This is the best you demons have? Yes, it is. This is your fault, demons - you propped this empty shell up.
Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke faced across-the-board criticism on Tuesday after an unflattering interview in The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues -- and included a comment that seemed to question the modern-day relevance of the U.S. Constitution.
O'Rourke, 46, is widely considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, after falling only a few percentage points shy of dethroning incumbent Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm elections. But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy.
Speaking in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke added fuel to those concerns by repeatedly demurring when asked for a direct answer on his positions on everything from visa overstays to whether President Trump should withdraw military forces from Syria.
And at one point in the two-hour chat with The Post's Jenna Johnson, O'Rourke openly wondered whether the U.S. can "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago" in the Constitution.
Asked whether the U.S. is capable of change, O'Rourke was again equivocal: "I’m hesitant to answer it," he said, "because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
The comment drew harsh rebukes on Twitter.
"This may make it difficult to take any future oath of office to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,'" Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., wrote.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/be...-few-answers-in-wide-ranging-policy-interview
Former Texas Senate candidate Beto O'Rourke faced across-the-board criticism on Tuesday after an unflattering interview in The Washington Post portrayed him as equivocal and unsure on a variety of substantive policy issues -- and included a comment that seemed to question the modern-day relevance of the U.S. Constitution.
O'Rourke, 46, is widely considered a possible 2020 presidential contender, after falling only a few percentage points shy of dethroning incumbent Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm elections. But his relative lack of experience and expertise has emerged as a central objection to his prospective candidacy.
Speaking in El Paso, Texas, O'Rourke added fuel to those concerns by repeatedly demurring when asked for a direct answer on his positions on everything from visa overstays to whether President Trump should withdraw military forces from Syria.
And at one point in the two-hour chat with The Post's Jenna Johnson, O'Rourke openly wondered whether the U.S. can "still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago" in the Constitution.
Asked whether the U.S. is capable of change, O'Rourke was again equivocal: "I’m hesitant to answer it," he said, "because I really feel like it deserves its due, and I don’t want to give you a — actually, just selfishly, I don’t want a sound bite of it reported, but, yeah, I think that’s the question of the moment: Does this still work? Can an empire like ours with military presence in over 170 countries around the globe, with trading relationships . . . and security agreements in every continent, can it still be managed by the same principles that were set down 230-plus years ago?”
The comment drew harsh rebukes on Twitter.
"This may make it difficult to take any future oath of office to 'preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,'" Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., wrote.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/be...-few-answers-in-wide-ranging-policy-interview
