Sep 8, 2015

Scott Walker Lacks the Intelligence to Serve as President

Scott Walker stumped again as he does nothing to dispel
doubts about his intelligence while campaigning
in New Hampshire. From the Chris Hayes Show
Scott Walker: "There is no such thing as a hypothetical."
I thought there were hypotheticals—instructive to understanding what would/should occur in future circumstances.

Typically, when Scott Walker serves up a non-sequitur and incoherent response to the rare question to which he replies in public, a spokesperson and Milwaukee's talk radio step up to clarify what Walker meant to say.

But c'mon Wisconsin Republicans, admit it: Walker lacks the intellect to be president.

Walker—facing plummeting poll numbers and feeling the heat "he has raised questions about if he is actually smart enough to run for president," in the words of a New Hampshire Republican, (Glueck, The Politico)—humiliated himself again trying to respond to an ABC News reporter during a press gaggle Monday in Rochester.

Campaigning in New Hampshire on Labor Day, Scott Walker offered a ridiculous and contradictory response when pressed about what he would do to handle the Syrian Migrant-Refugee crisis. [Segment - All In with Chris Hayes 9/8/15 - 2016 candidates skip specifics on refugee crisis]

In a video (below) of a 2:54-minute segment, Walker became testy with an ABC News reporter and veered once again into incoherence asserting, "There is no such thing as a hypothetical," before offering his opinion of what "people need to do" when he assumed the office of the presidency in January 2017.

Walker should perhaps learn what conditional questions, subjunctive moods and hypotheticals really are.

If a candidate for public office takes the position that no hypothetical questions may be responded to because she or he has not assumed office, what is to become of the campaign pledge, promise and assurance? What about public policy? It can't be discussed because it has not been enacted yet?

Jordyn Phelps of ABC News offers:

As Europe grapples with the mass migration of more than 300,000 refugees fleeing war in Syria, Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker won’t say whether the United States should open its doors to absorb more of the migrants.

Walker’s reason for not taking a stand is that he says it would be hypothetical for him to do so since he is not currently the president. 
A transcript of the exchange is below:

ABC News Reporter: What would you do to address the migrants who are currently fleeing into Europe? Does (sic), should the U.S. accept some of those migrants into the country?

Scott Walker: "Well, again the problem is we're ignoring the basis of the core of the problem. The problem is this president has had a weak stance in terms of taking on ISIS."

ABC News Reporter: But to follow up, if you were president today, what would you do?

Scott Walker: "I'm not president today, and I can't be president today. I'm going to be president in January of 2017 and I'm telling you what people need to do. Everybody wants to talk about hypotheticals. There is no such thing as a hypothetical."

[Notes Jaime Fuller in New York Magazine: "(This is) a sentence that probably would have moved Socrates to set Walker's pants on fire himself." Note to Mr Fuller: See Walker's May 2015 "That's a hypothetical question in the past. We're going to talk about the future," before Walker rushed away from a group of reporters in Michigan. (Mal Contends and Bloomberg Politics News, Scott Walker Tiptoes Past Michigan Reporters' Most Common Question). Hypothetically, I think Socrates would have poisoned Scott Walker out of exasperation.]

ABC News Reporter: Governor, the fact that these refugees need a place to go is not a hypothetical, and Pope Francis has even come in and said that countries need to help them. I mean, should the U.S. play an active role?

Scott Walker:  "Again. I'm taking about what I'll do as president ... that will be a year and half from now."
In terms of being president were such a phenomenon to take place, Scott Walker does not, like, know what he should do because of his new epistemological rule: "There is no such thing as a hypothetical." Or is this a new new metaphysics discovered on the presidential campaign trail, 2015? The Bradley Center is calling you, Scott Walker.


  1. Walker has run for office many times since since his early 20's and has developed all kinds of strategies to win elections. His major goal is to keep voters from understanding that running for an office is, in fact, the only thing he is good at. He is pretty lousy at effective governing. He divided Wisconsin and it had a negative economic impact, not positive like he promised. Great teachers, nurses, college professors, and other professionals are fleeing the state. He has almost no real knowledge of the world beyond politics in Wisconsin so he cannot answer questions. He hires intelligent staff to write statements, speeches, and fix his unintelligent responses when he is forced to answer a question that he doesn't have a prepare response to, so even they have to be frustrated with his lack of knowledge.

    1. The Washington Post has a piece out noting Walker's challenge now is convincing the political world his campaign is "viable" in light of his new-found communications strategy stressing no answers to past and future hypotheticals. This stuff sounds like comedy but I think Walker may be the first Republican Party presidential candidate to lose because he doesn't know anything. Such a state is not typically a disqualification. -

  2. He is either a moron or a pathological liar. He promised to veto the Milwaukee to Madison if he became governor. That's a hypothetical. He is very good at deceit, such as concealing his pre-planned assault on public unions from the voters while he was campaigning for governor the first time.

  3. He is a deceitful man. Look up Terry McGowan stabbed in the back on the net. That's all you need to know

  4. He's dealing with a media that actually requires real answers over word salad, and followshe up when.he says absurd things. You see the result.

    Scott ain't in Walkershaw County anymore, and he doesn't have Sykes to explain to the dopes what he "really" meant.

    On a related note, isn't the presidential campaign one big job interview? So who would say "I can't tell you what I'd do in this job if you gave it to me.", and still be considered? No one!