Republican Elected Officials Should Emulate Governor Scott Walker

ScottWalkerby Patricia L. Dickson2/25/15
I am glad to finally hear a conservative that knows how to handle liberal so-called journalists when asked stupid gotcha questions. When Governor Scott Walker was asked if he thought President Obama is a Christian, he responded with a logical common sense answer:

“I’ve actually never talked about it or I haven’t read about that,” Walker said, his voice calm and firm. “I’ve never asked him that,” he added. “You’ve asked me to make statements about people that I haven’t had a conversation with about that. How [could] I say if I know either of you are a Christian?”

When he did not give them the opportunity to trap him with a gotcha question, Howard Dean  was forced to put words in his (Governor Walker’s) mouth:

“Scott Walker] is catering to the right wing. The trouble with that is he’s going to have the same problem that Mitt Romney did. He’s going to say some things that are hard to live down. Because the average American voter doesn’t want to know, they want to know that he thinks, he respects the presidency and obviously you can’t respect the presidency if you think he’s, you say he’s not a Christian; he was born in Kenya, and all of this other crazy crap. He’s now catering to the crazy wing of the Republican Party. That’s great in the primaries but it’s going to come back and bite him in the general election.”

Howard Dean (and most of the liberal media) wished that Governor Walker would have said those words. If the liberal media could just get Walker or any other conservative elected official to utter those words, it would give them (the liberal media) a tool to paint conservatives as right wing extremist nut-jobs who hate the President. They could then use it as yet another narrative to distract the public from the daily disasters coming out of the White House. Republican elected officials should learn how to play the game with liberal reporters. It is really not that difficult to handle liberals and their leftwing so-called journalist. All that conservatives have to do is turn their idiotic questions around on them. In fact, when conservatives are asked to respond to or condemn comments made by another conservative, the response should be as follows:

How is it my place to respond to comments made by someone else? Republicans are independent thinkers. Our party is not comprised of monolithic thinkers. I neither condemn nor agree with the comments made by someone else. I will be more than happy to expand on or clarify comments that I have made.

PatriciaDicksonPatricia Dickson blogs at Patricia’s Corner.
About Author Author Archive Email • (1084 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Republican Elected Officials Should Emulate Governor Scott Walker

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    I can think of several ways of answering such gotcha questions by challenging the shills for Obama (and now Hillary) asking them, but this is certainly a good example. A number of writers are pointing out that the synoptic media newsliars themselves probably don’t think Satan’s Spawn really is a Christian in any meaningful sense. Nor would it ever occur to them to ask why anyone should trust the word of a pathological liar about a self-professed faith that he used as a tool of deception in 2008.

    But such extreme bias, dishonesty, and hypocrisy — particularly when compared to their self-important image of themselves — demonstrate why I consider newsliars to be the lowest civic occupation — even lower than lawyers, used-car salesmen, and politicians.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      In other words, “Man-up.” Or “Palin-up.”

    • Rosalys says:

      “A number of writers are pointing out that the synoptic media newsliars themselves probably don’t think Satan’s Spawn really is a Christian in any meaningful sense.”

      Proof positive of this statement is the fact that they will support him at all costs.

  2. David Ray says:

    I’d be glad if only the RNC wouldn’t let fools like George Stephanopoulos or Candy Crowley monitor/sabotage the debates.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      That would be good. Hugh Hewitt will be doing one, anyway, so that’s a start. But part of the problem is that the Republicans who decide these things (with the Democrats) for the general election have no idea what they’re up against. One would think that they’d have noticed by now that the Democrats never seem to allow conservative questioners, and reacted appropriately. But they’re all Beltway Bandits eager to “stand tall in Georgetown” (as Allen Drury aptly put it), and that matters more than helping their side win.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    For what it’s worth, Stephen Meyer has an article about What Should Politicians Say When Asked About Evolution?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I seem to recall that George W. Bush linked himself to ID, which seems to be what Meyer suggests. I also like his view of pointing out the different meanings of evolution, which is similar to my suggestion of asking the newsliar which particular theory he’s asking about. (The latter is especially fun because very few newsliars would have any idea, and exposing their own self-righteous ignorance would be an educational delight.)

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I thought Meyer’s answer, while technically correct (or more correct) was a little politically dull or confusing. And he doesn’t address the point in his answer that the point of the question is to embarrass conservative candidates and show them as supposedly anti-science. I might address that directly in my answer and be done with it.

        In the end, this is the quandary any politician faces when trying to give an answer to a question that has only one orthodox answer in the public mind (or at least in the minds of those who count, such as the opinion-makers and news-filterers). Try as one might, in the current climate, can anyone make a case for traditional marriage? It’s not easy. It’s not easy because of the beliefs and assumptions that people already hold.

        The point of the evolution question rests on the assumption that those on the Left are pro-science (and pro-reason) while those on the right are the opposite. That’s why B. Hussein Obama was never asked that question and no Democrat will likely be asked that question. It’s a loaded question.

        So what a conservative candidate has to do is un-load it. It’s not enough to give a scientifically-accurate answer. I would say something like,

        “The very nature of your question rests on the assumption that those on the Left are pro-science and that those on the right are uneducated boobs, if not outright anti-science. Your question is not an honest one. But as to the question of evolution itself, the neo-Darwinian theory of mutation/natural selection can account for minor changes in the micro realm, but offers no way to create basic animal structures and systems.”


          That’s a good reply, Brad – if only Republican candidates would pay attention. And they need to remember that the entire mainstream media is dedicated to their defeat.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            This is a lesson that anyone not completely in support of the liberal agenda should realize. Mike Pence failed to anticipate the hysterical reaction to the Indiana RFRA because he failed to realize the nature of the enemy, and likewise the proprietors of Memories Pizza assumed that the vile newsliar was actually interested in informing the public, not propagandizing it.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Thanks, Nik. Yeah, if only. It’s sometimes hard to understand why they are such wimps and don’t take the fight to their opponents.

  4. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Intersecting on the general theme of the public perception of evolution and what a politician should say about it, David Klinghoffer has an article at Evolution News: On Science, Passivity or Independence? A Conversation that Needs to Happen Among Conservatives.

    The bit that caught my eye was an exchange of Tweets (eyeroll) by Klinghoffer and Kevin Williamsom. First off, let me say that by trying to discuss such a complex subject via the idiotic device of Twitter is demeaning to the subject. Mr. Klinghoffer and Mr. Williamson should have a more extended back-and-forth on the subject.

    But Klinghoffer is not the one out of bounds. It was this Tweet by Williamson that I found odd:

    This is, incidentally, a big part of why I think ID is basically a fraud.

    Having been prompted by this site’s Glenn the Greater to further investigate evolution, intelligent design, and other aspects of biology, I know exactly what it’s like to not only be ignorant on a subject (which is no crime, for who has time for it all?) but propagandized. And we are all — conservative or Leftist — steeped in a cultural stew of misinformation, particularly regarding the subject of evolution (broadly defined).

    In the above paragraph, I’ve already severely blown past the limits of an idiotic Tweet. So no Twitter for me, and there’s no way Twitter can address any subject more complex than what one is having for dinner that night. I think Twitter, in general, is a vehicle of self-importance whereby we pretend that we make dictates of the gravity and importance of a Napoleon. And given that there are often thousands or millions who listen to the Tweets of others, it’s easy to see how people get hooked.

    But here at StubbornThings we take the perspective that those who may labor quite outside the mainstream — perhaps even in a Swiss patent office — may have something to say, and something to say longer than 140 characters that is of relevance.

    So, if this patent office memo gets back to Mr. Williamson, then all the better. Here goes:

    Intelligent Design is the proposition that no dumb, algorithmic natural force or process can give rise to the complex integrated systems of the cell that are chock full of specified information. That is, the cell is one amazing irreducibly complex system with a data storage system (DNA) and operating system (DNA and the cellular machinery) that not just resemble but actually are a code and program. Intelligent Design asserts that the only known cause for creating such a thing is intelligence itself. (And books such as “Darwin’s Doubt,” “The Edge of Evolution,” and “Signature in the Cell” show how enormously the odds are against any mechanism such as mutation/natural selection being able to create these complex things.)

    Period. Now, there are all kinds of startling implications from this, if true. But the proposition is fairly straightforward. If this is an attempt to deceive anyone, I’m not sure how the scam works, Kevin.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *