Posted on 03/26/2015 7:53:42 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Maybe I’m just tired, but I don’t see any flip flop in the quotes the article attributes to him.
“Citizenship” wasn’t the accusation, sweetie. Is Walker as disengenuois as you are, Kiesten?
The democrats will certainly make something up if he’s not.
All of the treason lobby deny that they are for amnesty.
But they are just equivocating over the meaning of amnesty, like Clinton when he said “it all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is”.
I hate E-Verify. Our representatives refuse to do their duty to protect the states from invasion, they don’t enforce our border or our laws, so what’s their solution? They put each and every AMERICAN in a national federal database, and then require each AMERICAN to get a federal bureaucrat to sign off on whether or not they are qualified to get a job to earn their daily bread.
There’s a whole bunch wrong with that picture. Conservatives generally have NOT thought this through.
Walker reportedly showed his support for full amnesty came at a March 13 dinner at the Cooper Door Restaurant in Bedford, NH.
How about that? Clear cut.
“Walker reportedly showed his support for full amnesty came at a March 13 dinner at the Cooper Door Restaurant in Bedford, NH.”
But how did he “reportedly show” it? What were his words?
The closest I see is “I’d open the door to making sure that people can legally come into the country.” That door has always been open, since the nation’s founding. I suppose it’s fair to ask him why he feels the need to open that which is open already. Whatever does he mean?
And there you have it.
Walker is for illegals, and cruz is for H1-B’s, and neither is for the American worker.
Guess the C of C has pretty much bought up every politician in sight.
Maybe the limousine liberal and the good ole boy republicans will successfully run el presidente de mexico nieto as the next US president.
Kirsten didn’t respond to what the article said Walker stated. It stated he wanted to have some kind of legal status for illegals. While that may equal amnesty to most conservatives it does not to Scott Walker.
Therefore Kirsten could state that Walker was not for amnesty while avoiding responding to what Walker allegedly really said.
What difference do public statements of policy positions make, when Republicans turn around and do the opposite once they are in office, any way?
We have ample precedent from Republican party leadership for proof of that.
We will know them by their deeds, not their words.
Walker Denies Remarks Indicating Change in Immigration Stance
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3272658/posts
I don't recall anyone in politics articulating anything about mass deportations, but many seem to think that is the only way Walker can "redeem" himself. I don't recall even Cruz articulating what they want - he's just so much better at saying what his stances are that they think they hear him saying, "Bulldoze them all across the border and bury the casualties".
Liars lie. Who’s Munro being paid to write this stuff for?
They know that conservatives are susceptible to these kinds of purity tests.
No one is going to get elected on a deport them all stance. It just will not happen. You have to moderate to a national audience.
Walker’s achievements are proof he’s a conservative. Believe what they do, not what they say. That’s what we say about politicians.
Walker’s done it.
Walker will be part of the next administration. President Cruz will need good men...
If he get the Family Research Council endorsement early, it could really throw things into chaos.
We’re on the same page. You made my point more baldly. That being said, I look forward to him further clarifying his position.
There’s another thread on this running. According to the restaurant owner and the town’s Republican mayor, plus three other unnamed sources, Walker said no deportation and a path to citizenship so long as the immigrant got to the back of the line.
At face value statements like that are devastating to Walker. However, as the post earlier stated, they still fall into the category of “reportedly”. It would be a phenominally stupid thing for Walker to do, and he’s smarter than that. And there are a LOT of people who would benefit from Walker being taken out of the race early.
“And there are a LOT of people who would benefit from Walker being taken out of the race early.”
In my mind, that is the whole point of this exercise. People forget the lesson of elections past. We’ll soon be left with no viable candidate that’s conservative in any sense of the word.
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.