Posted on 03/18/2015 9:40:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has run into a little bit of trouble on immigration again, this time forcing a communications aide off his staff after Democrats pushed out old tweets from the aide disparaging Rep. Steve King (R-IA), a well-known opponent of amnesty.
"In other news, I see Iowa is once again embarrassing itself, and the GOP, this morning. Thanks, guys," the aide, Liz Mair tweeted, referring to King's January 24th Iowa Freedom Summit where Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Carly Fiorina, and other possible Republican presidential candidates spoke.
Walker's troubles with immigration began in January when opponents began circulating prior statements of his showing that Walker has endorsed both a "path to citizenship" generally and the Senate's Gang of 8 bill specifically.
Walker has since tried to walk those positions back, telling Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace on March 1st, "My view has changed, I’m flat-out saying it. Candidates can say that, sometimes they don’t."
And Walker's view on immigration has changed. Here he is on immigration in July of 2013: "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place."
And here is Walker in March 2015: "I've talked to people all across America. And the concerns I have is that we need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works. A legal immigration system that works. And part of doing this is put the onus on employers, getting them E-Verify and tools to do that."
So Walker has shifted from believing a secure border wasn't really necessary to now believing that it is.
But what about those illegal immigrants already here? What is Walker's position on that? Again, from March 1st:
WALLACE: The question was, can you envision a world where if these people paid a penalty, that they would have a path to citizenship? And you said, sure, that makes sense.
WALKER: I believe there's a way that you can do that. First and foremost, you've got to secure that border or none of these plans make any sense.
(emphasis added) Notice the present tense. Walker still believes that illegal immigrants currently in the United States should be given a path to citizenship, but only if you secure the border first, which is a not uncommon Republican position on immigration.
But how is it any different than Jeb Bush's position?
Here is Jeb from March 13:
It’s easy to say, ‘Well, anything you propose is amnesty,’ but that’s not a plan. That’s a sentiment, that’s not a plan. I think the best plan, the most realistic plan, the grown up plan, if you will, is once you control the border and you’re confident it’s not going to be another magnet, is to say, ‘Let’s let these folks achieve earned legal status where they work, where they come out of the shadows.’”
So both Walker and Bush believe we should "secure"/"control" the border first (whatever that means), and then, only after that is accomplished, can we give legal status/citizenship to illegal immigrants currently in the United States.
If there is any difference between Walker and Bush on immigration, I do not see it.
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
The Republican elite, Rove and their type of followers are starting to take down anyone who is not a pushover for them like Bush. They may get the money but what are they going to do to get the actual voter to the voting booth if they are not happy with the candidate.
Not a good one. Every single Republican failure you mentioned, in your own words, was not a good one. That is why so many of us gave up on your precious not a good ones. Cruz or lose.
And that’s why he won’t get my vote.
I’ve see and heard enough to come to this conclusion.
End of story.
The only way Walker even was able to sign these is because the people of Wisconsin voted in th Republican-controlled assembly and senate, and kept the WI Scotus majority Republican.
He hardly did it alone. I live here and vote too.
Yep.
Get all the alternatives to beat up each other so some candidate (Jeb) can "rescue" us. Conservatives splitting the votes and driving up the negatives.
I saw this in 2012 when people tried to clear the field for Sarah Palin. All these cryptic blogs (not Palin herself)came out said that Sarah Palin was running, when there was NO indication it was actually happening or going to happen. I see the same thing happening today.
If Pence runs, that's my vote. I'm not sure he's running. I also won't be bashing any of the other candidates running except Jeb. Jeb needs to lose. Unless Jeb drops out I won't bash Walker, Cruz, Rand, Christie (takes votes from Jeb), Huckabee and even that Lindsay Graham clown.
Oh, c’mon.
I’m on your side.
That was just funny...
And that doctor thing, yea, I wouldn't want a drop-out Proctologist from Uganda Medical Emporium either.
LOL..
Thanks for the Ping.
The problem is we’ve seen this all before.
They say all that ow, but when it actually comes time to implement it, it gets watered down and people’don’t want to fight for it b/c the left is going full-bitch to Hitlerize them as the menest assh0les on earth that ever existed, and that riots will hapoen and it’s their fault, yada yada yada, and our guys backpedal and BOOM! we don’t get our guys following through on what they said they’fight for.
I half-believe our guys count on this occurring so they have an excuse not to fight hard for pie-in-the-sky, down-the-road we’ll-do-this-later promises.
Three hours this last weekend of a Walker monologue, much of it in prime time. Yeah, right.
The very first thing that needs to happen in order to regain our national sanity is to get rid of the Political Correctness which has shut down all substantive conversation. We need to be able to compare notes and get on the same page with people who are in the same economic boat, and that is currently impossible with everyone all obsessed over perceived differences. We are a house divided.
Yes, this is the latest talking point I’ve seen. Walker is not really conservative, the assembly and senate were. This point assumes that if the assembly had passed a bills for gun control, making Wisconsin a sanctuary state, etc. Walker would have signed them?
I don’t know how to answer that.
One weekend and that is your basis for “all this free airtime”?
” SB1070? Remember that? I assure you, it removed ANY doubt on the self deportation argument. Phoenix was a very different place after that bill passed. We get serious on enforcement and Illegals, regardless of how they got here, will start packing.”
For SURE!
Phoenix highways looked like Jed Clampett-mobiles everywhere!
It worked!
I think that is the same poster who posted the following: “The President is supposed to be positive and comforting to the American People.” As Rome burns/America collapses under a deadly debt and regulator onslaught, the president is supposed to comfort the American people with feel-good lies about the state of the Union don’tchaknow.
I choose to believe the Walker who has had to refocus from being an upper-Midwest governor to American president. To prove me wrong, you'd have to dig up another conservative position that Walker took that ended in a liberal action.
Does Ted Cruz have the better position on illegal immigrants? Of course. But we still don't know what he would do with the 15 million illegals that are here now.
Does Scott Walker hold the same position on illegal immigrants as Jeb Bush? No. The article's conclusion is ridiculous and is not supported by the evidence presented in the same article.
The portion of my post that you quoted is a reference to Hillary, not Walker.
As far as I am concerned, Hillary Clinton is a buffoon. She is a walking joke of a candidate. She has never demonstrated any political skill, or any other kind of skill at all. I do not fear her as a candidate, and neither should anyone else.
Now that being said, it is up to any potential GOP nominee to convince the base to support them. I do not think that much, if any, of the voting base supports any kind of amnesty at all. The donor class might, but the base does not.
If the GOP wishes to represent us, then that means it is going to have to represent our views, otherwise it is not going to be successful.
As far as I am concerned, I am still open to voting for Scott Walker, but I need to be convinced that he does not support this nonsense, and I mean he better mean it when he tells me he doesn’t. For all I care, the GOP can cease to exist over this one issue.
It and its members had best wise up.
Wascist....
[Your just going to screw us again.....you ruined 2012 with your selfishness]
Just observed your tagline: “Walker for President 2016. The only candidate with actual real RESULTS!!!!! The rest...talkers!”
If nominated, would you support a TED CRUZ ticket?
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.