Posted on 03/09/2015 9:19:05 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
Scott Walker went to Iowa over the weekend and embraced the ethanol mandate — a corporate welfare program that subsidizes corn farmers and ethanol producers at the expense of drivers, eaters, restaurants, and the environment.
As my colleague Phil Klein aptly put it, "if Scott Walker can't stand up to Iowans, how will he stand up to the Islamic State?"
Why do I assume this position was tailored to Iowa's caucus goers? Because Walker vehemently opposed the ethanol mandate back in 2006, actually standing out from the rest of Wisconsin's gubernatorial field in that regard.
From Milwaukee's Daily Reporter at the time:
"Currently, we have a problem with big government inMadison. On principle, I cannot support this proposal.
"It is clearto me that a big government mandate is not the way to support the farmers of thisstate," he continued. "Central planning will not help our family farmers,protect our environment or provide jobs. The free-enterprise system must driveinnovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the stateor federal government."
I've reached out to Walker's people for comment. I'll update when they respond.
Walker did WI plenty of good, and still is.
He just signed that Right-to-Work bill.
I anticipate similar at the Federal level.
Losing fights to Dems shouldn't be a medal of honor, beating them should.
Like Patton said, “Its the German Nazi I want dead”
M’ Man!!
Once Jeb is shown to be a weak establishment candidate, the corrupt Chamber of Amnesty and other Crony-Capitalist-Whores will push for the lesser-of-their-own-two-evils candidate, and that will be Walker. After bribing him with campaign donations, they will own him. They will control him.
Walker's propensity to flip-flop, his allegiance to Wisconsin Chamber of Amnesty members, his refusal to actually govern conservatively for the next year and a half actually makes him attractive to them. If Walker is elected, he will govern as a moderate, not as a conservative, like Ronald Reagan did (just look at Walker's moderate-leaning governing record in WI). This means he will support Boehner and McConnell. And don't authentic Conservatives hate these guys passionately? I know I do.
However, Ted Cruz can win if the Walker supporters actually vote for Cruz, and actually join us Cruz supporters to grassroots campaign for him. We all know that Cruz is a bona-fide Conservative. His political record speaks volume of his desire to lead us away from the establishment disease infecting moderate Republican politicians.
>>Pandering only works for liberals...<<
I view pandering as offering an insincere message of hope. For example, when Walker said he viewed Right to Work legislation as a “distraction,” he was pandering to national unions hoping not to drive them back into the Democrat fold that they’ve recently been driven out of by Obama’s inane economic policies.
He offered hope, but his signing of the RTW law in WI today illustrates his insincerity. Still, he offered hope; they have that to justify their eventual vote for him, or more precisely, against the Dems.
Similarly, those in Iowa who will vote for him hoping that he will uphold an ethanol mandate in the future are likely to find themselves disappointed eventually. But many will vote for him anyway, knowing they’re likely to be disappointed in that one regard.
And pandering is effective. For example, note the number of people in here who proclaim that they will never vote for a candidate who refuses to pander to them on amnesty, when every sentient being knows that amnesty, in at least some modest form, will undoubtedly happen. Those people are crying out to be pandered to, although many will vote for someone who refused to do so, regardless.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist...it was just sitting there, begging to be said.)
>>And by the way, Walker never “ran away” from RTW - he just did not think this was the time to pursue it.<<
I think he just didn’t think he had to lead the way on the issue, knowing that the GOP legislature would pass it anyway. Meanwhile, he’s on record calling it a distraction, which achieved a huge goal, i.e., not driving back into the Democrat fold thousands of energy company unionists that have had it up to here with Obama, Pelosi, and Reid’s treatment of them the past six years.
And personally, I think he called it perfectly. Reagan once said (paraphrasing) that you can get a lot done if you don’t care who gets the credit. This was an ideal example of exactly that. The RTW bill signed, and the Legislature is proud. And Walker couldn’t care less if people think he flip-flopped on the issue because he got exactly the ending he wanted, including not losing what might be hundreds of thousands of private-sector union votes in a Presidential election.
Reminds me of a quote by Will Rogers: The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.
My version would be: The only difference between death and pandering is that death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets.
>>Although I obviously disgree with your assertions, you did articulate well your premise about pandering.<<
As much as I’d like to take credit for that, instead I simply looked up “pandering” to see if “lying” was in the definition. Instead I found that a panderer is “someone who caters to or exploits the weaknesses of others.”
One obvious example is a pimp, and I suspect that the examples of it being an upstanding thing to do are few and far between. However, as with pimping, it does have its uses, particularly among the political class.
Given that Barack Obama was elected primarily by people who thought he was the be-all and end-all of politicians, I would credit him with the Best-of-Panderer award. Disappointment logically followed, given the nature of pandering, i.e., that it relies upon exploitation of personal weaknesses. For Progressives, of course, that would have been weak-mindedness.
Logical, and to-the-point. Nice. But, since Conservatives act on principles, can they really be pimped out, pandered to? Is this what RINOS try do to us when they promise to act on a conservative issue, and then do a liberal issue instead? Or they refuse to act on a conservative issue because they tell us it would ‘upset’ another class of voters, ie. progressives, either liberals or moderates? LOL. Really, no need to answer, but you get my point.
“Losing fights to Dems shouldn’t be a medal of honor, beating them should.
Like Patton said, “Its the German Nazi I want dead” “
Beating the Dems honestly is right, using Satan’s tools - the ones the Dems use - is not. Especially from an eternal perspective. But even in the short-term, a politician who lies to get the office will NOT represent the people that voted for him based on those lies. Haven’t we been there, done that enough yet?
Not sure the Nazi analogy works. Or...perhaps it does. Let’s take any Eastern Bloc nation. Like Poland. They were freed of the Nazis. By the Soviets. Was that really such a great thing?
We might get a Dem out of office, but if a Dem-like is in there, what have we gained? The county imploding just a tad slower.
“So in your mind, once someone states an opinion, if they ever change their mind and express a different opinion then they are being dishonest and have no integrity???”
A last minute conversion is the problem. I think you already answered that in the rest of your post:
“Look, I don’t know if Walker’s change of heart on immigration is real or if it is just political convenience. I think we will have to watch his campaign to see what policies he proposes and how he proceeds going forward, and ultimately, it will come down to whether or not you believe him.”
I am just leery. After the RINOs swore up and down that they were never for amnesty - but both Houses voted for the DHS funding that gave us amnesty - I don’t trust any of them any more. (Except a small handful that have stayed true to the course after being vilified by their own party. It takes courage to endure that, more than most people have. Tancredo, Hunter, Sessions - all patriots. Cruz appears to me in that group since DC hasn’t corrupted him yet. Walker is already problematic with the switcharoos. But as you said, time will tell...I’d like to say I’ll be open-minded, but I am skeptical and tired of the games at this point. I hope I’ll be energized when the time comes - but not for another Bush, McAmnesty, or Romney-type.)
““You have to vote for candidate X, even though you have no idea how they feel about numerous issues or know they are on the wrong side of conservative principles because they are the lesser of 2 evils.”
I don’t think I have heard anyone make that statement, or even imply it. We are still way too early in the process for most people to have a clear idea of which candidate they will ultimately support. We don’t know enough about Walker or Cruz or Carson or any of the other candidates to make a definitive choice - we may know who we prefer at this point, but that is all.”
Just be patient ;) It will be said soon enough. During the primary when just 2 or 3 are left. And most certainly after the primary is over. Party leaders will make sure that whoever wins will bend to their will.
“You say that Walker flipped on amnesty, but fail to point out that he moved toward the CONSERVATIVE position on amnesty. If a candidate was to change their position, wouldn’t you want them moving toward you, not away from you?”
I’d like some honesty. If he switched away from the conservative position and it was really how he will govern - that of course wouldn’t make me vote for him but I’d respect him for it. But yes, it’s nice when they pretend to care about what we think. But that usually ends the day after the election. I even liked it when Romney talked about self-deportation. I even hoped he meant it. Obviously the campaign planners are saying that to get the conservative vote, you must say these things.
I’m just old and bitter. Ok, I hope not that old yet. But I feel it. Each election takes away some of my hope for this country. We end up fighting for candidates that are slightly better than the opponent. (Not that I don’t think Obama is out and out evil - and anyone would’ve been better. If their masters were different.)
We know we are settling, come here and try to cheer ourselves up by saying we can change them once elected. And hope that a Churchill or Reagan will be around the next time. It’s a cycle I’m wearying of.
I’m just waiting for the country to collapse under the debt and hoping we can rebuild while some of us old enough to have been taught the Constitution and an unrevised history of the founding of this country are still around. I escaped Mexifornia because that was NOT the place to make changes. I think I found home - at church they were asking for food to be taken to a sick woman. But we were warned to call her first. She is in the country alone and is armed, LOL! A neighbor offered me some shells he loaded for a revolver but are like a shotgun. I told him I am not very strong, so he was worried I couldn’t protect myself since I am here alone. He said the recoil would be minimal too. That is so very thoughtful. Anyway, I don’t think these people will go down without a fight ;)
I completely understand. I agree that any last minute changes should be scrutinized, and as much as possible, we need to see if their actions line up with their words going forward. I am just not willing to automatically assume every change is just a lie for political convenience, especially if the politician has a track record of doing what he said he would do.
There are many politicians like Boehner, McConnell And McCain that have made a career of sounding like a conservative at election time, then governing like a liberal once elected. So far, it looks like Walker has governed fairly conservatively, especially considering the state he governs.
I think he is feeling his way on national issues as he explores a presidential run, and I think a few of his policy positions are not yet fully fleshed out. So we will have to wait and see how some of this comes out. As I have said before, there are some things I have liked about Walker, there are some things coming out I did not like, and there are whole bunch of areas that are just blank - not enough info yet. So I am going to keep an open mind and see how he performs over the next few months before I make a decision about him
Sounds reasonable.
I apologize, I thought you were in the group here that appears to idolize Walker no matter what and bash Cruz, no matter what. Although I’m sorry for the reason I told you to leave CA (I was being sarcastic), I would feel better if you were in a safer place. If/when things fall apart, CA and the many entitlement-babies there will suffer - and make the honest, good folks there suffer even more.
Didn’t say Walker wasn’t good. I did say there’s a better option.
ps. I never said Walker WAS a RINO, I am just pointing out past election problems.
At this point, I think he’s been a great governor of a blue state. That’s all I know. Other than the flipping, which makes me nervous. VERY. Perhaps it’s a sign he can be bought. Power corrupts and DC is the source of much of that. He hasn’t been tested there and if he is flipping just to get the nomination, that’s not a good sign of things to come.
IF he stops the flipping and can articulate his positions like he means them and explain why he changed his mind, that would be good.
We’ve been backstabbed enough (DHS funding bill just recently). So anyone paying attention would be cautious. Unless they are for amnesty, big government, etc.
How many, relative to all illegals and other crops and other industries?
They’d still be hiring illegals if the corn price was lower.
The main problem I thought was illegals in meat packing in Iowa and Nebraska doing thousands of jobs Americans did.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15503698
Farmers may change their crops due to the shortage of immigrant labor. Of all crops, fresh fruits and vegetables are the most labor intensive. Lettuce, strawberries and broccoli all have to be picked by hand. In Arizona, one farmer passes on chili peppers to plant corn, which is harvested by machine.
The media will also BS and say Steve King and his Big Ethanol buddies need 12 million illegals to harvest Corn.
Exactly. How many laborers are on Iowa’s corn farms? Some legal and some illegal. It’s the meat packers that are the problem.
Conservative hero Greg Abbott and Rick Perry wants illegals working in every industry in Texas.
Someone who believes that the corn price is so low that Mexicans can’t afford to grow it while at the same time believing the corn price is so high that no one can afford to eat meat is not usually someone from whom one can learn.
If every laborer on corn farm in Iowa was an illegal alien, how many people that be?
If every meat packer in Iowa was an illegal alien, how many people would that be?
The ethanol subsidies that King and Grassley deliver are worth more than cheap labor to the corn farmers.
Cheap labor is probably 5th or 10th on what Corn farmers want.
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.