What is a Flip-Flop?

In politics, a flip-flop is when someone reverses a position, not because it was wrong or because it's the right thing to do, but because there is a perceived advantage in doing so.  It's merely a Machiavellian ploy intended to help the politician survive or advance his career.

During a presidential debate, for instance, John McCain said he would not "erect barriers or fences" to stop illegal immigrant crossings. Just recently, however, McCain released a re-election ad that shows him telling an Arizona sheriff that he would build a fence. 

McCain has long opposed building fences, but he's currently facing a tough primary challenger that fiercely opposes illegal immigration.  In order to reinforce his Republican credentials, he is now pro-fence building.  McCain reversed his position, not because he had a revelation that fences protect the border, but because his opponent would gain a serious political advantage if he didn't change course.  This is an instance of flip-flopping.

However, not all reversals are flip-flops.  Let's say that I believed Mrs. Perez skipped her lunch today because she simply lost her appetite.  But during the course of the day, let's say I found out that she had begun a three-day fast yesterday morning.  This new information puts my earlier position in dispute.  Changing my beliefs about why Mrs. Perez skipped her lunch is not a flip-flop because there was no perceived advantage in changing my mind.  It's merely drawing a different conclusion based on new information.  Scientists do this every day, and so do we.

A Summary of Walker's Immigration Problem

Scott Walker has taken heat the past few weeks for his stance on Arizona's bill.  In an interview with El Conquistador, Walker spoke out against the bill saying that the Arizona law usurped the rights of the federal government and provided broad powers to local officials.

Two weeks after our interview, the Associated Press (AP) got involved and published Walker's view on Arizona's law.  This caused a disturbance on Walker's Facebook page.  Some supporters said they were stunned by his position, and others said they were changing their support to Mark Neumann.   The next day, Walker released a statement saying he was now satisfied with Arizona's modified bill (HB2162C).  He said the revised bill did not violate the 10th Amendment, and it also provided sufficient safeguards to protect against racial profiling. 

El Conquistador Interviews Walker Again on the Arizona Bill

This past Friday, I met with Scott Walker at the Hyatt Regency and asked him what changed his mind since the last time we spoke.  He said when we met on April 30th, he drew a conclusion about Arizona's new law based upon the facts that were available to him at the time.  He said that when those facts began to change, so did his conclusion.

On April 23rd, about a week before El Conquistador interviewed Walker, Arizona's Governor signed SB1070 into law.  Soon after, there were serious concerns that the law might have the effect of codify racial profiling.  Thus, Arizona lawmakers re-examined SB1070 and made changes designed to resolve those issues.  It wasn't until April 30th, the same day we interviewed Walker, that Jan Brewer signed an amended bill (HB2162C) into law.  It's important to note, therefore, that the details of HB2162C were not available to Walker at the time we had interviewed him.

After the push-back on Walker's Facebook page, he called Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce for a consultation on Arizona new law.  It's not exactly known what was said, but Walker came to the conclusion that HB2162C did not violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution as he had initially supposed.

Walker was also convinced that HB2162C, unlike SB1070, provided sufficient safeguards to protect against racial profiling.  For instance, the original bill (SB1070) permitted the use of race, color, and national origin when determining what constitutes a reasonable suspicion.  The bill stated:

"A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection."

Also, SB1070 allowed for officers to develop a reasonable suspicion after a "lawful contact" was made.  A lawful contact can include something as common as a casual encounter, which opened the law to all sorts of problems.  In theory, a police officer could instigate a casual encounter with an individual, and during the process of conversation develop a reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally.

In an effort to fix that problem, the new law states that an officer can only act on a reasonable suspicion after an "arrest" or after a "Terry stop" is made.   In plain language, this means that in order for an officer to pull you over, you must have committed a crime or be under investigation for committing a crime.  This is supposed to prevent an officer from pulling you over because your skin color is a little darker than his.  After speaking with Senator Pearce, Walker believed that these changes were sufficient to protect Hispanics from racial profiling.  

Did Scott Walker Flip-Flop?

Walker doesn't consider his reversal on Arizona's immigration bill to be a flip-flop, but critics argue that Walker sought a distinct political advantage by supporting the new law.  The Associated Press indicated that Walker changed his position on Arizona's law after he had received a push-back on his Facebook page.  Fair enough, but the only evidence they have is that one event happened to occur before another.

According to Walker, he changed his position after the HB2162C was signed into law and after he had talked with Senator Pearce over the phone.  Because the details of the HB2162C came out after Walker had made his initial stance, he could not have been privy to any of the changes.  Walker therefore alleges that after new facts were made available to him, changing his viewpoint was just the appropriate thing to do.

But even conservative commentators like Charlie Sykes and Jay Weber aren't that quick to defend him.  They believe that Walker flip-flopped and there is just nothing more to it.  Mark Belling, on the other hand, was much more kind.  Belling inferred that Walker's initial opposition to Arizona's law was simply meant to appease Milwaukee's Hispanic community.  He said that after the AP reported on it, it's possible that Walker did more research and just realized he was wrong.  We're not sure how it went down, but Belling's narrative seems just as legitimate as any other.

Conclusion

To be sure, there is an apprehension in the Hispanic community that law enforcement officials will target law-abiding Hispanics in their search for illegal immigrants.  But what many don't understand is that Arizona's new law, in substance, is really no different than existing federal law.  In fact, it was specifically designed that way to withstand any Constitutional challenges.  The only difference between Arizona and the federal government is that Arizona is willing to enforce the law.

Whether the Arizona law is racist or not is worthy of considerable debate.  But one thing is certain, flip-flops require a political calculus.  Is a little push-back on a politician's Facebook page sufficient to force a flip-flop?  It appears this is what the AP would have you to believe, and perhaps they're right.  Or perhaps the more reasonable explanation is that Facebook got Walker thinking, and rightly so.  I think it's unfortunate that Walker's interview with El Conquistador occurred before HB2162C was signed into law.  If the interview had occurred a week later, Walker might not be in the predicament he's in today.

I'm Tired of Career-Styled Politicians, How About You?

I'm fed up with scheming politicians and their senseless press releases.  Case in point, Mark Neumann has demanded that Scott Walker reimburse the county because one of his aides, on county time, had posted partisan comments on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's website.

In a year's time, Darlene Wink posted about 70 comments on articles that pertained to Scott Walker, Tom Barrett, and Mark Neumann.  I'm not sure how much time that would add up to, but it couldn't be much more than a few hours' pay. Neumann has also accused Walker of working part-time so he can campaign for governor.  This last charge is rather fascinating.

Deer Hunting During a Key Vote

Mark Neumann apparently has a memory problem.  In 1995, when Neumann was a U.S. Congressman, he missed an extraordinary vote so he could hunt deer with his 13 year old son in northern Wisconsin.  Neumann missed a vote that favored a GOP plan that would bring the federal budget into balance by 2002.  Then Majority Leader Bob Dole called it the most important vote of his 34 year career.  And similarly, Newt Gingrich stated that it was the most important vote in Congress since 1933.

That being said, it was either really bad timing on Neumann's part, or his hunting trip must have been the most important expedition in congressional history.  But hey, one of Walker's aides spent a few hours posting on county time without Walker's knowledge or consent, so let's shoot out a press release demanding culpability and reparation.

In Neumann's most recent television ads, he takes credit for being among those in Congress who helped balance the federal budget in the 90s.  But oddly enough, he missed the most climatic and budget-balancing vote in 70 years.  Perhaps he should have mentioned that in his TV spot?  "Hey folks, I'm Mark Neumann.  And when I was in Congress, we balanced the budget.  Vote for me, and I promise I will shake things up, but only after I make time to bond with my son in the northern woods of Wisconsin."

Just as interesting was Neumann's rationale for missing the key vote.  Neumann said he was averaging 70 hours a week so he was entitled to a little time off.  In contrast, a 7o hour work week is a bare minimum for Scott Walker.  Keith Gilkes, Walker's campaign manager, said it best when he said that Walker works 24 hours a day, which requires him to have a cell phone in case of county emergencies - emergencies that don't really care what time at night it is or how many hours you worked in the previous week.

Paying for Ads with Taxpayer Money

In 1998, Neumann was caught using taxpayer dollars to run advertisements that aired outside his congressional district.  At the time, Neumann was running against Senator Russ Feingold for a U.S. Senate seat.  He used his congressional account to pay for radio ads touting his political achievements.  The point of interest, again, is that the ad aired outside his congressional district.

Keep in mind, Senate races are state-wide events meaning anyone in Wisconsin can vote for a Senator.  In contrast, a candidate running for a House seat gets elected only on the basis of the district he represents.  So, by running an ad that aired to voters outside Neumann's congressional district, local Democrats correctly inferred it was a thinly veiled attempt to promote his run for Senate.  So the real question is, did Neumann reimburse the taxpayers?   And if not, why is he demanding that Walker do it?

Neumann's Problem Answering Questions

On April 29th, radio talk show host Charlie Sykes asked Neumann if he had ever threatened a party delegate saying he would run as an independent if the GOP grassroots didn't support his run for governor.  Neumann hedged a bit.  So Sykes asked again, and again, and again.  Sykes was persistent.  Previous to the interview, rumors had abounded that Neumann told Congressman Sensenbrenner he would run as an independent if he didn't get what he wanted.  The move would be tantamount to splitting the GOP vote and guaranteeing that neither of them would become governor.  Sykes asked Neumann the same question nearly 5 times.  And finally, Neumann gave a definitive "no".  So either Neumann is lying, or several of the party delegates are lying.  Which is it, Mark? 

Second, Milwaukee Journal reporter, Dan Bice, asked Neumann about a comment he made as a U.S Congressman when he said that if he were God for a day, homosexuality would not be permitted.  Bice asked him if he stands by his earlier assertion, and Neumann again failed to provide a straight answer.  Bice asked Neumann the same question several times, but again Neumann kept meandering.  At one point, Neumann said, "You know, this is really fun because you asked this question more different ways than Charlie Sykes asks."  Bice reported, "And yet the wannabe governor hadn't answered any of them (questions) directly." 

And finally, when asked about Arizona's immigration law, Neumann refused to answer the question at all.  What candidate for governor says, ah, I don't think I'll answer that question?  At least Walker had the guts to answer the question although controversy ensued. 

Perhaps Neumann doesn't remember hunting with his son or campaigning on taxpayer time.  Perhaps he tried to answer those interview questions directly, but just doesn't know how.  Or perhaps Neumann is just a hypocrite and a career-styled politician.  Ultimately, you will have to decide. 

First Impressions

While waiting for my scheduled interview with Scott Walker, I tried recounting the more important questions in my head.  But as I began to reflect, that pesky receptionist kept interrupting my train of thought.  Who are you?  And where are you from?  When I told her I was with El Conquistador, she gave me a curious look.  You know, the sort of look when someone tilts their head to the side.  She immediately asked, "What do you think about Arizona's immigration bill?"

I admit it, I was taken aback by her question.  This was a question I had prepared for Walker, so I didn't expect to answer it myself.  But after thinking a bit, I said, "I think we need to start by putting up a fence that actually works.  And because our federal government hasn't secured our border, Arizona is taking an initiative that may result in tearing apart good Hispanic families."  She seemed to agree with my sentiments, so I presumed that I had passed her test.   

In just a few minutes in the waiting room, I saw a volunteer staff that Hustled.  Every person I saw seemed to walk by briskly and with purpose.  All of this made me wonder what Barrett's campaign office looked like.  Were they young volunteers like Walker's staff?  Were they politically curious like Walker's receptionist?   Did they move with urgency?  After all, it did take Barrett a few months to create a campaign website even after he announced his candidacy for governor.  Then I thought about Republican candidate Mark Neumann and figured he probably went with an online Internet office to stay consistent with his online gubernatorial announcement months ago.

Walker: Neumann is Smart Enough not to Go Independent

Mark Neumann is a wealthy businessman who believes his business experience is what Wisconsin needs to get us out of our fiscal mess.  When asked about Neumann, Walker seemed to hold back his punches.  Perhaps it was too early in the campaign to come out swinging.  But this hasn't stopped Neumann from starting an offensive.  Recently, Neumann attacked Walker for an email he dispatched to his followers that accused Neumann of misleading Republican delegates.

Neumann seems to think that Walker's a dispatch was unnecessary and created only more confusion.  The problem, however, is that Walker's email was correct.  Dozens of Republican delegates, including some influential state leaders, had received calls from Neumann's staff pretending to be the Republican Party.  When Neumann's staff learned that a delegate supported Walker, they pressed them about a recent poll that showed Neumann and Walker in a dead heat.

The idea, apparently, was to establish Neumann as a legitimate contender - an idea that ought to make a delegate hesitate before pulling the lever for Walker at the Republican convention.  In two weeks, delegates will vote to endorse a candidate for governor, which requires at least 60% of the vote.  Whoever wins the endorsement will receive substantial momentum going into the primary since the state party will put its entire weight behind the chosen candidate while ignoring the other.

When asked about Neumann, Walker says he does not blame him for making calls to delegates to promote his own candidacy.  However, he had  a problem with misleading tactics.  Walker said this wasn't the first time Neumann had pulled a political stunt.  In fact, a few months ago, Neumann told a reporter that Walker was running for a U.S Senate seat rather than for governor.  This created somewhat of a buzz on Talk Radio and the local media, and it didn't make Neumann a house favorite among conservative talking heads.

With Florida Governor Charlie Crist changing party affiliation to independent, this has some in the Republican Party fearing that Neumann might take a similar path.  Walker told El Conquistador that if Neumann changed his status to an Independent, the only thing it would guarantee is that Mayor Tom Barrett would be our next governor.

By changing to an Independent, Neumann would effectively bypass a tough primary battle and skip to the general election.  This would create a three-way match up between Neumann, Walker, and Barrett.  Although Walker entertained the question about Neumann going Independent, he said that both of them were smart enough not to run as a third party because electing Tom Barrett to governor would mean 4 more years of Jim Doyle's tax and spend policies.

Neumann's Business Experience is Not Comparable to Managing Milwaukee County

When I told Walker that he and Neumann didn't seem to have many ideological differences, he conceded the point, but added they had different backgrounds.  Walker said that Neumann had valuable business experience on his side, but if you are looking for the best candidate for governor, why not go with someone who has successfully managed a government with thousands of employees?  Walker went on to say that no other candidate in the gubernatorial race has faced more challenges streamlining government like he has.

In eight years, Walker has done everything a good governor would do.  He has cut Milwaukee County's debt by 10%, reduced the size of their government workforce by 36%, increased the county's bond rating, and ran a county surplus of $8.9 million while Wisconsin ran a record breaking budget deficit of $6 billion.

And the remarkable thing, Walker said, is that he did all of this while keeping the county's core programs intact.  Last year, Milwaukee County Parks received a gold medal for the best parks program in the nation.  He managed an airport that had a 40% growth rate while airports across the nation suffered a 3% loss.  And the Milwaukee County Behavior Health Division received an award from Harvard University for their "Wrap Around" program that helps youth with diagnosable mental disorders.  Walker concluded that if he can do it in Milwaukee County, then he can do it in Madison as well.