Gov. Scott Walker, R-Wis., initially declined Wednesday to discuss his thoughts on the theory of evolution, which set off a chorus of “wows” and “tsk-tsks” from pundits and reporters all over the U.S.
“Scott Walker dodged a question on evolution. That was dumb,” the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza said, linking to an article he authored on the governor’s’ dodge.
“How does serious person duck evolution?” National Journal’s Ron Fournier asked.
Huffington Post political reporter Christina Wilkie characterized the Republican governor as “boldly uninformed.”
Meanwhile, Politico’s Ben White responded to headlines regarding Walker’s “punt” with a simple: “Wow.”
During an interview held at Chatham House in London, a British moderator asked Walker rather bluntly whether he believes in the theory of evolution.
“I’m going to punt on that one as well,” Walker said. “That’s a question a politician shouldn’t be involved in one way or the other.”
Following the press’ negative response to his dodge, Walker reacted quickly, releasing a statement Wednesday in an attempt to clarify his position on the issue.
“Happy to field a variety of questions today at the Chatham House. Regarding one in particular,” he tweeted. “Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand.”
But even with this clarification, media pundits continued Thursday morning to hammer at the Republican governor, some of them arguing that Walker’s “punt” carries with it some very dire implications for his political future.
The governor’s theory of evolution dodge “exposes Walker’s weakness on foreign policy,” MSNBC’s Tamron Hall said Thursday.
Former Vermont governor and MSNBC contributor Howard Dean used Walker’s response to note that the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate never graduated from college, apparently intending to encourage doubt that Walker has the smarts to sit in the White House.
“This is a particular problem for Scott Walker which has not been an issue yet, but it will. Scott Walker, were he to become president, would be the first president in many generations who did not have a college degree,” Dean said Thursday. “So the issue here is not just the issue of dancing around the question of evolution for political reasons, the issue is, how well educated is this guy?”
This refrain — that supposedly “uneducated” Republicans are also somehow supposedly anti-science — should sound familiar. Just last week, the New York Times, among others in the national media, suggested in response to the measles outbreak that has gripped California that conservative voters are mostly responsible for the deadly anti-vaccination movement.
“The politics of medicine, morality and free will have collided in an emotional debate over vaccines and the government’s place in requiring them, posing a challenge for Republicans who find themselves in the familiar but uncomfortable position of reconciling modern science with the skepticism of their core conservative voters,” the Times’ Jeremy W. Peters, Richard Pérez-Peña, Nick Corasaniti and Kitty Bennett reported in an article titled “Measles Outbreak Proves Delicate Issue to G.O.P. Field.”
“The vaccination controversy is a twist on an old problem for the Republican Party: How to approach matters that have largely been settled among scientists but are not widely accepted by conservatives,” the story said.
But the Times reporters appear to have gotten it wrong on key aspects of the anti-vaccine movement, which is not only a “liberal fringe issue,” as BuzzFeed’s Katherine Miller put it, but it is also heavily financed by “lawyers suing drug companies that manufacture vaccines and high-profile Democratic fundraisers,” according to the Washington Free Beacon‘s Lachlan Markay.
Among the heavy donors Markay identified as liberal supporters of the National Vaccine Information Center were the Tides Foundation, Democracy Alliance Director Albert Dwoskin and Paul Soros, the late brother of George Soros.
The Times article came in response to eyebrow-raising remarks by other potential 2016 GOP contenders, including Kentucky’s Sen. Rand Paul and New Jersey’s Gov. Chris Christie, concerning whether vaccinations should be mandatory under law.
Media responses to such flaps tend to be quite different when the speaker is a Democrat.
When Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was asked in 2013 by the Weekly Standard’s John McCormack to explain how she can both oppose efforts to ban abortions performed after 20 weeks of pregnancy while also decrying imprisoned late-term abortionist Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who would perform abortions at 22-23 weeks of pregnancy, the congresswoman “punted” the question.
“What is the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did to a baby born alive at 23 weeks and aborting her moments before birth?” McCormack asked.
“You’re probably enjoying that question a lot, I can see you savoring it,” Pelosi said as some among the gathered reporters laughed. She subsequently provided a noncommittal answer to the question.
There was no subsequent controversy in the press regarding Pelosi’s apparent inability to explain the difference between Gosnell’s late-term abortions and legal late-term abortions.
Among the reporters who laughed at McCormack’s question to Pelosi, according to the Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway, was the New York Times’ Jeremy W. Peters, the same reporter who suggested without offering supporting data last week that conservative voters are responsible for the anti-vaccination movement.
