About those concerns that Scott Walker could have squish tendencies

A Wisconsin Pub does much to allay them, in the form of a response to  . . .

 . . . Betsy Woodruff’s recent article in Slate, “Why Scott Walker Isn’t a Slam Dunk for Grass-Roots Conservatives.” In her piece, Woodruff focuses on two issues, which she labels “immigration” and “Common Core.” Let’s take them one at a time.

Scott Walker is on record, as recently as ABC News’ This Week on February 1 (as Woodruff indeed acknowledged), as saying that the first priority in dealing with illegal aliens (not “immigrants” of any kind) is to seal the border, to prevent any more from coming in. That done, the government can turn to dealing with those already here. Walker pronounced himself against amnesty, and also said that he does not favor any of the plans that have been suggested.

So what’s the difficulty? Woodruff does not think the word “amnesty” is clear enough: “[T]he definition of  ‘amnesty’ can vary widely from Republican to Republican. As a result, immigration hardliners on the right are often unforgiving of anyone perceived as soft on this issue.”

Aside from her consistent misuse of the term “immigration” here (there are two problems: the most pressing one is dealing with aliens illegally in the country; the second is the crying necessity to reform American immigration laws, since the current mess is a direct result of the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s immigration reform of the mid-‘60s), she doesn’t bother to tell us what, precisely, is the evidence that Walker is “soft” on either matter.

There is, however, some evidence that Walker is serious about dealing with illegal aliens, since the state of Wisconsin has joined with 16 other states in suing the federal government over Obama’s amnesty program, and his unilateral dumping of children who illegally crossed the border in states across the country.

I think that should serve, for now, to explain what Scott Walker means by “amnesty.” If there is anything to be ascertained from Walker’s gubernatorial campaigns, it is that he is a refreshing change from most politicians in that he tries not to make promises which he can’t keep, and tries to keep the promises he does make. The precise parameters of any reform of immigration law will have to go through the legislative branch (remember them? There are three branches of government in this country, in case some of you have imagined that Obama has somehow succeeded in abolishing the other two), and will have to take into account, whether one likes it or not, the realities created by a lot of legal precedent (in my view, erroneous legal precedent, but that doesn’t negate its existence) deciding that the 14th Amendment grants American citizenship to any child born on U.S. territory, regardless of his parents’ status.

The second issue concerns the repeal of Common Core. Walker is firmly on record as supporting the repeal of Common Core legislation in Wisconsin, and in favor of the establishment of state standards to be implemented and administered by local school boards, as provided for in the state constitution.

Woodruff cites a headline on Glenn Beck’s The Blaze in December — “Scott Walker Dialing Back His Common Core Opposition” — but then points to a Fox 11 report from January 17 in which Walker once again clearly articulated his wholesale opposition to those standards. She goes on to quote an Iowa “organizer and activist,” Shane Vander Hart: “Iowa voters are about action. If he says repeal but signs into law a bill that accomplishes nothing to get rid of Common Core in his state, that’s going to hurt him.”

If. As a very active member of the Wisconsin Republican Party, I can tell you that if the governor were to do any such thing, he would also greatly disappoint the vast majority of his own party’s base. Outright repeal of Common Core was a plank in the 2014 Republican Party platform, and it almost certainly will be again in the 2015 platform because of grassroots activists in Wisconsin. However, there simply is no bill before the governor to sign yet, and so there is nothing to talk about, either.

I think it's a bit unrealistic to use some kind of litmus test to write the governor off this early out, considering the courage and fortitude he showed in his showdown with the teachers' union, and also considering that he's done nothing to indicate he's some kind of Jeb.