I didn’t have any pictures to go with any of these topics. So here’s one of the back of my truck…
I thought I’d point to several things that have been interesting in the last few days:
- Harpo gonna do some world-shakin’! — Dick Harpootlian had a huge impact on what happened at the State House this year, for a rookie. Of course, it helps if you’re a rookie who already had a larger-than-life profile, and who really doesn’t mind getting people stirred up. But I bet the Democrat wasn’t fully prepared for the letter to the editor that said he’s a lot like Trump in these regards.
- Richland penny program has $154M in rising costs. Can all projects still get done? — This is Doug’s cue to say, I knew it all along! And the rest of us, who knew we had real infrastructure needs and that the penny was a logical way of paying for them, can say, How did Richland County screw up this program as much as they have, and how do we fix it going forward? So, you know, something for everybody…
- Did the Democrats’ abortion inflexibility just give Trump four more years? — This is a Michael Gerson opinion piece. He voiced the thought I’ve had in my mind since the fire-breathers browbeat my man Joe Biden into backing down on the Hyde Amendment. Marc Thiessen, a guy with whom I seldom agree on anything, had a similar piece.
- Want to See My Genes? Get a Warrant — First, I don’t agree with that sentiment. But I’m pondering a larger piece on the use of genetic genealogy to fight crime, and I’m offering this piece as an appetizer to get the conversation started.
- Anybody know of a good Davy Crockett biography? — I rewatched the 1960 version of “The Alamo” in recent days, and also not long ago rewatched portions of the latter-day one with Billy Bob Thornton as the King of the Wild Frontier. And I’m burning to understand What Davy was doing down there? I mean, I know he had time on his hands and was up for something new after losing his re-election to Congress, but nothing I’ve seen fully explains his motivation in going there, staying there, and dying there…
I guess that’s enough for a start…
Related Posts
“He voiced the thought I’ve had in my mind since the fire-breathers browbeat my man Joe Biden into backing down on the Hyde Amendment.”
Pot, meet kettle. Calling Democrat pro-choice advocates inflexible is simply blindness to the log in your own eye. The issue at hand with Biden is whether a legal medical procedure should be denied federal funding, a policy initiated in the mid-1970’s. Since its passage, anti-abortion forces have used every imaginable tactic (except cooperation seeking common ground) to advance their agenda of a religiously-driven public policy on abortion, contraception, and sexuality (until it involves their daughter). His clumsy reversal on Hyde may hurt him in the Democratic primary, but the typical Republican “straw man” attacks on this issue will be exposed and rebuffed in a general election contest against any likely winner among the Democrats.
Since its passage, anti-abortion forces have used every imaginable tactic (except cooperation seeking common ground) to advance their agenda of a religiously-driven public policy on abortion, contraception, and sexuality
-Harry
The contraception aspect of their approach is especially reprehensible. Probably the single most despicable aspect of the Catholic Church. Thankfully the vast majority of Catholics ignore this nonsense.
Wow, it’s amazing the way y’all look at this. I’ve always thought the pro-choice position is a monument to the almost unlimited human capacity for rationalization, and I continue to be confirmed in that view.
We’re talking about the question of whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for something that is the most divisive issue in the country, and that about half the country doesn’t believe in. And on an issue this divisive, “doesn’t believe in” is about as mildly as I can put it.
That people can in seriousness vehemently oppose — not just object to, or demur, but vehemently oppose — such an amendment astounds me. It always has.
I’m sorry if you don’t like “fire-breathers,” but that’s the way I see folks who are so inflexible on an issue that they absolutely won’t tolerate any dissension in their ranks.
I’m catching a whiff of “what about?” in these objections. OK, what about? Are there fire-breathers on both sides, of this and other issues? You betcha. But it wasn’t pro-life “fire-breathers” who cause Joe to back down on this. It was the other side. And I find such people problematic, especially if they force one of their own into a position that weakens him in the general election…
“We’re talking about the question of whether taxpayers should be forced to pay for something that is the most divisive issue in the country, and that about half the country doesn’t believe in. And on an issue this divisive, “doesn’t believe in” is about as mildly as I can put it.”
Of course, the Viet Nam war, not to mention other military forays that have netted us little were not divisive at all. And no one who didn’t believe they were moral or justified was forced to support them with tax dollars. Right.
I knew someone would say that. But in fact, your opposition to the war and how that features in our politics supports my point, rather than refuting it.
Obviously, you can’t have a country if individuals get to opt out of this or that expenditure.
So what we DO as a country is decide whether we’re going to DO a certain thing together as a country. And whether we do it or not depends on which side wins the argument.
So it is that people for and against the Vietnam War made their wishes known while that national debate was raging. I expect people to do that. Eventually, we decided to pull out. You know why? Because so many people were opposed to our involvement. Continuing to use the taxpayers’ money to fight that war was something we decided against.
And folks on both sides of the abortion debate get to express their wishes regarding whether we, as a country, want to pay for abortions. Such a debate resulted in the Hyde Amendment.
My point, as a person opposed to abortion, is that we should NOT pay for abortions, and I make that view known — just as you and other folks make your own views known.
And while it really offends some of my pro-choice friends, I get a say in the debate as to whether the country will pay for abortions, just as they do. Just as everyone did over Vietnam.
Oh, and I should point out that anyone back during the Vietnam War who made the point that we shouldn’t continue doing something we were so divided about would have had a legitimate point. Just as I have a legitimate point in what said above…
“Eventually, we decided to pull out. ”
Also a solution to the abortion issue.
“as a person opposed to abortion, is that we should NOT pay for abortions”
If it were only so clear cut.
Assuming you meticulously avoid associating yourself with any insurer that offers abortion coverage, there are still other ways that you are nevertheless funding abortions. The article below carefully breaks it all down, eventually coming to the conclusion that, through indirect subsidies, “taxpayers pay the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/10/02/are-american-taxpayers-paying-for-abortion/#2fcebaa36a4b
But this is the essential problem those who want to ban abortions:
they seek to claim for themselves a moral innocence they do not and have never possessed.
“But this is the essential problem those who want to ban abortions:
they seek to claim for themselves a moral innocence they do not and have never possessed.”
I guess I would say the same can be said about those who support abortion – they claim a moral innocence regarding the termination of a life. There is a segment of the pro-choice crowd that minimizes that aspect of the procedure by constantly calling it a women’s health issue…. which is why I think that while the abortion option should be available, it should be a last resort.
“they seek to claim for themselves a moral innocence”
WHAAAT? Where is THAT coming from? What on Earth are you talking about? Who is claiming what, in this grand generalization?…
Those who seek to ban abortion claim the higher moral ground over those who support the freedom to choose. But most have surrendered that ground by allowing for exceptions. The only abortion opponents who can genuinely lay claim to that supposed higher ground are the very small minority who want to see abortion banned in ALL cases, with no exceptions for rape, incest or even the life of the mother — because, at least according to their logic, how could one choose one life over another under any circumstances? If abortion IS murder, then it is no less murder if it involves the product of rape or incest, or if it trades one life for another. Yes, this is a tyrannically dogmatic, monomaniacal position, with horrific consequences, but it is a morally pure position. Anything less means surrendering the innocence of purity to moral murk. So the abortion opponents who don’t embrace this kind of purity are therefore no more morally innocent than those of us who apply moral reasoning to reach a different conclusion that draws the legal line elsewhere.
In a fallen world, there is no escaping moral ambiguity.
Next: Hyde Amendment or no Hyde Amendment, you ARE funding abortions either directly or indirectly through the mechanisms and programs described in the article above.
I assume then that Mr. Smith approves of abortion right up until birth because anything else would be morally impure. It’s about the mother’s health decisions and nothing else.
That’s not it at all. Though there may be some rare circumstances where that applies.
I’ll just add this: If A is a complete ban with no exceptions whatsoever, what makes drawing the legal line at, say, B or D “moral,” let alone just, while drawing it at L or P is not?
He voiced the thought I’ve had in my mind since the fire-breathers browbeat my man Joe Biden into backing down on the Hyde Amendment.
-Brad
Browbeat? If he’s that much of a snowflake then we really don’t need this feckless man as our standard bearer. Wow Brad. For someone who professes to be uncomfortable talking about abortion you manage to work it in to the conversation an astounding number of times. So please stop with the nonsense about not liking to discuss this. It just makes you come across as a fool.
The idea that the Democrat’s so-called extremist approach to abortion will cost the election is ridiculous. No one’s vote is going to budge because of the abortion issue. It’s just a flight of fancy to suggest otherwise. Both sides have moved away from the center on the abortion issue but the Republicans have just completely abandoned any sense of decency on this.
The language here seems a little harsh. While I disagree with Brad’s comment on this topic, I really think a lot of name-calling won’t get us very far along in understanding the issues involved.
Agree. It was a sort of heat of the moment slip.
Harpootlian has been a grandstander for as long as I’ve seen him in the public eye. He’s got some perspectives on issues that need to be considered, but he has a way of being irritating when he could be disruptive in more effective ways. When he does more than make noise and uses his skills (and he has them) doing ground-work prior to hurling bombs, I will have much more appreciation for his efforts – and might not be so put-off by his style.
Biden’s switch in position isn’t a surrender to “fire breathers,” it’s an embrace of social justice – which is what I’d hope to see from any Democratic candidate. I’d like to think I could expect it of both parties, but I no longer expect anything in that regard from that other party.
I am taking advantage of this open thread to ask a completely unrelated question that has been bugging me for awhile.
Has anybody else noticed that TV news no longer speaks in complete sentences? They leave out the verb. They turn what should have been the predicate into an adjective clause, following a subject, and then they end the supposed sentence. My brain is waiting for the rest of the sentence, but it never comes.
or for example…..”my brain, waiting for the rest of the sentence.”
Is this to save time? Do you really save that much time by dropping ‘is’, which is often what they are doing.
And does it help your story telling if listeners suddenly are unable to attend to the details of what you are saying while their brains are waiting for the rest of the sentence?
But that’s probably just me.
I do understand that language changes and evolves. I guess it could just be like a TV dialect. I’m trying to not be a language prude here, but it does bother me. But mostly I’m just curious the origins. Is it a conscious decision on their part to try to be more efficient or to create a certain effect? Is it a bleed over from other changes in the language with the ability to now have quick conversational written language exchanges. Written language conventions were always different from spoken language conventions but that’s all changing now since people can text conversations in real time. New dialects are happening. Is this part of that sort of thing?
I don’t know, Scout. I haven’t heard it. Maybe it’s just a TV news thing, and I don’t watch that.
But it sounds like something that would bug me, too…
Lester Holt does it alot. And the local stations have started too.
Lester Holt — is that the guy who always looks like he’s halfway smirking? Whenever I see him, I think he’s about to crack up, and I think, “What’s the joke?”…
Scout, I vote for evolutionary process. Sentence fragments seem to be all the rage.
“Richland penny program has $154M in rising costs. ”
Of course they do. Just like every other tax, the execution never matches the hype. And who is held accountable for poor forecasting, poor implementation? Nobody. Who cares? It’s just millions of dollars… no big deal. Can you imagine any private sector job that missed by 100% on estimates that wouldn’t result in people getting fired or sued?
This doesn’t even consider the MILLIONS that were wasted on kickbacks to connected parties, mismanagement via redundant departments, etc. This is why every incremental tax increase should come with an expiration date. Five years would have been a reasonable time for the County to demonstrate competence. I’m not surprised at all that this has been a failure of leadership and execution. Giving millions of dollars to corrupt and incompetent people is a recipe for disaster.
Where are all the people who pushed for this massive boondoggle now? Just like Innovista, we see all the cheerleaders at the front-end pushing out marketing campaigns built on lies and misleading statistics… and then the cheerleaders go into hiding once reality sets in. It’s always fun to promote projects that spend other people’s money.
There are currently 24 Democratic candidates for president. Just for fun I’ve put them into 4 groups of 6 based on how likely I am to vote for them come primary day 2020.
Tier 1 – The frontrunners. No obvious, serious flaws. My choice will probably come from one of these 6:
Cory Booker (D)
Pete Buttigieg (D)
Kamala Harris (D)
Jay Inslee (D)
Elizabeth Warren (D)
Julián Castro (D)
Tier 2 – Good candidates, but with a few moderate flaws, that could easily move up with a good debate performance or town hall:
Amy Klobuchar (D)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D)
Beto O’Rourke (D)
Tim Ryan (D)
Michael Bennet (D)
Eric Swalwell (D)
Tier 3 – Each of these has at least one major flaw but have not ruled out entirely just yet:
Tulsi Gabbard (D)
Bernie Sanders (I)
Marianne Williamson (D)
Andrew Yang (D)
John Hickenlooper (D)
Wayne Messam (D)
Tier 4 – Unless something convinces me one of these candidates is clearly the only realistic option to beat Trump I’ve ruled these candidates out. All are highly flawed in multiple ways.
Joe Biden (D)
Bill de Blasio (D)
Steve Bullock (D)
Mike Gravel (D)
John Delaney (D)
Seth Moulton (D)
Anyone but Warren and Biden for me. Let’s see how the debates play out.
Biden has definitely been shooting himself in the foot repeatedly over the past few weeks and, as expected, his poll numbers continue to drop. He has nowhere to go but down.
What are you talking about — shooting himself in the foot repeatedly?
Of course, someone who’s on top has nowhere to go but down. That’s a mathematical truth. Anyone who is inclined to be negative (does that describe anyone we know?) can say that about anyone on top.
But what do you mean by “shooting himself in the foot repeatedly?”
I haven’t seen it. And no one else seems to be seeing it. In fact, I keep seeing things like the Jennifer Rubin column this morning (“Joe Biden previews the pummeling he plans to give Trump“) that discusses with admiration the systematic way Biden takes Trump apart on the stump, which causes her to very much look forward to a debate between the two.
For Trump’s part, there might as well be no one else running. He’s obsessed with Biden, and rightly so, since — while no one can predict what will happen — the odds remain that he will be the nominee.
Are you counting this Hyde Amendment things as one of these instances of shooting himself in the foot? I’m worried about it strategically, looking toward the general — which is why I cite those two columns (by two people who definitely don’t see things from a Democratic perspective). And I truly believe it could cost him the election, should he be the nominee.
But seen very narrowly, in terms of what it takes to BECOME the nominee, I’m sure you could find quite a few Democratic strategists — those who like him and those who don’t — who will tell you he did exactly the right thing. He took the Hyde Amendment off the table before any of his rivals could beat him up with it.
I don’t like that he did that — I don’t morally and ethically, and I don’t like it tactically. I wish he had just suffered the slings and arrows of the Lilliputians running against him, stayed the course on winning the nomination even it it meant he just squeaked by, and gone into the general election with that rarest of all things, a centrist position on abortion.
But he didn’t.
But whether that was a misstep or not, I’m having trouble remembering others…
Oh, and Doug — I fully expect you to oppose Biden, since I’m for him.
But what’s your beef with poor Elizabeth Warren? What has she done to be singled out so negatively?
Biden has made repeated comments about how things will be fine once Trump is out and that he will be able to work with Republicans who will magically become willing to cooperate once good old Joe is in charge.
He still has problems with putting his hands on people, especially young girls. He did it last week in a photo op at a school. And he is tone deaf to the complaints about it.
The Hyde amendment flip makes him look like someone pandering to the base. That shows he has no actual principles… just do what is necessary politically.
He thinks Obamacare just needs to be tweaked a little bit.
Is that enough?
As for Warren, I cannot stand her tone — she’s like a school librarian constantly telling you to shush with finger pointing. I find her personality to be the most annoying of any of the candidates. And I suppose I could get over that if her policies weren’t so appallingly dense. She claims to have a “plan” for everything. Except she has zero track record for ever actually accomplishing anything substantial in her career. She’s an ivory tower academic with no real world experience. Every one of her “plans” comes down to more taxes and more spending and more redistribution of money. Her wealth tax “plan” is beyond stupid. There is no way it can be implemented due to the complexity of trying to measure wealth. Every other country that has tried it has abandoned it. I will absolutely vote for Trump over her and Biden…
Note – I don’t oppose Biden because you are for him. We are each just consistent in our beliefs regarding politicians and those beliefs fall into very different categories. Your checklist for qualities you admire in a politician is very different from mine.
Isn’t that what I said? 🙂
So you’re saying you don’t find Sen. Warren “likable?”
That’s OK; neither do I.
I just didn’t know us guys were allowed to say that…
You know how it is… if you don’t like a guy, you don’t like the guy. Period. But if you don’t like a woman who’s running for public office, you’re a pig. Or so I’m told…
That happened to me on a different forum. I said I didn’t like Warren and I got a response saying I was a typical white male misogynist. It’s that outrage (and the backlash to it) that gives Trump a chance in 2020. Democrats have come unhinged.
Disagree strongly. No one is budging because of name calling. Trump has a chance if the economy remains robust. The Democrats may on occasion go overboard with the name calling but they are amateurs compared to the Republicans. They sling the libtard insult around like there’s no tomorrow. The country is sharply divided and very few minds are getting changed. 99% of all Hillary voters will vote for the Democrat and perhaps Trump will keep most of his voters. The polarization of the electorate is like nothing I’ve seen in my lifetime.
She claims to have a “plan” for everything.
-Doug
That’s what I like about her. About time someone talked in pragmatic policy terms. About time to tax the rich more to help make Social Security solvent. It’s about time for sensible banking regulations, health care for all, a minimum wage that can provide a basic living standard, affordable college. And most importantly it’s about time to get rid of the odious electoral college. Not all of this will become law but if you don’t dream big you won’t get anywhere. Compare her approach to Biden who really is nothing but a triangulator longing for the cold war to return. My advice to Elizabeth Warren – keep that finger wagging.
Yeah, that really appeals to a lot of people.
Me, I just want to know whether I trust the person to do a good job — something I decide based on the person’s past performance, which is one of the reasons why experience in public life is important to me.
I don’t want promises, because then people feel obliged to keep them, and frequently what sounded good on the stump is no longer a good idea after the person gets into office. I don’t like candidates to tie their hands.
But to a lot of serious people, specific plans are good, and important…
Having a plan and being able to execute a plan are two different things. She lives in a fantasy world where she thinks she can come up with all these grandiose plans and they will be enacted with no trouble.
She would be LUCKY to get one of her most basic plans enacted in four years. Let me say it — THERE WILL NEVER BE A WEALTH TAX. THERE WILL NEVER BE FREE COLLEGE FOR ALL. THERE WILL NEVER BE A REPLACEMENT FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE,
Raising the minimum wage just hastens the expansion of robots, kiosks, etc. Unskilled, replaceable, commodity labor will always be at the bottom of the economic ladder. You could make the minimum wage $25 an hour and there still would be poverty at similar levels.
I have no interest in a dreamer who says she can do everything for everyone. She can’t and she won’t.
Doug circa 1770
THE COLONIES WILL NEVER GAIN THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN
Doug circa 1858
SLAVERY WILL NEVER BE ABOLISHED
Doug circa 1912
WOMEN WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO VOTE
Doug circa 1945
NEGRO CHILDREN WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO ATTEND SCHOOL WITH WHITE CHILDREN
Doug circa 1950
MAN WILL NEVER WALK ON THE MOON
Doug circa 1960
INTEGRATED MARRIAGE WILL NOT BECOME LEGAL IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Doug circa 1985
MARIJUANA WILL NEVER BE LEGAL ANYWHERE IN THE USA
Doug circa 1990
GAY MARRIAGE WILL NEVER BE LEGAL IN THE USA
Doug circa 2000
A BLACK MAN WILL NEVER BE ELECTED PRESIDENT
Famous last words that seemed reasonable at the time. But in the course of time all things are possible.
None of your examples cost tax dollars. They are moral issues. Everything Warren wants is about increasing taxes. She’s very adept at plans that take money out of people’s pockets to give to someone who lacks the ability to get it for themselves.
I wish I could bet on the abolition of the electoral college. I’d give you 1000:1 odds it won’t happen in the next ten years.
I prefer someone with a plan over someone without a clue. I’m tired of platitudes, dodges, and disinformation. Give me an idea, fledged-out to some degree and we can debate its merits, decide whether it should be field-tested, examine the assumptions on which it is founded, and maybe find an honest and workable substitute. You can defend it without mischaracterization (except by doctrinaire liars). Experts can critique it.
Straw-man politics gets us nowhere. Bumper sticker, polarized public discourse has destroyed our ability as problem-solvers – a solution is considered right if it’s put forth by the largest vote-getter. Expertise counts for nothing. We can’t continue this hyper self-interested, intellectually lazy path if we want to remain a unified nation and free.
But Biden has stated that under his administration he’s going to wipe out cancer.
Another example of Joe Biden’s tone deafness on young women from yesterday:
Slate.com:
“When Joe Biden issued a non-apology in April nodding to changing “social norms” in response to a series of accusations from women who said he had touched them inappropriately and without their consent, one thing was clear: Biden had little intention of actually changing, much less seeking forgiveness from those he had made uncomfortable. The former vice president has continued to treat the issue as a joke on the trail. Another uncomfortable habit of his surfaced on Wednesday that almost as clearly shows the type of retrograde personal approach to interacting with women Biden refuses to relinquish.
After meeting an Iowa voter’s 13-year-old granddaughter in Eldridge on Wednesday, Biden addressed the girl’s brothers, telling them, “You’ve got one job here, keep the guys away from your sister.””
—
He thinks he’s funny. He thinks he has a free pass to say whatever he wants. As I said, he will continue to shoot himself in the foot for the next six months until he makes an embarrassed Jeb Bush-like exit from the primaries.
And this wasn’t a one-off thing.. it appears to be part of the Joe Biden shtick:
slate:
• In 2011, to various female relatives of Sens. Barbara Mikulski, Michael Bennet, Chuck Schumer, John Thune, and others: “Just remember, no dates till you’re 30.”
• In 2011, per a 12-year-old Pennsylvania girl: “He told me not to date boys until I’m 30!”
• In 2012, to the brother of a young North Carolina woman: “Know what my dad … used to say? You have one job: Keep boys away from your sister.”
• At the same campaign event, to a different girl: “No dates until you’re 30.”
• In 2012, to a preteen girl in Ohio: “I hope you’ve got a big fence around your house…No serious dates until you’re 30.”
• In 2013, to Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, in reference to her two daughters: “You gonna’ build a fence around the house? A lotta machine guns?”
Uh-huh.
What’s your point?
You wrote “What are you talking about shooting himself in the foot repeatedly” earlier. I’m just showing that it does happen on a daily basis — and it’s not me personally saying these things – it is writers on liberal websites with pretty high readership like Slate.com. Joe is definitely not their first choice.
Yep, Joe has to get past those ridiculous people. That’s a given. That’s always been a given.
There’s a lot of dysfunction, fuzzy thinking and just plain silliness in the Democratic Party. One reason why I’m not a Democrat…
Wait a minute — there’s a hole in this conversation. One of my comments didn’t show up…
Before my “Uh-huh. What’s your point?” was one that I will now try to reconstruct, directly answering this comment about the young girl and her big brothers.
It went something like this…
WHAAT? You’re getting on Joe about THAT?
I saw that yesterday, and all I had to say about it was this:
Then I saw that some people DID have a problem with it, at which point I thought about posting something about it here, but then I decided what’s the point? You can’t argue with people on something like this; they’re immune. Joe’s just going to have to soldier on, knowing people will snipe at him with stuff like this…
And yeah, big brothers should look out for their younger sisters…
What does “protecting” mean? In Joe’s world it appears to mean he sees a pretty young girl and assumes that she will apparently be sexually harassed by all other young males and cannot defend herself. There is certainly a “boys will be boys” tone to it. I wonder if he says that to the brothers and parents of short, dumpy girls? If not, that says a lot about Joe.
That’s an interesting thing to contemplate.
There’s no question that this is Joe’s way of paying girls a compliment: Wow, you are so beautiful, I’ll bet you need to beat the boys off with a stick.
Joe being Joe, I expect he’d say it to a girl who’s not a beauty. He’s like that; he’s a flatterer. He wants everybody to feel good.
Of course, if she’s REALLY unattractive, it might seem too phony, and even be hurtful, and he wouldn’t want that. But I’d guess there are few girls he wouldn’t say it to…
… as you have documented. He does it all the time….
Hey, I’ve done the same thing! Here are my tiers:
Tier 1 — The only candidates who come close to having the qualifications for the job, as far as I’ve seen up to now.
Joe Biden
Tier 2
Everybody else…
Seriously, I want to look more closely at Jay Inslee, in the disastrous event that Joe self-destructs. And in fact , Bud’s the one who got me to say that. He said something positive about Inslee recently, and I knew ZERO about him, so I looked him up. His resume is at least in the same universe of people I’d consider for the presidency. But I need to know a LOT more about him.
Here’s hoping I don’t have to spend the time doing all that studying. Here’s hoping Joe makes it…
Not that I see Inslee as having a chance. But if I look HARD at the alternatives, he’s the one that I would want to know more about…