In short, these are people who oppose a push toward policies that would uplift disadvantaged groups…
Michael Weston

“This is lying, and vilification. So if you seriously weren’t acknowledging this with your previous statement, you should do it now if you’re interested in ‘good faith.’”

Nope, that is exaggerating a criticism that is true of a good many of these people i.e. that, contrary to their rhetoric, too many support policies that reinforce the status quo and these people aren’t stupid so they either want to hold disadvantaged groups back or don’t care that their policies are demonstrably doing this. She also exaggerated by being over-inclusive of the group to which this fundamental criticism applies.

“Is she now?”

You’re seriously claiming Sasha Stone isn’t driven by an unhinged, completely delusional devotion to Hillary Clinton? Simply b/c she also mentions abortion? I don’t know who Joe Pauley is, but he sends out ridiculous garbage like this:


“I absolutely am, or at least it wouldn’t to the point that you’re implying. And if it did, he’d be in deep shit…I’m familiar with the intended political messaging of the move, yes. But that‘s unlikely to project Mello into a spotlight to the point that you’re suggesting.”

Then you haven’t been paying attention or you’re being willfully obtuse. It’s already a story, though not a very big one outside hardcore political circles. A successful ending to it for the Democrats would sure as shit turn it into a bigger story and Sanders would do his best to blow it bigger than that, considering the flak he’s taken.

“If he was vaulting to national politics on a Democratic ticket, an anti-choice voting record is absolutely nonsensical as a strategy.”


Remaining pro-life personally and politically to rise up the ranks of a red State as a Dem, then erecting a firewall between the personal and political in order to vault nationally seems like a pretty decent strategy. It seems to have worked for quite a few red-state Dems. One might even say Tim Kaine did this very thing.

“Not quite accurate. I can see how you came to that conclusion — the article clearly wants you to look at it that way. But notice how The Nation doesn’t include what votes were in line with PP?… It’s clever, I get why you fell for it. But his voting record shows that hasn’t got shit to do with him.”

Show me where I said Mello voted in favor of pro-choice measures. I said he supported PPVN’s position, which is legislative evidence of loyalty to the organization, and they confirmed that. If they had been pro-choice measures, I would’ve said his situation was identical to Kaine’s pro-choice-since-2012 evolution.

Bottom line—Mello has voted with the PPVN position since 2011 and has publicly guaranteed he will support pro-choice legislation. That tracks closely enough with Kaine’s evolution to dispel any severe doubt from the same people who embraced Kaine.

If you had a problem with Kaine, it’s fair to say your problem with Mello is driven by genuine concern for reproductive rights. If you had no problem with Kaine, it’s fair to say your problem with Mello is driven more by Clintonian animosity toward Sanders. I see a lot more of the latter.

“All you’re doing with this statement is driving the goalpost further into its new spot. The point of this, the only point stated by Sanders or by you originally, was to get a blue upset in a deep red state.”

Nope, again, never said that. I said turning a deep red blue would almost certainly generate big headlines and would be a powerful statement. I never said it should come w/out regard to the sincerity of the progressive position. In fact, that it should NOT come at the expense of the latter is implicit in my argument differentiating between Mello and Ossoff.

“And your attempt at dismissing the parallel is further flawed: Sanders was endorsing Mello before Mello made his non-statement, and never wavered on that support. Requiring that Ossoff pledge to fight money in politics before he’s considered a parallel makes no sense.”

You continue to mischaracterize my statements. I have said consistently that Sanders is open to criticism for the way he’s handled this issue. Namely, he’s been a bit of a hypocrite and (I’d guess) they didn’t properly vet Mello’s record to make the endorsement smoother i.e. by having the public statement come before it rather than after it.

That does not change the fact that embracing Mello, who has publicly stated he will protect reproductive rights and who checks the other progressive boxes, is consistent with Sanders’ pursuit of relentlessly progressive legislators. As is a comparably tepid “endorsement” of Ossoff, who is apparently suspect on the primary issue driving Sanders for the majority of his career.

Between the intentional (or accidental, but I’m guessing you know what you’re doing) mischaracterizations and the transparent attempts to provoke via condescension, I think we’re done here.

Best of luck.