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.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
He’s a Bush guy right?
I thought I saw an article here yesterday saying that Walker told the Iowa farmers, “Sorry, but I no longer can support the ethanol subsidy,” or words to that effect.
I’m not a great Scott Walker fan, but I suspect that this article may be full of lies. It wouldn’t surprise me if the author is a Bush supporter.
Two basic rules on flip flopping (or evolving as they now call it):
1) Nearly all politicians flip flop.
2) When a politician is flipping in YOUR direction, never complain about it.
Ah... Walker and Robinson doing... GOOD guy, BAD guy...
you know.. Moe, Larry and who’s Curly?...... Romney?...
You know what, I sort of don’t care about these hit pieces. I see that once again the destruction of every viable republican candidate has started again; last time we got stuck with Romney. So I am not going to pay attention to any of this. Although I do not live in Wisconsin or even on the eastern side of the Mississippi, or the Rockies for that matter, I have been following Scott Walker’s remarkable political career with great interest. He made some promises to the people of Wisconsin, that he would bring govt spending under control and balance the budget, and he kept those promises. It may well be that Scott Walker will hold some positions I don’t agree with but he accomplished what he set out to in Wisconsin and I approve of everything he has done.
Rand Paul On Shutdown: "Even Though It Appeared I Was Participating In It, It Was A Dumb Idea"I said throughout the whole battle that shutting down the government was a dumb idea. Even though it did appear as if I was participating in it, I said it was a dumb idea. And the reason I voted for it, though, is that it's a conundrum. Here's the conundrum. We have a $17 trillion debt and people at home tell me you can't give the president a blank check. We just can't keep raising the debt ceiling without conditions. So unconditionally raising the debt ceiling, nobody at home wants me to vote for that and I can't vote for that. But the conundrum is if I don't we do approach these deadlines. So there is an impasse. In 2011, though, we had this impasse and the president did negotiate. We got the sequester. If we were to extend the sequester from discretionary spending to all the entitlements we would actually fix our problem within a few years.[Posted on 11/19/2013 12:16:51 PM by Third Person]
Rand Paul: Time for GOP to soften war stance...by softening its edge on some volatile social issues and altering its image as the party always seemingly "eager to go to war... We do need to expand the party and grow the party and that does mean that we don't always all agree on every issue" ... the party needs to become more welcoming to individuals who disagree with basic Republican doctrine on emotional social issues such as gay marriage... "We're going to have to be a little hands off on some of these issues ... and get people into the party," Paul said.[Posted on 01/31/2013 5:08:50 PM PST by xzins]
Rand Paul's immigration speech...The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.[Posted on 03/19/2013 7:04:07 AM PDT by Perdogg]
Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.
Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.
Let's start that conversation by acknowledging we aren't going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.
If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you...
This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.
Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.
Rand Paul calls on conservatives to embrace immigration reformLatinos, should be a natural constituency for the party, Paul argued, but "Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration." ...he would create a bipartisan panel to determine how many visas should be granted for workers already in the United States and those who might follow... [and the buried lead] "Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers...[Posted on 04/21/2013 1:52:42 PM PDT by SoConPubbie]
[but he's not in favor of amnesty, snicker, definition of is is]
Rand Slams Congress for Funding Egypt's Generals: 'How Does Your Conscience Feel Now?'Sen. Rand Paul is hammering his fellow senators for keeping billions in financial aid flowing to Egypt's military -- even as Cairo's security forces massacre anti-government activists. [by "anti-government activists" is meant church-burning Christian-murdering jihadists][Posted on 08/15/2013 5:44:10 PM PDT by Hoodat]
His top-level “advisors” may have painted him in a corner, very disappointing. I’m backing Cruz first now. Not sure what is going on with Walker but I did hear he got some advisers that may have been steering him in this direction.
Walker has some time to explain himself. And these apparent flip flops need some explaining.
We’re thinking people here in the conservative movement. Let’s hear what he has to say.
But right now, the onus is on Walker to explain.
I’m listening.
Be brief, be concise, be convincing, and never vary again.
Nobody but corn farmers are going to vote based on ethanol mandates. I don’t like them, but on the scale of importance, it’s about .5 out of 10. As for immigration and right to work, it’s only a flip-flop if he changes back. I never criticize someone for moving to my side.
Ethanol is a big government boondoogle and he knows it, as a conservative he has no need to couch that fact in any way.
Leni
You remain unsurprised. As an aside, it was Ted Cruz who told the Iowa farmers that the ethanol subsidy was a bad idea.
Corn-based ethanol has driven UP the price of corn to such a degree, that without the subsidy, the corn-based ethanol would not be economically feasible for use as a motor fuel. A side effect of that was to also make the price of simple staple foods in Mexico, like corn-flour tortillas, so expensive that the peasants are flocking north to get into the US, and sending their children on ahead as “anchors”.
I still believe in Scott Walker, and hail his courage in making Wisconsin into a “right to work” state. The unions are going to have to start making their pitch to potential members on the basis of what the members would choose, not on coercion and threats, both implied and physical.
Blah, blah, blah.... I’ll be voting for Cruz.
Walker didn’t flip-flop on union busting and doing so may have spared him many a sleepless night.
Walker didn’t flip-flop on Abortion. He cut off funding for PP.
Walker doesn’t walk on water, but he has a record f legitimate Conservative accomplishments in a Blue state.
Cruz is a first choice for me, but I would be more than comfortable with Walker.
I agree, but here’s the thing. First, Walker needs to do well in Iowa and Iowa is economically tied to the ethanol boondoggle.
The problem with some boondoggles is they’re not one-off’s, they become long-term and people build mini-economies around them. When faced with a situation like that some will just say cut the cord and let the chips fall where they may.
But others will look at the upheaval that will be caused by cutting the cord immediately and will instead suggest a phased withdrawal so that people have time to plan for it and aren’t left holding the bag. Granted, those affected will also lobby hard for a reversal of the decision, which is why there are so many “cut the cord” types.
My understanding is that Walker said they would have to be removed eventually. He’s pandering, yes, but pandering is an essential tool in a politician’s toolbox. I don’t like it being used, but I’ll admit that Walker is quite skilled at using it. (Obama, of course, was the best ever at pandering; everyone listening to one his campaign speeches thought he was coming down on their side, regardless what side that might be. That was pandering without equal.)
In this case, those Iowans dependent on ethanol heard that their livelihoods wouldn’t be suddenly cut out from under them, while others heard that the ethanol subsidy had to go, eventually. My guess is that, under a President Walker, it wouldn’t last his first full term of office, and I could live with that.
OK, thanks. It takes a lot of guts to tell people in Iowa that you are opposed to the ethanol scam. They know it’s a scam, but it brings in a fair amount of money to the factory farmers in the farm states.
It looks to me like he’s doing pretty much with ethanol subsidies what Lincoln did with slavery. Lincoln kept dancing around proposing half solutions and did not have the Emancipation Proclamation cover slave states that were still in the union, kept his opposition constantly off balance, and eventually destroyed slavery.
“2) When a politician is flipping in YOUR direction, never complain about it.”
BS. If they are flipping in your direction to win an election, they’ll probably flip right back as soon as they don’t need your vote.
Plow the Corn under and grow Pot may even pick up the Runt Paul voters.
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.