I wouldn't exactly call Wisconsin a blue state - it is blue in Madison and Milwaukee, but it is pretty red everywhere else..............
I wouldn't exactly call Wisconsin a blue state - it is blue in Madison and Milwaukee, but it is pretty red everywhere else..............
____________________________________________________________
It sure in red now!
I am a liberal so have no reason to support Walker but I tend to agree that his views on evolution really have no bearing on his ability to govern. I mean lets be honest you really could rule out anyone who claims to be Christian and believes in the Bible with the resurrection of Christ, parting of the red sea, and the whole burning bush/ 10 commandments stories.
I don't care what a candidates personal religious beliefs are as long as they keep them separate from their government duties. Separation of church and state should be the concern not whether someone believes in the story of creation. IMHO of course
Agree 100%. I think that's why Walker and the others mentioned in the story are wise not to be led down these pathways. Nothing good can come of it, but damage can result. One phrase, one word out of place or context and it becomes worldwide news.
Look what happened when Stephanopolis asked Romney one stupid and baseless question about Romney's plans to "outlaw" birth control? Even though there was virtually no plan to do so, the whole "War on Women" was born.
That's why I believe it's better for the GOP to steer the conversation back towards economics, reform, trade, jobs and what not. That's where the votes are going to be, not with "settled science" topics or moral issues. Maybe they're finally learning.
I see a mirror image parallel to the 80's when Republicans tarred Democrats on these social issues, the classic election being 1988. In 1992 Bush tried to do it to Clinton but Clinton refused to play by the GOP rules. He simply sidestepped and bypassed the traps that were set for him. Reagan did the same when Carter went after him. (There you go again) The GOP candidate, if he or she wants to win simply cannot play the game by the rules set forth by the liberal establishment. Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution. What is important is what he would do as president. Let the elite and the left whine about his "cowardice." The people don't care. The winning candidate will focus relntlessly and like a laser on the issues that matter. I really believe after 8 years of this the country is absolutely ready for some down to earth appeal and is sick of these nonsensical games. If Walker is that man then he can win and probably will win.
For the record I fully believe in science and evolution and I think discussions about it have absolutely no place in a presidential campaign. Every second wasted on it is a second we can't focus on whether the candidates in question are qualified to do the job they are seeking.
We are all waiting for for the "candidates" to take a position, put forth a policy and say some thiing constructive.
That may require much warmer weather...
I think U.S. politics has basically come down to candidates avoiding taking a position or being evasive as possible on controversial issues so as not to polarize any potential voters. Instead they talk in generalizations about important issues like the economy, foreign policy etc.
All you have to do is ask the average John Doe what a candidates platform is around election time and most either have not idea or speak in generalizations just like the candidate.
IMHO this applies to both parties so I am pointing the finger at the GOP.
Well, it you want to be the Governor of Oregon the job is open.
All you have to do is ask the average John Doe what a candidates platform is around election time and most either have not idea or speak in generalizations just like the candidate.
If you would have asked John Doe about Obama's platform in 2012, he probably would have answered, "Mitt Romney is a horrible person."
But hey, it worked.
All you have to do is ask the average John Doe what a candidates platform is around election time and most either have not idea or speak in generalizations just like the candidate.
If you would have asked John Doe about Obama's platform in 2012, he probably would have answered, "Mitt Romney is a horrible person."
But hey, it worked.
And they would have been right...just kidding I actually thought Romney was a decent Republican.
No different then the hatchet job the Bush campaign did to Kerry and that worked...barely..of course that depends on whether you believe Bush stole the 2004 election or not. 😛
Lets face it if you had asked John Doe what Mitt "flip flop" Romney's platform was they would have told you he was for and against abortion.
The man changed his position on many issues like the wind. That and his comment about Obama supporters being free loaders did not help. He stuck his foot in his own mouth and required no help from the Democrats to self destruct.
That's why I believe it's better for the GOP to steer the conversation back towards economics, reform, trade, jobs and what not. That's where the votes are going to be, not with "settled science" topics or moral issues. Maybe they're finally learning.
There are no fewer than 20 references to abortion in the GOP platform, so maybe not.
I don't know what gets conservatives twitching more mentioning abortion or ACA. 😛
I don't know what gets conservatives twitching more mentioning abortion or ACA.
Mention that the ACA forces all women to have three abortions before the rest of the benefits kick in.
I am a liberal so have no reason to support Walker but I tend to agree that his views on evolution really have no bearing on his ability to govern. I mean lets be honest you really could rule out anyone who claims to be Christian and believes in the Bible with the resurrection of Christ, parting of the red sea, and the whole burning bush/ 10 commandments stories.
I don't care what a candidates personal religious beliefs are as long as they keep them separate from their government duties. Separation of church and state should be the concern not whether someone believes in the story of creation. IMHO of course
Agree 100%. I think that's why Walker and the others mentioned in the story are wise not to be led down these pathways. Nothing good can come of it, but damage can result. One phrase, one word out of place or context and it becomes worldwide news.
Look what happened when Stephanopolis asked Romney one stupid and baseless question about Romney's plans to "outlaw" birth control? Even though there was virtually no plan to do so, the whole "War on Women" was born.
That's why I believe it's better for the GOP to steer the conversation back towards economics, reform, trade, jobs and what not. That's where the votes are going to be, not with "settled science" topics or moral issues. Maybe they're finally learning.
I see a mirror image parallel to the 80's when Republicans tarred Democrats on these social issues, the classic election being 1988. In 1992 Bush tried to do it to Clinton but Clinton refused to play by the GOP rules. He simply sidestepped and bypassed the traps that were set for him. Reagan did the same when Carter went after him. (There you go again) The GOP candidate, if he or she wants to win simply cannot play the game by the rules set forth by the liberal establishment. Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution. What is important is what he would do as president. Let the elite and the left whine about his "cowardice." The people don't care. The winning candidate will focus relntlessly and like a laser on the issues that matter. I really believe after 8 years of this the country is absolutely ready for some down to earth appeal and is sick of these nonsensical games. If Walker is that man then he can win and probably will win.
For the record I fully believe in science and evolution and I think discussions about it have absolutely no place in a presidential campaign. Every second wasted on it is a second we can't focus on whether the candidates in question are qualified to do the job they are seeking.
Per Doug - "Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution."
Response - Because Doug says so? You get to pick & choose what issues are important? What's important to you may have zero importance to the next person & vice a versa. There are many many issues, and all go to the makeup of the total picture of a candidate. All issues are fair game, unless you feel it's OK to hide beliefs & have hidden agendas.
Per Doug - "The people don't care."
Response - What people? Can you be specific here? Do you speak for the people?
I am a liberal so have no reason to support Walker but I tend to agree that his views on evolution really have no bearing on his ability to govern. I mean lets be honest you really could rule out anyone who claims to be Christian and believes in the Bible with the resurrection of Christ, parting of the red sea, and the whole burning bush/ 10 commandments stories.
I don't care what a candidates personal religious beliefs are as long as they keep them separate from their government duties. Separation of church and state should be the concern not whether someone believes in the story of creation. IMHO of course
Agree 100%. I think that's why Walker and the others mentioned in the story are wise not to be led down these pathways. Nothing good can come of it, but damage can result. One phrase, one word out of place or context and it becomes worldwide news.
Look what happened when Stephanopolis asked Romney one stupid and baseless question about Romney's plans to "outlaw" birth control? Even though there was virtually no plan to do so, the whole "War on Women" was born.
That's why I believe it's better for the GOP to steer the conversation back towards economics, reform, trade, jobs and what not. That's where the votes are going to be, not with "settled science" topics or moral issues. Maybe they're finally learning.
I see a mirror image parallel to the 80's when Republicans tarred Democrats on these social issues, the classic election being 1988. In 1992 Bush tried to do it to Clinton but Clinton refused to play by the GOP rules. He simply sidestepped and bypassed the traps that were set for him. Reagan did the same when Carter went after him. (There you go again) The GOP candidate, if he or she wants to win simply cannot play the game by the rules set forth by the liberal establishment. Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution. What is important is what he would do as president. Let the elite and the left whine about his "cowardice." The people don't care. The winning candidate will focus relntlessly and like a laser on the issues that matter. I really believe after 8 years of this the country is absolutely ready for some down to earth appeal and is sick of these nonsensical games. If Walker is that man then he can win and probably will win.
For the record I fully believe in science and evolution and I think discussions about it have absolutely no place in a presidential campaign. Every second wasted on it is a second we can't focus on whether the candidates in question are qualified to do the job they are seeking.
Per Doug - "Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution."
Response - Because Doug says so? You get to pick & choose what issues are important? What's important to you may have zero importance to the next person & vice a versa. There are many many issues, and all go to the makeup of the total picture of a candidate. All issues are fair game, unless you feel it's OK to hide beliefs & have hidden agendas.
Per Doug - "The people don't care."
Response - What people? Can you be specific here? Do you speak for the people?
__________________________________________________________________Doug, using the word " I ", was clearly stating his opinion to which his is entitled.
Also clearly tired of an inexperienced president many people do not want another one.
Just Say No to Monica Lewinsky's Boyfriend's Wife in 2016
What about the other questions he did't answer??? He comes off like Palin in drag. Real presidential material. Here are some other topics Walker refused to answer or punted on. Personally, I will take a pass or punt on ever voting for him if he were to get the Republican nod.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been in London this week as part of a trade mission widely seen as a prelude to a possible 2016 presidential run. But during a Wednesday appearance at the Chatham House think tank, he firmly declined to address a multitude of subjects:
*United Kingdom membership in the European Union.
*The fight against the Islamic State.
*Whether the U.S. should arm Ukraine against Russia-backed rebels.
*His general foreign policy vision.
*Whether he believes in evolution.
“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” Walker said in response to the latter, much to the incredulity of Justin Webb of BBC Radio 4, who served as moderator at Walker's sole public appearance in the four-day trip. “That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.”
I am a liberal so have no reason to support Walker but I tend to agree that his views on evolution really have no bearing on his ability to govern. I mean lets be honest you really could rule out anyone who claims to be Christian and believes in the Bible with the resurrection of Christ, parting of the red sea, and the whole burning bush/ 10 commandments stories.
I don't care what a candidates personal religious beliefs are as long as they keep them separate from their government duties. Separation of church and state should be the concern not whether someone believes in the story of creation. IMHO of course
Agree 100%. I think that's why Walker and the others mentioned in the story are wise not to be led down these pathways. Nothing good can come of it, but damage can result. One phrase, one word out of place or context and it becomes worldwide news.
Look what happened when Stephanopolis asked Romney one stupid and baseless question about Romney's plans to "outlaw" birth control? Even though there was virtually no plan to do so, the whole "War on Women" was born.
That's why I believe it's better for the GOP to steer the conversation back towards economics, reform, trade, jobs and what not. That's where the votes are going to be, not with "settled science" topics or moral issues. Maybe they're finally learning.
I see a mirror image parallel to the 80's when Republicans tarred Democrats on these social issues, the classic election being 1988. In 1992 Bush tried to do it to Clinton but Clinton refused to play by the GOP rules. He simply sidestepped and bypassed the traps that were set for him. Reagan did the same when Carter went after him. (There you go again) The GOP candidate, if he or she wants to win simply cannot play the game by the rules set forth by the liberal establishment. Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution. What is important is what he would do as president. Let the elite and the left whine about his "cowardice." The people don't care. The winning candidate will focus relntlessly and like a laser on the issues that matter. I really believe after 8 years of this the country is absolutely ready for some down to earth appeal and is sick of these nonsensical games. If Walker is that man then he can win and probably will win.
For the record I fully believe in science and evolution and I think discussions about it have absolutely no place in a presidential campaign. Every second wasted on it is a second we can't focus on whether the candidates in question are qualified to do the job they are seeking.
Per Doug - "Damned right it is not important what Walker's views are on evolution."
Response - Because Doug says so? You get to pick & choose what issues are important? What's important to you may have zero importance to the next person & vice a versa. There are many many issues, and all go to the makeup of the total picture of a candidate. All issues are fair game, unless you feel it's OK to hide beliefs & have hidden agendas.
Per Doug - "The people don't care."
Response - What people? Can you be specific here? Do you speak for the people?
Depending on which polls you look at, somewhere between 25% and 40% of the electorate believes that a presidential candidates views on evolotion and creationism is an issue that should be considered. Not a majority, but certainly not insignificant enough to suggest "the people don't care."
The last two GOP nominees, McCain and Romney, were able to avoid making this an issue by saying that they believed that evolution was part of God's plan (a viewed shared by 31 percent of the public, per Gallup).
In refusing to address evolution, Walker has made it a bigger deal than it would have been otherwise, and will likely continue to be asked about it. Regardless of whether I believe or support him, he's made a political miscalculation in my opinion.
The winning candidate will focus relntlessly and like a laser on the issues that matter.
Focus like a laser on issues that matter???
I guess these issues don't matter then because he also punted or in other words refused to answer questions about these issues as well. Very presidential huh????? LOL!!!
*United Kingdom membership in the European Union.
*The fight against the Islamic State.
*Whether the U.S. should arm Ukraine against Russia-backed rebels.
*His general foreign policy vision.
What about the other questions he did't answer??? He comes off like Palin in drag. Real presidential material. Here are some other topics Walker refused to answer or punted on. Personally, I will take a pass or punt on ever voting for him if he were to get the Republican nod.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been in London this week as part of a trade mission widely seen as a prelude to a possible 2016 presidential run. But during a Wednesday appearance at the Chatham House think tank, he firmly declined to address a multitude of subjects:
*United Kingdom membership in the European Union.
*The fight against the Islamic State.
*Whether the U.S. should arm Ukraine against Russia-backed rebels.
*His general foreign policy vision.
*Whether he believes in evolution.
“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” Walker said in response to the latter, much to the incredulity of Justin Webb of BBC Radio 4, who served as moderator at Walker's sole public appearance in the four-day trip. “That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.”
Did you read the article? It clearly states he was brought in to discuss trade and investment. Now he's got people who would never vote for him anyway all riled up because he preferred to stick to the topic. Pardon him all over the place. He handled it brilliantly.
For the record I fully believe in science and evolution and I think discussions about it have absolutely no place in a presidential campaign. Every second wasted on it is a second we can't focus on whether the candidates in question are qualified to do the job they are seeking.
Creationism being taught in public schools is possibly one of the most pressing issues facing us as America swirls down the toilet of the great dumbdown. A statesman's views on evolution are not only relevant but a critical indicator of their stance on a wide range of important issues.
Here's a bumper sticker idea i came up with: ONLY A MONKEY COULD BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM
For the record I fully believe in science and evolution and I think discussions about it have absolutely no place in a presidential campaign. Every second wasted on it is a second we can't focus on whether the candidates in question are qualified to do the job they are seeking.
Creationism being taught in public schools is possibly one of the most pressing issues facing us as America swirls down the toilet of the great dumbdown. A statesman's views on evolution are not only relevant but a critical indicator of their stance on a wide range of important issues.
Here's a bumper sticker idea i came up with: ONLY A MONKEY COULD BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM
______________________________________________________________________
The concept of Faith eludes you.
Pity.
I can recommend a good book.
What about the other questions he did't answer??? He comes off like Palin in drag. Real presidential material. Here are some other topics Walker refused to answer or punted on. Personally, I will take a pass or punt on ever voting for him if he were to get the Republican nod.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been in London this week as part of a trade mission widely seen as a prelude to a possible 2016 presidential run. But during a Wednesday appearance at the Chatham House think tank, he firmly declined to address a multitude of subjects:
*United Kingdom membership in the European Union.
*The fight against the Islamic State.
*Whether the U.S. should arm Ukraine against Russia-backed rebels.
*His general foreign policy vision.
*Whether he believes in evolution.
“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” Walker said in response to the latter, much to the incredulity of Justin Webb of BBC Radio 4, who served as moderator at Walker's sole public appearance in the four-day trip. “That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.”
Did you read the article? It clearly states he was brought in to discuss trade and investment. Now he's got people who would never vote for him anyway all riled up because he preferred to stick to the topic. Pardon him all over the place. He handled it brilliantly.
Just because he was brought in to talk about a certain topic doesn't mean he has to pass on other questions about other topics. Guess he can't think on his feet??? Wonder if he will give the same answers or lack there of in the debates because that is only the tip of the iceberg questions. These are all questions that someone who will be running for president will have asked to him over and over again and none of them are so called GOTCHA questions unless he just doesn't have answers to them. Just answer the friggin questions and he shouldn't be afraid that his own opinions on these topics will hurt him because sooner or later he will either have to answer these questions or he can continue to blow them off and come off like a dumb male version of Palin.
[Edited on 2/13/2015 by sixty8]
What about the other questions he did't answer??? He comes off like Palin in drag. Real presidential material. Here are some other topics Walker refused to answer or punted on. Personally, I will take a pass or punt on ever voting for him if he were to get the Republican nod.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been in London this week as part of a trade mission widely seen as a prelude to a possible 2016 presidential run. But during a Wednesday appearance at the Chatham House think tank, he firmly declined to address a multitude of subjects:
*United Kingdom membership in the European Union.
*The fight against the Islamic State.
*Whether the U.S. should arm Ukraine against Russia-backed rebels.
*His general foreign policy vision.
*Whether he believes in evolution.
“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” Walker said in response to the latter, much to the incredulity of Justin Webb of BBC Radio 4, who served as moderator at Walker's sole public appearance in the four-day trip. “That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.”
Did you read the article? It clearly states he was brought in to discuss trade and investment. Now he's got people who would never vote for him anyway all riled up because he preferred to stick to the topic. Pardon him all over the place. He handled it brilliantly.
Just because he was brought in to talk about a certain topic doesn't mean he has to pass on other questions about other topics. Guess he can't think on his feet??? Wonder if he will give the same answers or lack there of in the debates because that is only the tip of the iceberg questions. These are all questions that someone who will be running for president will have asked to him over and over again and none of them are so called GOTCHA questions unless he just doesn't have answers to them. Just answer the friggin questions and he shouldn't be afraid that his own opinions on these topics will hurt him because sooner or later he will either have to answer these questions or he can continue to blow them off and come off like a dumb male version of Palin.
[Edited on 2/13/2015 by sixty8]
_______________________________-_______________________
Then why did obama dodge the question in 2008 & 2012?
Or is obama the dumb male version of hillary?
Creationism being taught in public schools is possibly one of the most pressing issues facing us as America swirls down the toilet of the great dumbdown. A statesman's views on evolution are not only relevant but a critical indicator of their stance on a wide range of important issues.
Here's a bumper sticker idea i came up with: ONLY A MONKEY COULD BELIEVE IN CREATIONISM
Sign me up BrerRabbit!
I don't care what a candidates personal religious beliefs are as long as they keep them separate from their government duties. Separation of church and state should be the concern not whether someone believes in the story of creation. IMHO of course
Believing in religion at the cost of Science, in my opinion, is stupid, backward and ignorant. There are many scientist who have found ways for religion to co-exist with scientific fact.
What about the other questions he did't answer??? He comes off like Palin in drag. Real presidential material. Here are some other topics Walker refused to answer or punted on. Personally, I will take a pass or punt on ever voting for him if he were to get the Republican nod.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been in London this week as part of a trade mission widely seen as a prelude to a possible 2016 presidential run. But during a Wednesday appearance at the Chatham House think tank, he firmly declined to address a multitude of subjects:
*United Kingdom membership in the European Union.
*The fight against the Islamic State.
*Whether the U.S. should arm Ukraine against Russia-backed rebels.
*His general foreign policy vision.
*Whether he believes in evolution.
“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” Walker said in response to the latter, much to the incredulity of Justin Webb of BBC Radio 4, who served as moderator at Walker's sole public appearance in the four-day trip. “That’s a question that a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or another.”
Did you read the article? It clearly states he was brought in to discuss trade and investment. Now he's got people who would never vote for him anyway all riled up because he preferred to stick to the topic. Pardon him all over the place. He handled it brilliantly.
Just because he was brought in to talk about a certain topic doesn't mean he has to pass on other questions about other topics. Guess he can't think on his feet??? Wonder if he will give the same answers or lack there of in the debates because that is only the tip of the iceberg questions. These are all questions that someone who will be running for president will have asked to him over and over again and none of them are so called GOTCHA questions unless he just doesn't have answers to them. Just answer the friggin questions and he shouldn't be afraid that his own opinions on these topics will hurt him because sooner or later he will either have to answer these questions or he can continue to blow them off and come off like a dumb male version of Palin.
[Edited on 2/13/2015 by sixty8]
_______________________________-_______________________
Then why did obama dodge the question in 2008 & 2012?
Or is obama the dumb male version of hillary?I don't know about 2008 but Obama answered the question and gave his opinion about it in 2012 as did Romney.
First of all, a politician dodging a question is headline worthy? Really?
But Walker is right....100%. That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved with one way or another. If they were really interested they would go ask a professor or a scientist.
In the coming months every effort will be made to drag GOP candidates into this crap. Don't go. They want red meat. Don't give it to them. Don't let the conversation be steered away from the pressing issues. Walker didn't let it and others should take note.
"The GOP has no official position on ____________."
Next......
So Walker not answering questions is the proper way to go about it.
Clinton not answering questions is all wrong.
OK.
First of all, a politician dodging a question is headline worthy? Really?
But Walker is right....100%. That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved with one way or another. If they were really interested they would go ask a professor or a scientist.
In the coming months every effort will be made to drag GOP candidates into this crap. Don't go. They want red meat. Don't give it to them. Don't let the conversation be steered away from the pressing issues. Walker didn't let it and others should take note.
"The GOP has no official position on ____________."
Next......
So Walker not answering questions is the proper way to go about it.
Clinton not answering questions is all wrong.OK.
__________________________________________________________________
Gov. Walker knows better than to answer a gotcha question.
Hillary answers no questions except whether she buys her pantsuits at Saxs or T.J. Maxx.
Her answer was the former.
First of all, a politician dodging a question is headline worthy? Really?
But Walker is right....100%. That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved with one way or another. If they were really interested they would go ask a professor or a scientist.
In the coming months every effort will be made to drag GOP candidates into this crap. Don't go. They want red meat. Don't give it to them. Don't let the conversation be steered away from the pressing issues. Walker didn't let it and others should take note.
"The GOP has no official position on ____________."
Next......
So Walker not answering questions is the proper way to go about it.
Clinton not answering questions is all wrong.OK.
__________________________________________________________________
Gov. Walker knows better than to answer a gotcha question.
Hillary answers no questions except whether she buys her pantsuits at Saxs or T.J. Maxx.
Her answer was the former.
Gotcha questions? Seriously? If he can't answer the simple questions that were soft tossed to him, how can he possibly answer questions about today's world and politics.
I realize I am responding to a guy who thinks "What color is the sky?" Is a gotcha question and won't answer it. 😛
"Gotcha Question" was an absurd Palinism.
"Gotcha Question" was an absurd Palinism.
Now the above link provides the hard hitting type of questions no politician should answer. It would be brilliant to avoid in depth questions that are unfair. Avoid & deflect...that is the way to get elected. "The people" just don't care (or so we learned earlier in this thread).
First of all, a politician dodging a question is headline worthy? Really?
But Walker is right....100%. That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved with one way or another. If they were really interested they would go ask a professor or a scientist.
In the coming months every effort will be made to drag GOP candidates into this crap. Don't go. They want red meat. Don't give it to them. Don't let the conversation be steered away from the pressing issues. Walker didn't let it and others should take note.
"The GOP has no official position on ____________."
Next......
So Walker not answering questions is the proper way to go about it.
Clinton not answering questions is all wrong.OK.
__________________________________________________________________
Gov. Walker knows better than to answer a gotcha question.
Hillary answers no questions except whether she buys her pantsuits at Saxs or T.J. Maxx.
Her answer was the former.Gotcha questions? Seriously? If he can't answer the simple questions that were soft tossed to him, how can he possibly answer questions about today's world and politics.
I realize I am responding to a guy who thinks "What color is the sky?" Is a gotcha question and won't answer it. 😛
_________________________________________________________________
Your ignorance is showing again.
It is not whether he can or can not answer the question.
The point is that particular question is a long played gotcha question in politics and he had the prowess to move past it.
The color of the sky depends on the time of day.
First of all, a politician dodging a question is headline worthy? Really?
But Walker is right....100%. That's a question politicians shouldn't be involved with one way or another. If they were really interested they would go ask a professor or a scientist.
In the coming months every effort will be made to drag GOP candidates into this crap. Don't go. They want red meat. Don't give it to them. Don't let the conversation be steered away from the pressing issues. Walker didn't let it and others should take note.
"The GOP has no official position on ____________."
Next......
So Walker not answering questions is the proper way to go about it.
Clinton not answering questions is all wrong.OK.
__________________________________________________________________
Gov. Walker knows better than to answer a gotcha question.
Hillary answers no questions except whether she buys her pantsuits at Saxs or T.J. Maxx.
Her answer was the former.Gotcha questions? Seriously? If he can't answer the simple questions that were soft tossed to him, how can he possibly answer questions about today's world and politics.
I realize I am responding to a guy who thinks "What color is the sky?" Is a gotcha question and won't answer it. 😛
_________________________________________________________________
Your ignorance is showing again.
It is not whether he can or can not answer the question.
The point is that particular question is a long played gotcha question in politics and he had the prowess to move past it.The color of the sky depends on the time of day.
If he won't answer a simple question as to whether he believes in evolution, he doesn't deserve to be in public office. Is he afraid of his beliefs?
The term "gotcha question" was created by Sarah Palin who couldn't even answer what newspapers she read. No wonder you like the term. 😛
