Hello Betty Folliard,

Thanks very much for commenting on my blogpost, where I quote a Sharon Sund underling:

Former Representative Betty Folliard said, "Sharon has the guts to fight for healthcare for all, the smarts to tackle education challenges for all our kids, and the moxy [sic] to work across the aisle to make change for the better in America. We need this outstanding scientist in Congress."

In response, I commented:

Betty Folliard did not assess all declared candidates using transparent, unbiased criteria. Her endorsement is of shoddy ethical quality--and should embarrass Sharon Sund.

In your comment, you claim you 'disagree' with my assertion--but you fail to contradict it substantively. Can I ask you to please make clear:

Prior to issuing your endorsement of Sharon Sund, did you employ transparent and unbiased criteria for assessing all declared candidates fairly?  Did you interview each candidate?  Did any campaign request your endorsement?  What key distinctions did you identify, among the declared candidates, on the issues?

Thank you for your decidedly unconvincing defense of Sharon Sund's 'history of political courage'--which you admit came to the fore quite recently, with a vague proposal for foreclosure relief.

What is the estimated total cost of Sharon Sund's foray into the land of political courage?  What is the proposal's predicted impact on the deficit?

In its largeness of vision, how do you think Sund's foreclosure initiative compares to my fundamental proposal--to reduce US military spending from 4.8% of GDP to 1.5%?

Warmest regards,

Gavin Sullivan

Eden Prairie