Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2015, 02:28:56 PM
Yes he did, but the point of posting this is to show that Walker in a sense was forced into signing it.
Just like his position on illegals, he flip flopped..
Point is, this is not the person we want to back, regardless of the good he's done as Governor, he hasn't a chance at winning, and will only split the vote in the end.

walker-backs-path-to-citizenship-a...The Wall Street Journal
Mar 26, 2015 - Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said at a private dinner he backed the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants to eventually become eligible.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/walker-backs-path-to-citizenship-at-private-new-hampshire-dinner-1427390295

Walker said fixing the legal immigration system should come first, but said the next step is we "gotta embrace" a "legal pathway" for those here unlawfully. He did not elaborate on what he meant.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/scott-walker-supports-path-to-citizenship-87960.html

QuoteGov. Walker backs push to make Wisconsin right-to-work state

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Gov. Scott Walker backed a surprise move Friday by Republican legislators to quickly vote on making Wisconsin a right-to-work state, an action the likely 2016 presidential candidate initially said should be delayed to avoid re-igniting massive pro-union protests.





Walker had expressed concerns to leaders in the GOP-controlled Legislature that rushing the divisive proposal could distract from his agenda, and in September — during the heat of his re-election campaign — he said he wouldn't support it this session. But after a series of private meetings with lawmakers, followed by an announcement that the bill would be voted on next week, Walker's spokeswoman said he would sign it.

"Governor Walker continues to focus on budget priorities to grow our economy and to streamline state government," his spokeswoman Laurel Patrick said in an email. "With that said, Governor Walker co-sponsored right-to-work legislation as a lawmaker and supports the policy."

This article is more to the point! He wasn't against this legislation! He didn't like the timing of it because it was distracting  from his budget priorities. He was just asking for them to postpone it but when they wouldn't he supported it!

Quote from: redbeard on April 19, 2015, 01:40:11 PM
Wisconsin NPR station? pretty lousy source! It is also dated Monday, December 1, 2014, 4:00pm!
This is a lot more to the point!!I would say He has a great argument in support of Right to work! Wisconsin is a right to work state because of the support he gave the legislation!

Granted it is PBS, but most right wing sites aren't telling the whole story, and covering for him will only cause us headaches in the long run.
Point is, Walker wasn't enthusiastic about signing the Bill as we've been led top believe, fact is, he asked the legislature to hold off on bringing the bill forward, and they complied up until recently when he did sign it.
Case in point, and this is probably the article I should have posted,, but haven't a clue as to why I didn't.

The vote came after Walker said in September, during his re-election campaign, that right-to-work was not a priority and wouldn't come up this session. Walker called it a distraction and feared that protests would grow as large as those in 2011 when he effectively ended collective bargaining for most public workers.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2982695/Wisconsin-Republicans-send-right-work-bill-fiercely-opposed-unions-GOP-Gov-Scott-Walker-signature.html#ixzz3XnLv8lFe

When the debates come, you can bet this issue will come up, along with his waffling on immigration, an even bigger point of contention.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-23/leading-from-behind-how-years-of-denials-got-scott-walker-in-position-to-approve-right-to-work

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 18, 2015, 05:09:15 PM
I touched on this in another thread concerning Walker, but I see this as a major problem, Walker is gonna be portrayed as Anti Union, a union buster etc etc, the left is gonna scare the hell out of the otherwise regular Joe or Jane who is a Union member into voting democrap. I love Walker standing up to those thugs, but I always thought the GOP would be a lot better off if they adopted a better attitude toward the Union rank and file, lots of good people in the Union, but the gangster bosses and commies scare them to the Dems every time.

If walker is the nod for Prez I guarentee you he will lose.

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that most union members are union supporters. In reality most people join the union because they have to join, to hold the job. In states where they have passed Right To Work laws, the unions quickly lose over half their membership. Look at the teachers union in Wisconsin.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on April 18, 2015, 05:09:15 PM
I touched on this in another thread concerning Walker, but I see this as a major problem, Walker is gonna be portrayed as Anti Union, a union buster etc etc, the left is gonna scare the hell out of the otherwise regular Joe or Jane who is a Union member into voting democrap. I love Walker standing up to those thugs, but I always thought the GOP would be a lot better off if they adopted a better attitude toward the Union rank and file, lots of good people in the Union, but the gangster bosses and commies scare them to the Dems every time.

If walker is the nod for Prez I guarentee you he will lose.

He has won 3 times now in a heavy union blue state. Once after taking bargaining rights from the public employee union! The real killer in his elections is he draws votes even from democrats that crossed over to support him. Go Figure!!

Okay I'm lost. Is this good or bad for Walker?

Quote from: mdgiles on April 19, 2015, 04:31:02 PM
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that most union members are union supporters. In reality most people join the union because they have to join, to hold the job. In states where they have passed Right To Work laws, the unions quickly lose over half their membership. Look at the teachers union in Wisconsin.

I'm speaking from my own experience with Unions and harkening back to my Union official Father, who was a staunch Democrat probably more conservative than anyone on this board but who hated republicans for the simple fact "they were against unions". It took a complete asshole like Lyndon B Johnson to give him a wake up call and quit voting for Dems.

I know lots of (union) people who voted for Obamao first time round simply because he was a Dem.

And whatever goes on in Wisconsin cannot be compared with the rest of America.

Bottom line is the Pubs need to court the union rank and file Like Reagan did

Quote from: The Boo Man... on April 19, 2015, 05:25:17 PM
Okay I'm lost. Is this good or bad for Walker?

Horrible, if you're referring to Reply #16.
He's in a sense, a flip flopper

Wanting the legislators to hold off on the issue, due to items Walker deemed higher priority is significantly different from opposing the issue. Walker has not once made statements in opposition to right-to-work, just in the timing of pushing it through in Wisconsin. And when the legislature went ahead and handed him the hot potato, he signed the bill into law, and went full stream ahead in defending the law.

And, as has been pointed out, not all union members are pro-union. I myself have been forced into paid membership of unions on more than one occasion, just to hold a job. The experiences has NOT left me a fan of unions. And I would be willing to wager there are more people out there who resent being forced into association than those who are grateful.

In short, IMO, Walker is no flip-flopper on the union issue, and if he were to declare candidacy, it will be more of a benefit than a hindrance.

Quote from: Solar on April 19, 2015, 06:21:59 PM
Horrible, if you're referring to Reply #16.
He's in a sense, a flip flopper

postponing while he puts the states fiscal house in order is not flip flopping. especially if you know it will pass later. I don't see why he should have to defend that. His major problem ,I agree, is in his prior stance on immigration reform. That seems to be a flip flop but I thought he had a good answer for it.

Quote from: redbeard on April 19, 2015, 02:47:45 PM

This article is more to the point! He wasn't against this legislation! He didn't like the timing of it because it was distracting  from his budget priorities. He was just asking for them to postpone it but when they wouldn't he supported it!

Thanks redbeard. That was the piece I was referring to.

Quote from: zewazir on April 19, 2015, 08:56:10 PM
Wanting the legislators to hold off on the issue, due to items Walker deemed higher priority is significantly different from opposing the issue. Walker has not once made statements in opposition to right-to-work, just in the timing of pushing it through in Wisconsin. And when the legislature went ahead and handed him the hot potato, he signed the bill into law, and went full stream ahead in defending the law.

And, as has been pointed out, not all union members are pro-union. I myself have been forced into paid membership of unions on more than one occasion, just to hold a job. The experiences has NOT left me a fan of unions. And I would be willing to wager there are more people out there who resent being forced into association than those who are grateful.

In short, IMO, Walker is no flip-flopper on the union issue, and if he were to declare candidacy, it will be more of a benefit than a hindrance.

On it's face, it can easily be explained away, and that issue coupled with his stance on illegal immigration is what garners him the flip flopper label.

"It's all is about the 11 million [undocumented immigrants]," Walker told the Daily Herald. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place."

Walker also said, "If people want to come here and work hard in this country, I don't care if you come from Mexico or Canada or Ireland or Germany or South Africa or anywhere else. I want them here."
http://immigration.usattorneys.com/conservatives-emerge-support-immigration-reform/

Quote from: Solar on April 20, 2015, 05:28:17 AM
On it's face, it can easily be explained away, and that issue coupled with his stance on illegal immigration is what garners him the flip flopper label.

"It's all is about the 11 million [undocumented immigrants]," Walker told the Daily Herald. "You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that. To me, I don't know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place."

Walker also said, "If people want to come here and work hard in this country, I don't care if you come from Mexico or Canada or Ireland or Germany or South Africa or anywhere else. I want them here."
http://immigration.usattorneys.com/conservatives-emerge-support-immigration-reform/

So how do you predetermine if someone wants to work hard??

But the bigger question is WHY DO WE NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS with this high unemployment rate?

On what planet does he live?

Quote from: kroz on April 20, 2015, 06:59:48 AM
So how do you predetermine if someone wants to work hard??

But the bigger question is WHY DO WE NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS with this high unemployment rate?

On what planet does he live?

Yep. They broke the law, and he wants to give them a pass, while claiming they'll have to get in line like everyone else to apply for citizenship. WTF?
It's stuff like that which will split the vote. His die hard supporters will overlook this wishy washy spineless stupidity, while the rest of us, wanting for a solid Conservative we can trust not to flip on issues won't support him.

It's crap like this that split us up in 2012. Where we found out late in the campaign.
We need to vet these people right now and decide on a candidate.

Quote from: Solar on April 20, 2015, 07:29:21 AM
Yep. They broke the law, and he wants to give them a pass, while claiming they'll have to get in line like everyone else to apply for citizenship. WTF?
It's stuff like that which will split the vote. His die hard supporters will overlook this wishy washy spineless stupidity, while the rest of us, wanting for a solid Conservative we can trust not to flip on issues won't support him.

It's crap like this that split us up in 2012. Where we found out late in the campaign.
We need to vet these people right now and decide on a candidate.

Amen, bro!

Time is a critical and irreplaceable commodity.

Quote from: kroz on April 20, 2015, 07:42:39 AM
Amen, bro!

Time is a critical and irreplaceable commodity.

Exactly!!!
I know a lot of this comes as a surprise to many of us, but in the game of politics, it really shouldn't be a shock to anyone.
I say this, because we have to question why the Establishment rino haven't made a point of exposing it.

Answer is, they plan to use it when the time is right, which is why I had to search through lib sites to find it.
It's for this reason I despise FOX news, they will always support the Establishment, Murdoch is a huge rino, despite having solid Conservatives like Kelly in the line up.

The "E" has a plan of "Divide and Conquer", they will meticulously go about this by picking off our candidates one by one, leaving only their choice as a final option (think Mitten).
We need to be several steps ahead of their game by cutting off their supply chain so to speak, as well as killing off their candidates early on, which I think we're winning in that aspect of the war, hence the introduction of Grahmnesty.

They're possibly throwing Bush under the bus for another failure, or is that to literal of an interpretation? I don't know, but they're up to something.