That’s fair, I forgot the precise wording, and I apologize! You did call him “broadly a conservative in good standing” and positively contrasted his nomination with RFK’s, which at the time I interpreted to mean that you thought he might do a better job. (I disagreed then and still do, but maybe you didn’t mean that.)
That’s fair, I forgot the precise wording, and I apologize! You did call him “broadly a conservative in good standing” and positively contrasted his nomination with RFK’s, which at the time I interpreted to mean that you thought he might do a better job. (I disagreed then and still do, but maybe you didn’t mean that.)
I said, in November, that he was more likely to be confirmed than RFK, because (unlike RFK) he was not ideologically crosswise with any key GOP constituencies. I was wrong as to RFK’s confirmation, but I never assessed that Hegseth was likely to perform well. In fact, I wrote “I don’t think Hegseth is well-qualified at all.” So, you’re disagreeing with something I never said or believed.
That’s fair, I forgot the precise wording, and I apologize! You did call him “broadly a conservative in good standing” and positively contrasted his nomination with RFK’s, which at the time I interpreted to mean that you thought he might do a better job. (I disagreed then and still do, but maybe you didn’t mean that.)
I said, in November, that he was more likely to be confirmed than RFK, because (unlike RFK) he was not ideologically crosswise with any key GOP constituencies. I was wrong as to RFK’s confirmation, but I never assessed that Hegseth was likely to perform well. In fact, I wrote “I don’t think Hegseth is well-qualified at all.” So, you’re disagreeing with something I never said or believed.