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.
As I have said on numerous occasions, Walker is not my candidate. My favorite is Cruz, though I have my doubts as to whether or not he can make inroads with independents. But I don't like to see us as conservatives destroy other viable candidates just because they are not our preferred first choice.
And by the way, Walker never "ran away" from RTW - he just did not think this was the time to pursue it. I'm sure he expected the unions and Dems to do a repeat of the Act 10 drama, and he had other legislative priorities he wanted to pursue. But he did not try to pressure the Legislature to not work on the issue (beyond stating his preference), and happily signed the measure once it was passed. I think in this case, Walker just overestimated the amount of fight the left had in them to oppose this measure.
And as I have said before, I am disappointed in his position on ethanol. But in the overall scheme of things, that one position is not going to move me greatly one way or another.
Here we go already, Colonel.
“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.”
Walker has already flipped on amnesty and government handouts, and we still have 20 months before the election. Rather than wait to see if he’s going to keep flipping, people are sticking with him out of desperation born of hopelessness of our current political system. I don’t blame them - I’ve done that myself for several election cycles. At some point, I just got skeptical and want a candidate that can be trusted.
Flip-flopping is noy about one issue, it is a whole political strategy that should bother the hell out of you
“You seriously think corn farmers employ migrant workers? Seriously?”
No, of course not! Corn farmers are known to all be honest and law-abiding, every one of them. All others farmers employ illegals but not those that grow corn. /s
Fine. Find your pure candidate that has never changed an opinion or position in his entire political career, and then support him as long as he is in the race. But you need to consider what you will do when he is no longer a candidate - will you support another who may have changed their position on some issues, or will you decline to support anyone?
Yes. When a grown up makes drastic changes in their core beliefs it does not make them immediately more qualified for the top job. It makes them less trustworthy in real life. I know the Church of Walker members think all criticism of HIM should be banned or something. That kind of attitude is as big a red flag as this one flip-flop.
Okay, what Cruz said today about the DOJ investigating Hillary for her email malfeasance may have been the dumbest thing a politician has said to date about this scandal.
Go ahead, defend it since you're so objective.
How is that NOT a defensible position?
I’m not willing to accept any illegals for any reason. I’m not even willing to accept ‘work permits’ or even a million legal immigrants a year.
You overstepped and claimed ethanol somehow leads to open borders. Most FReepers have the experience of getting emotional and overstating arguments.
The Corn Belt is going to produce lots of corn. Take away ethanol and it will be the areas outside the Corn Belt that will return to more profitable alternatives.
Walker’s mistake was pointing out the obvious gradualism. Everyone knows Congress will enforce gradualism. A candidate should take a stand.
“What amuses me about this is that some of you get mad when he changes his mind about something even when he changes it to a position you agree with! It is as if a candidate ever expressed an opinion or policy at any time with which you disagree, he is forever unacceptable as a candidate, even if he later changes his position to one with which you agree!”
Then you don’t get the value of honesty and integrity. If someone is flipping close to running for an office, it is disingenuous. They can’t be trusted and could flip again once elected. Seems obvious considering all the RINOs have done this repeatedly.
Might be time to escape Mexifornia. Looks like the values of that fascist Mecca are rubbing off on you.
Well, Van Harden, they just have no use for them, not that they wouldn’t if it payed.
And attitudes like that are why we will never make any progress as conservatives. If he does not pursue a policy when you think he should, he is "running away", i.e., he is a coward.
And I am being objective - I am looking at the issue from both sides, not just as the supporter of another candidate. I am just not inclined to automatically impugn wrong motives to a candidate just because I disagree with a position or a strategy.
This is not about purity. This is about winning. Flip-flopping does not engender trust but the opposite. When political expediency trumps conservatism, you might as well vote Dem.
That would be "offals," wouldn't it?
He basically said he would preserve it and let someone else end it
Are you demanding purity?
These congressional hearings have been joked since Obie won
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.