants here already that have children born in the U.S. The impression leaves one to believe that since the child(ren) are already U.S. citizens by virtue of their birthright, then sending the “illegal” parents back to the home country is considered “breaking up the family,” and other (supposed) heart wrenching tales.

    However, if ANY person here legally or otherwise, commits an “illegal” act, or commits a serious crime, i.e., selling/possessing drugs, committing serious assault/battery, etc., doesn’t the mere fact upon their conviction that if jail/prision time is imposed — doesn’t that in and of itself, perpetuate a false notation that the “break up the family” is a mute point because laws DO have consequences??

    The overriding issue here is that “illegal” immigration is NOT on par with any other “illegal” and/or “criminal” act. Until we view this issue as such, the democrat party and the bleeding heart liberals on the left will continue parlay this issue into an emotional “heart wrenching” issue.

  6. SethEllis says:

    Newt is being dishonest about Romney’s record, and he will get caught in his lie. His supporters are selling their souls trying to defend this. Just look at the reactions on RedState when they got called out.

    Expose the truth, and don’t let them off easy.

  7. Johnny-Come-Lately says:

    @Stuntman: Only “possible deportation” for illegal criminals? That position is to the left of every other Republican candidate! No deportation for the millions of illegals already in this country? They just have to get to the “back of the line”? Do you think they are at the front of the line right now? If you are not going to deport illegal immigrants, you are for some form of amnesty. It is really that simple. Mitt Romney has so far refused to answer whether he is for rounding-up all of the illegal immigrants in this country and deporting them back to their country of origin (so are you, as it turns out…you didn’t answer my question. You just gave me a useless slogan about sending illegal immigrants to the “back of the line.”)

    Every Republican candidate running for president would agree with the position you just laid-out on Romney’s behalf. (The only exception being only “possible deportation of illegal immigrants,” in which case every other candidate would be to the right of Romney in that regard.) Barack Obama would agree with your interpretation of Romney’s position on this issue.

    I think I’ve asked a fair question: Is Mitt Romney going to round-up the millions of illegal aliens in the country and deport them if he becomes president? It’s a yes or no question. Please don’t answer with useless slogans, “concepts,” or any other pathetic attempt to distract from my question (the correct attack would have been “or are you still late?” not “or still lately?” … that makes no sense). If you don’t know, don’t just wing it. You’ll just wind-up looking foolish—again.

  8. Graham says:


    No. He’s not going to round up the millions of them everywhere and deport them all. None of them will do that, for any number of reasons.

    And we’re still going to vote for him, so you’ll just have to find some way to sleep at night.

  9. ccr says:

    @Johnny………by stopping the magnets in America & worker ID, many illegals will leave on their own.

    If you’ve listened to Mitt, you know he welcomes whole heartedly legal immigrants.

    I personally would love to see serious work on “anchor babies” no matter their nationality.

  10. Annette says:

    Johnny come lately…
    No…Romney does not support rounding up 11 million illegals and deporting them. It would cost the government too much money. Some will come forward on their own and others will be caught. These people will be given a temporary work visa. They will also pay a fine. They are given a chance to sign up for citizenship. However, they do not have a special pathway…meaning they have to go to the back of the line. When their temporary work visa is up…if they have not been granted citizenship, they are deported. Most people will probably be deported because a temporary work visa will not give them enough time to get to the front of the line. Get it.

    Romney does not want to create a sanctuary environment. He wants to get rid of the magnets….preventing illegals from working by subjecting employers to fines if caught hiring illegals, implementing e-verify, not able to get a drivers license…not given amnesty for good behavior as Gingrich suggest…no instate tuition for them or their children…etc. Without the magnets illegals will find it hard to function. This way illegals will leave on their own. It would be a gradual purge of illegals.

    The problem with the Newt Gingrich approach is that there is no definitive policy that he has in place. As Romney said…I don’t want to draw lines in the sand. Where does Gingrich plan to draw the line? If an illegal has lived in the US 3 years…5 years…10 years…if he goes to church etc. It puts the government in a position where they are choosing who is going to stay and who will go and it is very problematic. It is essentially granting amnesty to people who came over illegally while many applicants have waited years to get into the US.

  11. Keith Price says:

    Ads like this almost always benefit the one being attacked. In this case, it creates free press for Mitt and every time he or his team is asked about it, they’ll be able to show the full answer.

    I’m not worried.

    For those who are confused or uninformed, here is Mitt’s stated immigration policy (from 2007ish):

    Mitt has one of the most intelligent and fair plans for immigration I’ve ever seen.
    He does not believe it’s practical to round up all 12+ million and ship them home.

    He wants to cut off the magnets by requiring employers to verify (with eVerify) citizenship (or legal right to work) before hiring, and having severe penalties for those who fail to comply.

    He wants every illegal immigrant to register so we know who they are.

    He wants to give them TEMPORARY legal status to reside and work here.

    He wants them to go through the process of getting citizenship, including paying any fines and fees, WITHOUT letting them jump in line ahead of those who are trying it the legal way.

    Any that fail to complete the process before there temporary status expires must leave.

    This, I think is the fairest and strongest solution while still being compassionate. And, it’s realistic.

  12. Hungarian Crusader says:

    When will Mitt be coming to Chicago??

  13. Hungarian Crusader says:


    The concept of anchor babies needs to be tossed with illegals.

  14. stan says:

    I think the reason that some Republicans are afraid of Mitt is not that he is a Mormon or he’s a technocrat or that he’s rich. The reason is that he will not buckle under the economic pressure of entitlements from both parties. Mitt said it’s going to be hard and what I think he meant was both parties will lose their entitlements they used to get. But it has to start somewhere and who better to ramrod this deal than Mitt. Go Mitt!

  15. Thomas Alan says:


    Yeah, I got the same treatment only worse from RedState. When I compared the writer to Ed Shultz editing a clip of Perry to make him sound racist he got quite angry.

    It’s a shame, RedState used to be a very good website. But they seemed to have banned everyone but the crazies over there. I had a moderator calling me names and threatening to ban me throughout that entire thread even though I seemed to be the only one there NOT calling anyone stupid, brain damaged, on drugs, etc. And that includes the moderator threatening to ban me. Hardly anyone even made an attempt to discuss the issues.

    Hate to say it, but they’ve become the Kos of the right.