Steve Schmidt has been a Democrat for only a day and already....

[George II]

....he's pissed off at people referring to it as the "Democrat Party"! Good for him.

Link to tweet

[Miguelito Loveless]

1. Why are people so willing to overlook his egregious

and vile past? Sure he helped, he saw Trump was destroying the conservative brand that he himself had help forge. Now, he wants in to the Democratic party so he can get a seat at the table and the power needed to continue his agenda of enriching himself.

And people are running out to kiss him and shower him with rose petals.

[Phoenix61]

4. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer? nt

[Miguelito Loveless]

5. I could accept that,

but people have been genuinely praising him for about a year now.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

266. He's been on the Never Trump Train all along, hasn't he?

Not necessarily a huge fan of Never Trumpers because they'd probably be simpatico with pretty much any other Republican, but they helped get Trump out of office, so that counts for something. And Schmidt has apparently now crossed all the way over to becoming a Democrat, so that's something too.

[Miguelito Loveless]

267. And again, that's great

but it doesn't erase, in my view, all of the harm he did before he turned on Trump. Also, his actions paved the way for Trump. Has his views about Republican ideology from Reagan to Bush still the same? Does he still believe Roberts and Alito belong of the SCOTUS? Will he oppose expanding the court to undo the damage of unqualified, nakedlypartisan appointments? Tax cuts for the rich? Deregulation?

Those are important issues going forward.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

268. Absolutely

George Conway was a NT but he was fine with Amy Coney Barrett's installation, so, yeah, their usefulness as long-term allies for progressive change may be very limited now that Trump is being shown the door.

[Miguelito Loveless]

283. Perfect example

Conway got a lot of praise and people seemed to think he had joined our side. He had not.

[empedocles]

6. 'Best to have the camel in the tent pissing out, than pissing in' - LBJ

[Miguelito Loveless]

79. Pragmatic advice indeed

To be fair, I would also point out that pragmatism also got us Vietnam, the Omnibus Crime Bill that came back to haunt HRC, welfare "reform", bankruptcy "reform", and our current climate disaster, to name but a few.

[JI7]

7. Stop treating Politics like Religion

[Miguelito Loveless]

20. The poltics of the Right ARE a religion

and have been since Falwell brought the Fundagelicals in as Republican shock troops in the late 70s.

Also, they are running a Death Cult with Trump as their "god".

Schmidt paved the way for Trump. Attempts to Werner von Braun him into a good guy do not cut it with me.

[Roy Rolling]

77. That's What Needs Fixing

The Democratic Party doesn’t need to imitate Republican cultism. It needs to eliminate that faulty sentiment from the democratic process of choosing political leaders.

[Miguelito Loveless]

82. I am not suggesting we form a cult on the left

I am just pointing out that it is unwise to embrace someone's whose dagger still drips with the blood of his previous ally, which was applied after he cleaned our blood off off it. Before he was "our" attack dog against Trump, he was "their" attack dog against Kerry and Obama. His boss was Karl Rove, and he worked to get Alito & Roberts on the Court.

[cayugafalls]

100. Why are we willing to see a reformed attack dog as a friend by the fire,

yet when it comes to humans we are so unwilling to forgive past sins?

I get that he was, keyword was, on their side before, but he really is doing good work now.

We can discuss the number of kills a dog may have had, but if they are rescued and calm down, why not give them a chance?

[Miguelito Loveless]

108. The trouble with a spy switching sides

is you must make sure he isn't actually still working for the other side, or that he isn't just working for you because the money is better, and will change sides again when a better offer comes along. S

At no point have I said "Don't give this guy a chance" I am saying, don't trust him behind you, and NEVER forget where he came from. I have had a number of adopted "bad dogs" in my life. And while I am willing to bring them into my home, I NEVER forget their past. It takes me quite a number of years to leave the cat alone with one. I always know where his teeth are, and never show him my back. You don't adopt a mean dog who has been in blood sports for most of his life, then assume he's fine because he turned on his previous owners.

[cayugafalls]

114. Which is why the dog got the chance. You understood their past.

Yet it seems you are trying to beat the dog for just having BEEN that way.

To continue the analogy, if you constantly rub the dogs nose in a stinking pile of shit simply because he once shit on the carpet, the dog will ultimately learn nothing and may even turn on you for the simple fact that your actions were confusing and unkind.

[Miguelito Loveless]

119. I am not rubbing his nose in it,

I am cautioning people not to run up and pet the "cute" doggy.

The entire point of my post was I do not understand why everyone is flocking to a dog with blood on his teeth, just because it currently is the blood of people we don't like.

I am not "beating the dog", I am telling people of the dogs history before they run up to him.

If Mr. Schmidt wants to have a conversation with me, I won't "beat him", but I will explain to him why I, and others, are wary of him, and what he could do to ally that wariness.

[cayugafalls]

158. Got it and I agree.

We do not disagree, I think the misunderstanding was the running up and claiming that the dog is a beast while we are stooping down to offer a treat. To some people, myself included, it seemed like you were trying to spook the dog into biting the hand that was feeding it.

Now I understand your point clearly.

Thanks for that...

[Miguelito Loveless]

163. And thank you for your patient

and thoughtful responses.

[Dream Girl]

200. I would not ever have a pit bull or other killer dog. No way would I ever trust them

They are capable of sudden and unprompted vicious attacks. However, I’m good with Steve.

[Miguelito Loveless]

215. And if he is truly repentant of his previous ways

and not the metaphorical attack dog who turns on us at a future date, your faith will be justified.

My view is skepticism will always serve me better than faith. That way, my surprises are pleasant ones.

[Demsrule86]

128. Clearly not to Steve Schmidt.

[pennylane100]

249. Some religions allow confession.

[Miguelito Loveless]

257. Yes, some do.

I used to belong to one. But their penchant or sexual abuse and slavery are the reason I am now an atheist.

[fleabiscuit]

254. I don't recall him dissing HRC.

Plenty of others I do remember dissing HRC. Anyone else remember that?

[Miguelito Loveless]

256. No,

but he helped attack Kerry, Obama, and helped get Alito and Roberts on the bench. That is paving the way for Trump.

He gave HRC a pass? Given the damage he did up to that point, how magnanimous.

[Tommymac]

33. Amen nt

[betsuni]

39. +1

[demigoddess]

235. right. politics for most people is a choice you make, at the time.

parties have exchanged places many times over the years. You cannot choose one party and stick to it, without thinking, for the rest of your life. Abe Lincoln was a man to follow, trumpfy is not. With him telling the republicans what to do, change parties. Especially if you are a real person with a brain.

[empedocles]

9. Purity attitudes do not win in Novembers, or get legislation passed anytime.

[Miguelito Loveless]

22. A demonstrated enemy who has shown he will knife his allies in the back when it becomes convenient

is someone we should embrace?

[Tommymac]

35. In this case YES

Steve has honor and integrity. The GOP left him.

As a leftist, I welcome him to The Big Tent with Open Arms.

We have more in common then not - we both are Defending We The People's Constitution.

Democracy is built on the fact that there MUST be a dynamic debate on ideas. It takes TWO or more sides.

Let's not mimic the GOP and become a party of One side.

[Miguelito Loveless]

50. You lost me at

"Steve has honor and integrity"

Are you going to make me pull up his opinion of Democrats from the past? His own words which I have yet to see him repudiate?

Steve is welcome to be "the other side" in a debate, and in defense of the Constitution. I don't consider him on my side.

To me, he's another Mitch McConnell, willing to say whatever gets him a pay check.

[ahoysrcsm]

89. Unless you are so Far Left that you are ignoring us in the Center....

The Democratic Party welcomes Left, Center, and Right. The Big Tent Party. We need to win elections in all 50 States to get our bills past. The Far Right has taken over the GOP and I'm fine with that. We can take all exiles and get OUR agenda passed. Bill like the Affordable Care Act, which will help us move towards getting a Single Payer healthcare system. So many things the GOP has broken, we will have to fix. There is no time for us to fight among ourselves.

[Miguelito Loveless]

92. Ah, so I am an extremist

for pointing out that the guy who worked for Karl Rove to advance W. Bush's policies, get Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS, and then worked for John McCain and defended Sarah Palin, might be a guy we want to keep at arms length, even if he seems to have seen the errors of his ways?

Seems to me that Schmidt is a tool, in the literal sense of the word. An intelligent tool, a tool for hire, and one capable of doing real damage to whoever he is pointed at. But I don't see him as a tool I want behind our lines, where his choice of targets includes us.

[AngryOldDem]

141. And you lost me at the word "enemy".

That’s a pretty strong word to describe someone who once had ideological differences with Democrats, and is language that Schmidt and many of us take great exception to, in light of current events.

[Miguelito Loveless]

144. So, how would you characterize someone who has done

what Schmidt has done in the past? Sure, the last couple of years he had a change of heart, but that was after 2-3 decades of making his living attacking us, our candidates and our policies. And not just attacking them, but lying about them.

Now we are whitewashing his past actions as "ideological differences".

Cool.

And I am supposed to overlook his past "ideological differences" in light of "current events".

OK.

Then I would point out that I am simply applying the historical axiom, "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it".

[AngryOldDem]

151. I'm done restating this.

There are only so many ways it can be said.

The man has repudiated his past allegiance to the GOP. So have many other now-loyal Democrats over the years.

If you want to see underhandedness here, have at it.

We’re now at the point of agreeing to disagree.

Cheers.

[melman]

155. "repudiated his past allegiance to the GOP"

He absolutely has not done this.

Schmidt has been very critical of today's GOP, but he has never repudiated the GOP of Reagan, Bush etc. Never.

[Miguelito Loveless]

168. Yep.

And that could get very sticky when we try to dismantle that legacy.

[ehrnst]

199. Goalpost moved.

melman (7,500 posts)

122. Why hasn't he a become a Democrat?

https://democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14702656

Now he's done that, unlike others who are held up as "the future" of the Democratic party, no less, and now another objection to him pops up.



Also, it's rather suprising that you now consider someone not renouncing their past railing against the Democratic Party while not being a member of it, being a deal breaker for identifying as or even running for office as a Democrat.

When did this change of heart occur?

[George II]

204. "his past ALLEGIANCE to the GOP", that's pretty clear, and he certainly has done that:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegiance

devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause

Repudiating a party is one thing, repudiating an allegiance to that party is an entirely different thing, and he's repudiated his allegiance (i.e., "devotion or loyalty" ) to the GOP.

By registering as a Democrat (or with the Democratic Party) he's clearly demonstrated that he's repudiated his allegiance to the republican party.

[fleabiscuit]

255. Schmidt was like 11 years old when Reagan was elected. sheesh.

[Miguelito Loveless]

264. And I believe I spoke of support for Reagan's legacy

not for voting for the man.

[melman]

269. Here's Steve's self-congratulatory Repub-exit twitter thread

Still pinned to his account two years later.

Link to tweet

Here we see him contrast (what he believes is) the wonderfulness of Reagan vs. the modern GOP

Link to tweet

This a theme he returns to often on his innumerable cable TV appearances, and I'd have to think anyone who even knows who he is would have heard him talk this way. What we haven't heard from him is any kind of reflection on how maybe all that Reagan shit wasn't so great.

[George II]

270. It's really encouraging that you posted his tweet where he renounces his membership....

....in the republican party. Renounce/repudiate - same thing in this case. Thanks!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14725019

[melman]

271. see post #155

[George II]

273. That's what post #270 responds to, thank you.

[melman]

274. And this...

"Schmidt has been very critical of today's GOP, but he has never repudiated the GOP of Reagan, Bush etc. Never."


Is still 100% accurate and true. As you know.


Thanks and have a wonderful day!

[George II]

275. As I said - reputiate/renounce. Whatever. I conducted two English lessons yesterday...

...not going to do it again today.

[melman]

276. I know you think you got a real bazinga situation here..

But what that twitter thread shows is Schmidt rejecting the GOP of today while praising the GOP of the past.


Just as I originally said! It actually proves my point. Not yours. So lol, lol and indeed LOL!


Please do have a lovely day now!

[George II]

281. Nope, I certainly don't. But you rewriting your post (didn't check to see if you did so....

....to the original, though) can be a huge bazinga!

You mentioned the GOP of Reagan, etc..., NOT Reagan, etc. the people themselves. Now it's "of the past"?

Clearly he did reject it (now it's reject, not repudiate or renounce?). It's one party, just like he's talking about the Democratic Party as the "oldest" party, not just the current 2020 Democratic Party.

Ah well, point not proven. Sorry about that.

Gotta go shovel some snow.

[Miguelito Loveless]

162. I do not

"See underhandedness" I simply state that it is a possibility, and we would be wise to remember where he came from, and what he did going forward. Give him opportunities to help us, but always plan for a betrayal. Skepticism will always serve better than faith.

[Iliyah]

60. Agreed in most part . ...

He did help Sara Palin become the selection for VP concerning John McCain tho. Nicole Wallace worked closely with Bush 43. Kellyanne's hubby to my understanding belongs to the Federalist Society. The remaining of the brother who helped create the Federalist Society came out from underneath the low depths to acknowledge they sorta made a mistake with shithole, and so on with many anti-trumpsters . ..

As or Steve S. and anyone else who wants to join our big tent party, I'll welcome, but I can see after 30 years or so, it's probably engrain in his psychic "Democrat Party".

[Miguelito Loveless]

95. And worked to get

Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS.

It is hard for me to look at three decades of evil, and then just forget about it because of a few years of good deeds (and especially since good deeds that are paying quite well).

[lkinwi]

97. I also welcome him.

Looking back to my union days, many great and supportive members were at one time anti-union. I’m glad that they were welcomed when they changed their minds.

[Miguelito Loveless]

109. Did those who were anti-union

cheerfully and zealously work for management in vicious attacks on unions using questionably legal tactics? Did they switch to being pro-union after three decades of being anti-union?

Again, glad to have him change affiliations. Just never forget who he was and what he did. Forgiving him is a personal choice.

[empedocles]

44. Embrace . . . carefully

[Miguelito Loveless]

76. Yep, all I am trying to get

folks to do is remember.

This position, makes me an a heretic for questioning the motives of a man who has a large financial incentive to be pereived as an apostate.

[DFW]

64. Consiodering who his allies morphed into

I can only applaud.

[Miguelito Loveless]

66. I applaud him

with my back against the wall, and the cutlery accounted for.

[Demsrule86]

129. Who did he knife in the back?

[Miguelito Loveless]

170. I believe that is the prevailing narrative on the Right

But then, it kind of depends on what side you are on. To us the "Founding Fathers' were patriots, to the British, they were traitors, to the indigenous peoples of this continent they were genocidal mad men.

If he changed his mind on principle, that's great, if for money, well, that's a different kettle of fish.

[Demsrule86]

172. I call it not supporting a fascist takeover of the presidency and applaud Steve Schmidt for it. I

hope more will join us... as there were Reagan Democrats, I hope we have Biden Republicans who convert to Democrats as many Reagan Democrats did.

[Miguelito Loveless]

177. That's great

But a lot of these folks seemed OK with fascist rule under W. The road to Trump was paved by the people who brought us Reagan, Gingrich, McConnell, Ryan, W. Bush, Bush Sr, Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, and MANY, many more.

That would include Schmidt.

So, is he on board with dismantling the GOP of the last 40 years?

[Demsrule86]

190. People always want to throw history at me...some I was there for...some I wasn't...

however, I prefer to live in the present. We need to win elections going forward particularly House and Senate elections in 22. I will make one observation...everyone except Regan and
Thomas could have been avoided had the Green/left supported Gore in 2000.

[Miguelito Loveless]

227. And I would point out that Gore actually won the election

It took the Supreme Court and a slave era electoral system to cheat us out of the win. Had the votes been counted Gore would have won the EC as well.

[Miguelito Loveless]

226. And getting in beds of political convenience

has never blown up in our face?

You know purity is measured on a relative scale, not an absolute one. You wield the term as if I make my decisions based on 100% purity tests, rather than carefully evaluating each situation and pushing for the highest purity than can be managed and still progress.

That said, there are some lines you just don't cross. Schmidt hasn't crossed any of them as far as I am concerned, but he came damned close, and he helped others cross the lines by normalizing unethical and outrageous practices. So, I am not going to simply trust him because he pinky swears he's a good guy.

Now, I am sure that neither he, nor you, give a tinker's damn what I think, and thus, here we are.

[mopinko]

11. why did jesus make paul an apostle?

my da always said converts are the biggest zealots.
he saw the light.

this one wont slink back.

[jaxexpat]

21. Not exactly a biblical scholar but I'm pretty sure Jesus had been gone a pretty good while.....

before Saul of Tarsus became Paul the apostle. Unless you count the angel Saul met on the campaign trail as the ghost of Abe Lincoln or something. Saying, "you will receive three visitors tonight", or so the legend goes.

[Miguelito Loveless]

101. Yeah, I was not going to get into that

as then I would have to get into I am an atheist, which would be yet another mark against me.

[Miguelito Loveless]

98. And Paul brought us

a VERY misogynistic slant to Christianity, something who could not have done from outside the faith. Also, Thomas Jefferson viewed him as "the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus".

I have some experience with converts, and those that become zealots do more harm than good.

[mopinko]

99. well, yeah. my dad meant that it was a bad thing.

my point was that he wasnt going to go back.

[Miguelito Loveless]

103. Perhaps

As that happens with converts. But, I am not sure yet whether he is a convert, or an opportunist who saw more money changing sides.

[FakeNoose]

242. Paul became a disciple of Jesus, not an apostle

I realize that wasn't your point. But I thought it might be confusing for some people.
And I agree that converts are often the biggest zealots of all.

[Bucky]

278. I'm pretty sure Paul counts as an apostle.

In fact, if you search for "the apostle" the first name Google will autosuggest is Paul of Tarsus. Surely you won't doubt the biblical inerrancy of Google.com!!! It'd be like arguing Bill Murray wasn't one of the Not Ready for Prime Time players, as Bill Murray is unquestionably the St. Paul of Saturday Night Live.

[Miguelito Loveless]

288. Bill Murray is one of the ORIGINAL NRFPTP,

Eddie Murphy is not. Paul/Saul never actually met, nor did he hang with Jesus back in the day. His "meeting" according to scripture, was with the "ascended Jesus" if memory serves.

Perhaps in 2,000 years we will be reading of the Messiah, Lorne, and the Gospels of Apostles Bill, Chevy, John, and Dan (the Gospels of Garrett, Jane, Loraine, and Gilda will be suppressed).

[Bucky]

294. It's quite unfair, but Murray missed out on being inducted into the TV Hall of Fame cause he wasn't

He was brought in as Chevy's replacement during their second season, Chase having split mid-season 1.

Here's a video of their induction to the TV Hall of Fame. As the last speaker of the evening, Aykroyd laments from the mic that Murray, not being part of the original cast, didn't get honored, even tho he was classy enough to show up to applaud them.

Season 1


Season 2

[Miguelito Loveless]

295. There hasn't been such a steal of honor

since Azerbaijan stole the 2011 Eurovision win from Italy.

Yes, that is an obscure reference, but any gay European would get the comparison.


And for now particular reason:

Italy

Azerbaijan

[Bucky]

277. Churchill once said no one rats from a ship twice

But of course Churchill did exactly that, first leaving the Tories for the Liberals, then leaving the Liberals for the Tories.

So, yeah, different rules apply to rich people apparently.

[luv2fly]

13. Sadly it's not just him

Lots of dems have been falling all over never trumpers, Lincoln project folks, etc since they started ripping on Trump. Not liking Trump is not enough of a reason for me to trust them. Come see me in two, five, 10 years and let's see what you've done in that time since you have a public forum.

[dansolo]

25. He has been ripping on the entire GOP

I'd have doubts too if Trump was his only target, but he has been attacking the entire GOP.

[Tommymac]

36. For at least 2 years.

Steve is defending Democracy and Our Constitution.

Hats off to him.

[luv2fly]

123. Pretty much the same thing

Trump and the GOP are pretty much the same thing, and have been for years now.

[AngryOldDem]

152. Somehow that critical point is being ignored.

(Willfully so, I might add.)

[Miguelito Loveless]

289. Far be it for me to ignore mitigating evidence

but if you have links to support his repudiation of the GOP and its ideology, en toto, I would be happy to read it. I do not ask sarcastically, but in the interest of fairness.

[Miguelito Loveless]

111. Exactly.

[Pacifist Patriot]

14. Nothing so zealous as a convert?

I'm willing to sit back and see where this goes. I've seen a number of people close to me abandon the Republican party and become pretty damn liberal over the years. It can and does happen.

When we married, my husband was a staunch Republican. He gradually mellowed and then almost overnight during the Bush administration snapped. He's now in the camp that sees Biden as a little too conservative. LOL!

Time will tell. Can't take our eyes off it, but anything is possible. People can and do change over time.

[Miguelito Loveless]

34. This is true,

but again, I haven't seen him repudiate his dark past, just how the GOP that he helped, have now taken the party over the edge. To me he is one of many arsonists who now regrets that the arsonists he trained have started burning down his house.

Schmidt may be sincere, but I would keep my back to the wall anytime I was around him. Also, I would bet your husband has expressed contrition for his former views. I haven't seen that from this man.

[peggysue2]

156. My husband was the same

A Republican voter who over the years became disgusted with the extremes of the GOP. His last Republican vote was for Poppy Bush. He's become evermore liberal as time went on.

People can change their political views. Most do it in private. For Schmidt this is a very public act for someone who has worked Republican campaigns over the years. So, it's quite a leap of faith and he's leaving himself open to all kinds of attacks.

As for converts? Yeah, very frequently they do become the zealots, calling out the rest of us when we miss a step. That's okay. That passion can serve as a reminder of how vigilant we need to be in the future. Because there's likely to be other Trumpster candidates, those more articulate and attractive, pushing the same fascist poison that Donald Trump hawked.

Never forget, never forgive.

As for allies? We need all we can gather.

[Pacifist Patriot]

191. Exactly!

[madaboutharry]

15. I think your attitude is wrong.

Schmidt's epiphany was a slow moving train. The bloom started coming off the rose after the Sarah Palin debacle, which btw he took full responsibility for. He is a small government conservative. He was never a right wing nut job. Schmidt is a patriot who sincerely loves America. He said that he is now a one issue Democrat and that issue is Democracy.

The Democratic Party needs to welcome these ex-republicans. Doing so will make the party stronger and it will make the nation stronger.

Holding grudges always hurts one person the most and that is the grudge holder.

[AngryOldDem]

26. +10,000

So tired of this damn “purity” crap. The McCain-Palin campaign opened Schmidt’s eyes, as you said. He has no ulterior motives.

He is just the type of person the party says it wants to welcome. So let’s do it. He is an eloquent and effective voice. We can all of those we can get.

[Miguelito Loveless]

30. Still waiting on his compete repudiation

and apology for his past efforts.

As I asked elsewhere, please explain why we should embrace a man who has viciously attacked us in the past, paved teh way for Trump, but is willing to knife his allies in the back when they it interferes with his personal self-enrichment?

An enemy who is now also the enemy of our enemy is NOT our friend.

Forgiveness must be earned. Step one is contrition. I haven't seen any contrition from this man.

[Loki Liesmith]

38. Let us know exactly how many pounds of hamburger

that apology will buy you.

[Miguelito Loveless]

124. Oh please,

The guy above you was asking how much blood I wanted.

He's a Democrat now. Well, ring the church bells and put out the best dinnerware!

Just keep track of the knives and make sure he's never behind you.

[Tommymac]

41. Why the vendetta against someone who has shown he stands behind his beliefs?

Everyone should stop the goddamn purity tests and give him and other ex-rethugs a chance. Our Country need all reasonable people to defend it right now.

The Democratic party is a BIG fucking Tent and has room for all points of view.

Hell, we forgave Bill his transgressions. We more or less welcomed Bernie's well left of center positions. We have tolerated Blue Dogs for generations.

Get over it.

[Miguelito Loveless]

122. Spare me the "Big Tent" argument

Why is pointing out that a character assassin for hire helped put Alito and Roberts on the court a "vendetta".

Hey, it's cool with me that he's switched parties, but I am skeptical as to whether it was an act of conscience, or financial enrichment.

So far I keep seeing the words "purity test", "litmus test", and "Big Tent" as apologia for people who opposed core principles of the Democratic Party.

Forgive? Maybe. Depends on what he does in the future.

Forget? Never.

[pawismom]

59. Who are you?

Wow, dripping with righteousness are we? He owes you nothing nor me anything. He is the one pundit that I always perk up and listen to. His analysis is always spot on and I am grateful for the Lincoln Project because they go where most democrats will not. So he is now a Democrat, good! Enough with this entitled purity crap. This is not an exclusive social club it is a political party whose function is to get the right people in place to get the most positive things done as we, as a party, see it. Also he does not stab anyone in the back; he is very up front with what he thinks and holds no punches.

[Miguelito Loveless]

68. Ah, I am no one,

he is a pundit, who used his position to advance the GOP agenda for decades, smearing his opponents as he went. I am just a nobody Democrat who has voted for every Democrat since Carter.

He has power, money, and an audience, so, he must be listened to, his past crimes automatically forgiven and forgotten. We must overlook the fact that he built his reputation and financed it by being an character assassin for hire. But hey, since he will now work for us, everything's cool.

I know, I am "dripping with righteousness", and just not being "pragmatic". Amazing how anyone who stands on principle is dismissed as a "purist".

[pawismom]

244. I had no right to judge you in any way.

How self righteous I must feel in order to label someone else as such. You know a lot more about Steve Schmidt than I do. I am most familiar with him as a pundit on MSNBC. Perhaps his past should be forgiven, perhaps not. I certainly respect your principles and probably agree with most of what you believe in and fight for. I live in South Carolina, red state if there ever was one. Our victory this last election was not that Jamie Harrison defeated Lindsey Graham, that was a dream, but that he was able to raise so much money in that pursuit. Baby steps I guess. I am a huge fan of The Young Turks and agree in principle with most of what they believe. They feel that if Democrats would just totally embrace their progressive causes and didn't pander to voters then they would win. I don't know. I admit that as a mother of four and grandmother of eight I am indeed a pragmatist. Adverting a crisis or dealing with a crisis I generally move in the most expeditious way possible; and believe me there is always a crisis. Regardless, my post was extremely rude and I do sincerely apologize.

[Miguelito Loveless]

258. Judging others can be fraught with peril

And yes, I am making a judgement call about Schmidt. The call is to be wary, and remind folk of his past. Is it fair for me to judge others? After all who am I?

Other than voting and volunteering and one stint on a state select committee, I am NOT on par with Steve Schmidt. He has been in the past a tool of power brokers, and a hired gun for campaigns pushing odious policies for vile people. That gives me the right, in my opinion, to make a judgement call. Does my opinion matter? Well, based on the responses so far, no it doesn't, and it is greatly resented.

Such is life.

You watched him on MSNBC over the last few years when he changed direction, whereas I watched his handiwork over two decades and saw what he did and where he came from. He may have mended his ways, and for what he has done in the last year, and his move to "our side", he has earned our gratitude. I would just point out that he has been richly rewarded for his actions, and has now gained in power and influence within our ranks. If his motives are pure, then we are stronger, if they are instead "pragmatic", then we should keep him at arms length, as he is our ally only until a better offer comes along.

Now I put quote marks around pragmatism, because the word has two meanings. In the mouth of many politicians, "pragmatism" means selling out principle if the price is right. To you or I, pragmatism means being realistic about what we can accomplish and willing to reasonably compromise as long as the compromise still advances our goal, and does require us to violate our principles. And yes, some times that is a HARD call.

I hope I am wrong, that I am just a cynical, suspicious old man. But I came by my suspicions and cynicism honestly over four decades as a voter and activist.

My best to you and your family, and my hope that yours is the correct read on this situation.

[AngryOldDem]

118. How many pints of blood do you want?

How many of his kids should he offer in sacrifice?

Christ Almighty. The man renounced his association with the GOP. He worked his ass off calling out Trump on his shit, as well as all of Trump’s enablers. He cofounded a group of other disaffected Republicans to do just that. He worked to defeat Trumpists in congressional races.

I’ve been thinking for quite awhile that the Lincoln Project at some point will also include everyone (not just Republicans) who are frightened and angry about the turn this country has taken.

If you listen to him and read his tweets, he is much more concerned about saving this country’s Constitution and rule of law than he is with saving the GOP from itself, and then returning as some kind of conquering hero when the trash is finally taken out. He is DONE with the GOP.

We should embrace him because there are some things that go beyond fucking litmus tests, which is what you want but will not say.

[Miguelito Loveless]

120. I am not asking for blood

I am just refusing to simply trust him because everyone wants to forget what he did. We have him to thank for Alito & Roberts, but that seems to be easily dismissed because he has now turned on Trump. This is kind of like the a German general turning on Hitler because of the whole "genocide" thing, but they were perfectly fine with the whole "Third Reich" thing.

Jeebus, the man used to defend Palin.

Also, why is basic standards of liberalism "litmus tests", like it is a bad thing? I personally don't want anyone in the party who thinks the legal philosophies of John Roberts and Samuel Alito should be a plank in the Democratic Party.

[AngryOldDem]

136. Whatever.

Read into Schmidt any motives you want. As people here have told you, he is well aware of his past mistakes.

If you want to see “wolves in sheep’s clothing” here, be my guest. But I welcome Schmidt to the ranks. I was hoping he would join, rather than being of neither party.

My gravitation/education to/on liberalism and progressive politics in many ways mirrors Schmidt’s. i’m sure I’m not alone. Guess I’m suspect too.

Again, whatever.

[Miguelito Loveless]

140. Again, he is welcome to join the party

Yay him!

I am just reminding people where he came from, and what he did.

This apparently makes me a "purist".

[AngryOldDem]

142. We're all well aware of his resume.

Which is why we’re welcoming him and his epiphany.

That’s all we’re saying.

[Miguelito Loveless]

145. I would disagree

that we are "ALL" aware of his history.

Also, even if I accept "all" to mean DU denizens, the same is certainly NOT true for the real world off-line.

[Sogo]

201. Republicans had no problem embracing

I-didn't-leave-the-Democratic-Party;-the-Party-left-me Reagan when he became a Republican....

How'd that work out for them?

[Miguelito Loveless]

290. Different time, different people, different attitudes

A LOT of Dems were leaving for the GOP back then. The Civil Rights Act was the major mover. Single issue Dems (pro-segregation) left to join Republicans, and the GOP was cool with race hatred. so thus fell the Party of Lincoln.

[secondwind]

63. Bingo.

[summer_in_TX]

251. He also was paid by Republicans to do that job.

He started out with a career working to get candidates in his party elected. He was pretty effective at that job.

He was willing to go negative, but that isn't limited to members of one party. That was doing his job.

He was a McCain true-believer.

But since Trump was elected he's hung out with a lot of Dems and likes them. Before he was an adversary, but since becoming an ally and getting to know Dems he likes their values, a hell of a lot more than his former party. Not only has he liked Dems he knows now, they like him. His relationship with Democrats has built to the point that he has joined the party.

He's never going back. He can't. He's hated by former friends who have gone to the dark side. He's an effective communicator and forceful. I LOVE it that he's taking on the bastardizing of the Democratic Party's name. Go Steve!

[betsuni]

253. +1

[Loki Liesmith]

37. Because politics is not about making friends

It is about gaining power and then leveraging power to get shit done.

Can he help with that? If yes then it’s kumbaya around the campfire.

[Tommymac]

45. Thank You.

[Miguelito Loveless]

221. Ah, so morality, principles

and ethics have no place in politics? Its just about "leveraging power to get shit done"?

If those are the guidelines, what is our objection to Trump other than he has the power and we don't?

Sounds, at best, amoral.

[Caliman73]

146. And if Trump switched his party affiliation, would that rule apply to Trump?

Just checking for consistency.

[Caliman73]

165. This is what it has to do with it.

Schmidt is a life long Republican who has done bad things in the name of conservatism. He switched party affiliation. So the question is the same. If Trump were to switch his affiliation to the Democratic Party (which anyone is free to do at any time for any reason), would the no bashing rule apply to him?

Also, the OP is not bashing Schmidt, the OP is commenting on how people are so quickly praising him for the switch without skepticism about the "lifelong Republican" status and the actions he took before Trump.

I have no problem with Schmidt becoming a Democratic Party member. I do hope that he dropped the conservatism too though. Conservatism is a bankrupt ideology.

[Caliman73]

196. We don't pillory him?

Have you read posts from people here about Sanders? About AOC? Cenk Uyugr ran for congress as a Democratic candidate and was roundly attacked here.

Look, people are going to have opinions on the various people who inhabit our big tent. To me, it is all good. I would just like to see some consistency.

Curious, when people go after Sanders or AOC, Justice Democrats, and other parts of the big tent, are you out there defending them for their opinions as Democratic members or allies?

[Caliman73]

209. Okay, here is your chance to be consistent.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100214720535

Defend away.

[Caliman73]

230. The NEW consistency...

I hope that my responses have not been offensive to you. I certainly don't mean to attack or call you out personally or engage in that kind of argument. If my words have made you feel upset or put upon, I sincerely apologize.

I actually think that we can have disagreements with policies and decisions made by our representatives. I think that we can voice our concerns with Democratic politicians and allies that affiliate with the party. I think we can have discussions about slogans, policies, one wing, or the other, or the center of the party. We are not all of one mind.

I also see that there have been people who are okay to criticize and those who, when criticized, raise the hackles of DUers. I would rather have a good faith disagreement with someone, than feel like I can't say something for fear of being banned or ostracized, and in doing such, have to remain silent or support something that I do not.

I hope to continue conversations in the future.

[Miguelito Loveless]

219. Ah, one must merely affix a "D" at the end of their name

and they become immune from all criticism? Their past record is entirely forgotten?

[vlyons]

49. I don't care what he thinks, provided he VOTES a straight Dem ticket

and BTW, there are plenty enough true liberals and progressives in this party to criticize and correct whatever crazy BS he wants to say. I'm willing to give the guy a chance to voice his ideas. I want to see if he gets on the address climate change and income inequality band wagons.

[Miguelito Loveless]

224. On more time, I will repeat myself

At no point did I say "don't give him a chance". I have expressed amazement at people not being cautious about a person who, until relatively recent, championed some of the worst people on the Right, and who helped lay the foundation for Trump.

As a major advocate for green transport and power, I would LOVE to have him fighting on our side. I just want him in front of me, where I can keep an eye on him.

[katmondoo]

53. I like him and I believe he can become an outstanding Democrat. He knows how to react to the

Republicans and how they think. He is so articulate I can't help but admire him for that.

[Miguelito Loveless]

217. And they are excellent qualities

in a true believer. I just want to be sure we are not being conned.

[catbyte]

55. So you don't believe in redemption? You don't believe in evolution?

Schmidt has been evolving for at least 12 years to get to this point. Your insistence on ideological purity is not in the spirit of the Democratic party--we're supposed to be the broad tent, remember? I'm disappointed by such narrow thinking.

[Miguelito Loveless]

93. I don't believe is putting people who were recently working

closely with the enemy in our ranks. Let's keep them at arms length and give them more of an opportunity to prove their loyalty.

Redemption must be earned, and evolution is a VERY long process.

[empedocles]

232. Schmidt has done more good to Dems, especially this year, and done much less harm to

November Dems, than some Dems on 'our side'.

[CaptainTruth]

56. For the record, I'm not overlooking anything.

I'm capable of doing "Thing A" without overlooking "Thing B."

[Miguelito Loveless]

90. Excellent!

Then you understand my concern, and thus my question does not apply. My question was about folks who seem to me to be too willing to forget this man's questionable (and I am being charitable here) past.

He might be a convert in the Elizabeth Warren mold.

But I reserve judgment until I see a LOT more evidence.

[octoberlib]

67. Elizaabeth Warren was a Republican until she was 47. Does this apply to her too?

People change and evolve. Schmidt was making good money working for the GOP but chose to give it all up. Seeing as how we only have a 2 party system , there's only one other party he could join.

[Miguelito Loveless]

71. If you examine Warren's past

you will find her more in the mold of the non-extinct Rockerfeller Republicans. Also, during her conversion, she re-examined her prior beliefs and repudiated them, vocally and in writing. Still waiting on that with Schmidt.

[USALiberal]

72. Lol! Nt

[DownriverDem]

73. Why?

Ask yourself then, what good does it do to think like you? Nothing. We need all the help we can get. Move on.

[Miguelito Loveless]

87. What purpose does listening to a voice of caution serve?

Ya got me there.

[melman]

75. I could answer that

But I can't answer that.

[dlk]

78. It's not a matter of overlooking his past

Instead, it’s accepting the support and assistance he’s providing in the midst of a crisis. When your house is burning down, it’s not the time to judge the firefighter trying to save it. Schmidt is very talented and good at what he does. We’re lucky to have him on our side, seriously.

[Miguelito Loveless]

86. To use your analogy,

he used to be an arsonist for hire and he helped burn down a lot of our houses. Then his fellow arsonists got out of control and started burning down his houses. Now he works on "our side" as an arsonist, burning down his ex-fellow arsonists houses.

So, you will excuse me if I am leery of letting him onto our fire department.

[dlk]

135. I understand your concern

However, what would you consider to be an appropriate consequence to Schmidt’s past under the current circumstances? Should Democrats decline Schmit’s support?

[Miguelito Loveless]

139. Not at all,

But they should be wary of him. They should set him down and ask him to be specific about his actual beliefs. We will be attempting to reform the SCOTUS, is this something he will support, or will he defend the men he put on the court and use the same weapons against us, he just used against Trump?

Kind of an important thing to know, would you not agree?

Also, does he still hold with his political views that run contrary to stated Democratic principles? How will that play out of we begin a plan to undo Trump policies, and we then discover he is not on board with repealing Bush-era policies on torture?

Is it being unreasonable or inappropriate to ask these questions given his history?

[dlk]

206. You have legitimate questions

I believe Schmidt has addressed some, if not all of them.

[Miguelito Loveless]

212. I would certainly be happy

to read any such interviews, statements, or other mitigating evidence.

[PatrickforO]

110. He is a conservative. As to vile, I'm not seeing a lot of corruption in his past.

He became disinchanted with the Republicans when he led the McCain campaign in 2008 because of Sarah Palin.

He became horrified with the Republicans when Trump took power.

What this tells me is that he cares about the country. Our founders created this republic with a bicameral legislature, an executive branch, and a judicial branch, that had many checks and balances on each other, because they felt like an idealogue (tyrant) could take us in the wrong direction awfully fast.

Instead, they set forth a system that required plenty of vigorous debate, and then compromise to move us forward. Schmidt believes in that system.

To my mind, this party is big enough for him, and real progressives like AOC and Porter, as well.

[Miguelito Loveless]

115. At the moment

in my personal view, the last "moderate" Republican was Millicent Fenwick. Jim Jeffords was the last "convert" I would trust because he converted at great personal expense. Schmidt's conversion, while garnering him enemies on the Right, and paid off financially.

As things stand, there are two kinds of Republicans these days:

1) Republicans who openly, zealously, embrace fascism, racism, misogyny, and homo/xeno-phobia.

2) Republicans who paved the way for the first kind.

Schmidt has resigned from the former, but is still the latter. Much atonement is required before the that can be overlooked.

[Desert_Leslie]

112. Because ....

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And, more importantly, people can change. He's taken huge public steps ... and put his opinions out there on a daily basis.

I can forgive quite a bit.

[Miguelito Loveless]

132. You just quoted U.S. foreign policy for aboout the last century

and while it occasionally paid off (World War II), it mostly put us on the position of backing murderous dictators.

Another way to render that view is "the ex-husband of my ex-wife is my friend". This might is sometimes true, but often isn't, especially if he's the reason I have an ex-wife.

That bit off "pragmatism" can be found at the heart of just about every military conflict the U.S. has been in for the last 60 years.

I would think that it would have been discredited by now.

[Indykatie]

116. I Like Steve and Am Glad He's Become a Democrat - People Grow nd Change - They Deserve That Option

[Miguelito Loveless]

126. And I am not denying him the option to

prove his sincerity.

I am simply reminding people that given his past, he has a lot to make up for and to prove.

I am also pointing out that while yes, he did launch a blistering attack on Trump, he made a lot of money doing it, and he has certainly improved his brand by playing the maverick. McCain used to do that. And occasionally he delivered. But mostly he used the maverick brand to sell people out for personal gain.

[Demsrule86]

127. I listen to him quite often...and I think he was an honorable man. My own brother was a conservative

for years and is now a Democrat...people change we need to attract new voters.

[Miguelito Loveless]

153. As I have stated many times

Yes, people can change, but I require a lot more proof given his history.

Now that Trump has been defeated, will he help, or hinder our efforts to undo not just Trump's policies, but those Bush, and the GOP of the last 40 years?

[BannonsLiver]

157. Have you thought about reaching out to Steve?

I’m sure if he knew your forgiveness was on the line he would make clear his deep sincerity and desire to change to a level that you find satisfactory.

[Miguelito Loveless]

166. Forgotten "sarcasm" tags not withstanding

I doubt he would care one way or the other, which is kind of my point.

Though if I were to run across him, I would be happy to buy him a pizza and discuss it for my own edification.

It is amusing that posting to a board that champions a political philosophy wherein everyone matters, people's opinions are important, and every vote counts, I routinely get sarcastic dismissal because I am a "nobody".

Apparently we have a "Big Tent" were eveyone's views are considered seriously, unless we happen to stray from the loyalist orthodoxy of the day.

[Demsrule86]

184. +1000

[Demsrule86]

182. By what right do you 'require anything' Are you the pure gate keeper of the Democratic Party? Sorry

I don't agree with this sort of litmus test by our side. Welcome people into our party. More people voting for us will help us to pass good policy. And purity tests do just the opposite. I have to say I find your argument to be quite arrogant. Neither you nor I speak for the Democratic Party. We have our opinions that is all.

[Miguelito Loveless]

291. I get the purity argument a lot

So, at what point in defending our principles do I become a "purist"? Which principles are negotable if the price is right, or if it is momentarily convenient?

Schmidt helped put Alito and Roberts on the court, does he still support their view of the the Constitution? If he does, am I being a "purist" for objecting? Am I being a "purist" just for asking?

At what point do we move from "Big Tent" ideological disagreements to positions which are antithetical to the Party platform? Are all planks in the platform ideologically "negotiable"? I thought the point of having a party platform was to define what we stand for. Schmidt hates Trump and is now willing to use his talent, talents he previously used to oppose us and advance the GOP cause, to attack Trump and the GOP who embrace him. Is that all that is required? Is he accepted into the party without question on that basis? Does he now get to sit down with the party leadership and push "traditional" GOP ideology as espoused by Reagan and the Bushes?

Does sticking a "D" at the end of his name, then spending hundreds of million of dollars that he raised from us (and with which he pays himself a salary) render him impervious to questions from insignificant people such as myself?

[R B Garr]

293. HA! I just found out that one of the biggest Bernie voices

on this board is a landlord and has rental property, a sure indication especially in California that his net worth is much higher than ours, yet he had no problem wanting us to give up our hard-earned Union medical benefits.

So much for purity. Your purity standards are a waste of time and very phony, sorry.

[Miguelito Loveless]

296. I'm sorry,

but what does that have to do with me? I own no rental properties, and while I have supported Bernie in the past, I accepted, promoted, and voted for Biden.

Your aside about someone else's financial dealing does not answer my questions about what are unacceptable "purity" tests, nor an explanation of when, and what, principles may be sacrificed in order to not be accused of being a "purist".

[R B Garr]

298. Of course it's directly related since your purity tests

are subjective and biased but you feel entitled to inflict them on others. They are no more superior than anyone else’s standards, which they are also entitled to.

To suggest that your morality is superior to someone else’s is more for the religious types. Also, to attack someone’s character is a futile way to express purity.

[Miguelito Loveless]

301. Again, some unnamed person being a landlord

is related to me how?

I have "inflicted" nothing upon you. You chose to read my views, at length, of your own volition. I at no point claimed my views "superior" to anyone else's, nor have I "suggested" it either. I have asked questions, based on Schmidt's factual, historic record, and for some reason you feel that the simple fact that I have posed these questions, has somehow imbued me with the power to compel you to read them.

Oh, and as an atheist, I am also baffled by your supposition that my questions are somehow aimed at "religious types".

Whose character have I "attacked"? Yours? Please indicate where I have done this. Schmidt's? Please indicate what aspect of his record of GOP support is not factual.

And please, let me clarify that you are under NO obligation to read any of this. You can simply choose to ignore this and move on with your life. I have no power to compel you to read what I have written, nor force you to respond to it. You are perfectly free to IGNORE me.

[R B Garr]

302. Wow, that's a lot of hostility for someone pointing out

that your purity standards will be hard to force on others.

[Caliman73]

138. I agree with you on the "overlooking" aspect.

I have been in the mental health field for a long time, so I have to accept that people can change otherwise why have I wasted my life trying to help people. Perhaps Schmidt has seen some of the errors of his ways. Time will tell. I do agree that people rushing out to embrace him as some kind of liberal hero is premature. We should see what he thinks and what he does. One of our biggest strengths (and subsequently a vulnerability) is our openness to change.

[Miguelito Loveless]

150. Agree completely

People can change. I am not the jackass I was when I was younger (though apparently some here would disagree).

If he has genuinely changed, then welcome brother. But, I will wait a few more years before I accept this as fact.

[Caliman73]

154. That is understandable.

I think that people have been told that holding on to suspicions is damaging, and it surely can be. I think that people also like to avoid conflict.

The thing that makes liberals and conservatives different is the "open mind". We can retain skepticism, but when the evidence is convincing, then we change, where conservatives tend not to.

[Septua]

143. Whatever but he's anti-Trump

I don't know what he's done in the past as a Republican but he's been an authoritative and loud voice against Trump since his 2016 nomination. He and The Lincoln Project have worked long and hard to unseat Trump and I suspect their efforts helped Biden win.

If you read up a little on Steve, he explains what he's doing and why. He isn't abandoning traditional Republican ideology; he's rejecting the Party of Trump which amounts to Trump's Ideology, which is autocratic, authoritarian, unrestrained rule. Schmidt said, as a Democrat, he will be a single issue voter, with the single issue being democracy.

[Miguelito Loveless]

149. Pardon me for highlighting this bit

"I don't know what he's done in the past as a Republican"

but I just had a poster tell me "We're all well aware of his resume".

"He isn't abandoning traditional Republican ideology"

So, he's joining the Democratic Party in order to get us to adopt "traditional Republican ideology"?

"Schmidt said, as a Democrat, he will be a single issue voter, with the single issue being democracy."

Given his support of Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, I would say that assumes facts not in evidence. He seems fine with autocratic and authoritarian rule, as long as it is his particular brand.

[Septua]

174. It has nothing to do with Republican ideology

So, he's joining the Democratic Party in order to get us to adopt "traditional Republican ideology"?

No, he's trying to preserve Democracy.

[Miguelito Loveless]

181. The word was yours, not mine.

You literally wrote:

He isn't abandoning traditional Republican ideology; he's rejecting the Party of Trump which amounts to Trump's Ideology,

If he isn't abandoning "Republican ideology" he is retaining it. Last I checked, "Republican ideology" is incompatible with Democratic ideology, which is kind of what all the argument and voting is about.

Or did I miss a meeting. Have we now adopted the Republican ideology of Reagan?

[Septua]

286. You're still missing Schmidt's point...

He quit the GOP because they abandoned the traditional ideology. The seated and aspiring GOP membership today is party and seat, over country. That is Schmidt's bitch with the GOP...his crusade is to re-instill country over party in politics and for the moment, the Democrat Party is the one with his same ideology.

Besides that, he's now, one Democrat with one vote...I don't think he can wield enough power with one vote to drag all us Democrats over to the "dark side".

[Miguelito Loveless]

287. And you are missing the point that

Trump deviated from the "traditional" Republican ideology which is STILL the antithesis of ours. His pursuit of that ideology over 2-3 decades paved the way for where we are now. He was fine with an authoritarian president, so long as it was W., or a similar Republican like McCain/Palin.

And he is not "one Democrat with one vote". He is now being welcomed into the Democratic sphere of influence, at a high level. He has Democrats who owe their position to his efforts. He has a seat at the table where policy is made. He has money, and lots of it, and a powerful propaganda machine that can be used, subtly or openly, to advance his "ideology".

That is dangerous power in the hands of a trusted ally, never mind an "ally" who used to work for the enemy.

[UCmeNdc]

203. People are switching because they like what the Democratic Party stands for and represents.

[Miguelito Loveless]

216. Some are,

some because they honestly can't stand what Trump has done to the party. The former are great, the latter problematic, as they are allies of convenience.

[qazplm135]

205. so, if people have a change of heart

and do actions to show that change of heart, your response is "f&*& em, they sucked once?"

Seat at the table? There was no guarantee when he started this that Trump wasn't going to win and he wouldn't be even farther out of the loop than before. Maybe if he was silent all this time then yeah, be skeptical, but he's put his money and his mouth in the same place for several years now. So yeah, we are recognizing it. Doesn't mean we are pushing him for President, it means we are welcoming his change and hoping to engender even more.

[Miguelito Loveless]

210. Again, where do I say that?

My point is that people need to be cautious about embracing people who have a long track record of dubious and unsavory behavior. Yeah, people change, but I'd like to be certain the change was for real, and not for money.

Why is this caution for people to remember the past an anathema?

[qazplm135]

211. no, they don't.

He was a conservative. He wasn't a rapist. He's not a thief. He doesn't befriend people then shank them. He just had different political beliefs than we do. He's adjusted. I welcome him. IF he does something I don't like, I'll criticize him. IF he does something I do like, I will praise him.

It's pretty simple.

[Miguelito Loveless]

214. A "conservative"?

No, he didn't commit violent crimes to my knowledge, but he was prepared to lie, smear, and bend rules to help his guys. He may have broken a few.

As a "conservative" he is the champion of the views of Reagan, Bush and Bush, which means a legacy of tax cuts for the rich on the backs of the poor, endless war, dirty deals with dictators, selling weapons to terrorists, torture, fraud, and perjury.

We did not make conservatism synonymous with fascism, THEY did. And Schmidt may think Trump has gone too far and the Republic is now in danger, but he and his ilk are the ones that normalized unethical and unconscionable conduct, and paved the way for Trump.

Again, why is asking reasonable questions of a person who a mere few years ago was being paid to undermine everything we stand for, considered unreasonable?

At no point have I said, "Tell him to take his project and sod off!". I have simply stated that we would be wise to remember who he is, what he did, and exercise caution in trusting him.

[qazplm135]

220. yawn

I don't do purity. Making the other side pure evil is what THEY do, not us.

[Miguelito Loveless]

223. Again with the "purity" dismissal.

So, pray tell, which principles are "negotiable" upon the altar of "pragmatism". At what point does a belief become an "litmus test" wielded unfairly by "purists"?

We're the party of principle as long as the principle isn't too deeply held and can be discarded if we get the right price in return?

Also, where did I make Schmidt "pure evil"? Or are you arguing that political conservatism, as practiced by the current GOP and its leadership, is not evil?

[qazplm135]

229. Has nothing to do with pragmatism

it has to do with accepting that others can have reasonable disagreements without being evil. that one can be a republican generally without having to answer for every single worst ill done by any republican ever. you know, like the opposite of what the other side does to us.

Given that Schmidt isn't part of the current GOP or it's leadership then seems rather pointless to place their ills upon him.

[Miguelito Loveless]

292. No, just holding him accountable for

his own acts on behalf of the GOP.

As to having "reasonable disagreements without being evil", that was true, once upon a time. But the last such Republican, in my re-collection, was Milicent Fenwick, and she died in the 90s. An argument can be made for Jim Jeffords, who left the GOP at great personal peril in 2001.

Starting in the 1990s Under Gingrich, the GOP shifted from governing to the wholesale destruction of all parts of government that did not put money in the pockets of its corporate and billionaire masters. They became the party of spite, sexism, racism, greed and authoritarianism.

We didn't make being a Republican synonymous with fascism, Republicans did, by actions overt, and by their silence in the face of evil.

[qazplm135]

299. No one nominated you for that job

The majority of folks here clearly don't see things the way you do. Thankfully.

[Miguelito Loveless]

300. Ah, so one must be nominated to

pose questions of principle, ethics, and morality.

Please enlighten me on the procedure.

[qazplm135]

303. Yawn

If you are so concerned about the guys morals, then email him or call him up. He did more than a lot of people to get rid of Trump and Republicans this election. More than you, or me. If he wants to join, great. He's part of our team now. Whether you like it or not.

This is just moral posturing by you anyways. The guys a pundit. He's not running for office.

[station agent]

208. Absolutely correct N/T

[Rice4VP]

228. What is so "egregious" about his past?

[Miguelito Loveless]

262. It has been pointed out all over this thread

He worked for Karl Rove against Kerry, for McCain against Obama, and helped put Alito and Roberts on the SCOTUS. Sure, he feels Trump has disgraced the GOP, but he helped pave the way for Trump with his work.

Again, he may be sincere in his change of heart, but when dealing with such a person one must not forget his origins, and the chance that his loyalty may change again if a better offer comes along. He hates Trump for debasing the GOP, but does he still hold "traditional" GOP views? Reaganesque views?

Does he still support the views of Alito and Roberts? Does he still believe in massive tax cuts for the rich?

Some of us have questions, and it shouldn't be considered heresy to ask them.

[Rice4VP]

263. Bigger fish to fry. He was a Republican, of course he supported them.

[Miguelito Loveless]

265. Large amounts of money are going to this man,

I think his past is relevant. If he is sincere, great. But his past means caution is reasonable.

As to "frying fish", I see no reason we should ignore vetting someone just because there are other projects/people to deal with.

[TeamPooka]

234. Werner Von Braun

[Miguelito Loveless]

261. Yes,

A man who was made into a hero, by politicians and generals who conveniently glossed over the fact that he should have gone to prison for war crimes.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

243. Disagree, whole heartedly.

He knows why he wants to help shor up the Democratic Party. And he knows the Achilles Heel of the party and wants to protect it. He has earned the right to try, as well as our gratitude.

[Miguelito Loveless]

260. Only he know why he's doing what he's doing

and it certainly looks promising. But, again, he also made a ton of money off the project, and gained a lot of influence. If he is sincere, then it was money legitimately spent.

He has certainly earned the right to try, all I am saying is he also has a lot to do to erase what he has done in the past.

[Nitram]

246. Miguelito, the problem with that is that there are 70 million Americans that we need to win over to

be one country again. Or maybe 50 million. Whatever. He's showing the right spirit, I say give the guy a break but watch him closely.

[Miguelito Loveless]

259. My personal view

is that anyone who has seen what Trump is and still voted for him, will NEVER be one over.

Our efforts should be spent on cultivating young voters with people like AOC, not trying to convince people who will never be convinced with money spent on an ex-GOP consultant who spent years advancing the GOP cause.

Sure, he may have changed, and his efforts were phenomenal in this last election. But, he has also been richly rewarded with money and influence. Is he sincere in his change of heart? Sure its possible, but we forget his past at our peril.

[Nitram]

272. I'm not suggesting we forget the past. I'm suggesting we should forgive along with trust and verify,

based on people's behavior now rather than yesterday. Never forget, but welcome them if they walk the walk and talk the talk.

[Miguelito Loveless]

282. I concur

My concern was the rush to praise and embrace. I am still waiting to see what will happen the first time the Dems try and undo things he helped engineer. That, will be the acid test of true intent. If he picks up a sledge hammer and joins in, I'm a happy camper.

[Nitram]

284. We're on the same page.

[Miguelito Loveless]

285. Indeed

[Pachamama]

2. About time....

Sad that it has taken a former Republican and new member of the Democratic Party to say that.

Apologies if I missed it, but I can’t even keep up and count how many times I see GOP or media refer to it as the “Democrat” Party and no one corrects them.

I really appreciate this and this is what we all need to remind people of.

[Miguelito Loveless]

8. You can take the conservative

out of the sewer...

[Pachamama]

12. I like Steve Schmidt and am happy to welcome him to our team

We have a big tent and he is smart and I believe in redemption and forgiveness and Steve has shown that.

[Miguelito Loveless]

43. Forgiveness must be earned. The first step to being forgiven is admit you have done bad things

I have heard him claim to have made a mistake, but have not heard him take responsibility for his malicious acts.

He turned on his allies once already, why should he not do it again?

Schmidt to me is an opportunist who paved the way for Trump, then changed sides when he saw how crazy Trump was.

Now we are looking to invite him to the table so he can push his unrepudiated agenda from within our ranks.He's made a LOT of money with his latest acrobatic turn of politics.

[vlyons]

52. That's the Christian version of forgiveness

We Buddhists forgive to not carry the heavy poisonous burden of anger and resentment. BTW -- we also believe that everyone is born with a basic Buddha nature of basic goodness and sanity. But that basic Buddha nature gets defiled obscured along the way with anger and resentment.

[Miguelito Loveless]

137. Forgiveness is a personal choice

And their is much to recommend to that view of it.

My personal view of forgiveness requires contrition. It does not require I forget the offense, though with contrition, I may overlook it.

I forgave the man responsible for the death of my mother, because while he expressed no contrition verbally, I saw it in his eyes. I also saw no point in damaging his family who had not wronged me.

I forgave, but to this day I do not forget.

[Demsrule86]

130. I honestly disagree with you. And I see the search for the pure in your posts...and can't help think

such leads to electoral losses...so I welcome Steve and don't demand endless handwringing and apologies.

[Miguelito Loveless]

134. If there is no penalty for bad behavior

(in the form of at LEAST apologies and "hand-wringing", then what's to stop it from recurring?

But please, do tell me which principles is it OK to sacrifice in order to not be "purists"?

He helped Alito and Roberts onto the court. Is it now OK to incorporate their legal views into our party platform? If I criticize those two, am I not being unfair to Schmidt for condemning people he HELPED into power.

As I said, "Yay, he's a Democrat".

That will certainly take the sting out of his contribution to the destruction of Roe v. Wade, won't it?

[Demsrule86]

186. Again the arrogance is breathtaking. What makes you think you have the right to impose

penalties on anyone? You don't like Steve Schmidt...a big who cares.

[Miguelito Loveless]

297. I am sorry, could you please point to where I say I have a

"right to impose penalties" on anyone. I have a right too ask questions. I have asked them and you may answer them, or ignore them as you choose.

As to "who cares", apparently you do, as my approval/disapproval of Schmidt is of enough importance that you must call me "arrogant", and challenge my right to ask questions about the people who wield power in the party I belong to and financially support.

[George II]

10. I've seen a few - Chris Matthews used to correct republicans about that all the time, and....

....Joy Reid once told a guess that if he wants to be on her show he should use the right term.

But it doesn't happen often enough.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

3. It posses me off too.

Steve Schmidt will massacre any Republican with the truth with his direct honesty in a debate. For he knows too well how Republicans talk and think.

[RAB910]

16. This has bugged me for year. Bush and Rove were the ones that shortened the name as an insult

[CentralMass]

80. Schmidt worked for then.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Schmidt

"Schmidt joined the Bush administration as a Deputy Assistant to the President and Counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney. In 2004, he was a member of the senior strategic planning group, led by White House adviser Karl Rove, that ran President George W. Bush's re-election campaign; Schmidt oversaw the reelection "war room".[19] In 2005 and 2006, he was the White House strategist responsible for the U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Samuel Alito[25] and Chief Justice John Roberts.[19]"

[RAB910]

84. Interesting, so he knows the insults that were intended by the deliberate shortening

[LeftInTX]

175. It's been around longer than Bush

I knew someone who was employed by the Democratic Party who called it that..(But she was born in the late 1990's) Her parents are committed Democrats also, so I think she learned the phrase at home. She is from a very red area of Texas, so maybe everyone over there calls it that? We had to correct her.

I hear it called "Democrat Party" by a few native Texans now and then. Most of them have southern accents. (All of them are Democrats). When I hear it from other Democrats, I think more of bad grammar than something malicious.


Bush took advantage of it, but he didn't make up the usage. Bush probably heard it in Midland growing up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(epithet)

Early 20th century

The 1919 New Teachers' and Pupils' Cyclopaedia entry for Woodrow Wilson states that "In 1912, Wilson was the Democrat Party nominee for President ..."[25] On July 14, 1922, a newspaper in Keytesville, Missouri, posted an advertisement for its primary elections with the Democratic candidates identified as "Representing: Democrat Party".[26]
Late 20th century

The noun-as-adjective has been used by Republican leaders since the 1940s, and in most GOP national platforms since 1948. By the early 1950s, the term was in widespread use among Republicans of all factions.[27] When Senator Thruston Ballard Morton became chairman of the Republican National Committee in 1959, he indicated that he had always said Democratic Party and would continue to do so, which contrasted with his predecessor, Meade Alcorn, and with National Republican Senatorial Committee chairman Barry Goldwater, both of whom used Democrat Party.[28] According to Congressional Quarterly, at the 1968 Republican National Convention "the GOP did revert to the epithet of 'Democrat' party. The phrase had been used in 1952 and 1956 but not in 1960 and 1964".[4]

According to William Safire, Minnesota Governor Harold Stassen, campaign manager to Republican Wendell Willkie during the 1940 presidential campaign, explained that because the Democratic Party was at that time partly controlled by undemocratic city bosses, "by Hague in New Jersey, Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago, [it] should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat Party.'"[29]

Columnist Russell Baker wrote in 1976:

The origin of this illiterate phrase, goes back, I believe to the era of Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy ... The chief trouble with "the Democrat party" is that it makes the Republicans saying it sound both illiterate and coy, and, so, is like a shotgun that is all kick and no fire ... A party whose membership is down to 22 percent of the electorate, as the Republican party is, hardly needs ways to irritate voters from the opposing party whom it must seduce if it is to succeed.[30]

During the 1984 Republican National Convention, use of the term was a point of contention among the delegates.[31] When a member of the Republican platform committee asked unanimous consent to change the phrasing of a platform amendment to read Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party, New York Representative Jack Kemp objected, saying that would be "an insult to our Democratic friends;" the committee dropped the proposal.[6]

[FreepFryer]

17. He's focusing on this because he knows from first hand experience this is intentional disrespect.

I am glad he is doing so.

[Cha]

18. Yeah, Schmidt has been a Dem for

one day and already he's teaching the repubs how to say "Democratic Party"!

I"m glad he's on our side.

[womanofthehills]

164. Agreed - an ex Republican calling them out - I love it

I’m a calm person but I want to scream when I hear Republicans saying Democrat party. They are saying it so much now - I heard a Dem on radio using it too. What I like about the Lincoln Project guys is they know how to get under the skin of Republicans and Trump.

[UpInArms]

19. His conversion reminds me of David Brock

Can Anyone Ever Truly Trust David Brock?

Sometimes ... a convert knows what they did and needs to work even harder to correct the record.

[George II]

23. Another, although she hasn't been public in a long time, is Arriana Huffington....

She was a foul right-wing republican years ago. Maybe it was a nasty divorce from her right-wing husband that did it?

[UpInArms]

40. Here is what Huffington has been doing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington

In 2016 Huffington stepped down from her positions at AOL and Huffington Post to launch her new enterprise, Thrive Global, which offers science-based solutions to end stress and burnout.[46]

Meditative Story Podcast — In August 2019, Thrive Global launched the podcast Meditative Story in partnership with WaitWhat — a media company led by former TED executives June Cohen and Deron Triff. The podcast combines first-person stories with meditation prompts and original music to create a mindfulness experience in audio.[47] Variety has described it as “part first-person narrative podcast and part guided meditation.”[48] Forbes has described it as "a completely new kind of listening experience that blends intimate first-person stories with mindfulness prompts, enveloped in beautiful music composition."[49] Huffington described Meditative Story as "a response to a deep cultural need in our hyper sped up world to have a moment to recharge. The podcast is a tool-set for wellness combining intimate storytelling, that we’re all hardwired to respond to, plus moments of reflection."[49] The podcast's first season featured stories from Krista Tippett (host of the radio show On Being), NPR Host Peter Sagal, travel writer Pico Iyer, LinkedIn cofounder Reid Hoffman, Beautycon Media's Moj Mahdara, actor Josh Radnor, and astronomer Michelle Thaller, among others.[50]

Thrive Global Podcast — In 2017, Thrive Global launched a podcast with iHeart Radio featuring Huffington as host.[51] Guests have included actor Jennifer Aniston, entrepreneur Mark Cuban, singer Katy Perry, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, TV journalist Katie Couric, and writer Malcolm Gladwell, among others.

[betsuni]

48. I remember her saying that she became a Democrat because the sex was better.

[jaxexpat]

28. But the question will still remain.

Are characters like Brock and Schmidt merely one trick ponies who just conveniently find their next stage in their opponent's, winning camp?

[UpInArms]

46. When one "reinvents" oneself

The result is not always a perfect vehicle, although, at times, it will recognize the tactics of its earlier self ... and not tolerate the parts that were cast aside

[AmericanCanuck]

24. Welcome Steve ... we needed an "in your face" pitbull

on our side ... especially one who knows the internal vulnerabilities of the opposition.

[COL Mustard]

27. The Republics Only Do It To Get Under People's Skin

Do it back to them!!! The Republic Party....

[George II]

32. I've been using "republic party" for several years with people. But they're too stupid to realize.

[COL Mustard]

70. LOL

I love it and will do it too.

[AngryOldDem]

29. It's not misspeaking, it's not a mistake.

It’s a deliberate slight to say “Democrat”.

And welcome, Steve! (Love your dogs, BTW.)

[Dem4Life1102]

31. Guessing his conversion began here

[SunSeeker]

173. Sarah is such a piece of shit. And yet she IS the GOP base.

I think Steve realizing that, and the fact that there are no more John McCains in tbe GOP, is what led to his conversion.

[CTyankee]

42. Just to be clear. We are Democrats, our party is the Democratic Party.

We are of course, democratic in our philosophy of governing. Because we belong to the Democratic Party, we are called Democrats.

This is just good English usage.

[catbyte]

51. Actually, he's been pissed off about that for quite awhile now.

[gab13by13]

54. Pretty much all of the cable news anchors say Democrat,

just like everyone keeps calling Trump's fence a wall. Propaganda works.

[Gothmog]

57. I am glad that Steve S hmidt has joined the party

[Siwsan]

58. I, for one am happy to welcome 'defectors' and will gladly give them a period of adjustment

We need a variety of voices and points of view, IMHO, and he brings a wealth of knowledge about the other party.

I was raised by Republican parents. My Dad was a very 'Eisenhower' era, rational Republican and Mom thought Dick Cheney was an 'honorable man'. Dad and I could always listen to each other's point of view and 9 times out of 10, find more to agree on than not. Mom and I? It never ended well. Steve kind of reminds me of my Dad who, I strongly suspect, would have been appalled by trump* and most welcoming of a Biden Presidency. Mom? Not so much.

Maybe that's why I'm willing to give Steve the benefit of the doubt.

[PatSeg]

61. Oh, I just LOVE this!

[TheBlackAdder]

62. Like a teenager trying to piss someone off, the more we complain about it, the more they'll use it.

.

There is no excuse for media to make that mistake, but we know FOX, Newsmax & OANN will anyway.

.

[DownriverDem]

74. Exactly why

I call them the repub party.

[Cosmocat]

83. It is infantile bullshit

Always has been, and should have been repudiated like this a long time ago.

Why I refer to the republic party when I am dealing with shitheads to tweak them out. They REALLY don't like when their bullshit gets turned around on them.

[SunSeeker]

180. Ignoring bad behavior will not make it go away. I have a 17 year old. I know.

Ignoring it normalizes it. We should not normalize it. Setting boundaries is what changes bad teen behavior.

[TheBlackAdder]

193. Yep. The best way to address this is to accept this reality and embrace the term.

.

It's not going away, and being annoyed by it only allows the strings of the users to attach to us.

Embracing the term and not being fazed by it is the only way to take back the power.

.

[SunSeeker]

195. Nope. Ignoring bad behavior doesn't stop teens nor Republicans.

I am not going to embrace a pejorative invented by my enemies. It is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. We should take back the power by insisting on our actual name every time. Accepting others' lies about you is not powerful in any respect.

Link to tweet

?s=19

[kansasobama]

65. This is why we don't hold majority for long

We have to accept the truth that the country is center right. We have to first change it to center left. We always want to go farther left, scare off people, and lose.

We want Lincoln project Republicans. Bernie and AOCs are incapable of expanding the base because they cannot stop talking and have no political savvy. Amy Barett is a result of some far left voters not voting for Hillary because they were "angry". Run center right and govern center left and move farther left as Congress is left is the way to go. Bush showed the way -compassionate conservative. He was as right as anyone. But he presented himself as center.

Also left does not vote in off year elections. Left need to vote regularly first.

[Karma13612]

69. If Steve can pull a few more sane

Republicans over to our tent, then good for him.

Maybe we can learn a few tricks about messaging since the Republicans have that nailed down.

[melman]

81. The Hill headline doesn't actually do that

[George II]

105. Headline: "Longtime GOP strategist Steve Schmidt announces he's registering Democrat"

If he was registering AS a Democrat, that headline would be correct.

Democrat: noun

Democratic: adjective

The headline is describing what he's doing (adjective), not what he is or will become (noun)

[ehrnst]

202. Thank you.

[grantcart]

237. Actually

When it is capitalized it is a proper noun not an adjective.

If it was being used as an adjective it wouldn't be capitalized and would convey a different meaning.

For example

"He is registering in a democratic party" would simply mean that he joined a party with democratic principles. In the sentence you refer to he is joining the party named as either Democrat or Democratic. The preferred proper noun usage in the US is Democratic but outside the US there are many political parties that go by "Democrat Party".

As a proper noun it doesn't have a grammatically correct usage just as Karl can be correctly spelled with either a C or a K. Democratic is the generally preferred name by the members of the party.

It is not being used to modify what he is doing (registering) as that would be an adverb. It is not being used as an adjective to modify the kind of party he is joining, it is being used as a proper noun as the actual name of the party.

[George II]

239. True. The party that he has, or will be joining is the Democratic Party. This is an issue....

....that has irked me for decades.

I'm glad that even an ex-republican (I don't capitalize that!) recognizes the insulting nature of using that term.

[musclecar6]

85. I think

Some of us are missing the point. Trump is a would-be Hitler who’s done everything he can, being the megalomaniac sociopath I definitely think he is, to get there. Along the way of course the republican party were huge enabler‘s to help him accomplish his hellbent mission. They’re not stupid enough that they didn’t realize where he was taking things. So the biggest threat to our country right now is,as Steve has said, is the threat of the pro autocracy party versus the democracy party.

Also as, as Steve has said, these assholes have attempted the first coup and you know they’re going to be working towards a second one. Hopefully with a consistent effort on our side of the fence we can drive the rest of the country to finally wake up and realize what a menace these guys are and collectively force the autocracy party to move away from their insane positions.

We are affectively a two party system in this country which is not a bad thing. However we need a balance of center right and center left ideally to keep the country in the middle of the train track. What we don’t need is a significant group of far left and or far right trying to keep the train going because otherwise we’re gonna have crazy zigzags that are not best in the long run.

Course what do I know. I’m just one a them crazy Libs Commies socialist Dems etc, or whatever other pejorative terms those assholes in the autocracy party dream up. Another appropriate name for them,the way they’ve been behaving, would be the American Nazi party.

[kentuck]

88. If the choice is between former Republicans and present Trumpists?

Trumpists who might gain enough power to take over this government, then the choice should be rather simple.

If Democrats have to choose between having former Republicans in our ranks or giving power to fascist authoritarians, it should be an easy choice.

We need everyone in this fight that is happening at this time, in my opinion.

I welcome Steve Schmidt into the fight.

[yuiyoshida]

91. Thom Hartmann responds

Link to tweet

[George II]

94. Exactly - it was first tried in the 1930s to differentiate between the Party and the act...

...and "Democrat" was used because republicans (NOT capitalized, intentionally!) felt the party wasn't "democratic" so they shouldn't use the word - it was intended to be an insult.

That died fairly quickly, but then McCarthyites resurrected it for the same reason in the late 1940s/1950s and it stuck.

That word was also used in the mid-1800s from time to time but from what I've read it wasn't taken as anything significant since language usage 150+ years ago was entirely different.

[SunSeeker]

183. Exactly! This is why we can't ignore it. We need to call this out every time. nt

[PCIntern]

96. I understand and empathize with those who are cynical

But please hear me out:

I was associated at one time intimately with several of the big power brokers in Philly. One of them was the first guy in the NE to get behind Jimmy Carter, another few were the individuals who fundamentally decided who would be mayor and hold most seats on the City Council, every candidate for any office including US House and Senate candidates would pay homage to these individuals. Immense power does not even begin to describe their clout.

All Democrats of course, and some of the most vile, hating, bigoted individuals I have ever met. Scary. I mean it. And God help you if you ever crossed them. I know one doctor who admittedly screwed up the case on one and he was destroyed professionally and personally. It killed him literally within a couple years. Just because these people support candidates who are ideologically congruent with you does not imply that they’re moral or sane. Behind the scenes we have no concept of what they are capable of. You don’t rise to that level just due to intellect or competence.

All these pros scare me.

[George II]

102. Well said, thanks. To use a sports analogy, Yankee fans HATED Roger Clemens when he played with....

...the Red Sox. But once the Yankees signed him they LOVED him.

[PCIntern]

171. Or Pete Rose here in Philly

[George II]

176. Yes, and Lenny Dykstra and many others. Joe Namath was despised in NY after he went to the 49ers.

[samsingh]

104. and he's speaking up. Most Democratic leaders and advisors just stay quiet like that's going to

change minds.

[SunSeeker]

185. Exactly. Our party needs Steve Schmidt to show some folks how it's done. nt

[zentrum]

106. So he knew about the ugly

…..innuendo contained in it all along.

Would have been a lot more helpful if he'd spoken up about it back yesterday, when he was a Republican.

Not to mention, braver.

The very thing he wishes more Republicans were now.

[Demonaut]

107. And just this morning on Morning Joe, Claire McCaskill called it the "Democrat party"

she so frustrates me

[Demsrule86]

131. I once wrote 'democrat' party in one of my posts by accident...I am sure Clare meant nothing...I

wish she was still in the Senate.

[LeftInTX]

197. I think it's a southern thing...Claire probably grew up with it

I hear it down here, by people who have southern accents..

[pandr32]

113. Steve is on it!

His hard work is an asset to us.
He is intelligent and passionate and a Democrat.
I enjoy watching the Democratic Party grow stronger while the opposition shrivels into villainy.

[sarchasm]

117. KnR

[Demsrule86]

125. He is one of us...and he gets it!

[bdamomma]

133. Thank you

Steve Schmidt, but what do expect from low lifers?

[liberalla]

147. BRAVO! I'm impressed!

Thank you! I really appreciate that!

[OMGWTF]

159. This is my biggest bugaboo; especially when journalists write or say "Democrat Party"

There is no such thing as the Democrat Party. It's meant solely as a pejorative and nothing else.

[BannonsLiver]

160. I really like Steve a lot and enjoy his verbal beat downs of Trump

However, I enjoy reading the silly little purity and sanctimony eruptions about his new direction a little more, though.

[R B Garr]

241. Oh, me too!

It’s interesting to see the angst over our party moving along just fine. No bowing down necessary...

[sandensea]

167. Wasn't it Gingrinch who started doing that?

Schoolyard name calling has always been his specialty.

[SunSeeker]

188. Joe McCarthy.

Link to tweet

?s=19

[SunSeeker]

169. K & R & Retweeted!

[LeftInTX]

178. Yep! Oldest political party in the world!

[William769]

187. K&R.

[Bettie]

189. Happy that he did that

still don't trust him...but this is a step toward that.

[Grasswire2]

192. I have to copyedit him, though.

There should be no apostrophe after "its".

[George II]

194. Hah! Yes indeed. I still have a mental block about that myself. I'm sure I'm wrong half the time.

Just reread his tweet, it's even worse! You were talking about the apostrophe AFTER "its" in one case - I wouldn't have made that mistake. My problem is between it's and its.

[BrightKnight]

198. Doing both - The Party needs to find a way

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2020, 06:31 PM - Edit history (1)

to welcome Biden Republicans, independents, and disaffected converts while pursuing core good government policies.

I think it is possible to do both.

[Cary]

218. A great addition to our coalition

I hope more never tRumpers see fit to follow suit.

[TinCup]

222. Their worst nightmare

Pissing off Steve Schmidt is not good for their political future.

[zaj]

225. Proper name, been ranting about that point for years

[Cha]

231. KICK!

[empedocles]

233. .

[Cha]

236. Again..

[Texin]

238. Huzzah, huzzah, huzzah! About fuckin' time someone did!

This has bugged the shit out of me since the god damned W admin and its precursor, Limpbaugh.

[George II]

240. Wasn't Limbaugh the "shadow" president under baby bush?

[Nitram]

245. Welcome aboard, Steve.

[BobTheSubgenius]

247. I'll never forget where he came from, but I'm more than willing to give him a chance.

He could be a great asset, if this relationship works out.

[RainCaster]

248. This is from "the hill", a RW rag

Why would they want to get it right?

[Bucky]

279. The Hill has a centrist, pro-establishment bias, but it's pretty reliable on factual reporting

It's highly respected among lawmakers, so calling it "a RW rag" is pretty uninformed.

[RainCaster]

280. I used to think as you.

But after seeing the way they have covered the Trump administration, I have changed my opinion. Especially after seeing how critical they had been of the Obama administration.

[soldierant]

250. Well, this is the comment stream I have been expecting for the last few days.

I was surprised that earlier comment streams seemed so accepting.

Personally, I don't see any probelm with being cordial to the guy and considering what he has to offer while still watching my back. At a cursory glance, it appears that what he has to offer is what the people with the mantra "democrats need to learn to act like Republicans" are wanting us all to do. Some of us just can't. I couldn't. Some of us could. Anyone who can, and keep his or her integrity, is worth his or her weight in gold.

[Eyeball_Kid]

252. Hats off to Steve Schmidt.

It's something that needs to be said until the pejorative is gone.