Posted on 03/18/2015 5:17:32 PM PDT by Bratch
Full Title: EXCLUSIVE — MICHELLE MALKIN: SCOTT WALKER DESERVES TO BE VETTED, ‘PROBLEMS’ MUCH BIGGER THAN OUSTED PRO-AMNESTY AIDE
Nationally syndicated conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, founder of the website Twitchy, tells Breitbart News that Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker—a potential 2016 GOP presidential candidate—needs to be vetted. She also says Walker’s “problems” run much deeper than the decision to hire—then quickly let go of—pro-amnesty communications aide Liz Mair, who had taken shots at Iowa.
“Scott Walker has much bigger problems than the ill-considered hiring and firing of one D.C. operative,” Malkin said in an email.
What does he really stand for and is he fully equipped to bear the slings and arrows of his enemies on a national and global scale? Yes, he fought Big Labor and has managed his state well. But grass-roots activists in his state have long been warning me of his ideological gymnastics on core issues: immigration and education.
He has been on the same side as the progressive Left and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Right: pro-amnesty, pro-massive legal immigration expansionist, and pro-Common Core. He’s been left, right, center, and all over the map.
She added that Washington-based GOP establishment forces are good at backing up establishment politicians, as they seemed to have tried to do to defend Walker and Mair.
“The D.C. consultant class and Capitol Hill GOP operators are adept at swooping in to ‘rescue’ the campaigns of neophytes and molding them into Beltway barnacle tools,” Malkin said. “They did it with Spencer Abraham and Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan. Face it: Many of the D.C. messaging ‘experts’ and ‘communicators’ DO have their own policy agenda and it is naive or stupid to believe they have no sway or influence on ambitious, outside the Beltway seekers of higher public office with no fixed principles.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
No, it's a problem when conservatives look for another Reagan, get angry when all of the candidates was RINO on a single issue, which results in the most liberal Republican getting the nomination. I've been on this board since 1999; I know EXACTLY how this is going to play out.
This is why we end up with Boehner and McConnell who were supposed to prevent the Barry-amnesty and then just turned around and funded it after winning the election.
I don't support Boehner/McConnell, and that's not germane to the discussion at hand.
Let me spell this out for you. Scott Walker has a credibility problem with regards to amnesty.
He was naïve on the issue - in the past.
Walker has came out strongly for border security and against amnesty.
Sounds to me like he listened to the base and made a note of it.
How is that a credibility issue? When you pound the phone lines in D.C. demanding Republicans to stop amnesty, do you call them flip-floppers if they listen to you and do as they're told?
Amnesty is a very important issue for a lot of conservatives.
Do you think I would be supporting Walker if he was an amnesty whore?
The GOP machine is not trustworthy on amnesty as they just funded it for Barry, after promising before the elections to stop it. Hence conservatives don't trust the GOP to be on the right side of this issue.
But the GOP machine is not running for President though. I trust Walker, given his recent remarks that are conveniently ignored by conservatives, to secure the borders over the other guys and Hillary. And you're going to need that GOP machine in the general election.
Walker recently recanted his amnesty support. He claimed that he was now on the right side of the issue. Then he goes and hires this prominent amnesty promoter.
Her official position was coordinating his online communications outreach. Do you have any proof that her pro-amnesty beliefs factored into Walker's decision of hiring her?
Do you think conservatives should keep quite and look the other way?
No, of course not. We need to be vigilant on this issue. If Walker changes his tune or doesn't deliver on his pledge, he won't be supported. It's as simple as that.
People are not looking for candidates pure as snow.
Yes, you are. Conservatives make this mistake every election cycle. Find the candidate that's the next Reagan, or else I'm staying home. Never mind we have several candidates who share Reagan's vision and ideology but that's not good enough. If you want purity, vote for the Constitution Party candidate.
However they are not ready to compromise on some key issues. They also don't trust people whose actions don't match their promises. They are also looking for the best candidate who will represent them.
Already, you have FReepers not supporting Walker because he won't repeal the RFS standard. Never mind the fact that he said it would get phased out. No, it has to be abolished overnight or else they're staying home. Medicare/Medicaid has to be abolished on Jan 21st or conservatives will stay home. That's what I mean, this finger-snapping, overnight implementation of conservatism. It just isn't going to happen.
Don’t forget Walker’s public endorsement of Cesar Chavez, a known domestic terrorist. Chavez was buds with a friend of Alinsky, a community organizer. Obama likes Alinsky. The establishment uses Alinsky tactics to keep conservatives in check during election time. So... The rotten apple doesn’t fall very far from the tree being used by illegals to cross the border.
Of course not! Walker has done good things in Wisconsin. Conservatives should not make stuff up about him (or anyone).
Please explain why Walker refuses to renounce the endorsements he’s received from comprehensive immigration-supporting, aka amnesty, industries in Wisconsin, ie. dairy, restaurant, construction???
Careful, the establishment’s scheme includes pressuring conservatives to do exactly what you and so many others on this thread are doing—giving up psychologically before the race has even started.
Don’t let them fool you.
Walker 2016
Cruz 2016
Very classy. So everyone’s a RINO who doesn’t agree with you 100%?
Post the “endorsements” or STFU
I tend to be emotionless. My thoughts on Walker have not evolved. His state voted for Obama and Walker. No thanks.
Don’t forget Walker’s public endorsement of Cesar Chavez, a known domestic terrorist
Get your facts straight. That’s a dishonest, misleading statement and you know it.
Walker endorsed a bill honoring Chavez. Chavez was dead a long time before Walker became Governor.
Moreover, Cesar Chavez was strongly anti-illegal alien.
It was his reason for being...
Thanks for adding that.
I don’t need to go to Washington to know what Obama is all about.....
Malkin is uber credible.....
If we have learned anything these past miserable years, we need to KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt where each candidate stands or doesn’t stand.
Yes, Col. West’s wife. A couple years ago, on Facebook, she started a coffee klatch-type group, no different from the serial groups here on FR where people gather and talk about topics. So I’m a regular of reading West’s posts and his wife chimed in she was starting her own group on FB. So I “Liked” it and checked it out. Among a couple other topics, she was all for gay marriage and couldn’t understand why a lot of republicans were opposed. So after a few weeks I “unliked” her group. Anyway, she came across like the other seemingly-conservative columnists or “enlightened” republicans who berate the party for its “race” problem or not being welcoming to gays by not fully supporting alternative agendas. Anyway, I was disappointed that she wasn’t as conservative as her husband.
Well, I don’t regret voting for him three times but I think he’s better off staying a governor. Wisconsin is such a purple state and republicans are afraid to upset anyone who doesn’t agree with them, therefore there are a lot of well-meaning conservatives who rollover and give up when the liberals start yelling and they don’t understand that liberals hate us regardless. I love living here and I love how nice people are but they are never going to be battle-ready because they’re so gosh-darn nice.
Thank you for that info.
Not on this, she's not. She hasn't been to Wisconsin recently -- not since she was here promoting Rick Santorum in 2012. If she had been around here, keeping track of what Scott has been doing, she wouldn't need anymore "vetting".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.