I never said that *no* prominent Democrats were calling for him to resign. I said that some prominent Democrats were *not* calling for him to resign
I'll grant you that you didn't say "no" prominent, but you certainly didn't even attempt to imply
that you meant "some" either. "So when prominent Democrats on the city cancel" doesn't mean, in any language, what you're now trying to imply you said.
And it's certainly fair to point to the two Democrats sitting on the **** city council who failed to do so.
It would be if you weren't trying to either subtly imply the other two, one of which was the pro tem of the **** council itself, weren't urging him to resign, didn't matter, or simply weren't aware of it. With your track record, I'd believe either.
No. I made the mistake of assuming you knew as much about the issue as I did. My bad, but around here everyone knows which Democrats came forward initially and called on him to resign, and lots of people are shocked that there are any on the city council who have refused to do so. My comment was in reference to that. It was not at all my intent to mislead you. I honestly didn't realize that someone might think that I was implying that no democrats were calling for him to resign. ****. The woman who initially started this whole ball rolling (Donna Frye) is a Democrat (and was a huge Filner supporter).
I just assumed you knew that.
Cause I don't know what else you were talking about, if that's not the case.
It was a reference to the 34-6 vote by the San Diego Democratic Party committee to urge Filner to resign, not a reference to any particular individual.
My bad then. It seemed like you were talking about the national party. Given that most searches about the issue prominently talk about Shultz calling on him to resign, I thought that's what you were referencing.
As to the San Diego Democratic Party? It took them a very long time to do this, and only after serious outrage that they hadn't (and frankly, it's still shocking that it wasn't unanimous). They initially voted not to call on him to resign (and this was several days after specifics about his actions had been released, which itself was several days after Frye revealed the generalities and called on him to resign) and that was a huge story here locally. Finally coming around really is too little too late in this case (like two weeks too late).
What's doubly bizarre about this is that it's not like one could argue that there was some kind of partisan fake scandal thing going on here. It was folks within the Democratic party who brought this to light in the first place. Donna Frye apparently provided him with information about what she had and gave him the opportunity to resign gracefully (presumably with some made up story about why), and he refused. As a result, she publicly announced that she had evidence of his actions and called on him to resign. He still refused. A few days after that, she released some of the data she had, including positions (but not names) of women making the allegations and again called on him to resign. He still refused. Three days after that, the local Democratic Party voted not to call on him to resign. This sparked yet more outrage. And after that, woman after woman has come forward with more allegations. Despite this, it still took the Democrats another couple weeks to finally call on him to resign. And still not unanimously.
I don't pretend to know what kind of party infighting is going on, but it's basically popcorn worthy from the other side of the fence. But this is why I say that the Dems are killing themselves with this. Whatever gains they've made in terms of public perception over the years have been massively wiped out in the last month. Edited, Aug 7th 2013 3:43pm by gbaji