Yeah, I typically like Nate, but today’s column seemed sloppy. I don’t see how Walz is the “safe” choice - he’s further left than Shapiro. I also didn’t get what he was saying about Minnesota values not translating. I think Walz was a bold pick and I’m happy with the choice.
Seconded. Walz isn’t “safe” if you look at his policies. He’s pretty far left and is just fine implementing social policy, gun control, and using government money to fund social programs. That’s pretty radical if you’re a Republican. While he isn’t a policymaker as the VP, he’s a tie-breaker and he’s a future presidential candidate should Harris win.
Yeah, I typically like Nate, but today’s column seemed sloppy. I don’t see how Walz is the “safe” choice - he’s further left than Shapiro. I also didn’t get what he was saying about Minnesota values not translating. I think Walz was a bold pick and I’m happy with the choice.
Seconded. Walz isn’t “safe” if you look at his policies. He’s pretty far left and is just fine implementing social policy, gun control, and using government money to fund social programs. That’s pretty radical if you’re a Republican. While he isn’t a policymaker as the VP, he’s a tie-breaker and he’s a future presidential candidate should Harris win.