What did Walker say, anyway?
Walker’s comments on the Canadian border came in response to a question from NBC News’ Chuck Todd, who asked Walker if the U.S. should consider building a wall along the northern border amid calls by some Republican presidential candidates to build a wall along the southern border with Mexico.It sounds as though Todd was thinking of maybe boxing Walker in, making him seem anti-Hispanic if he didn't stick to a principled pro-wall position.
Walker was sort of cagey:
"Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire," Walker told Todd. "They have raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that's a legitimate issue for us to look at."What did "that's" refer to? Northern border enforcement in New Hampshire or a wall across the entire land border with Canada?
Walker’s campaign spokesperson AshLee Strong has since said that Walker was not advocating that a wall be built but that he was responding to Todd’s question in saying that he has heard concerns from other people about the security of the border.So he was trying to give an answer in the general vicinity of the question and shouldn't be taken to have answered the question asked? But that's not how things work in presidential politics. Anything you say will be used against you. It's aggressive but not really unfair. It's an important check on vagueness and evasion.
IN THE COMMENTS: Enough talk about how Democrats are never subjected to this kind of aggression to make me say: "The double standard argument is the go-to retreat for Republicans who want to soothe themselves about the shortcomings of their own candidates. But a candidate for President should be tested hard, and if Walker can't meet the test, he shouldn't be chosen. The fact that Democrats are tested less hard is almost irrelevant, because: 1. Anyone can step up and do the testing, so quit whining and contribute speech, either personally or by voting up the speech of those who are doing it (by your choice of media and through social media), and 2. The Republican in the end will have to go against the Democrat, and if the field is uneven, he'll still have to play on it."
Posts
78 comments:
He just proved that he can't stand up to the special snowflake narrative of the media.
There's not a big invasion from Canada because the invaders would have to get to Canada first, and they're down there in Mexico.
"Anything you say will be used against you. It's aggressive but not really unfair. It's an important check on vagueness and evasion."
WHat a steaming pile. Get back to me when this aggressive but no really unfair important check on vagueness and evasion is used on a Democrat.
Toast!
He will not be intimidated into agreeing with something he has said before...enough MSM, enough!
Hey, if Canada wants to pay for it ....
So when do we see that important check being used on Hillary's vagueness and evasion? I am not holding my breath until it happens.
This is GHW Bush and the supermarket scanner again. It was an attempt to trap him into something silly and,as I repeated multiple times yesterday, he didn't say it.
Nice try.
Yes, Anne, it IS "unfair." Because no Dem candidate is ever, ever treated that way.
You really don't get it, do you?
I don't see a direct quote of Chuck Todd's question. Without knowing exactly how the question was phrased, how can you determine if Walker's answer was vague or evasive?
According to the new Trump rules the correct answer was 'Fuck you, Chuck Todd!'
Ask a silly question, get a silly answer.
Meanwhile no one is grilling Hillary on her "give them all citizenship" stance. The GOP is creating their own distractions here and letting the Dems sit back and avoid the tough questions.
Here are more details of the question, as asked:
Why are we always talking about the southern border and building a fence there? [Chuck Todd] asked. We don’t talk about a northern border.
If this is about securing the border from potentially terrorists coming over, do you want to build a wall north of the border, too? Todd asked Walker.
Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire, Walker replied. They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at.
Now, clearly, building a fence is not an issue, it is a proposal. The issue being discussed is border security along the Canadian border.
So, while Walker does not answer the question, he also in no way suggests that we should consider building a fence. Anyone who says differently is either lying or misinformed.
The GOP is creating their own distractions here and letting the Dems sit back and avoid the tough questions.
Well, It's really the Press that is sitting back and avoiding the tough questions.
I think Walker and the other GOP candidates need to hit back a little harder on media types (all Dem supporters) who try these gotcha questions.
People love it when Trump hits back against a CNN reporter or activist Jorge Ramos.
In 2012, Gingrich caught a little steam doing the same thing.
In 2012, Romney failed to do this during the famous Candy Crowley debate, and stalled his own momentum in the process.
Call out these reporters as Leftists, during the interview. It might infuse a little excitement into the race.
Walker seems to have mostly acted as his own chief campaign strategist and consultant, and that worked until it didn't.
Perhaps it's time for him to hire some pros?
And that's why candidate Obama spoke in general platitudes and any specifics ("necessarily bankrupt" the coal industry) were swept under the rug by the Democrats on television. Because not necessarily unfair.
Bull shit.
"Well, It's really the Press that is sitting back and avoiding the tough questions."
That's exactly the problem and why the GOP candidates should be pivoting this back--e.g., "my position on this issue is somewhat different from Hillary Clinton's position. Oh, you want to know what that means? Why don't you ask her?"
I don't think what they're asking Walker is a "gotcha" question unless you define "gotcha" questions as "questions difficult for me to answer". If you're discussing border security, and you're focused on Mexico, then explain why your position is different regarding Canada--it's not that difficult.
To me a "gotcha" question is one based on false or assumed premises (e.g., "why do you not have a plan to deal with the police who are obviously targeting motorists for the crime of being black? Is it because your voters are mostly white?"). Those questions are disingenuous but the correct answer is to challenge the assumption of the question and expose it for what it is. Getting flummoxed and complaining later doesn't help.
If he didn't use so much vague phrasing people wouldn't read so much into it. Has he never heard the words yes or no? If he said no and then answered with the rest of his statement we wouldn't be talking about it.
Trying to say all things to all people is hurting Walkers chances. See: 14th Amendment, abortion, foreign policy, now Canadian wall.
He has turned into Trump - lite without any of the amusing parts.
Next time they propose a stupid idea he could be unintimidated and full of 'big, bold' and use the word no.
The double standard argument is the go-to retreat for Republicans who want to soothe themselves about the shortcomings of their own candidates. But a candidate for President should be tested hard, and if Walker can't meet the test, he shouldn't be chosen. The fact that Democrats are tested less hard is almost irrelevant, because: 1. Anyone can step up and do the testing, so quit whining and contribute speech, either personally or by voting up the speech of those who are doing it (by your choice of media and through social media), and 2. The Republican in the end will have to go against the Democrat, and if the field is uneven, he'll still have to play on it.
It's an important check on vagueness and evasion
Bullshit. It's an insulting hack attempt at a partisan "gotch ya".
Only a scoundrel or fool would think that (Canada wall) was what any sane person would mean, let alone a Governor and candidate for President.
"That's an important issue, we'll look into that," is the polite way politicians have dismissed people asking stupid/crazy routinely. Ask about UFOs, aliens, chemtrails, 9/11 being an inside job, etc., etc., the politician politely looks at you and says, "We'll look into that."
It's a verbal pat on the head. It makes sense Walker would deploy it on someone asking a stupid question about a wall with Canada.
"The double standard argument is the go-to retreat for Republicans who want to soothe themselves about the shortcomings of their own candidates"
No, we don't "soothe" ourselves that way. As even the comments on this blog tell you, GOPers are pretty ruthless about candidate shortcomings, of course taking into account the MSM double standard. Yours truly pointed out some Walker "shortcomings" at a very early stage right here.
But we are also still capable of avoiding the muck of law-professory rationalizations and calling a lie a lie.
Parents use it with children, too.
It'll take me some time to get used to the idea of Canadians hanging out at the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot waiting for the landscapers.
"But a candidate for President should be tested hard,"
You mean like the kid gloves the LameStream Media use(d) when asking questions of Obama, Bernie, Hillary, etc...?
Give me a break. The only ones getting the screws put to them by the U.S. Media, (a.k.a. Democrat Operatives with bylines) are/is/was/will be Republicans.
Any other conclusion is pure BS.
Look, it is true: The press, for the most part, hates Republicans and are adversarial, at best -- openly antagonistic at worst.
That's why you don't walk in to a trap. Walker's statement doesn't seem unclear to me. He's heard complaints about border security and is willing to investigate what steps to take.
That's non-committal, yes. But, I think that's a better approach than to jump to a course of action. It was a stupid, thoughtless question, and got an actual response with details from Walker [explaining where he's heard similar complaints, etc., etc.]
In this context, making the double-standard argument is complaining about how someone does their job who doesn't work for you.
Hey, I have an idea: Let's all pretend Fox News doesn't exist!
You are right...this is fun!
"Hey, I have an idea: Let's all pretend Fox News doesn't exist!"
-- Fox News has been, routinely, more fair to Democrats and Democrat operatives than the other networks. If you're ignorant of that fact, it is OK. I'd advise you go study some actual media analyses and then come back.
"Hey, I have an idea: Let's all pretend Fox News doesn't exist!
You are right...this is fun!"
Nothing makes a Leftists panties get tied in a knot faster than the continued success of Fox News.
And they LOVE to pretend that it's existence is proof positive that the playing field is level.
Just ignore the far Left tilt of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, they NY Times, Washington Post, etc., etc. on and on ad nauseam.
Matt Sablan said...
"Parents use it with children, too."
People reveal so much more than they intend to in their writing.
Matt, you have my sincere condolences.
machine: "He will not be intimidated into agreeing with something he has said before...enough MSM, enough!"
I guess we are still waiting for machine to post the link to wherever/whenever Walker had ever said he was in agreement with building a wall on the northern border.
One supposes a link will not be forthcoming.
This is why it's always dangerous for machine to post more than 3 words at a time. Think of machine as an "under-powered" garage mahal.
Why? You've never seen a parent tell a child that their concern is noted and we'll talk about it later?
Re-prioritizing away from a non-constructive line of discussion to a constructive one is a perfectly healthy thing to do. If a child is throwing a temper tantrum, and you can resolve it by saying "We'll talk it about it later, I understand that you're upset, but right now, we need to do this," that's... perfectly healthy.
Mathew Sablan: "It was a stupid, thoughtless question..."
Oh, I guarantee it was not "thoughtless" at all.
Matthew Sablan: "Why? You've never seen a parent tell a child that their concern is noted and we'll talk about it later?"
Why do you bother Mathew?
The lefts intent was to create a weird "gotcha" moment with Walker. Walker avoided it so now the lefties are simply making it up and repeating it over and over again. Which is the point.
"The double standard argument is the go-to retreat for Republicans who want to soothe themselves about the shortcomings of their own candidates. But a candidate for President should be tested hard, and if Walker can't meet the test, he shouldn't be chosen. The fact that Democrats are tested less hard is almost irrelevant, because:"
you just undid your own argument because you suggest that candidates should be tested hard (by the media). If they aren't, then how are they meeting the test of leadership? The double standard argument is certainly valid if you think there should be a test to determine eligibility and you think one side doesn't have to take it.
The democrat is tested less hard. Therefore don't whine about republicans complaining about a double standard. YOU say there should be a test and the media isn't applying it equally.
It'll take me some time to get used to the idea of Canadians hanging out at the Dunkin' Donuts parking lot waiting for the landscapers.
Canadians'll be at the Tim Horton's, not the Dunkin' Donuts.
The problem isn't the double standard, here. It's the entertaining lie that will spread like wildfire while the truth is still pulling on its sneakers.
Scott Walker didn't propose, call for, or even support the idea of a wall between the U.S. and Canada.
He gave a boilerplate answer about border security. He didn't explicitly condemn or ridicule the idea that Chuck Todd raised about a Canadian wall. That's not the same thing. If Chuck Todd had *believed* that it was at the time, don't you think he would have followed up to get an explicit statement about it? That's Political Reporter 101 stuff.
The headlines were all lies. Entertaining lies designed to make it into private social conversations and spread.
That's the problem.
If you think I'm wrong about the lie, find a transcript or video anywhere with Chuck Todd's full question and Scott Walker's full answer. Prove me wrong.
"That's an important issue, we'll look into that," is the polite way politicians have dismissed people asking stupid/crazy routinely. Ask about UFOs, aliens, chemtrails, 9/11 being an inside job, etc., etc., the politician politely looks at you and says, "We'll look into that."
That was my first thought as well. When you’re on the campaign trail you put have to put yourself out there and risk being asked all sorts of bizarre questions and the trick is to figure out a way to politely remove yourself from a conversation you don’t want to have without needlessly antagonizing the person. That’s how I read Walker’s response and I think he’s done the same thing with earlier attempts at “gotcha” questions.
That being said, while the suggestion of building a wall on our northern border is silly, concerns about who is entering our country from Canada are not. Canada has not been a hotbed of terrorist activity but I remember reading after 9/11 that while they’re pretty good at vetting the people they allow into their country for marketable skills, there are concerns about gaps in their vetting process that may mean they’re bringing in radicals (many of which as we’ve seen are highly educated) and our northern border security depends on the controls Canada puts into place about who gets into their r country first. Recognizing these potential gaps and trying to figure out a way to plug them seems like a pretty prudent thing to do.
clint: "If you think I'm wrong about the lie, find a transcript or video anywhere with Chuck Todd's full question and Scott Walker's full answer. Prove me wrong."
They can't, or they already would have done just that.
No, as with the "code words" BS, the left has simply moved on to the make-it-up-and-repeat-it phase of the operation.
Why do you have to politely remove yourself from stupid questions? I thought republicans were against Political Correct speech, but yet here they fail to call their guy on that very thing.
Part of the reason that Trump is in the lead is because he actually says what he thinks, he doesn't politely call stupid things 'something I will look into'. He isn't politically correct as Scott Walker is, refusing to refute stupid questions from the press corps.
Instead it's the blame-the-press defense, endless complaining about how unfair the interview you chose to do was. If Walker thought it would be unfair he didn't have to return their call and set up the interview. Instead, he wants us all to pity him as he gets tripped up by his own words.
I thought executives could make judgements, clearly state their agenda. Instead we have mealy mouthed Walker unable to navigate simple questioning and never giving a clear yes or no. He speaks like a lifetime politician, not someone interviewing to be Chief Executive.
If the Canadians were smart, they would build a wall to stop our exodus north.
By the way, a wall can keep you in: a prison; or keep you out: gated community.
When will our gated community become our prison?
A quick bit of research-
I googled the quote Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire.
The first seven results did not include enough of the preceding question to know that the issue under discussion was border security, and never hinted that the legitimate issue might refer to something other than building the wall.
The eighth did give enough context, but only after stating as fact that the legitimate issue comment was in reference to building a wall. It still did not provide a direct quote including the full context of the question, and quickly went back to treating it as though Walker had said he was considering building a wall.
Without having read the comments...
Professor, so your answer to the double standard argument is, Shut up? Take it and like it? Suffer?
So when the shooting starts, you'll understand that it was your fault, right?
Have you ever considered that your mental defects, e.g. neurasthenia, disqualify you from propounding your opinions as being worthy of consideration?
Drago:
Yep. I know. But I'm not sure folks who believe the other side all realize that.
And arguing about double standards or immigration policy plays right into the propagandists' hands. It's what we'd be arguing if Scott Walker really had said something dumb.
He didn't.
The fact that the AP published a bald-faced lie and the rest of the MSM from CNN to NYT and WaPo all trumpeted it from the rooftops --- that's the issue here.
The correct response is to laugh at people who believe this -- ask them if they think George Bush planted dynamite in the twin towers or used his Dr. Evil (TM) Weather Control Satellite to retarget Hurricane Katrina.
he fact that Democrats are tested less hard is almost irrelevant, because:
It isn't irrelevant at all, because it doesn't serve the electorate.
The fact that Democrats are tested less hard is almost irrelevant, because: ..... 2. The Republican in the end will have to go against the Democrat, and if the field is uneven, he'll still have to play on it."
Your own comment proves why it is absolutely relevant.
The fact that the Colts don't get high quality footballs is almost irrelevant because they will still have to play against the Patriots, who cheat on football inflation.
The media can lie about what Scott Walker said, and that is almost irrelevant because he'll still have to beat the Democrat, who the media will flatter.
The media can depict John McCain as racist for having white women in his Obama ad, but that is almost irrelevant because he'll still have to beat Barack Obama, who the media will depict as a racial healer.
Let's examine Barack Obama 2008.
People who voted for him thought he would be some kind of racial healer in the US, thought he would be some great seducer of the muslim world to be more at peace with us, and thought he would have an even-handed, no red state/no blue state approach.
Now. Why did they think this? Because that's what he said, and that's how the media depicted him.
Yet, his actual history showed something quite different. He went to Jeremiah's Wrights church. He was a failed community organizer who got poor black communities riled up, but left them with asbestos (Altgeld Gardens) and slumlords (Tony Rezo) he had almost no history of engaging in foreign policy, and there was evidence of his distaste for Israel described (but then sequestered) by the LA Times. He had never actually created any legislation that was evenly balanced for conservatives and liberals. He had, in fact, spent time in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge working with the radical Bill Ayers and giving money to various socialist groups.
All of this information was available and discussed, even in social media. But it was not powerful enough to break through the major-media approved narrative about Obama.
Even some very smart people believed Obama was going to be a very special president, with very special racial healing powers. And look at us.
It's not irrelevant.
Why do you have to politely remove yourself from stupid questions?
Because it’s usually the most effective way of making it less likely you’ll have to keep answering the same question over and over again. Example: when asked about removing the Confederate flag from the State capitol in North Carolina after the shooting, Walker correctly limited his response to sympathy for the shooting victims and said out of respect for the families he’d discuss what he thought should be done in a couple of weeks after everyone had time to grieve. Naturally no one followed up on what was a stupid “gotcha” question and Walker was able to move on to issues that matter.
Part of the reason that Trump is in the lead is because he actually says what he thinks, he doesn't politely call stupid things 'something I will look into'. He isn't politically correct as Scott Walker is, refusing to refute stupid questions from the press corps.
Scott Walker has won three Statewide elections while Donald Trump has won exactly zero. I put greater stock in actual proven election results than I do polls taken over five months before anyone actually casts a vote.
People saw Obama as a pragmatist, for heaven's sake!
Why? Because that was what his campaign PR put out about him. His lack of ability to be pinned down on anything was labeled "pragmatism". And this was allowed to stand, even though there was nothing pragmatic about his record. And there's nothing pragmatic about him now.
So, let's not believe the idea that somehow it's irrelevant when candidates are treated with unequal exposure. Or that some person using social media can expose it with the force equal to the media in place.
Mark: "Instead it's the blame-the-press defense, endless complaining about how unfair the interview you chose to do was."
LOL
So, now, after lying about Scott Walkers comments about a wall on our northern border, the lefties have decided to lie again and assign to Scott Walker "..endless complaining..."
And it's not even lunchtime yet.
"Because it’s usually the most effective way of making it less likely you’ll have to keep answering the same question over and over again."
-- Also, some candidates can dismissively pat a reporter and tell her that you'll talk to her later, sweetie, and get away with it, while others can create a ropeline to keep the press away -- while others can't.
Once you've learned that everything you do will be taken in the worst possible way, you start creating coping methods to defang the media's ability to ridicule you unfairly.
He wasn't a great communicator on Act 10, either. He could have defused a lot of the fuss by "liberally" quoting FDR on public sector unions.
His answer here has been, to my estimation, overblown and misinterpreted given the conversational nature of it. But it does read as a pol trying to not negate real concerns about terrorists being able to dupe their way into Canada, then into US.
But it was too vague..and almost Clintonian.
Though it was the the current Clinton v2.x that said I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.." Every Repub should be reminding any questioner about her saying that...even if they say they agree with i tin a certain way. But then..it will be selectively quoted/edited against them.
I still think Rubio has the best answer to all this by talking about legal immigrants who contact him with concerns about illegals...err the "undocumented immigrants". (Lazy documenters)
But a candidate for President should be tested hard
OK I guess after '08 and '12, we'll go that route. Obama was given a basic free pass.
That's different..it was "historic"..even the second time around.
But yeah...Mondale killed his chances by promising to raise taxes.
Obama promises to skyrocket electricity costs and lie about it? "4 more years"
We're just getting to the skyrocketing bit now...damnn slacker.
Uh-oh. Althouse is starting to find fault with Walker. Next comes the post on why she voted for Hillary in the general election, after all.
Althouse is right that it's sort of lame to excuse poor playing by blaming the refs--not that you shouldn't call out media double standards when you see them, but the ideal is that the media is equally hard on both sides, not that they soften up for everyone. Use and promote alternative media if the legacy media won't change.
But also, not every hard question is a "gotcha" question. Candidates should be prepared for the hard ones, and be able to think on their feet when they don't. It's revealing when they come across over-coached (like Hillary) or claim that the question is unfair and refuse to answer it (as Ted Cruz did with Megan Kelly on the question of whether he would favor deporting birthright citizens along with their illegal alien parents--something which a former Supreme Court clerk should be able to answer and is absolutely relevant).
In the end the GOP is going to have someone to put up against Hillary, and bumbling around or whining about questions that aren't actually unreasonable is going to do nothing towards winning over persuadable voters.
Blogger Nichevo said...
Without having read the comments...
Professor, so your answer to the double standard argument is, Shut up? Take it and like it? Suffer?
So when the shooting starts, you'll understand that it was your fault, right?
Have you ever considered that your mental defects, e.g. neurasthenia, disqualify you from propounding your opinions as being worthy of consideration?
I'm pretty sure she foolishly believes that the shooting will never start.
Brando, you are right, of course, but its still gripe-able at this point. I certainly expect there to be a double standard and that for large numbers of very smart people, to not care about it. For the candidates and their "people", its different.
...the ideal is that the media is equally hard on both sides, not that they soften up for everyone.
While true, the issue here is not hard vs. soft. It is flat-out lying about what he said, and when his campaign points out that they are trying to put words into his mouth, they lie about that ( saying that his campaign is walking back his previous statement. )
As Ann points out, a minority (African americans, homosexuals, etc) that faces discrimination can complain about the injustice of their situation but ultimately they have to deal with it to move forward. Short term, they have to play by those rules to get ahead. The true path forward is to go after those authorities who attempt to impose the slanted rules, they must be subverted, replaced, and/or destroyed, and that is where the effort should be, in those rarified atmospheres where the "other" is not allowed to intrude. It is a hard slog, because the pioneers will be alone, but as the land gets settled, it will be better.
The main problem is, and why people on th right complain. Is because the commenter here already have their lives and cannot just switch over to the areas in question. Conservatism does not lend itself to the fanatical devotion required to raise up children who specifically want to target occupations and institutions necessary to restore a more healthy balance.
Say, here's an idea! Why doesn't somebody, for instance, a "reporter", ask Walker whether he proposes, or is considering, building a wall along the entire US-Canadian border. The Meet-the-Press guy bobbled his question, so we the public didn't get a clear answer on Sunday. But this is apparently a question that is very important to people, particularly people who oppose Walker, so let's get it clarified once and for all.
Althouse has no problems with double standards.
There is one standard for Democrats (barely), and another much stronger one for Republicans. (deal with it)
There is one standard for women (rights with no responsibilities)and another for men (responsibilities without rights).
The worst part is she thinks these positions are rational.
"Brando, you are right, of course, but its still gripe-able at this point. I certainly expect there to be a double standard and that for large numbers of very smart people, to not care about it. For the candidates and their "people", its different."
Absolutely it's gripe-able (when it actually IS unfair--not every single hard question is unfair). I think candidates who are getting railroaded absolutely should attack such questions when answering them (it's also what I advise deponents to do in depositions when given an unfairly framed question).
The most egregious recent example was actually in Romney's debate with Obama when Candybar Crowley piped in to say essentially "Obama is right on this one" which is beyond inappropriate. Had Romney been quicker on his feet, he could have said "Candy, I didn't realize you're subbing in for my opponent in this debate. Who gets to moderate, then?" It would have been far better remembered than Obama's smug "can you say that a little louder, Candy?"
And you know what? Despite themselves, the media would love it if the GOP shot back a lot more. It makes better copy.
"It sounds as though Todd was thinking of maybe boxing Walker in, making him seem anti-Hispanic if he didn't stick to a principled pro-wall position." Nail on the head, Althouse! Damned as a racist if he said no, or even if he dismissed it rightly as a clown question, damned as a bizarre lunatic if he thinks we need a multi-billion-dollar-wall-building project against our closest ally. But Walker answered it perfectly. He was exactly as vague as that question deserved, even though people will make of his answer what they will, and twist the sound bites any which way; he has no control over that. Walker is so good at answering questions precisely the way he wants, as on point as he thinks they deserve, but without being led by the nose. He also has a knack for pissing off just the right number of people, and that isn't the majority like Trump, or even the 47% Romney thought he didn't need, but pretty much the 30%, give or take, who would never vote for him anyway, including 100% of Madison lefties.
And furthermore, why do people still disrespect and ridicule Tucker Carlson for the bow tie he stopped wearing ten years ago, while giving a pass to Goat Boy?
Godfather asking for a do-over.
I thought Walker could take on tough opponents.
I get the feeling negotiating with Putin or Iran is going to require someone who doesn't botch questions from Chuck Todd and need a do-over.
"Candy, I didn't realize you're subbing in for my opponent in this debate. Who gets to moderate, then?"
Reagan..not Romney.
"I get the feeling negotiating with Putin or Iran is going to require someone who doesn't botch questions from Chuck Todd and need a do-over." The DO OVER is from the left who are gathering that he said something he didn't say. You need a do over on reading comprehension.
"Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire," Walker told Todd. "They have raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that's a legitimate issue for us to look at."
Meaning, what? We'll look into it. Not a committal answer.
and Mark, if an aide clarifies an answer its not a do over. Its often for the IDIOTS, that misunderstood him the first time. ANd candidates do that all the time. Because they are often misinterpreted, sometimes deliberately by reporters, or were vague.
that's not a gotcha moment on your part. Even though I know the left wants to think it is.
I'll answer for Walker. If there is a need to build a wall in Canada, then my administration will advocate for doing so. We'll get back to you on it. However, there CLEARLY is a need to build a wall on Mexican border.
@Mark -- the "do over" -- your term not mine -- would be by the guy who asked the question. Is it Chuck Something? (I haven't watched any of the Sunday shows since David Brinkley retired.) He asked a question related to what Walker had said about securing the northern border as well as the southern one, and then after he'd completed his sentence he said something about a fence. Walker ignored the fence remark and answered the main question. If Chuck thought Walker had proposed building a wall along the entire US-Canadian border (5,525 mi -- I looked it up on Wikipedia), and assuming he's any kind of reporter (I don't know -- see prior parenthetical), wouldn't he have followed up?
" find a transcript or video anywhere with Chuck Todd's full question and Scott Walker's full answer. Prove me wrong."
I'm tired of this topic which I consider to be bullshit from the start. This is the old 1992 lie about Bush not knowing about supermarket scanners.
However, Walker has a weakness he needs to work on. I think he was not really listening to what Todd asked him. A lot of politicians have small sound bites in their heads and spit them out on cue. One reason why Trump is doing well so far and why Gingrich got a lot more traction than he deserved in 2012, is that he listens and calls bullshit right a way. The Ramos exchange was a key point.
Rudy Giuliani did this with Soledad O'Brien in 2008. She was asking him some argumentative question along the lines of "When did you stop beating your wife," and he came right back at her with the question, "How many people am I debating here?" "You too."
It was a great comeback and we are in an era where politeness like Romney uses, is not cutting through the crap anymore.
Post a Comment