Walker v. Cruz (Walker Wins)

Scott Walker

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker stays above the fray and does not attack specific candidates.

He will disagree with their policy views, and has shown no reserve to criticize bad ideas.

He called the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare a "fool's bet."

Yet it was. Ohio Governor John Kasich wants to crow about the successes of the Medicaid expansion, and yet already the program is $2 billion over budget.

"Reagan expanded Medicaid three times,"

Reagan was wrong to do that. Reagan also supported an assault weapons ban, which would have done nothing to stop violent gun crimes. He also wanted to called the terrorists directly in one hostage situation, and his advisers had to prevent the lapse in judgment.

Walker never attacked his colleagues directly, and has even praised his Presidential contenders, even when they have attacked him unfairly or falsey.

One key example of this tussle occurred when US Senator Ted Cruz claimed the following on the Iowa conservative Steve Deace's radio show:

BuzzFeed reports:

“If we’re going to have an election that turns on amnesty
and the rule of law, we can’t be nominating candidates like Jeb Bush and Scott
Walker and Marco Rubio, who have been vocal, aggressive, repeated proponents of
amnesty for many, many years.”

Ted Cruz named names on Friday. He attacked Jeb Bush, Scott
Walker, and Marco Rubio as “vocal, aggressive, repeated proponents of amnesty,”
who, if they receive the GOP presidential nomination, won’t be able to stop
Hillary Clinton from pursuing President Obama’s “objective” of fundamentally
transforming America.

Aside from Jeb Bush and even Marco Rubio (who joined with the Gang of Eight bill then repudiated it, then waffled again), the argument that Scott Walker has been a "vocal aggressive, repeated" proponent of amnesty is simply not true.

The timeline on Walker's views have been limited if anything.

Granted, as the Chief Executive Officer of Milwaukee County in the mid Naughts (2000s), he signed on with the rest of the board supporting pathway to citizenship and other immigration reforms. Those statements were pro-forma and non-essential.

Then, in 2011, Walker repealed in-state tuition for illegal aliens as part of unprecedennted budget cuts to stave off insolvency in his state. He also joined with Texas Governor Greg Abbott to sue President Obama for his unlawful and unconstitutional executive amnesty.

Most Walker critics, looking for any reason or excuse to discredit Scott Walker. will reference his interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, in which Walker expounded on his support for legal immigration from all over the country. There is nothing wrong with immigration, as long as the migrants follow the legal process. In an off-hand question, one of the interviews asked if he would support a pathway to citizenship. The governor responses casually: "That sounds reasonable."

For many conservatives, including this writer, some form of pathway seemed reasonable. With the rogue executive in the White House refusing to uphold the rule of law and counter effective efforts to control the border and stop illegal immigration, and immigration proposals which enable or indemnify illegal immigration are now off the table.

Furthermore, Walker is the only candidate on record during the campaign season who has stood his ground against illegal aliens and refused to bow or be bullied. Where is Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, or Rand Paul to declare "We are a nation of laws"?

Ted Cruz was pushing for legal status
at one time for illegal aliens

As for Ted Cruz. . .

Allan Favish wrote for the American Thinker, exposing Cruz' attempts to amend the 2013 Gang of Eight bill, which included a pathway to citizenship:

On June 19, 2013 Sen. Cruz issued a press release describing his proposed amendments to the so-called “Gang of Eight” Senate immigration bill. The bill would have provided a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, among other things. Sen. Cruz’s proposed amendments would have done several things, including creating a prohibition on federal, state, or local means-tested entitlement benefits for those here illegally. His proposed amendments also would have prevented those currently here illegally who are offered legal status under the bill from obtaining citizenship.

To his credit, Cruz voted against the 2013 bill, but would he have voted for it if his amendments had been added?

Favish then reasons:

Sen. Cruz’s position is contradictory. In his speech announcing his candidacy, he stated: “Instead of the lawlessness . . . .” In his June 2013 press release he stated that “[w]e must . . . fix this problem in a way that . . . respects rule of law . . . .” He further stated: “Providing a path to citizenship undermines the rule of law and is an insult to the millions who have immigrated to the U.S. legally.” But he was willing to provide legal status to illegal immigrants, short of citizenship.
For the record, Walker has a pro-enforcement, anti-amnesty record, even if he had to change his mind on other issues. But he changed his mind. Cruz is arguing that he never once offered a pathway to citizenship or legal status short of citizenship. Nope. That is just not the case.

Other conservative, anti-illegal immigration activists have also questioned concerns status on amnesty:

But what has many of our activists concerned about Cruz is an amendment that he offered to the Gang of Eight's amnesty bill in 2013. The amendment would have granted work permits to most of the 11 million illegal aliens once the feds had successfully completed the biometric exit-entry system, built 700 miles of fencing consistent with the Secure Fence Act of 2006, doubled the number of Border Patrol agents, and quadrupled the number of technology resources along the Southwest border, including cameras and motion sensors.

The border security requirements were so lofty that many in the media characterized the amendment as a poison pill since it contained much more border security than most Congressional Democrats could stomach. He also offered another amendment that would have kept the work permits in place, but would have removed the "path to citizenship" for most of the 11 million.

"The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight," Sen. Cruz said.

Cruz has said on dozens of other occasions that he supports work permits for illegal aliens. So why the generous rating on our Presidential grade cards?

Well. Well. Well. Cruz is not the anti-amnesty hawk he claims to be, despite his best rhetoric.

Now, in spite of Cruz' attacks, Walker did not hit back, but kept running his race, focusing on Hillary Clinton's poor record on just about everything. Add to this his refusal to attack his fellow Republican contenders, Walker defended Cruz against an attack from House Speaker John Boehner.

CNN reports:

Walker
was asked about the reports Friday on "The Hugh Hewitt Show" and
called the reported comments off base.

"I think it's just
wrong," Walker said, according to the Washington
Examiner. "Even though I don't know Sen. Cruz as well as I know
some of the governors, I've grown to know him and like him and admire him quite
a bit out on the campaign trail."

Walker shows respect for policy views and political stances, even if other candidates slight him unfairly:

They
may be running against each other in the Republican presidential primary, but
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker does not think Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is a
"jackass."

And for that, Cruz is grateful.

Cruz tweeted his appreciation for Walker on Friday,
linking to an article about Walker defending Cruz against reports that House
Speaker John Boehner called Cruz a "jackass" at a fundraiser on
Wednesday.

At least Cruz is starting to show some respect once again, and he should, since the Wisconsin Governor has a better record as well as rhetoric, and has remained stronger in the polls and the media wars than Cruz.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments