Posted on 03/11/2015 12:38:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Governor Scott Walker has taken Iowa Republicans by storm. In the span of just a couple months, Walker has gone from a potential candidate who everyone seemed to like, to the frontrunner for the 2016 Republican caucuses. By every indicator available – buzz, staff hires, endorsement, or poll numbers – Walker is the lead horse in the Iowa caucus race.
Walker’s campaign in Iowa is moving so fast that it will make your head spin. But that’s not all that is moving at a fast pace for Walker. Some of his long held positions seem to be on the move lately as well. In the span of just a few weeks, Walker has apparently flip-flopped on a number of issues.
On the issue of immigration reform, Walker reversed his position and now doesn’t support a pathway to citizenship like he said he did in 2013. On Monday, Walker signed into law right-to-work legislation despite saying in 2012, “I have no interest in a right-to-work law in this state.” But immigration and right-to-work are not the only issues one which Walker has reversed his position lately. The pro-Renewable Fuels Standard position that he took at the Iowa Ag Summit is also new.
Mitt Romney was labeled as a flip-flopper because he changed his position on abortion (another issue Walker has received grief about lately) in advance of running for president in 2008, but Walker is making Romney look like a model of consistency.
On Saturday, Walker responded to a question about the Renewable Fuels Standard at the Iowa Ag Summit by saying, “It’s an access issue, and so it’s something I’m willing to go forward on continuing the Renewable Fuel Standard and pressing the EPA to make sure there’s certainty in terms of the blend levels set.”
Walker’s answer was music to the ears of the pro-ethanol people in the crowd, but it caught some people by surprise. Trudy Hannam, a Wisconsin resident, emailed TheIowaRepublican.com saying, “He is the biggest flip flopper you will ever find. He tried to get a bill passed to avoid ethanol in our gas, and in your state, is supporting it.”
Hannam is correct. In 1999, Walker sponsored legislation requesting that Congress grant Wisconsin a waiver from the requirement to use reformulated gasoline. In fact, Walker has quite an extensive history of opposing ethanol. He also opposed a bill in 2006 that would have required a 10 percent ethanol blend in some fuels.
Just a couple months ago, Walker refused to even take a position on Renewable Fuels Standard.
The Associated Press reported, “Walker says since he has not officially declared as a candidate for president, he has not ‘gotten into that.’ Walker says should he run for president, “I probably would have to take a stand on it but I’m not right now.”
The Wisconsin Journal Sentinel also reported on Walker’s January comments in which he said, “That’s something that, should I be a candidate in the future, I probably would have to take a stand. But I’m not right now.”
It’s not like Walker had never taken a position on ethanol related issues before, in a 2006 gubernatorial primary debate, “Walker said he would not support an ethanol mandate and would not sign one if it got to his desk as governor.” In the same campaign, Walker stated that ethanol mandates are “fundamentally wrong.” Walker even ran radio ads in his 2006 gubernatorial campaign stating, “The free enterprise system must drive innovation to relieve our dependence on foreign oil, not mandates from the state or federal government.” Walker repeatedly attacked his primary opponent for supporting an ethanol mandate in 2006, but as he prepares to run for president in 2016, Walker seems to be taking the same position he previously criticized.
Walker’s new-found support of the Renewable Fuels Standard, like his new passion on immigration, sets him up perfectly to draw distinctions between himself and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. Coming into the race, Bush and Walker had nearly identical positions, but by supporting the RFS and opposing immigration reforms, Walker is now positioned nicely for an Iowa campaign.
The only problem is that, by changing his position on renewable fuels and immigration, it raises questions about what Walker actually believes. Candidates like Bush and Lindsey Graham have come to Iowa and stood firmly behind their positions on tough issues like immigration. Likewise, Senator Ted Cruz wasn’t afraid to articulate his opposition to the Renewable Fuels Standard at the Iowa Ag Summit on Saturday.
Those candidates should be commended for at least being honest with Iowans on issues. Walker, on the other hand, must now explain his conversion on those issues. It’s one thing to state a position that you know will be popular in a room of farmers. It’s another thing to explain how you can be totally opposed to the ethanol industry while running for governor, but be in lock step with the same industry when you run for president ten years later.
“My guess is that, under a President Walker, it wouldn’t last his first full term of office, and I could live with that.”
Isn’t pandering a form of lying? I suppose all you CAN do is guess about what he really will do and what he really believes after he is elected.
I don’t know about everyone else but I have had enough of lying, pandering, flip flopping and having to guess and be surprised after the fact. It makes me lose trust in the candidate to see this happening especially when it is on more than one policy. Also, it makes me think that the candidate thinks that I am stupid and easy to fool. Does the candidate believe that the voters are so easily misled? What does that tell you about what he thinks of us?
If Walker is supposed to be fearless, able to stand up to and take on the left, then let him stand up, say what he really believes and let the chips fall where they may. Let us choose our candidate without being manipulated.
I have always had great respect for Scott Walker. It may be that he is being given bad advice and guidance. However it doesn’t reflect well on him.
Those of us who know him in WI have seen what he has done and know that he has kept most of his promises to us. However the rest of the country this is not the case. Many voters are seeing him for the first time and forming opinions. I now even am asking myself “Who IS Scott Walker and can I trust him?”
“I did not appreciate Walker flipping on ethanol for his audience. It’s a bad sign.”
So for you, the biggest matter to consider for a presidential candidate is ETHANOL. You will vote yea or nay on the ethanol question. How about sh*tpaper? Shouldn’t we consider how many pieces of TP we get to wipe our butts? Let’s tally presidential candidates on how many rolls of TP we get.
I’ve wondered where the Jeb Bush whores are on FR. Jeb’s got money to burn and, after all, we’ve still got Romney pimps. But I think the paid Bush stooges are here pretending to support some other candidate when their job is to attack whoever looks like the frontrunner.
>>Let us choose our candidate without being manipulated.<<
The problem is that you never really know for sure whether or not you’re being manipulated. Take Ted Cruz. He supposedly is saying what the anti-ethanol-subsidy crowd wants to hear (I’m in that crowd, by the way), but do we really know how big a priority it will be if he’s elected? Or whether it will be a distraction for a time?
For that matter, once he’s faced with people who will face immediate loss of jobs and investment if he cuts the ethanol subsidy to zero and the mandate to zero in one fell swoop, will he relent and go at it more gradually, much the same as Walker has suggested he would do?
Cruz could be pandering to us, just as Walker is almost certainly pandering to the ethanol crowd. And both could be sincere. I’ve been on a board before, and sudden change isn’t always the right course. Sometimes it’s more important to just get the direction changed and figure out a reasonable time span for phasing something back out. Otherwise people who’ve spent years setting up for the old direction of things have their legs cut out from under them and you lose them forever.
What recommends Walker to people over any other candidate is that he’s, oh hell, I’ll say it, he’s walked the walk. We know with certainty what he’ll do if it’s possible to get it done. What more can any conservative ask, I ask you?
Cruz, Cruz . I worship the Cruz.
Bush bush, I worship bush
Paul, paul, I worship Paul.
I wish the celebrity worship would go away. I see the same mames making excuseses for candidates in one thread and bashing another in another. STOP THE POLITICAL WORSIP OF YOUR EMPLOYEES.
GTFU
I was noting a possible character issue which is very common in politicians of both parties. Sorry that went so far over your head.
Of course nothing is ever 100% guaranteed however Cruz has been consistent in his statements regarding ethanol. He said much the same last year in Iowa and had introduced legislation to phase it out within 5 years.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/214430-ethanol-is-explosive-for-cruz-and-paul
video:
http://whotv.com/2014/03/19/ethanol-standard-sen-cruz-against-mandate/
When one is comparing candidates consistency and truthfulness goes a long way to ensure confidence in this voter.
There is no denying that Walker has done very well in WI as a governor. It pays to remember that he had little dissention within his own ranks. It won’t be so easy in DC. One has to ask themselves how Ted Cruz would have done as a governor of a state with the same circumstances. Would he have been just as successful? Knowing what I know about him and his past record I believe that he would have.
One or two inconsistent statements isn’t earth shattering but when it becomes a pattern you have to think about that person a bit and wonder what they really believe in.
Thank you for your input.
>>(Senator Cruz) had introduced legislation to phase it out within 5 years.<<
And Senator Cruz in his speech in Iowa could have put the emphasis on the need to gradually phase out a subsidy that many had come to rely upon, but he didn’t.
Walker effectively did, however, since he still ended up saying the ethanol subsidy had to end eventually.
We’ll see, I guess, which strategy played the best in Iowa, but both were strategies as to how to address the issue politically, and both want the same end game.
>>One has to ask themselves how Ted Cruz would have done as a governor of a state with the same circumstances. Would he have been just as successful? Knowing what I know about him and his past record I believe that he would have.<<
That’s possible, but I do think it’s highly unlikely that any other politician in the country would have even attempted Act 10, much less actually got it passed. Frankly, I think it was Walker’s reaction to having to deal with government unions, and particularly the teachers union, in Milwaukee when he was County Executive.
The reason I say this is because Act 10 really did cut teachers’ take home pay, something I don’t think any other politician would have dared to attempt. But it was about the only way to make the numbers work if he was going to simultaneously work out a balanced budget. In the end, I think teachers are going to be professionally better off, but those pay cuts are the very reason the state remains so divided today, in my opinion. Nearly every family in the state had someone in the extended family (grandparents, parents, children) who took a pay cut under Act 10.
Or, for the several large school districts that quickly signed contracts prior to Act 10’s passage, they saw serious job losses due to the cut in state funding in the bill, a cut that they would have been able to compensate for if they hadn’t rushed into new contracts. (I’m actually not sure if teachers in those districts also saw a pay cut immediately, or if that happened two years later, but eventually they, too, had to pay the employee share of retirement payments.)
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.