President Obama is just not credible when he claims to have "evolved" on gay marriage. His former aid David Axelrod is more believable when he says Obama always supported gay marriage but felt he had to lie about it because it was politically expedient.
Now comes Scott Walker to say, of immigration reform, "My view has changed. I'm flat out saying it." I don't believe him, either.
WALLACE: The question [in 2013] was, ‘Can you envision a world where if these people paid a penalty that they would have a path to citizenship?’ and you said, ‘Sure, that makes sense.’
WALKER: I believe there’s a way you can do that. First and foremost, you have to secure that border, or none of these plans make any sense. So, he's not for "amnesty," but he's OK with a "penalty they pay" to "secure a path to citizenship"? That's not amnesty?
So, he's not for "amnesty," but he's OK, with "paying a penalty" that creates a "path to citizenship"? That's not amnesty? And ponder what he considers "border security":
If you watch thatWisconsin interview, though, you’ll see that his idea for solving illegal immigration had less to do with tightening the border than with loosening it. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he said at the time, but “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.” Not even John McCain and Lindsey Graham go so far as to define “border security” as easier admittance.
The thing is, I might actually agree with Walker's immigration policy, if he'd articulate it clearly enough for me to understand it. "Eaiser admittance" for legal immigrants isn't really the same as border security in the way Walker's trying to say it is, but it is an important part of the equation, as is figuring out what to do with the immigrants already here illegally. Instead of a "path to citizenship," we could consider a "path to legal status," an idea championed by 3rd District Rep. Marlin Stutzman.
Walker is pandering to the base, doing verbal gyrations to sound like what they want to hear in a way that won't jam him up with the more moderate electorate in the general election. It's no less seemly when a Republican does this over a conservative issue than when a Democrat does it over a liberal one.
