General Discussion

kentuck

(111,110 posts) Tue Oct 11, 2016, 05:34 PM Oct 2016

When is an "endorsement" not an endorsement?

When you decide to not defend the statements of a candidate running for office and refuse to campaign with him.

This is what Paul Ryan has said in regards to his non-support of Donald Trump.

But, he says he has not yet withdrawn his "endorsement"???

In effect, he has withdrawn his endorsement but he doesn't want Trump supporters to know he has withdrawn his support because they may vote against him in his next election.

Actually, it's a very clever position for him to take. In other words, he wants his cake and eat it too.

He is sitting smack dab in the middle of the fence.

But, Trump can make it really hot for him if he chooses? He has already tweeted a couple of comments very critical of Ryan. This could get very interesting.

The re-election of Paul Ryan could depend upon whether Donald Trump "endorses" him or not?

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

When is an "endorsement" not an endorsement? (Original Post) kentuck Oct 2016 OP

I hope they all lose. stage left Oct 2016 #1

When LWolf Oct 2016 #2

stage left

(2,966 posts)

1. I hope they all lose.

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Oct 11, 2016, 06:20 PM

Oct 2016

I especially hope Trey Gowdy, up for election in my congressional district, loses.

LWolf

(46,179 posts)

2. When

Reply to kentuck (Original post)

Tue Oct 11, 2016, 09:07 PM

Oct 2016

you are a Republican so indoctrinated in party loyalty that, no matter how you despise a candidate, no matter whether you will actually vote for that candidate, you must publicly display "unity" and pledge your loyalty to the party and the party's nominee.

My own Republican House Rep is doing just that; he's used strong language to condemn Trump, but hasn't taken his endorsement back. That's when an endorsement is not an endorsement, since you asked.

The same thing happens in the Democratic Party, and right here at DU. You know. The people who rush around demanding loyalty oaths a year ahead of an election. The people who will excuse any candidate of anything during campaign season, as long as that candidate has a "D" next to his or her name. The same people who find no contradiction in embracing the positions of a D candidate or an elected D that, before campaign season, they were solidly against, but now twist themselves into pretzels to rationalize their "evolution."

It's a pot and kettle thing.

Reply to this discussion