General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Does anyone else think Debbie Wasserman Schultz has to go? [View all]jsmirman
(4,507 posts)That "line amazes (you)" because I never actually said it, and you know, fabulism and amazement go hand in hand.
You would think that if you were going to imagine yourself to be wielding a skewer you might actually be accurate in dissecting the target.
I made it clear that I was expressing a temporary reaction that *I* have had to a few of her recent appearances.
If you're going to accuse someone of assuming something, you probably want to be extra sure that said assumption was actually in what you are criticizing. It wasn't.
"Then you assume 'many sections' hold this 'instinct'."
What utter hogswallop.
I assumed no such thing.
I merely said that it would be problematic if we had someone in that position who invited that reaction. I am glad if we do not.
And as to the rest of your ridiculous post, I enjoyed " you know, she'd not hold that position if this instinct to dislike her existed." Oh, do teach me about the politics, sir!!!
Yes, our party has NEVER elevated anyone unsuitable to a prominent public/political (politically prominent and, thus, publicly prominent) position. The Democrats have been a party of sheer wizardry. And people never rise to prominent positions through inner-party dealmaking. Right.
And TO BE CLEAR: I am not saying that this is why she is the DNC Chair, only that this part of your post is stupid.