Posted on 03/16/2015 8:28:38 PM PDT by gwgn02
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker made another massive misstep on Monday, hiring Liz Mair of Mair Strategies to handle communications and social media for his campaign-in-waiting.
Mair’s support for amnesty for illegal aliens, wide-open-borders immigration policies, and public advocacy for the Senate “Gang of Eight” amnesty bill is sure to dog Walker in Iowa, South Carolina, and other early presidential states.
During the Senate Gang of Eight bill fight, Mair very publicly and very aggressively promoted the amnesty bill—pushing it to media and making the case for the need for it over and over again. She claims her advocacy was done out of the good of her heart, for free, because for religious reasons she believes in amnesty and open borders. But Mair wouldn’t answer who was paying her bills for her advocacy during the timeframe of the “Gang of Eight” bill in early 2013 through the end of the last Congress–when asked by Breitbart News if any specific tech companies or a select group of Wall Street billionaires were paying her.
“We’re contractually barred from disclosing our clients,” Mair said.
That could mean anyone—even foreign companies potentially—were paying her during the timeframe she was publicly advocating for the amnesty bill. While she didn’t have to disclose it to the public at the time now that she’s hitched to Walker the Wisconsin governor owns everything she said and did.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Matthew Boyle @mboyle1 · 1h 1 hour ago
I gave @ScottWalker team more than six hours to answer basic policy questions on immigration & they gave me rhetoric. All we want is answers
You too are being evasive.
I didn't say anything about "bringing in the "Muslim Brotherhood". Not my question.
If someone is sympathetic and supportive of terrorism and has questionable views regarding terrorism, would you support Walker hiring them as their spokesperson?
Well, He is.
That is not true. Staffers, especially prominent staffers such as this one sets the tone of the campaign. It does matter to people that she is pro-amnesty, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage.
He may be inadvertently paving the way for Cruz.
“Jesus. Someone answer his question so he can spring his little trap. apparently, it’s the only way we can make teh stoopid stop.”
*******************************************************************************************
Do you make it a practice to try to get others to do YOUR chores for you?
So, the question outstanding to you is: If Walker becomes President, would you support him hiring a Muslim Spokesperson, who had very questionable ties and or views regarding terrorism?
The fact that Wisconsinites voted for Obama twice and Walker thrice: do they know something we don’t? Or are they just purely schizophrenic?
As long as she’s not dictating policy, that’s all that matters. And that can easily seen through her work with him.
...................................................
How about influencing policy?
I’m seriously disappointed that such a discussion has to even take place on this site, never mind in the Republican Party in general.
Gay marriage and abortion advocate? C’mon! PLEASE!
Wahhhhh, that reporter couldn’t get an exclusive with Scott Walker on his immigration platform that Walker is likely still hammering out. Cry me an effing river.
That too begs the question:
Why would a conservative Republican associate with and conduct business with, and put into such a prominent position, an individual who is obviously pro-amnesty?
??
She worked with him previously on his other campaigns via social media outreach. Did he all of a sudden become pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage while he was governor? really? That’s news to me.
If someone is sympathetic and supportive of terrorism and has questionable views regarding terrorism, would you support Walker hiring them as their spokesperson?
Why would a conservative Republican associate with and conduct business with, and put into such a prominent position, an individual who is obviously pro-amnesty?
??
You may want to read the whole article.
You think he would be advertising such a thing?
I can only judge by my life experience and I would not want an advocate of such immoral positions anywhere near me in such a role unless those issues really didn’t mean that much to me. And we would only truly find out when it’s too late.
Nice straw man argument. I already answered your question. And frankly it’s a ridiculous one. Obviously, no one wants a terrorist supporter in the WH, but are you insinuating that the staffer is a terrorist supporter now? Seriously? That’s completely irrational. Political consultants, comms shops, PR people, etc... are also known as “hired guns” (not terrorists’ guns, btw) They represent the views of their clients. Not the other way around.
Hammer out? What is there to hammer out? We've seen what politicians have been hamming out for many years. We get screwed, betrayed, robbed and economically gang banged over and over.
Americans have been begging, protesting, voting and petitioning for secured borders and relief from this epic lawlessness and violence for decades.
Hammer out BS.
No you didn’t, you answered a question I never asked.
Why so evasive?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.