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.
Nice straw-man argument. One, I am not a member of the "Church of Walker" - as I have said before, I prefer Cruz.
And no one is claiming that Walker should be immune to criticism for his positions. As I have pointed out myself, this position on ethanol bothers me.
What I am opposed to, for Walker and every other candidate, is the tendency for people to take a disagreement on policy or positions and then use that to argue that the candidate is a RINO or dishonest or worse. We definitely have enough RINOs in the race, but if we accuse everyone with whom we disagree of being a RINO, the term loses all meaning. It then means anyone who is not my preferred candidate...
There's a saying in Mexico: Sin maiz, no hay pais: no corn, no country.
Do you believe Walker is less conservative, as conservative, or more conservative than Ted Cruz?
Bottom line, first things first. We must all agree on a Conservative candidate and get him nominated and into the White House as President. And if we fail, then we'll have to go to Plan B and make sure that whoever wins the 2016 elections is NOT a communist/socialist/marxist, even if it means voting for a Republican candidate. At least the candidates being supported by the Republican-elites
are NOT raging communists/socialists/marxists, and we can get rid of them in the next Presidential election.
Remember, the left has been working on getting one of their own into our White House..permanently..since the leftist reign of President Woodrow Wilson. They never let up and they won in 2006. Also remember that Rome wasn't built in a day. It will take time and baby steps to return this country to the land of the free, to liberty and the Constitution. We must keep fighting for the return of our country, and no matter what it may take, we'd better learn how to successfully strategize, adapt when necessary and be flexible in our quest to take our country back and regain our republic, our Constitution, our freedom and liberty. Fight the enemy and use their tactics against them. Never stop fighting and win this war! I don't know exactly, and I don't know exactly when, but We the People will win this country back. Stay focused, say a prayer, swallow your fear, fight like hell and win this war, the greatest threat to our lives since the founding of this country!
I do not trust flippers or evolvers.
Just last night i was told that criticism of Walker helpd Dems. Its insane. Vetting candidates and finding their weaknesses is exactly what we should be doing this far out.
Figures.
Last time I checked, it takes more energy to harvest corn and covert it to ethanols than is derived from it as fuel. That makes it an anti-conservation practice!
Any sensible person would see I'm making fun of it, and those who won't see their own hypocrisy.......I'm on record as being a Cruz supporter.
I don't think I have heard anyone make that statement, or even imply it. We are still way too early in the process for most people to have a clear idea of which candidate they will ultimately support. We don't know enough about Walker or Cruz or Carson or any of the other candidates to make a definitive choice - we may know who we prefer at this point, but that is all.
More may come out about Cruz or Walker that would add up to the point where I could not support either. I am not at that point with either yet.
You say that Walker flipped on amnesty, but fail to point out that he moved toward the CONSERVATIVE position on amnesty. If a candidate was to change their position, wouldn't you want them moving toward you, not away from you?
It remains to be seen if these are changes for political convenience, or if Walker has really changed his mind on these issues. If it was a real change of mind, then we should see specific policy proposals to implement those positions if he were to be elected. IF it is just lip-service, then we will probably just see a rehash of proposals put forth by others, without a lot of thought put into the implementation.
But there is almost a year before the first primaries, so we will have a lot of time to look at all of the candidates and see how they shake out on the issues. We will see some changes by most of them as they flesh out their campaigns. What those changes will say about them, who knows.
Walker has a chance to prove that he will sign bills now phasing out liberal issues while he is a sitting Governor. If he will not do this now as a Governor, one should not trust him later as a President.
TRUST, BUT VERIFY
I'm also certain that if Cruz wins he'll pick Walker as his running mate. You may want to contemplate that for a while before you continue your insanity.
So in your mind, once someone states an opinion, if they ever change their mind and express a different opinion then they are being dishonest and have no integrity???
Look, I don't know if Walker's change of heart on immigration is real or if it is just political convenience. I think we will have to watch his campaign to see what policies he proposes and how he proceeds going forward, and ultimately, it will come down to whether or not you believe him. I am just not prepared to eliminate him as a potential candidate simply based on the fact that he changed his mind. I think his record in Wisconsin, a very blue state, has been consistently conservative, though perhaps not as conservative as I am on all issues.
If I had to pick a candidate that was closest to me in ideology, it would be Cruz. He is an excellent orator, so given the chance, he may be able to win over moderates and independents. But since California votes so late in the primary process, I seriously doubt I will have a chance to vote for him. I will not support Bush, Christie or Paul, so I am keeping my eyes open to see who might make it that late into the race that I could support, even if I don't agree with them on everything.
It’s insane to think he would pick Walker as VP. Alabamian Senator Jeff Sessions would be the trusted Conservative pick to handle executive officer actions.
In your opinion. I can think of a number of things that might have had higher priority in his mind, that might have justified delaying that particular fight to a later date.
And this is what I am talking about. You disagree with his strategy, and because he did not approach this in the way you think he should have, you indirectly label him a coward. You can't just disagree with him on the merits of his decision - for some reason, you have to attack his integrity and motives.
I think Cruz is more conservative than Walker. As I said, Cruz is my preferred candidate.
I also think it is a very small chance that Cruz makes it past Super Tuesday, if he makes it that far. In that case, who else in the field could I support? So far, Walker looks like a possibility. But there is a long time until then, and who knows what the field will look like at that point in time?
And unlike a lot of his FR supporters, he's actually smart enough to realize that.
I haven't seen that comment, and it is a silly argument to make. But I do think that our tendency to attack the motives and integrity of our candidates, rather than arguing about positions, does tend to fracture the conservative base and that does help the Dems.
Attack a candidate's positions all you want, but when you attack the candidate himself, you just get his supporters all defensive, and then they attack YOUR candidate, etc. Enough bad feelings build up, and then the people you hoped would support your candidate when their candidate drops out decide they would rather sit home or vote 3rd party than support your candidate.
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.