Is Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker talking out of both sides of his mouth on immigration?
The New York Times thought it caught Walker red-handed. But the paper’s initial report hinged on a conversation he supposedly had with an influential conservative that multiple parties say never took place.
On Thursday, July 2, the Times reported that Walker recently spoke on the phone with Stephen Moore, a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, about the governor’s stance on immigration. Moore was quoted as saying Walker told him, “I’m not going nativist; I’m pro-immigration.”
Walker’s team then contacted him because the call never took place, Moore told the Washington Examiner. Moore realized that he hadn’t spoken with Walker, but another member of his Committee to Unleash Prosperity had done so. The committee includes influential conservatives such as Larry Kudlow, Arthur Laffer and Steve Forbes. Moore reached out to the Times to explain that he “misspoke,” and the Walker team said it also asked the Times for a correction.
Instead, the Times posted a follow-up item noting that Moore’s “turnabout” came after the story that was critical of Walker was published.
“This is the second time this year that Mr. Walker has been reported as saying privately that he was open to an immigration overhaul beyond measures to address the border, only to have his aides later deny such assertions were ever made,” wrote Jonathan Martin, who co-authored the Times original piece.
Moore admits that he misspoke, but said he does not know whether Walker has told him and his group something in private that contradicts what he has said publicly.
“He hasn’t said two different things to me,” Moore said. “This allegation that he’s saying something to me and Larry Kudlow and Art Laffer, and saying something differently to another group, I don’t know.”
Moore suggested the Times’ reporting gave greater weight to the governor’s statements rather than his actions.
“My point in the interview with the guy from the New York Times was I think that the, what he was trying to make this case was that he’s not a real conservative,” Moore said. “My point was that you don’t judge, I judge a candidate by what they’ve done, not by what they say and you look at Scott Walker’s record as governor and it’s just, there’s almost nothing to find fault with. … That was kind of what I spent eight minutes of our ten minutes conversation talking about.”
Martin, the Times reporter who wrote about Moore’s statements on Walker, recently received criticism for statements he attributed to another conservative pundit. In December 2014, Quin Hillyer, a contributor to National Review, wrote that Martin had distorted his statements for a story regarding House Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s, R-La., alleged connections to David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. Martin did not respond to request for comment about his writing.
“Jonathan Martin of the New York Times somehow managed to present me on a front-page story as pushing an analysis that was diametrically opposed to the main points I repeatedly made to him,” Hillyer wrote in National Review. “There’s just no way to interpret this other than Martin, even if unintentionally, heard only what he wanted to hear from me.”
Walker also has some explaining to do on his statements on immigration. Nearly every major Republican presidential hopeful has altered, modified or otherwise reversed their positions on the United States’ role in providing citizenship to illegal immigrants. And Walker is no different.
After reports emerged that the governor formerly supported “comprehensive immigration reform,” which immigration hardliners have interpreted as “amnesty,” Walker told Fox News Sunday, “My view has changed.” He has since adopted rhetoric on immigration about “protecting American workers and American wages” that seem influenced by Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, an immigration hawk.
Reporting also emerged that Walker’s public comments differed from his private statements to influential conservatives, and the Times sought to advance this notion. In March, the Wall Street Journal reported that Walker said he was open to the idea that illegal immigrants would stay in the U.S. and eventually become full citizens at a private dinner of New Hampshire Republicans. The Times’ story appeared to provide additional evidence that Walker had done so yet again. Walker’s team did not answer whether the Times’ characterization of Walker’s statements on immigration — that he said one thing in private and a different thing in public — was accurate.
“When we learned from the governor that the reported phone conversation with Stephen Moore had not taken place, we asked for the record to be corrected. He did so confirming that he had misspoken,” a Walker aide said in a statement. “Clearly, we hope all media outlets are committed to reporting the truth and what is accurate.”
Even if the Times’ reporting is inaccurate, however, Walker may have delivered different messages on immigration to different groups. Moore maintains that he does not know if Walker is telling him one thing while publicly espousing something different. But he said he thinks Walker would not have supported the Gang of Eight immigration bill of 2013 pushed forward by Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a GOP presidential candidate, nor would he line up with immigration hawks like Donald Trump on the other side of the issue.
“I think he stands pretty much in the middle,” Moore said. “I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I think he wants to be tough on illegal immigration, but I think he also wants an economically smart and legal immigration policy that allows the workers to come.”
Immigration will be an animating issue for many Republican primary voters who are perceived to be more hawkish than the constituency the GOP nominee will face in the general election. Perhaps recognizing the governor’s vulnerability, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton will deliver a speech on immigration the same afternoon as Walker makes his 2016 announcement public next week. Clinton will make her remarks at the National Council of La Raza’s annual conference in Kansas City, Mo., and La Raza is a group that aggressively advocates for legalized status for illegal immigrants.
