They stumble because they don’t know what they are supposed to say to please the media. How about
“What kind of dumbass question is that?” The follow up is easy “If I were a liberal reporter like you, I, too, would be trying to get the focus off of the horrible record of the last six years” or
“Define what you mean by ‘evolution’.” Most journalists are pretty dumb. or
“What in the world does that question have to do with the problems we face that have been created by the Obama Administration?”
Or “No, I think you are still an ape.” They are going to attack you anyway. Go on offense. Or
“No, because evolution might mean that we are not all equal.” Let them chew on that one for a bit. Or
“Why, is atheism now a requirement for office?” The follow up practically writes itself. Their response will something like “You can believe in God and evolution” at which point you say “So, you believe in Intelligent Design”. If they say no, then they have the contradictory belief of a god that played no part in how or why we are here. If God is not the agent of our being, then there is no rational reason to believe in such a thing, and we are back to atheism. Or
“How did my opponent answer that question? Whatever he/she said, I believe the opposite, as he/she is wrong on everything else.”
Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz are the only ones who seem to know how to play this game. The media already hates you, so there’s not really anything you can do to ruin the relationship. Knowing that should be something of an advantage.
[ Newt Gingrich and Ted Cruz are the only ones who seem to know how to play this game. The media already hates you, so there’s not really anything you can do to ruin the relationship. Knowing that should be something of an advantage. ]
BINGO BANGO, WINNER WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER! NAILED IT AND THEN SOME!!!!