Posted on 07/02/2015 8:09:35 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Is this news? Nothing he told Stephen Moore in this account is strictly inconsistent with what he said a few months ago about reducing legal immigration as president. Walker was careful at the time to say that was something he wanted to look at, to see if current legal immigration levels are depressing wages and should be adjusted accordingly. He didn’t commit to anything, although he got plenty of excited buzz among the conservative voters he’s wooing for daring to raise the possibility. Even if he had committed to new limits, anything short of a total moratorium could, I suppose, be considered “pro-immigration.” Maybe he was BSing Moore.
Or maybe he’s BSing us. Between his previous agonizing immigration flip-flop-flipping, his well-timed reversal on ethanol in Iowa, and his sudden rediscovery of social conservatism, I don’t really believe anything Walker says anymore. He’s the most conspicuous panderer among the field’s top candidates. If there’s anyone running who might be telling voters one thing in the name of getting elected while telling donors and establishment allies another, it’s him. So make of this what you will:
Stephen Moore, a conservative scholar at the Heritage Foundation who backs an immigration overhaul, called Mr. Walker’s embrace of a border security first approach “a lurch to the right and probably something very popular among Iowa conservative voters.”
Mr. Moore said he had become concerned about Mr. Walker’s stance in recent weeks, but was reassured after a phone call with the Wisconsin governor.
“He said, ‘I’m not going nativist; I’m pro-immigration,’” Mr. Moore recalled of the conversation…
Mr. Moore also said he was not convinced that Mr. Walker was quite the immigration hawk as he may appear now. Rather, he called the governor’s positioning “a work in progress.”
Walker’s spokesman told the Times that he’s “not for amnesty” and believes border security should happen before a path to legal status is granted. Why a guy who’s supposedly leery about more legal immigration would want a path to legalization for illegals who are already here is unclear to me, but there you go. I think the best you can say for him at this point is that, a la Obama and gay marriage circa 2008, it’s pretty clear what his true feelings are despite what he might be saying at any given moment. The man is, undoubtedly, a social conservative even if he did choose to strategically duck pronouncements on hot-button issues over the last few years in Wisconsin. Case in point: WaPo reported last week that he recently lost the support of a billionaire donor after getting into an argument with him about gay marriage. If Walker were intent on pandering in every situation, he would have told that donor that he’s secretly rooting for Justice Kennedy and then cashed the guy’s check. He didn’t. On the other hand, if it’s all too clear what Walker’s true social views are, it’s also clear how he really feels about immigration. He spent the last decade endorsing a path to citizenship; he once suggested, on camera, with a presidential run already on the horizon, that he thought illegal immigration could be solved not so much with more security but by making it easier for illegals to come here legally. Suddenly he reads a few Jeff Sessions speeches and he’s a border hawk — conveniently at the very moment that he’s competing for conservative votes in a GOP presidential primary? C’mon. President Walker will be no better than a Bush on immigration and deep down we all know it.
Exit question: Who’s pandering to donors harder about amnesty behind closed doors, Walker or Marco Rubio? Re-read this post ( http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/23/rubio-raking-in-big-bucks-from-rich-pro-amnesty-republicans-by-touting-his-immigration-record-behind-closed-doors/ ) before you answer.
It was the ‘business plot’ in 1933. They felt that fdr wanted to tax the rich and wall street too much. At the same time they were funding Hitler. I think FDR had too much anti-establishment/oligarchy in him (which I approve of).
We’re run by an oligarchy, and they wanted FDR out. They asked 2 time congressional medal of honor winner Gen Smedley Butler to get a million ww1 vets to camp out at capital hill. They thought that would be enough to get FDR to step down, even though the vets camped out weren’t there for that reason.
Butler turned them in to a special congressional committee. The committee found Butler was telling the truth, but not enough evidence to bring charges against anyone.
Maybe it was as messed up then (before WW2) as it is now (before WW3).
The sad truth is, however, that he is from Wisconsin; the neighboring State of Iowa. He is leading in the polls in IA because of the fact that he is a “Regional” guy. If he wins IA, he could start to pick up steam all the way to the nomination.
Vic S
Since Jun 22, 2015
Gotcha, newbie defending FDR....sniff, sniffff.
Here kitty, kitty, kitty...
ssshhhhhhh
just between you and me...
I’m lying my butt off in this campaign
I just found this site, like the topics and constant updates. Not a troll.
Okay, but you’ll be watched. Just part of being new here, we all went through it.
Understood.
All immigration is a problem with high unemployment , stagnant wages and record low participation rate.
I support Cruz but his H1B position sells out the thousands of TECH people who they displace from the workforce.
H1B is also about CoC wanting low wage in High Tech.
Can’t fault him for being pro immigration as long as he opposes illegals/amnesty, etc...
Madison Voices...
Nice of you to expose yourself as a troll...
Agree 100%.
I have been wavering between Cruz and Walker as my 1st choice. This drops Walker much lower in my estimation.
Great tag line, btw!
Very interesting info. I did not know that.
Thanks for informing us. FReepers - doing the work the media won’t do.
Would that ever be a team to shake things up in the US!
Since this was posted to “All”, I will share with everyone what I said in my comments on the original Post here on FR.
With all due respect, and I do respect Walker for what he has accomplished in WI, surely you can understand why so many people believed the NYT report; when Scott Walker has changed and back-tracked on various issues time after time. He is a good man but he needs to figure out what his convictions are and stand by them.
Sure, because Walker is so much less reliable than the NY Times. I understand that completely.
No, Walker is much more reliable that the NYT. Now that it has come down to “they said/he said”, I believe Walker. I was just pointing out that until he refuted the statement, it was not impossible to believe that it might be true. I believe the “hit” pieces they did on the Evil Witch, Hillary Clinton. Now, if she denied it, then I’d stick with the Times. She is evil incarnate.
Two topics about the libel shows a rush to judgment around here. We should not have that.
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.