There are more Republicans than just Walker or Jeb, and flip-flopping can be overcome if the explanation is plausible. McCain flip-flopped to immigration hawk by saying, “I’ve heard you” to the Republican base, which is refreshing honesty. I just gave Walker his talking points to explain his flip-flop: he’s always supported a path to citizenship but not the Senate immigration bill because Democrats can’t be trusted and they left themselves too many ways to get out of their promises in the bill.
So you *do *accept lying by a pol if the cover story is creative enough. And if it’s from one of your own guys. Gotcha.
Apparently Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Crazy) said yesterday that he was considering forming an exploratory committee, then later said he was only joking.
In between, longtime blogger Dan Drezner tweeted: “We’re SO close to a bracket of 64.” Win.
It’s only lying if it’s not true. If Walker was trying to pull a fast one on immigration, and a LOT of Republicans lie about the issue, then that’s a problem. I was trying to be generous and assume that he’s always support a path to citizenship but does not support the Senate bill, which is a reasonable position and not a flip flop.
Funny how you’re SO generous with the benefit of the doubt when it’s a Republican concerning an issue that affects real people. But if Obama misspells supercalifragilisticexpialidocious when asked by a nine-year old during a casual photo-op at an elementary school, he’s the fucking anti-Christ.
Funny that.
I think I’ve been very fair. I’ve only accused OBama of lying when he’s, you know, lied. I’ve never accused him of lying before the mainstream media has already done it.
In any case, Walker now denies that he ever said anything about a path to citizenship at this private meeting.
Why does he “now” deny it instead of denying it when it was first brought up?
Could be he’s lying. We’ll find out. I’ve already been impressed by his dodging the evolution issue, even if it is a stupid question. Even stupid questions should be answered.
His stated reason for dropping out? That he can’t win. Which is true.
But why not, Louie? Because you’re bald, you say? Um, I’m not quite sure you have your finger on it yet, but never mind.
Oh, adaher? Pence has blown his shot now, too, if in fact he had one. You’re running out of options.
How is that impressive?
Scott Walker gives a gloomy pitch for the GOP nomination.
The pitch is basically, “I’m worried, SO worried that I won’t get exactly what I want, waaah, waaah, waaah.”
Someone’s gotta hire him a new speech writer. No one wants to elect the paranoid.
As I mentioned in the Stupid Republican idea thread, Scott Walker thinks he would be a good commander-in-chief because he was a Boy Scout.
So far, a half-dozen of the GOP candidates have endorsed Indiana’s new “right to discriminate” law. Some of them are the ones you’d expect (Cruz, Jindal, Santorum, Ben Carson), but it includes the supposedly semi-sane wing too (Jeb, Rubio).
Scott Walker continued his Profiles In Political Courage Tour by waffling on the question.
What’s not sane about endorsing state versions of a federal law that passed nearly uninamously? Has gay marriage made the 1st amendment obsolete? I really do hope Democratic candidates try to make that argument. They are already on record as saying big money has made it obsolete. Might as well get rid of the other freedoms as well and replace them with political correctness as our new “first freedom”.
This is a perfect wedge issue on which to crucify the right. They just can’t understand why they are being excoriated, and until they do, they will continue to double down and suffer the consequences. Apparently they would rather be righteous than be President. Fortunately, most voters don’t agree.
You’re opposing a religious freedom bill. Good luck with that.
The only freedom it protects is freedom to discriminate.
ETA: Let me rephrase: the only freedom it is *intended to *protect is the freedom to discrimination.
At one time, the Bible was used to justify slavery. I’m sure that 1850s southern states would have gladly passed a law guaranteeing that those with religious belief in slavery would always have their views respected and called it a religious freedom bill. This is a license to discriminate bill.
Actually, it protects all religious freedom, including the freedom to discriminate. Just as religious freedom protects that right now. Last I checked, anyone could refuse an interfaith wedding. And believe me, I checked, having had an interfaith wedding with pretty much no help from any professionals.
I’m sure I could have found an expensive wedding planner or officiant, but the cheap ones are cheap because they are religiously motivated. So you’re pretty much SOL if you’re not of their faith. Which is absolutely, 100% fine.
You forgot what “compelling interest” means. As often as it’s been discussed in great detail on this board, it’s shocking that so many people still don’t know what it means. Ignorance not fought.
Secondly, violating the 1st amendment ALREADY requires strict scrutiny, but some courts decided not to view religious freedom that way, so the RFRA was passed. If you believe that the government should be able to substantially burden religious practice without a compelling interest at stake, then make that argument.