New Jersey senator Booker broke Senate tradition to testify against the nomination of Jeff Sessions for Attorney General. One senator does not normally testify against a nominee, particularly since that senator has unfettered time available to make statements and speeches on the nomination on the floor of the Senate. Nevertheless, Booker announced that he had no choice but to testify in opposition to the nomination. Many critics saw this move as the opening salvo in Booker's presidential campaign for 2020. But what did Booker say? Did he make any key points regarding Sessions? In other words, was there any justification for his break with tradition and his "necessary" testimony?
The simple answer is that Booker's testimony was a bust. He had no new information that he provided regarding Jeff Sessions. Booker didn't even say all that much about Sessions that was already known. A big chunk of his testimony was about himself.
It seems the critics were right. Booker was just starting his presidential campaign a bit early. He's trying to position himself as the torch bearer for the Democrats who hate everything Trump.
It's not a smart move for the senator. He's trying to make himself into the new Hillary Clinton, but without the charm.
The simple answer is that Booker's testimony was a bust. He had no new information that he provided regarding Jeff Sessions. Booker didn't even say all that much about Sessions that was already known. A big chunk of his testimony was about himself.
It seems the critics were right. Booker was just starting his presidential campaign a bit early. He's trying to position himself as the torch bearer for the Democrats who hate everything Trump.
It's not a smart move for the senator. He's trying to make himself into the new Hillary Clinton, but without the charm.
No comments:
Post a Comment