Editor:
Friends, I am excited. By the time this is published, we’ll likely finally have an answer to what sort of character Charles Grassley has.
In 2016, when a Supreme Court justice …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
We have recently launched a new and improved website. To continue reading, you will need to either log into your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you had a login with the previous version of our e-edition, then you already have a login here. You just need to reset your password by clicking here.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account by clicking here.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
|
Editor:
Friends, I am excited. By the time this is published, we’ll likely finally have an answer to what sort of character Charles Grassley has.
In 2016, when a Supreme Court justice died nine months before the election, Chuck said it was “too close” to the election and the political situation was “too volatile”. The nominee wouldn’t get a “fair hearing”.
So, he didn’t allow a vote on the new nominee.
Now, a justice has died a month and a half before the election, in a volatile situation. But now Chuck’s own “team” could benefit. So, we get to see, in one moment: Does Chuck have integrity? Or is he just a political game player?
Is Chuck Grassley a man of his word? A man of conviction? Or is his conviction just “my team should win no matter the cost”?
Seems to me that people should stick to their word — I don’t think that’s just a conservative or liberal or moderate thing. But maybe I’m just old fashioned. Someone gives a reason for their actions; it would be nice to believe them.
So, let’s see: What kind of man is Chuck Grassley? Should we believe him anymore? Or is he just playing games?
What kind of legacy to you want to leave, Chuck? Man of principles? Or political schemer?
We’re waiting to see.
Tom Javoroski
Keota