It's Time For Paul Ryan To Go Away

[JimGinPA]

Seriously, WTF is wrong with some of you people?

[BainsBane]

1. They ran ads tying Ossoff to Bernie too

yet me don't here calls for him to go away.

Like the GE, too many are using the GA defeat to grind axes they've been wielding for a long time.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. I thought they tied Ossoff to Pelosi, I think that was it. If you remember, Bernie

at one point said Ossoff wasnt pure enough. sigh

As to Paul Ryan, he has admitted he wants old people in the gutter.

[BainsBane]

4. He endorsed him recently

and the GOP did run ads about how Ossoff was allied with the "socialist" Bernie.

[thesquanderer]

14. re: "If you remember, Bernie at one point said Ossoff wasnt pure enough."

I remember that spin, but I don't remember it actually quite happening.

[Raster]

24. that's because it didn't...

...however certain DUers went ahead and beefed it up to fit into their anti-Sanders pile of shit.

[Raster]

16. Please show me the quote where Senator Sanders said "Ossoff wasn't pure enough"...

... I'll wait.

[Eliot Rosewater]

18. sure, right here

But the most puzzling development this week is Sanders's decision to keep Georgia special election candidate Jon Ossoff at arms-length. Sanders hasn't endorsed Ossoff, and in an interview with the Wall Street Journal, he seemed to suggest Ossoff's progressive bona fides were in question.

“If you run as a Democrat, you’re a Democrat,” Sanders said. “Some Democrats are progressive, and some Democrats are not.”



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/20/bernie-sanderss-strange-behavior/?utm_term=.f575682a6b4c


Bernie either endorses STRONGLY every single democrat on every single ballot when Nov rolls around, or he DOESNT

[Raster]

19. Sanders said nothing about "purity" and you know it...

...you are adding your own interpretation.

[Eliot Rosewater]

20. jesus fucking christ, did you READ it...

purity is short hand for what he said, you are being disingenuous

keep it up, gop will retain power

[Raster]

23. oh please don't try and blame the GOP retaining power on me and how I perceive what...

....Sanders said and didn't say.

Disingenuous... you would know.

Have a nice day.

[thesquanderer]

25. It is an interpretation, it is not what he said.

You say you used the word purity as shorthand for progressive enough, but there is no quote where he actually says either thing (i.e. that Ossoff is not pure enough OR that Ossoff is not progressive enough). Even the piece you linked to is an opinion/analysis piece with a subjective interpretation ("--->he seemed to suggest<--- Ossoff's progressive bona fides were in question&quot , and I grant you that that is an acceptable interpretation, but even THAT interpretation frames it as a question, a concern Sanders had, not something Sanders put forth as a statement of fact. This is also related to the part of the quote you left out. Yes, it said:

---> "If you run as a Democrat, you're a Democrat," Sanders said. "Some Democrats are progressive and some Democrats are not."<---

But then it also said:

---> Sanders was then asked if Ossoff is a progressive.

"I don't know," Sanders replied<---

Sanders didn't even say Ossoff wasn't progressive (much less progressive *enough*), rather he said he didn't know. Those are his actual words. Everything beyond that is interpretation or spin.

But moreover, even all that completely misses the point... Sanders never said he would not support Ossoff! Not over not being progressive enough, not over *anything*.

Sure, he could have questions about whether some Dem is progressive, but if you are going to extrapolate from that that he won't support Dems who are not, you are putting words in his mouth. Even IF Sanders said Ossoff wasn't as progressive as he'd like (which he didn't say, he only said he didn't know) even THAT wouldn't be the same as saying he was not progressive enough to support. He simply never said anything close to "Ossoff wasnt pure enough" as you claim he did.

Sanders did mess up by saying that he wasn't sure Ossoff was progressive, and letting that hang there. But he quickly clarified that he supported Ossoff regardless. Following that WSJ interview on April 19, he issued a statement on April 21 that said “Let me be very clear. It is imperative that Jon Ossoff be elected congressman from Georgia’s 6th District and that Democrats take back the U.S. House. I applaud the energy and grassroots activism in Jon’s campaign. His victory would be an important step forward in fighting back against Trump’s reactionary agenda.”

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. Why make it complicated, here is how simple November 2018 is

Vote for any democrat, no matter what, or fascists destroy life on earth.

[thesquanderer]

28. I'll buy that! (n/t)

[Hoyt]

27. +1. I said "Jesus F&*#@ng Christ" too.

[George II]

22. Only had to wait four minutes, quick comeback. From your quote:

Ossoff's "progressive bona fides were in question", i.e., his "purity" was in question!

[pnwmom]

17. No, they DID run ads tying him to Bernie. n/t

[FakeNoose]

13. I think that was Karl Rove's strategy

...plus Rove's claim that he was counting every vote personally. I sure hope they didn't allow him to do that. But if he did, we don't have to look very far to figure out what went wrong.

But yeah, I do agree that RYAN has to go!

[Bettie]

2. It's way past time for that.

Seriously, he needs to go. Soon.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. Indeed

[Bleacher Creature]

6. Most definitely! NT

[ananda]

7. Hear hear!

If his district wasn't so heavily gerrymandered,
Ryan would never win an election.

[athena]

8. Notice that the Republicans aren't attacking their leaders.

The Republicans support their leadership even when that leadership is mediocre or pathological. The Democrats, on the other hand, attack their leaders even when those leaders are some of the most effective the Democratic Party has ever had.

Also, notice that the Republicans, despite being sexist, went out and voted for a woman because she had an R next to her name. If they were Democrats, they would have voted against her or stayed home or voted for her opponent, saying they wanted "fresh" and "new" leadership. And they would have accused all the women who voted for her of "voting with their vaginas."

As long as the Democratic base continues to tolerate such disgusting sexism among its members, Democrats will continue to lose elections. We have to stop allowing self-identified liberals to make sexist attacks against powerful Democrats. If it walks like a sexist and talks like a sexist, it IS a sexist, even if it claims it's not.

[JimGinPA]

9. It's A Team Sport With r's

But a couple Dems lose races in red districts, in red states, and multiple threads here calling for Nancy Pelosi to step down!?!

Ridiculous.

[murielm99]

10. Those are not real Democrats.

They are trolls and politics of purity types. Fuck them. I will take our big tent any day. I will take blue dogs in red states and red areas, too. They caucus and vote with us. We need numbers.

[tiredtoo]

21. may be in the minority here but,

I supported Bernie from day one. I did not attack Hillary and when she prevailed in the primary I supported her.
Yes we should not attack our leaders. but we cannot continue down the same path and expect to arrive at a different destination.

[NCTraveler]

11. Bannon Theory.

It must be destroyed in order to be built back up.


Both side have people who believe in Bannon Theory and both are equally as dangerous.

[FiveGoodMen]

12. He is the devil

Morally, I'd say he's worse than Trump.

His obvious glee at getting that health 'care' bill passed was demonic.

If there were a just god, Ryan would be long dead by now.

[Alice11111]

15. I watch and he NEVER has a decent opponent, gerrymandering aside.I swear, I wonder if the Repubs

recruit and pay his opponents. This can't be a coincidence over and over. They are almost like homeless with motorcycles and bandanas over their heads. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but we need someone who can get a lot more votes than Ryan. Sort of tired of losing. It varies, and I probably do exaggerate here, but really. DNC, how about a little field action to recruit a decent opponent. Even better, find a really good opponent...there are lots of good people out there, but they lack the money to run. Oh, after that, stand behind him or her, and don't make someone hamstring themselves to get a few cents from you. Those of us working on the ground will fundraise directly for good opponents, just as we have been doing.

[Not Ruth]

29. Iron Stache

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029235508

[Alice11111]

30. I saw that on R Maddow last night. Maybe he can pull it

Off. The best potential opponent I've seen.

For those races, we really need vets w law degrees, well spoken, charismatic, petsonable, who are center left. Helps if they have had experience in government and the private sector. Obviously, no strange things like they don't live in the district and no big skeletons. Then, you have your Almost perfect candidate. Gender and race shouldn't matter.