Did his third grade grandson write the first seven or so paragraphs?

I think the sentence construction strongly suggests… it was just “subject verb” dictation of a dull evening’s notes (zero cogent insights)… or (equally likely) someone wrote it for him.

As just one example — he’s never mentioned Steve Bannon’s physical appearance once, in twenty long years (nor Karl Rove’s)… but just as with Kristi Noem (every time she’s appeared at his think tank benefits) — he spent three paragraphs on Gabbard’s physical appearance.

Actually… not that odd, for a doddering mediocre whyte guy, whose brain is still firmly planted in, and enamored of… the 1950s.

No, the only remotely interesting thing he had to say was phrased as a question… and because he doesn’t report any of the substance of Gabbard’s answer… the whole post is… drearily boring.

The question essentially was “How can she defend calling Democrats ‘war mongers’ — which is an especially puzzling (and ahistorical) charge, at least to all of us alive and growing up during the latter stages of the debacle in Vietnam?”

Since it is a provably false claim (at least insofar as the measuring stick is any comparison to the GOP)… I suspect her answer was just some MAGA isolationism talking points. [I suggest that, as I’m sure she’s ALREADY on the hunt for far right donor pots, thus the Minnesota appearance last night — for tapping when she eventually picks an elected office to run for, as a MAGA / GOP wanna-be.]

But if one compares Democratic platforms to say… the Pacifist- or Quaker- parties’ platforms (collectively less than one per cent of the US electorate!)… she might have a point.

In any event, I’ll close by noting that John broadly implied that any woman who wears glamorous fashions cannot be a “serious” politician.

Yep — that’s on brand for his think tank, his party… and… his life and wife.

Pretty pathetically last century, this guy.

Out.