usmbguest5318
Gold Member
Just watched James Lankford speak on CNN for a second time. The first time was an interview he did with Jim Sciutto. This time he did an interview with Anderson Cooper. It perhaps helped that he had two outstanding reporters, men who themselves are highly professional, who bring "portfolio" to everything they do. Lankford clearly do too in both interviews.
If Lankford continues to perform as responsibly and maturely as he did in those two interviews -- both had to do with intelligence related matters -- I can see that man becoming POTUS. Depending on whom he might have to run against, I could even see myself voting for him, although whether I were to vote for him or not, I don't think I'd be fearful of him being POTUS. That's something I have never thought about Donald Trump.
From tonight's interview:
Sen. Lankford's answers were delivered in measured tones and they were reasonable. He didn't "play dumb" like Nunes did this evening when asked about whether he'd continue to lead the HIC's investigation. For the most part, he provided direct answers to the questions he was asked, and the answers he provided made sense, that is, they don't bid critical thinkers listening to them to suspend disbelief in order to accept their veracity or validity.
Sen. Lankford comported himself admirably. He didn't attack anyone. He didn't go on the defensive. He didn't complain, play the victim or levy blame. He didn't throw out unfounded speculations. He didn't offer faulty or false dichotomies/analogies/comparisons. He didn't remark upon that about which he was ill or under informed. He didn't present as emotional, nor did he have any emotional outbursts.
The Senator was very professional, sincere and polished; it was clear he is thoroughly knowledgeable on the matters he was discussing and that he came to the interview prepared. Exactly what a person holding high elected office should be. Most importantly, the man seemed to be one in whom one can confidently place their trust. The man behaved and responded to the questions like a grown-up of integrity does.
That is the kind of person who needs to run for POTUS. Regardless of whether one agrees with all his stances from a political standpoint, one can immediately tell he's responsible, takes his job/duty seriously and that he's not a clown. He delivered his "elevator chat" with the gravitas any principal should. It'll be interesting to see how he does on more subjective matters.
One caveat:
If Lankford continues to perform as responsibly and maturely as he did in those two interviews -- both had to do with intelligence related matters -- I can see that man becoming POTUS. Depending on whom he might have to run against, I could even see myself voting for him, although whether I were to vote for him or not, I don't think I'd be fearful of him being POTUS. That's something I have never thought about Donald Trump.
From tonight's interview:
Cooper: Asked whether Lankford thinks the sequence of events -- Yates' attys. sends letter stating that Yates will testify in the House Intelligence Committee (HIC) about matters pertaining to Gen. Flynn and that exec doesn't apply then the hearing is cancelled -- are coincidental.
Lankford: "I don't know. Obviously, what's happening on the House side of it...all the controversy surrounding Nunes is a distraction."
Cooper: According to Rep. Heinz, the HIC isn't even having regular meetings now.
Lankford: "That's too bad. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) meets multiple times a week.
Cooper: For the SIC, how critical is it that it truly is bipartisan? You know, when you see the questions the HIC has had, all the Reps. ask about leaks, all the Dems. ask about Russia. It's like it's two different hearings, and now, it's just completely broken down.
Lankford: Now that's getting into just pure politics. It is essential that an investigation like this is non-partisan....It's not a partisan issue.
Cooper: I assume you've not seen the documentation Nunes has described. Is that something you'd want to see?
Lankford: Yes. I have not seen what Nunes has "brought out." It'd be most responsible to share it with his committee first so that everyone there can see it first, and then share it with our committee as well.
Cooper: Asked for his thoughts on the dysfunctional nature of the how the HIC is being managed.
Lankford: It is essential that the two leads on the HIC work together. Our Chairman and Vice Chairman work hand-in-hand so one always knows what the other is doing and thinking. When that doesn't happen, it's an erosion of trust.
Lankford: "I don't know. Obviously, what's happening on the House side of it...all the controversy surrounding Nunes is a distraction."
Cooper: According to Rep. Heinz, the HIC isn't even having regular meetings now.
Lankford: "That's too bad. The Senate Intelligence Committee (SIC) meets multiple times a week.
Cooper: For the SIC, how critical is it that it truly is bipartisan? You know, when you see the questions the HIC has had, all the Reps. ask about leaks, all the Dems. ask about Russia. It's like it's two different hearings, and now, it's just completely broken down.
Lankford: Now that's getting into just pure politics. It is essential that an investigation like this is non-partisan....It's not a partisan issue.
Cooper: I assume you've not seen the documentation Nunes has described. Is that something you'd want to see?
Lankford: Yes. I have not seen what Nunes has "brought out." It'd be most responsible to share it with his committee first so that everyone there can see it first, and then share it with our committee as well.
Cooper: Asked for his thoughts on the dysfunctional nature of the how the HIC is being managed.
Lankford: It is essential that the two leads on the HIC work together. Our Chairman and Vice Chairman work hand-in-hand so one always knows what the other is doing and thinking. When that doesn't happen, it's an erosion of trust.
Sen. Lankford's answers were delivered in measured tones and they were reasonable. He didn't "play dumb" like Nunes did this evening when asked about whether he'd continue to lead the HIC's investigation. For the most part, he provided direct answers to the questions he was asked, and the answers he provided made sense, that is, they don't bid critical thinkers listening to them to suspend disbelief in order to accept their veracity or validity.
Sen. Lankford comported himself admirably. He didn't attack anyone. He didn't go on the defensive. He didn't complain, play the victim or levy blame. He didn't throw out unfounded speculations. He didn't offer faulty or false dichotomies/analogies/comparisons. He didn't remark upon that about which he was ill or under informed. He didn't present as emotional, nor did he have any emotional outbursts.
The Senator was very professional, sincere and polished; it was clear he is thoroughly knowledgeable on the matters he was discussing and that he came to the interview prepared. Exactly what a person holding high elected office should be. Most importantly, the man seemed to be one in whom one can confidently place their trust. The man behaved and responded to the questions like a grown-up of integrity does.
That is the kind of person who needs to run for POTUS. Regardless of whether one agrees with all his stances from a political standpoint, one can immediately tell he's responsible, takes his job/duty seriously and that he's not a clown. He delivered his "elevator chat" with the gravitas any principal should. It'll be interesting to see how he does on more subjective matters.
One caveat:
I don't know what he management model is for the SIC. In his capacity on the SIC, he's a rank and file senator. It may well be that the "majority leaf beater" role is played by the leadership rather than the "worker bees," thus he may not be burdened with being anything other than objective and professional.
