Doesn’t Mitt Romney get points for blowing off Rupert Murdoch, in person, when the latter joined Univision’s CEO in trying to pressure the Republican candidate to change his position on immigration enforcement (in the direction of promising amnesty)?
“I am not going to be a flip-flopper,” [Romney] added, according to one guest. He talked more about the various concerns that he has to balance in terms of competing constituencies who have different views — and noted, two sources said, the precise percentage that Hispanic voters make up in the swing states, a figure that was less than 20 percent.
It’s not clear from Maggie Haberman’s account if Romney was worried only about being labelled a flip-flopper–and, if so, whether that convenient excuse for telling Murdoch “no” nevertheless reflects an underlying conviction. … More encouraging, given the suspicion that Romney bends to polls, is Haberman’s suggestion that his position results from a hard-headed political calculation that (despite MSM reports) appeasing Latino activists on immigration [Murdoch's definition of "heart and stomach"] would produce a net-negative backlash in swing states.
P.S.: Thanks to Twitter, Murdoch has emerged clearly as an active amnesty-pusher. That helps explain Fox News Channel’s initial North Korea-like support for George W. Bush’s doomed “comprehensive” immigration plan (“comprehensive” meaning a combination of enforcement and amnesty). Do Fox viewers know that the owner of the network has aggressive views on this issue that are 180 degrees opposed to what most of them believe? Isn’t this a significant structural flaw in Murdoch’s business model? …