[paltz]

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.

[dragnet2]

No you didn’t, you answered a question I never asked.

Why so evasive?

[dragnet2]

If someone is sympathetic and supportive of terrorism and has questionable views regarding terrorism, would you support Walker hiring them as their spokesperson?

Obviously, no one wants a terrorist supporter in the WH

But you said media/communications directors do not make policy. What would it matter?

Do you think Americans care if a potential presidential candidate like Walker, hires a communications/media director for such a prominent position who is obviously pro-amnesty?