Can Scott Walker Convert the Christian Right?

The Daily Beast ^ | May 20, 2015 | Betsy Woodruff

[Cincinatus' Wife]

A few steps from the Capitol building on Tuesday afternoon, behind closed doors in Republicans’ upscale Capitol Hill Club, Scott Walker had a high-stakes sit-down.

The Wisconsin governor—who’s indicated that he will launch a presidential bid after he signs the Badger State’s biennial budget—was there to woo top social conservative and evangelical leaders, a task that might seem easy at first glance. Walker’s dad is a pastor, he quotes a Christian devotional on the stump, and he signed legislation defunding Planned Parenthood in the state he governs. Christian conservatives should be worshipping the ground he walks on, right?

Not so fast. The governor has made a string of comments on social conservatives’ top issues that has earned him some suspicion, and even ire. Last June, a few months before Election Day 2014, Walker had an awkward press conference about same-sex marriage. A district court judge had overturned the state’s constitutional amendment preventing same-sex marriage, and reporters were pressing the governor about his stance on the issue, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports.

“It doesn’t really matter what I think now,” Walker said.

“I don’t comment on everything out there,” he added.

That’s not the kind of answer that opponents of same-sex marriage like to hear. And it came after the governor defended the state’s law keeping employers from discriminating against LGBT people, suggesting to Bloomberg in 2013 that it gave the state “a healthy balance.” One top social conservative leader in Wisconsin told me later that Walker must only have supported the non-discrimination law because “he doesn’t fully understand some of the ramifications of ENDA legislation.”

Walker also raised eyebrows in 2014 when he ran an ad about his stance on abortion, defending legislation that “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor” and saying that while he was pro-life, “reasonable people can disagree on this issue.” Among national pro-life advocates, that line went over like a lead balloon.

So when Walker headed to Capitol Hill to try to win conservative hearts and minds, the leaders in attendance had lots of questions. One attendee said that about 50 top social conservative and evangelical leaders were present, including Penny Nance of Concerned Women for America, Marjorie Dannenfelser of the Susan B. Anthony List, Brian Brown of National Organization for Marriage, Michael Needham of Heritage Action, and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center.

Dannenfelser said Walker brought up his 2014 abortion ad before being asked.

“He felt very quoted out of context, very misunderstood,” she said. “He said there was a snippet of the ad used that did not convey the full meaning, and his communication was using the other side’s language but with the idea of forging common ground on ultrasound, because he’s a true believer on that.”

Walker signed legislation in 2013 requiring both that women seeking abortions get ultrasounds first and that the doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Dannenfelser said he defended his use of the phrase “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor” as a way of co-opting pro-choice rhetoric for the pro-life cause.

“To the extent that we use the other side’s rhetoric to undermine their positions, we’re better off,” Dannenfelser added.

She said she was impressed with Walker’s way of talking about abortion.

“It’s the whole style of communication and content of communication that you want to see moving into a presidential cycle that will make it different from 2012,” she said.

The Susan B. Anthony List, she said, is more interested in Walker’s legislative accomplishments than his rhetoric, and the governor assured the meeting attendees that he would sign legislation banning abortion after 20 weeks. For pro-life leaders, that’s huge. If Walker signs the bill—which Wisconsin Republicans introduced this month—then he’ll underscore his dedication to the pro-life cause. But if the legislation fails to make it through the Republican-controlled state legislature and to his desk, his reputation as a politician who can net big conservative wins could suffer.

“He has an opportunity to authenticate his stated convictions, and I have every belief that he’ll do that,” Dannenfelser said.

“My view is that he gets it and he’s got good people around him, and we’re in good shape,” she added.

Other meeting attendees were cagier. Nance emailed to confirm that she attended.

“I think it went well,” she said.

Then I asked if she had thoughts about his stance on same-sex marriage.

“I think people are still trying to discern,” she replied.

Brown was similarly coy about whether Walker has taken a strong enough stance on the question of marriage. He said many of his allies were unhappy with the comments Walker made after the overturn of the state’s marriage amendment.

“That was very disappointing,” Brown said of Walker’s response. “But the reality is he’s come out and endorsed a federal marriage amendment.”

Brown added that his group will issue a pledge on the issue in the coming months to let potential presidential contenders clearly denote where they stand on marriage.

“We are meeting with folks from a number of potential presidential campaigns and folks that have already put their hat in the ring,” he continued, “and the reality is what we’re seeing in Iowa and across the country is the myth that somehow the same-sex marriage debate is over is just that, it’s a myth.”

So Walker’s closed-door meeting doesn’t seem to have backfired. But it isn’t yet clear whether he made converts.

[Cowboy Bob]

I'm so glad that the Left is taking such an interest in the well-being of the Republican party. I appreciate their concern. /sarc

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes.

Interesting.

No real outrage from either side.

Walker knows how to govern and advance conservative principles.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Evangelicals Looking for Walker to “Do Nothing” in 2016 Election

"When speaking to religious audiences, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker likes to remind people that he goes to church and knows his Bible. These reminders frequently come as Walker seeks to distinguish himself from political opponents in Wisconsin—the ones, he claims, who’ve sent his family death threats and harassed his kids on Facebook; the “literally thousands of protesters outside our family home” in Wauwatosa. Some of these protesters have, according to Walker, driven past the house and given him the finger as he and his family raked leaves on a Sunday afternoon after church and before the Packers game.

Speaking in 2012 to a teleconference with activists from Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Walker said his faith has enabled him to rise above the “vitriol, and the constant, ongoing hatred” during the recall election he faced in the wake of his anti-union legislation, which has crippled the state’s once-iconic labor movement. Along with the unmistakable contrast of his church-going family with the profane and progressive activists, Walker cited two Bible verses. He didn’t recite them, but for anyone who knows their Bible—as Walker, the son of a Baptist pastor, does—the meaning was clear. The verses that helped him withstand the hatred were Romans 16:20 (“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you”) and Isaiah 54:17 (“no weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you.”)

Should he run for president, Walker may very well turn out to be the 2016 cycle’s evangelical favorite—not because he ticks off a laundry list of culture war talking points, pledges fealty to a “Christian nation,” or because he’s made a show of praying publicly to curry political favor. Although by no means universal, some conservative evangelicals—those who eschew the fever swamps of talk radio, yet share the same political stances of the religious right—are weary of the old style of campaigning. They’re turned off by the culture war red meat, the dutiful but insincere orations of piety..........."

[alloysteel]

And considering how hopping angry Scott Walker makes the “social justice” people, he may be striking a very deep chord with the Republican-leaning people who stayed away from election in 2012.

Trouble is, there is Mike Huckabee, mining the very same demographic, and diluting Walker’s support. But if he cannot win them immediately, they shall still be there in November 2016.

But only if Walker or certain other of the candidates are on the ballot. With Jeb Bush, they are once more disappeared.

[Yosemitest]

Yeah, the Left is trying to select another SELLOUT TO THE "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICAN" as our next LOSER !

THE PRO-AMNESTY Candidate, Scott Walker, is PROVED to be TALKING OUT OF BOTHS SIDES OF THE ISSUE ( you CAN NOT TRUST him ! ).
Watch the videos and READ the article from HOT AIR, most certainly not on your list of band-sources.

... Two points.
One: He says he’s not for amnesty, his citizenship stance notwithstanding, but that’s not a new soundbite for Walker.
“Amnesty” means many things to many people;
to the Gang of Eight, for instance, the fact that illegals would be forced to meet certain requirements (paying back taxes, etc) before qualifying for citizenship meant that their plan wasn’t “amnesty.”
Walker’s been insisting for more than a year that he doesn’t support “amnesty” either
even though he does support citizenship and liberalizing the rules for legal immigration.

Two: He’s quick to tell Raddatz that he’ll lay out his own immigration plan eventually if he becomes a candidate,
which is his way of saying “don’t ask me anything too specific right now.”

Listening to him here, you would think he didn’t have firm opinions on immigration
yet beyond some basic principles like “secure the border.”
But that’s not so.
Watch him field a question on immigration from 2013 in the second clip below
and note what he says about border security at around 1:30.
For Walker, securing the border is less a matter of building a fence or hiring 10,000 new Border Patrol agents than it is about RELAXING THE RULES for legal admission to the U.S.
His view seems to be
that if you want to come here to work, IT SHOULD BE VERY EASY FOR YOU TO DO SO —
easy enough that you wouldn’t even think of crossing the border illegally, as the legal route would be just as simple.
...


Scott Walker Non-Committal on Immigration ( 0:53 ) by National Review

[Sir Napsalot]

Betsy of the Daily Beast wanted to stir up some mischief.

The article showed a governor who knows his bounds regardless of his personal view.

Social conservatives should aim their ire elsewhere.

[rrrod]

Typical plant story...stupid headline.

[sphinx]

The Capitol Hill Club is upscale? LOL. It's a great facility, but because of location, not ambience.

Once upon a time, in an America long gone, the Republican Club in Washington used to be in a standard Capitol Hill rowhouse on the block where the Library of Congress' Madison Building now stands. The Madison Building was built in the 1970's, after all the properties on the block had been acquired by the Architect of the Capitol, and razed. (A crime against historic preservation.) That left the Republicans at the time with a relocation decision: downtown vs. Capitol Hill.

The party leaders at the time recognized the logistical value of the Capitol Hill site, so the new Club was built next door to another new building housing the RNC. Both are relatively small, traditional brick buildings to fit in with the Capitol Hill historic district streetscape. These buildings are across the street from the Capitol South metro station and diagonally across the street from the Cannon House Office Building.

The location is wonderfully convenient for events. Since explicitly partisan activities are not supposed to take place in the Capitol itself or in the House and Senate office buildings, the GOP created its own venue right across the street. The convenient location boosts attendance; if you want a lot of congressmen to do a meet and greet, for example, hold your event at the Club, and they can just come across the street. Need to make some political (i.e. fundraising) calls? Run across the street, and use one of the rooms at the RNC or the Club. These are huge advantages for people as badly overscheduled as are most Members.

The Democrats grumbled for years that the GOP had stolen a march, and eventually opened their own headquarters and club a couple of blocks to the south. It is marginally less convenient, which is the penalty the dems paid for being late.

The Club is not "upscale." It has a perfectly adequate beer and burger casual dining room in the basement, and a very ordinary but serviceable formal sit down restaurant upstairs. As an event location, it is considered boring and definitely a low-cost choice, but everyone in the business values its convenience and, frankly, understands that routine fundraisers are about raising money, not dazzling guests with frills. The meeting rooms are also very heavily used. Some Members are regulars, as are many staffers, and rightworld lobbying types generally have memberships. It's casual, convenient, and moderately priced.

[bmwcyle]

Pick a better source.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes, nice of them to care. LOL!

[Old Retired Army Guy]

Woman writing for Daily Beast showing Evangelical Concerns about Walker??? Give me a break. This is a not so veiled attempt by a Liberal to cast doubts about Walker. The left will do everything they can to shoot down early any candidate they fear.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Pick a better source.

I like to get stuff from a lot of sources. It gives you a better lay of the land.

[HiTech RedNeck]

They might have sniffed out a problem, though to be fair Walker seems to be willing to be flexible.

Cruz puts forward a better profile. No mortal is perfect.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

January 3, 2011 - Walker assumes Office of Governor of Wisconsin.

June 27, 2011: Walker Revokes In-state Tuition For Undocumented Students Attending Univ And Colleges In Wisconsin "- On Sunday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) signed his two-year 2011-2013 budget, which included ending in-state tuition for undocumented students attending public universities and colleges. In-state tuition for undocumented students was approved two years ago by former Governor Jim Doyle (D) after the Hispanic community struggled for 10 years to pass it."...

March 2015:“We strongly dispute this account. Governor Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants, and this story line is false,” she announced in an email to journalists Thursday afternoon.”

“I made it clear that for me, if somebody wants to be a citizen, they need to go back to their country of origin, get in line, no preferential treatment,” Walker said. “In terms of what to do beyond that, again, that’s something we got to work with Congress on.”

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Cruz puts forward a better profile.

But the proof is in the pudding.

[bmwcyle]

If I want lies I will watch MSNBC.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Thank you for the great history and tour!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Which “lies,” specifically?

[HiTech RedNeck]

The battle for spiritual life looks weird to us mortal-heads.

It looks weird because it is a battle of grace, seeking out high roads to effect conquests, when we could so much more easily simply sabotage our enemies and gloat at their fall.

It would in fact be impossible, not just “impractical,” were not a freely self sacrificing Lord not at the head of it.

But there is one catch. Once we begin playing the game (or war) of grace, it can’t be “grace for me but not for thee.” Our Master forbade such an approach. The only ones out of the game are those who refuse adamantly to the end to play it in the first place.