That is a position that will resonate in spades.
This is the ticket to the White House. The candidate who will support this would win in a Reagan/Mondale landslide.
Posted on 04/22/2015 8:05:01 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Scott Walker’s recent comments suggesting that the United States’s policy on legal immigration should be focused on what’s good for American workers—a seemingly obvious point that nevertheless has ruffled feathers—offers further evidence of the Wisconsin governor’s political savvy. When two of one’s strongest competitors (namely, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio) share a weakness on an issue, it’s smart to draw attention to that issue by making clear there is daylight between you and them......
Nor is it merely from a political perspective that Walker is right to join Sen. Jeff Sessions in questioning the prevailing orthodoxy on this issue. Reflecting that orthodoxy, the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin writes, “It’s not clear whether [Walker] understands that immigration is one way to boost economy growth.” Sure, if workers are added to the economy, it will likely boost economic growth, but it won’t necessarily (or even likely) boost per-capita economic growth. Politicians ought to focus on the well-being of the everyday American—or the median American—not on the aggregate size of the economy.
Rubin also writes that “immigration boosts revenue”—ignoring that it also boosts spending—and asserts that it “does not take jobs away from native-born workers.” (Try telling that to construction workers in places like Santa Maria, California.) If Rubin’s assertion reflected reality, it would invite this follow-on question: Why limit immigration at all? If something boosts economic growth and doesn’t take jobs away from anyone, why not push for an almost endless supply of it?
This seems to be the attitude of many Democrats and even some Republicans, but it is not the view of the American people......
.....“These are questions that could usefully be debated by presidential candidates, but that would require candidates who disagreed about them.”
Walker has now wisely stepped into that void. Let the debate begin.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
That is a position that will resonate in spades.
Some are going to jump on Walker for having changed his position. But people change their positions all the time, including me. I’m not a politician. But I used to be pro-abortion. Now I’m pro-life. I used to share the WSJ’s view on immigration, that it is net plus for our country and our economy. After living in CA for several decades now, I can see the pernicious effects of illegal immigration and why need secure our borders. I am glad Scott Walker shares this view and I do believe his current positions reflects a genuine and sincere evaluation of the current situation.
This is the ticket to the White House. The candidate who will support this would win in a Reagan/Mondale landslide.
I’d like to see Walker apply this logic about protecting American jobs to the two pending trade agreements.
And when Democrats change their positions, the media calls it ‘evolving’....like both Obama and Hillary’s stance on gay marriage.
“When two of one’s strongest competitors (namely, Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio) share a weakness on an issue, it’s smart to draw attention to that issue by making clear there is daylight between you and them......”
Triangulating. Much like what Rand Paul tried to do on the issue. That’s a defensible political strategy (though Paul made a confusing mess of it), but we need leadership right now, not political maneuvering.
He changed his position to one that's more in sync w/ struggling Americans who are overburdened w/ Obama's vengeful efforts to achieve a Democrat majority by importing votes.
This, again, shows Walker's real strength---his ability to listen---and respond---to workaday America's concerns.
Yup. Exactly. BHO changes his position on same sex marriage....oh he’s evolving. Ditto with the Clintons.
Walker changes a position...flip flopping and pandering.
Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin
Walker’s new position is the right position. The only thing that concerns me is that he has just arrived at conclusions I reached years ago. If he’s sincere and sticks to this he coud ride it into the White House.
(he could also betray us like GWB did)
People who change positions on anything this important cannot be trusted. No sale.
Anyone standing anywhere near Jeff Sessions is on the right track. Particularly on immigration. Jeff, I think, would make a great president in his own right.
I would respectfully disagree. When RR was governor of CA he signed one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation at that time. I do believe his eventual conversion to the pro-life cause was genuine and sincere. I forgave RR for voting for FDR four times and I forgave him for signing that law here in CA. We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Amen and amen!
All too often we Conservatives want a perfect candidate, namely, one who agrees with us on EVERY issue. There is no such person, and if we Christians practice what we preach, an honest admission of error-—in thought, word or deed-—is worthy of forgiveness.
So, if Walker has changed his thinking, good on him, and bad on us if we withhold a vote and congratulate ourselves for waiting for the “perfect” candidate.
We did that in 2012, and look well how that worked!
Abortion has NOTHING to do with illegal immigration, and Walker is no Ronald Reagan.
Yes and no.
Yes, abortion does have something to do with illegal immigration. Both are always hot button and major political issues.
No. Ronald Reagan was unique. There will never be another RR ever. We have to always work with what we have.
I am working with what we have. I’m for Cruz.
Good. I love the guy. But I wish he never signed up for Obamacare.
Thank you!
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.