Writes Scott Walker (in USA Today).
ELSEWHERE: In Politico, Jack Shafer purports to give advice on how to answer the "gotcha" question. He holds up LBJ as a model: "Here you are, alone with the president of the United States and the leader of the free world, and you ask a chicken-shit question like that." Oh, yeah, wouldn't you just love for the Midwestern son of a preacher man to suddenly emit an LBJ-style outburst full of Texas swagger and farm excrement?
And Ron Fournier has a "Defense of Gotcha Questions." He begins:
Years ago, an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton walked into the state Capitol media room at the end of a hectic legislative session and asked the journalists if we needed anything else from him. We had asked Clinton questions all day. We were tired. We wanted him to shut up and go home.Bill came up with an answer that seemed amiable and made him look good. But I don't think that's a gotcha question. It's just a casual, irrelevant question that might bring out some personality. It's the sort of question Barbara Walters used to be associated with.... What kind of tree are you?
So I said, "Yes, governor. I know you don't know much about baseball, but when there's a pop-up behind the third baseman, whose ball is it?" The other reporters snickered. Finally, they figured: a gotcha question Clinton wouldn't answer.
पोस्ट्स
९५ टिप्पण्या:
If he wasn't worried about this, he wouldn't feel the need to defend himself for the third week in a row.
Walker is well aware of the mistake he made. Althouse apparently is not.
Mark, you're so wrong I don't know why I'm bothering correcting you. Walker isn't defending himself. He's explaining why we shouldn't care if the media is badgering him about whether he thinks Obama is a Christian. It's because it doesn't matter. If Walker did think Obama was a Muslim, or a Sikh, or whatever passes for a Christian at an African Unity mass, how would that affect his governance? Answer: it wouldn't.
Mark--Please tell us the mistake Walker made.
Leave B̶r̶i̶t̶n̶e̶y̶ Scott Walker alooooooone!
You're just talking to yourself for reassurance, mark. Won't work this time.
That was no mistake, and it wasn't a tactic.
It is a strategy. It's just getting started.
Let's have more questioning of liberals over Obamas past quotes. And then ask if other liberals believe them.
Garage, you've had soooo much insightful commentary lately. Seriously, how do you keep those hits coming?
How come they don't ask him questions about Hildebeast?
JR, the liberals were already asked to defend Obama's quotes. It was called the midterms. They largely tried to, and it largely failed. That's the funny part about all this. Those who praised or defended Obama and his policies in November got booted out. Why would the media think any Republican would want to follow the same route by defending Obama's "religion" or praising his "love" for America?
If Walker can't handle Dana Milbank how in the world is he going to be able to handle Putin?
Walker is just taunting them, now.
This piece is an open invitation for news schmucks to really, really, really try to "get him" with a stupid question. They won't be able to help themselves.
Keep punching that tar baby, Leftists. You're sure to knock him out sooner or later!
Meanwhile, back on things that actually matter, the legislature is about to hand Walker more labor skulls for his throne.
Good for him and potentially for us.
The American people want someone who pushes back against these transparently partisan attacks. We are tired of politicians who try and be friends with the media that wants to destroy them.
Is crying about hard questions from Katie Couric next?
CONCORD, N.H. — Vice President Joe Biden had little to say Wednesday about the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of foreign donations.
“No, I don’t have any comment. I don’t know enough about it,” Biden said when asked by BuzzFeed News.
I say, if asked again some stupid ass question, Walker should say, "I will respond as Joe Biden says......"
Garage, it's the Sarah Palin strategy.
We saw how well that worked for her.
And then Walker answered the question exactly the way an Evangelical Christian would answer it and he got criticized for it.
I'll be watching and waiting for a REAL screwup by Scott Walker. It'll happen, eventually - it happens to everyone who's public life is scrutinized so closely by the Left. But even then, I have no doubt he'll work through it and get past it. Refusing to answer an off-topic, off the wall question does not constitute a screwup in the minds of sane, rational individuals.
Hence the flurry of emotion from garage.
"So I said, "Yes, governor. I know you don't know much about baseball, but when there's a pop-up behind the third baseman, whose ball is it?"
Clinton Answer: I dunno whose ball it is, but it'd make a nice donation to the Clinton Foundation.
Garage, it's the Sarah Palin strategy.
It plays perfectly to the base. Conservatives are always, ALWAYS the victim.
Mark-
I expect Garage to beclown himself like this. I had expected better from you. I guess I will need to lower my expectations.
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Walker is mis-playing the politics of this. But I'd like to see at least a little evidence of a negative effect in the polls, not just advice that he should behave differently from various lefty concern trolls.
Walker's answer was fine as far as that goes--it was truthful and accurate, under any level of scrutiny.
Questions can be divided into good questions ("how would you propose to handle this relevant dillemma if you took office?"), quirky personality questions ("if you were invited to a potluck dinner, what would you bring?") and stupid questions ("why haven't you immediately denounced every person associated with your party who ever uttered anything I find offensive?"). The best way to handle a stupid question is with an answer that can only be interpreted as noting how stupid the question is--"I hope you enter that question into the Stupid Question Olympics because you may get the Gold".
For Palin in 2008, the "what newspapers do you read" was not a "gotcha" question--it was a personality question. Sure, we all blank at times, but "all of them" was a terrible response. Name any newspaper! If they follow up with "what was on the cover, top left corner, this morning?" you can say "well I don't read it every single day, nerd!"
The "what about the 'Bush Doctrine'" question Charles Gibson asked her was a gotcha question, because there was no real agreement on what the "Bush Doctrine" was at that point (or even now). "In what respect, Charlie" was an okay response, but a better one would have been "what the hell are you talking about, Charlie? A lot of things have been referred to as the 'Bush Doctrine' over the past several years."
If he wasn't worried about this, he wouldn't feel the need to defend himself for the third week in a row.
Walker is well aware of the mistake he made. Althouse apparently is not.
Um...no. This is Scott Walker trolling the media wonderfully.
This is a man who has dealt with things like death threats and hundreds of people protesting on his lawn for the better part of 4 years. Im pretty sure a reporter's question about evolution doesnt "worry" him.
"If he wasn't worried about this, he wouldn't feel the need to defend himself for the third week in a row."
Is that worry, or is it sensing an opportunity? He has fundraised a great deal out of this, his polls are improving, and this "story" has kept his name in the news in a way that's positive to half the country (if not more). I think you're misreading the situation.
Garage, it's the Sarah Palin strategy.
We saw how well that worked for her.
When did Sarah Palin run for president?
Just curious.
It seems the last ditch effort of Professional Journalists that missed the target is to say, "Oh well, that dumb little amateur from North Fly-Over failed an easy test...what good is he!"
Walker stays focused on his focus and easily on makes the issue the test that he just gave to the biased media everyone hates. And his test exposed them as silly ninnies.
Round two starts this week. Stay Focused!
Yeah, the handling of this "issue" by Walker has certainly "hurt" him, hasn't it?
He's sucked all the oxygen out of the Republican race thus far. Polling data in early voting states and fundraising have all exponentially shifted to Walker, and made the race into a two-man deal between him and Jeb Bush in less than 14 days.
Following on his knockout performance in that speech in Iowa, this "issue" came along just at the right time to make him a further hero to the right wing base, by fucking with the media.
And on Monday, he'll sign the next bill gutting the unions.
It's almost like these are a series of events that a professional politician, with decades of experience and substantial success might have engineered, as part of a long-term campaign plan.
Nooooo? Really? It can't be that. The Leftists all think it's just that he "can't handle uncomfortable questions."
Bitch, please. Wake up and smell the coffee.
I'm still waiting for Mark to tell us what he thinks Walker's mistake is.
Anybody defending these idiotic questions has no credibility left.
Now, Fournier, when are you going to ask Hillary these questions?
Oh wait...you won't.
Ever.
If he wasn't worried about this, he wouldn't feel the need to defend himself for the third week in a row.
If he ignores it, it's "cowardice".
If he responds, it is a "concern".
Nice win-win ya got there.
If Walker can't handle Dana Milbank how in the world is he going to be able to handle Putin?
He handled him best by not speaking to him.
Dana loves Obama and Obama is Putin's bitch. Apparently, Dana liking you makes you the bitch of dictators.
This is fundraising. No different than Democrats constant "Republicans hate womyn even though we pay our women WAY less than our men...just ask our fronrunner" fundraising BS.
Mark said...
Garage, it's the Sarah Palin strategy.
You mean on your part. Kind of like:
Reklaw Walker
By "engineered" I don't want to suggest that Walker arranged to have the media ask stupid questions. Rather, as an experienced politician, he could reasonably expect to have stupid questions (of the usual social-issue, gotcha variety) asked of him once he got so much notice after the speech in Iowa.
Having a game-plan to answer/not answer those questions is the engineering part. I do further believe that the comments Rudy made were not a surprise to Walker, and could have been part of a "rattle the cage" strategy to instigate stupid questions.
If Walker knows the media are predictable liberal dumb-asses, which they indisputably are, throwing some chum in the water so he had a chance to not-respond to it would have been a smart move.
Rudy would have been the perfect guy to throw the chum in the water, too.
I've often wondered what would happen if a Republican would go over the heads of the media and speak directly to the American people. We're about to find out. The media get that if Walker succeeds they become irrelevant, and will fight fang and claw, probably by throwing as much mud as they can invent in Walker's general direction. If they win I think it will be a Pyrrhic victory, because they're going to have to go so far overboard that they will make themselves irrelevant as far as the attitudes of the voting public in the 2016 election proper is concerned.
Meanwhile perfectly viable candidates are sitting the wings taking notes. If the media manage to collect Walker's scalp, will they be able to deal with his successor in the queue?
"I'm still waiting for Mark to tell us what he thinks Walker's mistake is."
Speaking while republican.
Can't handle Milbank? Seriously? This makes Milbank look like the class retard getting pantsed by the whole football team. It's so offhanded and devastating at once that it almost, but not quite, inspires sympathy for the nudnik who asked the question. Walker is rope-a-doping the whole pinko pack of them. Go ahead, Garage. Flail some more.
One notes that in Rob Fourneir's essay, the "right" response to a gotcha question posed to a conservative by a liberal is for the conservative to prove that he is actually a liberal, or at the very least to throw other conservatives under the bus.
Likewise, I had not realized that the "Putin's soul" response was a gotcha question posed right in the middle of a high level diplomatic meeting between Bush and Putin. It's interesting in light of Netanyahu coming to Congress and all the uproar on the left that you don't go around compromising the president in front of another national leader...
So it's what it always is - the good response is the response that comes from the left, regardless of what that response actually is.
The last line in the article: "I will always choose to focus on what matters to the American people, not what matters to the media."
Walker was elected three times in four years in Wisconsin, a very bluish state not carried by a Republican presidential candidate since Reagan. Walker - even with a larger Democrat turnout - won re-election by an even larger margin than the first time, in that very liberal state. Walker knows what matters to Americans.
Watching Garage squirm is fun. And Mark, well, I think he gets his talking points from the same worn-out page that Garage uses. And that page and its ideas are old and worn, much like the Democrat presidential front-runner.
Is every election from now on going to be about the guy who's leaving office and not running for anything?
"Mark said...
If he wasn't worried about this, he wouldn't feel the need to defend himself for the third week in a row.
Walker is well aware of the mistake he made. Althouse apparently is not."
Defend himself. LOL You are the poster child of stupid.
"Amadeus 48 said...
I'm still waiting for Mark to tell us what he thinks Walker's mistake is."
Patience. His mom is making him meat loaf.
"Dana Milbank, what kind of fungus are you?"
If Walker knows the media are predictable liberal dumb-asses, which they indisputably are, throwing some chum in the water so he had a chance to not-respond to it would have been a smart move.
You have a great insight. Remember Christie early in his governorship at a press conference, when he roasted a reporter for asking a stupid question? Everyone applauded and laughed about Christie's gutsy response, because everyone knew what the question's purpose was. What I'm wondering is, is the MSM bright enough to know what is going on (probably not, apparently), or will they continue to blind themselves, continuing a descent into irrelevance?
gerry said...
If Walker knows the media are predictable liberal dumb-asses, which they indisputably are, throwing some chum in the water so he had a chance to not-respond to it would have been a smart move...
What I'm wondering is, is the MSM bright enough to know what is going on (probably not, apparently), or will they continue to blind themselves, continuing a descent into irrelevance?"
The MSM target are morons like garage and Mark.
I read Walker's opinion piece. But much more instructive was USAToday's own editorial about him that was linked. It was patronizing, calling Walker a 'darling.' And they are furious with him because he refuses to 'rebuke' the 'rabid' 'toxic' 'haters' in his own party. So they are mad because he refuses to rebuke his own party members, at the MSM's insistence, and then say flattering things about President Obama, whom the MSM adores. That editorial said all I need to know about the media culture and how it treats non-Democrats.
Walker is an infomercial selling shit product, and he's good at it, until he has to move off his canned Luntz talking points. Or say something no on a teleprompter.
Re: the Balz religion question, Walker should have said that he thought that Obama was a Muslim, but "one of the good ones."
I watched that Iowa speech. No teleprompter.
In fact, I've rarely seen most Republican politicians recently using teleprompters, except for highly-scripted TV events, like the SotU response speech or convention speeches.
Really, I haven't seen most Democrats do so, either.
Except for Obama.
Which is why Garage's post is a classic example of liberal projection.
Walker is an infomercial selling shit product
So, your fellow Wisconsinites are dumbasses who elected Walker THREE times by ever-larger majorities because they can't tell shit from shinola?
You.are.so.smooth.
So, your fellow Wisconsinites are dumbasses who elected Walker THREE times by ever-larger majorities because they can't tell shit from shinola?
Walker was voted in by 27% of eligible voters. But yea, they are dumbasses. They must like lies, corruption, and debt.
If Ron Fournier thinks that what he asked Clinton was a gotcha question he's dumber than I thought.
Ann, or anyone, can you explain why Fournier's question was considered gotcha?
The answer to Fournier's question is very similar to Walker's response. "I don't know. You'll need to ask the shortstop."
Fournier's grasping at straws if he thinks that's a gotcha question.
These people are beyond ridiculous.
And really, how many people in real America (not politically inclined) are even paying attention right now to what some governor in Wisconsin said? The media is flaming themselves out over nothing burgers. If Scott Walker wins the nomination--they'll have nothing left to throw.
"If Walker can't handle Dana Milbank"
Althouse handled Dana Milbank. What more needs to be done? Remember, punching down is a mistake.
"Patience. His mom is making him meat loaf."
Is that a Wedding Crashers reference?
"And really, how many people in real America (not politically inclined) are even paying attention right now to what some governor in Wisconsin said? The media is flaming themselves out over nothing burgers. If Scott Walker wins the nomination--they'll have nothing left to throw."
Everything about this is exactly right.
Walker is impressing the people that matter at this point in the cycle: donors, pundits, activists, inside-the-party people.
He's beating down the press early and defining himself as someone who will not be their bitch, unlike the last two Republican nominees.
He's doing it all before the race really gets going, thus chasing second-tier candidates out of the mix, and forcing Jeb to put-up-or-shut-up earlier than the Bush people would have wanted.
Walker does have game, that's for sure.
The Fournier question in question, is literally, a softball question.
It's amusing how Leftists see Walker's refusal to answer gotcha "sucker bait" questions as a weakness. The people who will vote for him, meaning Republicans, see it as a strength. He knows he'll never get your votes. He's more interested in earning the votes of people who aren't insane. He should also record every interview so he can prove what he actually said when his answers get creatively edited by reporters.
Remember, punching down is a mistake.
No joke.
Note: Obama didn't win his grudges with Fox News or Rush Limbaugh.
Walker sounds and acts like a leader. An American leader. We need more like him in America.
If Fournier thinks that is an example of a "gotcha" question, he doesn't even understand the basics of the topic he's writing about.
"If Fournier thinks that is an example of a "gotcha" question, he doesn't even understand the basics of the topic he's writing about."
So true.
Fournier's pride at his own objective incompetence gets to what makes the Media (and Hollywood) despicable instead of just piteous--they insist on congratulating themselves for their insight, importance, and courage, while showing none. It's not enough that he asked a stupid nothing question, he now has to bring it up as an example of how clever he is--what a good sense of humor he has, what quick thinkers both he and Clinton are, that kind of thing. Instead of being embarassed for his failure, he expects you to admire him! Smug, self-satisfied, self-congratulatory...they don't really cover it, but then again Fournier is in those respects not unique in his profession.
Katherine Hepburn had the reputation of a flinty, independent woman. In point of fact, the love of her life was an alcoholic married man who occasionally beat her. There was a fair amount of doormat in the soul of Katherine Hepburn. That's not something that Barbara Walters, nor any journalist, would ever try to elucidate in an interview with Hepburn. I see parallels with Hillary......What you see is not what you get. What you see is what the journalist feels is within the spectrum of permissible light.
Real journalists used to be transparent. The ones who got street cred reported heroically from war zones.
Now they either steal valor from real soldiers or they hope to be celebrities after some gotcha question eventually creates a byline. They truly live in the DC narcissistic Fantasia bubble.
As for Walker, it's always good to see the doers ignore the watchers.
There's a reason Fournier's journal decided to stop the comments section.
Is anyone else getting the impression Scott Walker is like Meadowlark Lemon doing trick shots while the MSM are like the Wasington Generals only there to make him look good.
Kysemick says ".....Refusing to answer an off-topic, off the wall question does not constitute a screwup in the minds of sane, rational individuals....."? I agree, except for "garage mahal" and "Mark", you are really stretching the definition of "sane - rational" with those 2! :)
If those reporters would actually get out of their bubbles and into the flyover states and listen, they wouldn't be as clueless or child-like. They're going to become even more embarrassing. I need more popcorn!
Big Mike earlier suggested 'going over the heads' of the idiot media. My admittedly shady memory seems to tell me that Mr Reagan did just that with fairly lengthy, several minutes, ad buys on network television. Is it too expensive to do that these days? Or will the information guardians just not sell time for such unwholesome purposes?
I think that the overwhelming majority of people who read Walker's article will agree with it.
By the way, what does Hillary Clinton think of Representative Bernie Thompson's declaration that US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thompson is an "Uncle Tom"?
Need more data. Where exactly is the ball hit, and how high? Where's the shortstop playing? Who has the better angle?
Who among the GOP candidates has ever had an 8% unfavorable rating??
That's either an error or it's all over.
Another question for Hillary, in the spirit of the inquiring national press:
"Why do you think that the late Christopher Hitchins and Richard Dawkins have both said it is clear to them that Obama is an atheist?"
Larvell said...
Need more data. Where exactly is the ball hit, and how high? Where's the shortstop playing? Who has the better angle?
My understanding is that if you have any chance of getting to the ball then it is your ball unless someone else calls for it first.
This is perfect.
If those reporters would actually get out of their bubbles and into the flyover states and listen, they wouldn't be as clueless or child-like.
Plant an idea in the head of somebody who fancies themselves smart as a young age and nobody can compete with that person in a battle of being closed-minded.
Keep in mind, allegedly intellectual people believe Marxism CAN work and that every single one of those other times it failed wasn't "really" Marxism.
They really believe that.
These journalists think they're smart. That is why they criticize the Republicans for not being candid while Democrat operatives follow them into bathrooms.
There is no double standard; there is only conservatives crying about the media when it brings up the short comings of their politicians.
Look, the media does the same with Democrats but the Democrats handle it better. Remember Obama and Rev Wright? That went on for a very long time. But Obama handled it very well. If you can't handle gotcha questions then get out of the game. It's one reason Walker won't become the POTUS.
There is no double standard; there is only conservatives crying about the media when it brings up the short comings of their politicians.
How many Dems have been asked about Biden's antics? None. He's only the Vice President and not a former mayor of NYC, but you'd think SOMEBODY would have asked a Democrat about him EVENTUALLY.
Look, the media does the same with Democrats but the Democrats handle it better. Remember Obama and Rev Wright?
You mean the story they briefly covered, bought an absurd lie from Obama, and then immediately after his speech decided to NEVER discuss Wright again?
Yeah, same thing happens to Republicans. All of the time.
That went on for a very long time.
A week is a long time?
But Obama handled it very well.
By claiming that he never heard any of the comments from Wright in his twenty years in his "church"? Yeah, brilliant handling.
If you can't handle gotcha questions then get out of the game.
Has A Democrat been asked since 2008 about Obama's faith?
I ask because, you know, Walker didn't BRING UP Obama's faith. The hack reporters did.
Abuse the reporters constantly. They can either not cover the biggest story --- or they can become your bitch.
Make them your bitch, Republicans.
I think Walker may just have blown it at CPAC with his response to a non-gotcha question about ISIS: “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”
I think Walker may just have blown it at CPAC with his response to a non-gotcha question about ISIS: “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe.”
Nah. Not backing down is not backing down.
Worlds better than "Well, they aren't REALLY Muslims" which is our current official stance.
Now Jim Geraghty at the National Review is heaping on Walker.
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/414512/scott-walkers-awful-answer-isis-jim-geraghty
I'm popping popcorn now, awaiting people defending this asinine comment out of Walker's mouth.
How long until he walks it back.
What did Walker say wrong — call Al Qaeda a JV team?
I will say this — I got a close up look at the hundred thousand protesters at the Wisconsin Capitol. Many tens of thousands of them were not JV. They were pros.
If he thinks ISIS is comparable to a bunch of Americans chanting I think he does not understand the risks posed by ISIS and Islamic terrorism.
Handling cheese fed union members is not warm up for jihadists cutting off heads or nuclear nutsos in Iran. He is stupid to act like it is.
"cheese fed union members"
You mean like a "cheese fed" JV team?
Mark said...
If he thinks ISIS is comparable to a bunch of Americans chanting I think he does not understand the risks posed by ISIS and Islamic terrorism.
I'm cheered that Mark isn't afraid to call the enemy "Islamic terrorists" although it's still curious that he must use the conjunction "and" to distinguish them form ISIS. He's halfway there. I bet Walker wouldn't be a balker when it comes to defining the enemy. It is the very first important step.
I think Walker may just have blown it at CPAC with his response to a non-gotcha question about ISIS: “If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the globe."
It's an Obama-like comment, isn't it? "Sure, ISIS, whatever-- but never forget that the real enemy is Americans who disagree with me."
Walker's perspective is incredibly off key as well as rather insulting. He claims taking on Unions prepares him to take on Isis. What?! Fellow Americans protesting their legal rights is suddenly the equivalent of Muslim jihadists who behead their enemy? Walker is not ready for prime time with absurdities like this. But, of course, conservatives will eat it up because some of them too think labor unions are terrorists.
You spinners claiming you caught Walker in a boo boo for his saying that a President's virtue is in keeping a focused goal and persistence whether the same is in one in face of Madisonians or the Madison-isians, seem lame.
That Was Walkers repetition of claiming use of Ronald Reagan's method that focused on the Air Traffic Controleer's strike, Nicaraguan Rebels, Granada and Panama until he won.
Strength and leadership. Reagan had it, Carter lacked it. Walker has it, Obama doesn't.
Fellow Americans protesting their legal rights is suddenly the equivalent of Muslim jihadists who behead their enemy?
ISIS and Wisconsin labor are worlds apart. One group sporadically occupies territory that doesn't belong to them, makes death threats against American government officials, and believes other lesser people somehow owe them tribute. The other group is mostly Arabs.
I think Republicans should be asked more questions about Obama's beliefs.
Do you think Obama was lying in 2008 when he promised to cut federal spending, or was it a legitimate change of mind from the politically advantageous position for the general election to the politically advantageous position to keep his party happy once he was in office?
Do you think Obama has made good on his promise to the Russians to be more flexible since 2012?
Do you agree with top Obama advisor David Axelrod that Obama lied to a pastor in a church when asked about gay marriage in 2008, given that he had expressed support for gay marriage both before and after his election as President?
Barack Obama's choice as Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton, of whom he said, "on the biggest foreign policy disaster of a generation, she got it wrong". In your cabinet, would you follow Obama's lead in appointing people who you thought had made gigantic mistakes, or would you try to find people who would make good decisions?
Obama promised that his health care plan would save the average family $2500 and noone would lose their doctor. He either had no understanding of how the plan drawn up in his name would work, or he was lying to the American public. If you were President, would you be honest and competent, or would you be more like Obama?
bgates 11:24
LOL!!!
Meantime Tammy Baldwin is "reviewing" her offices handling of a VA whistleblower case involving inpatient death.Hilary's (and Bill's) Foundation was accepting foreign money in contravention of her own ethics arrangement with the WH.The State Departmentys CT chief has been indicted for underage sex and the WH is trying to hasten the Apocalypse.Why would anyone think that The MSMs news judgement might be skewed?Please note that one of those is a quintessentially WISCONSIN story.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा