at the response to my post below, where I announced in the name of unity I would stop attacking Harold, because I didn't want backlash on Steve Cohen.
One might have thought by the responses that I had pledged loyalty, fealty and my first-born male child to the Ford campaign, all because I promised to stop calling him a bastard every other day.
What part of "I am not going to endorse him, neither will I oppose him at this time" is misunderstood here?
2 comments:
"I am not going to endorse him, neither will I oppose him at this time"
With all due respect, Steve: You highlight one sentence out of a 324-word post. Yes, by itself that sentence is clear and easy to understand.
The other 309 nwords, however, seem to muddle your point to hell and back. And the rationale, other than party unity, doesn't seem to hold water.
Your privately emailed explanation to me does make at least some logical sense -- though my sources say that you are overly concerned about that issue.
I accept that you and your blogging partners have come up a joint plan through November. I disagree with the supposed need and rationale for the plan -- but of course it's your blog(s).
Wednesday is another day. I pray that it will be a brand new day for progressives everywhere. If the unthinkable happens, it will be interesting if it changes your perspective a little. I hope it will change Harold's perspective a lot. If not, I hope November will be a career-altering event for him.
Cracker,
I understand your point, most of my posts below were not aimed at you but someone else... Freedonian...we started a different/broader discussion under your post.
Post a Comment