Posted on 05/08/2015 12:59:07 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Republican presidential hopeful Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin has already flip-flopped when it comes to immigration.
Once upon a time, he supported the Reaganite position which holds that immigration is a good thing and illegals should be given work permits at least. In 2006, Walker supported the McCain-Kennedy bill that would have granted a path to citizenship (nativists vilify that as amnesty) for illegals. But that was then, reported Politico, and the governor now supports curbs on legal immigration.
Walker has a new apparent flip flop in the works, this one about the auto bailouts. Back in 2012, he was unambiguous in arguing that the government bailouts of GM and Chrysler retarded economic recovery in the industrial Midwest and the country as a whole:
When Republicans nominated as their presidential candidate Mitt Romney, he of the now-infamous "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" column, Walker railed against the bailouts in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow. Like Romney, Walker argued that the federal government's approach cost too much taxpayer money and, when pressed by Maddow, concluded that the program was not helpful in Wisconsin.
"I'm just pointing out it didn't [work] in Wisconsin and ultimately did in places like Michigan and elsewhere," Walker told Maddow, "but it could have come back more effectively and sooner had they taken the advice of Mitt Romney early on and done a managed bankruptcy instead of spending all those dollars of taxpayers' money that otherwise could have been done more effectively in the private sector early on."
What a difference a few years and greater ambitions make. Speaking at an Oldsmobile museum in Cleveland, Walker now moves his lips like this when asked about the efficacy of the bailouts:
"That's a hypothetical question from the past," the Wisconsin governor and likely Republican presidential candidate replied, according to accounts from multiple local reporters. "I think what we're going to talk about is the future."...
Walker's political team declined to clarify his current position on the bailouts when asked this week by the Northeast Ohio Media Group. So it's hard to say whether Walker has abandoned his past views or if he's only trying to avoid spelling it out for voters who might be disinclined to support him if they know precisely where he stands.
Read more here.
Just what we need, right? A Republican candidate who explicitly devolves from openness to nativism on immigration while zipping up over an apparent flip-flop regarding an illegal bailout of car companies by the government. If the best you can say is that he's "only trying to avoid spelling" out positions to voters who would then "be disinclined to support him if they know precisely where he stands," well, you're not really saying anything nice at all, are you?
I’m not a Walker fan but I don’t know as I’d call that a flip flop. Maybe a shrug. :-)
He’s Mitt Romney with a dislike of unions. But give it time. He’s GOP. He will evolve on that as well.
Just look at the donors he courts.
well, you’re not really saying anything nice at all, are you?
Almost just like the blog quoted above.
Cruz supporter here, but these hit pieces on leading conservatives are troubling. We can discuss issues fairly without savaging one another.
Oldplayer
Stay tuned.
If we discussed the facts of these so called conservatives, then it wouldn’t be a problem. But some people thing hard truths are attacks.
Walker had a longtime position regarding illegals and suddenly went 180 degrees. Do you do that? Do any of us suddenly wake up one day and decide that something we spent years believing is wrong and we embrace it’s polar opposite as he did going from pathways to citizenship to shutting down large swaths of legal immigration?
No, we don’t. People like Mitt do it all the time though and thus it is a completely valid and accurate comparison. A hard truth.
Good. The earlier move was dumb, and tone-deaf, for anyone with presidential ambitions. Romney’s anti-bailout stand guaranteed his defeat by Obama. Reagan restricted Japanese auto imports and put in place all kinds of trade restrictions to bail out Rust Belt industries. Rust Belt states will elect the next president. Any GOP nominee who goes against their interests won’t be spending the next four years in the White House.
If people can force themselves (force...sure they did) to vote for a guy with a more liberal record than Barry, they can damn well force themselves to vote for Ted Cruz...unless they aren’t the conservatives with the conservative beliefs they claim to be.
We'll return to this subject on Election Night, but my prediction is that Cruz will not win the nomination. And if he wins the nomination, he will lose the election. He's my favorite candidate of the lot, but I don't think he's got the charisma to win. He comes off as a prosecutor who'd like to put you away, in the same way that Romney came off as the boss who'd like to outsource your job. There's no rhyme or reason to it, but charisma matters, and Ted has negative charisma.
Unless a better conservative emerges that then means President Clinton or Warren because lesser conservatives will not get enough votes to win.
And if that means President Clinton/Warren, so be it.
That’s right every other candidate acts or reacts out of feelings about right and wrong, Cruz has a different filter from which he positions himself, that filter is the Constitution; is any given position constitutional, that is his scale from which he believes he will find the proper balance regardless of how you may feel.
By observation it is evident at least to me that other candidates don’t have a thorough understanding of the adequacy of our Constitutional Free Republic.
I think Cruz is the candidate most likely to defeat Hillary or any other Dem they dig up. I like the strength and forthrightness of his personality. His character is above reproach and his vision for the country is inspirational.
I’m distrustful of Walker at this point. I can’t feature him across the table from the likes of Putin. He comes across as weak and unsure on positions of foreign policy, especially.
It also bothers me that on an issue as important as immigration, he has not been consistent. How could he have stepped on to the national stage unprepared as to his position? I’m not convinced that he has arrived at his final position, because he seems to like to launch trial balloons.
There is something the also ran fans need to square up with. Those of us that refuse to accept liberal or RINO republicans hold all the cards. And with the onset of illegals with voting ‘rights’ our hand is yet stronger. They need ‘US’. And we aren’t budging. An inch.
As I said for the last two elections running, the RINO crew can either get onboard our train or we all lose. Hardball. Because we are NOT voting for another psuedocon ever. And if that means liberalism, it will be them that made that reality happen. We have long been clear as to our position. And as history shows, WE have the power to either win or lose it. THEY have the choice in which way they choose to direct it.
Ping for great and mighty justice ;)
I don’t see any flip-flop on the auto bailouts in this piece.
I stand with Ted
Hopefully that Ohio babe gets around to reading this...
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.