Republican candidate flees interview when asked to present sources for her positions

[knapplc]

The scariest part about this story isn't that it's true, it's that this woman isn't alone in these beliefs.

LINK

Whitney, who is running for Louisiana's open sixth district, gained some prominence in June when she released a campaign video blasting global warming as a "hoax" and the press as "lamestream media." Wasserman said he pressed Whitney on the issue of climate change only to find her unable to answer his questions.

"But it’s not unreasonable to expect candidates to explain how they arrived at their positions, and when I pressed Whitney repeatedly for the source of her claim that the earth is getting colder, she froze and was unable to cite a single scientist, journal, or news source to back up her beliefs," he wrote.

Wasserman said he attempted to "change the subject" and ask whether she believed Obama was born in the United States. Her aides then ended the interview.

"When she replied that it was a matter of some controversy, her two campaign consultants quickly whisked her out of the room, accusing me of conducting a 'Palin-style interview,'" he continued. "It was the first time in hundreds of Cook Political Report meetings that a candidate has fled the room."

 

 

[zoogs]

Edumacation. We need it so that these kind of appeals stop working to even the extent they are currently.

[carlfense]

lamestream facts and gotcha questions.

[VectorVictor]

It's not a coincidence that the Tea Party candidates and elected officials are the ones that have helped to gut and render public education as ineffective--the more people that graduate with critical thinking skills, the fewer people they can sell their "misinformation" to, and the fewer people that join their party.

 

 

lamestream facts

 

Aren't all facts and scientific proof anathema to the Tea Party platform...?

[Husker_x]

I liked the part where the interview was called Palin-style in the pejorative sense of meaningless gotcha questions. I've watched the now-infamous Palin interview(s) several times. A Palin-interview is one in which you are asked perfectly reasonable questions which reveal your underlying stupidity and lack of qualification to hold any public office whatsoever.

 

If you don't 'believe in' climate change (scare quotes because it's not as if this is a faith issue), you don't 'believe in' reality. It's unfortunate that the Tea Party RINOs who have hijacked the Republican party make denial of reality a pillar of their platform, but we've known this for too long to be surprised when it manifests in elections. Real Republicans need to take these wingnuts head on, guns blazing; although if conservative media is a fair representation of your average Republican (I welcome an open debate on that for my own benefit, because I have sincere doubts about it), we're all in pretty bad shape.

[carlfense]

Aren't all facts and scientific proof anathema to the Tea Party platform...?

Spoken like a libtard.

[carlfense]

I liked the part where the interview was called Palin-style in the pejorative sense of meaningless gotcha questions. I've watched the now-infamous Palin interview(s) several times. A Palin-interview is one in which you are asked perfectly reasonable questions which reveal your underlying stupidity and lack of qualification to hold any public office whatsoever.

That's what they find offensive . . . they don't want the stupidity to be revealed.

[Husker_x]

 

I liked the part where the interview was called Palin-style in the pejorative sense of meaningless gotcha questions. I've watched the now-infamous Palin interview(s) several times. A Palin-interview is one in which you are asked perfectly reasonable questions which reveal your underlying stupidity and lack of qualification to hold any public office whatsoever.

That's what they find offensive . . . they don't want the stupidity to be revealed.

 

 

It has a funny way of doing it on its own.

[TGHusker]

The problem with repeating the 'party line' (whether Tea, Repub, or Dem) without 1st developing your own core convictions, is that there are no core convictions to stand on when statements like this are made & challenged. If she had no "facts" to stand on - even if her facts were debatable - tells me she is 1/2 inch deep and a mile wide - no depth to the convictions but a mile wide in opinion and spouting some party line.

We just had a Rep primary in Okla. for US Senate to replace retiring Tom Coburn. The 2 main candidates were both conservative as you would expect. #1 was the African American/Cherokee former speaker of the OK House and looked like the poster child candidate for the national repubs (a double minority repub senator who was truly conservative). He was endorsed by Palin, Cruz, and Mike Lee. The other guy was a sitting US Rep and was perhaps a bit more moderate. But in listening to them both, one could tell fairly quickly who had the depth and who could think outside of the normal memorized stump speech - the sitting US Rep. I voted for him because of that - even though he wasn't the glamorous candidate. What was expected to end up in a runoff (due to several other candidates) ended up being a landslide for the US Rep - why - in interviews voters seemed to think he had the knowledge and depth and the temperament to get things done in the US Senate. Electing guy/gals with good stump speeches full of red meat creates the polarizing environment we now have in DC.

[VectorVictor]

The 2 main candidates were both conservative as you would expect. #1 was the African American/Cherokee former speaker of the OK House and looked like the poster child candidate for the national repubs (a double minority repub senator who was truly conservative). He was endorsed by Palin, Cruz, and Mike Lee.

 

You could have stopped right there and we would have all guessed the outcome.