I don’t buy the “he’s a centrist” line for a second. Sherrill and Spanberger both claimed to be moderates. They aren’t. Also, Ossoff is Jewish, and that’s a deal breaker for the DSA wing of the Democrats.
I could see a detente with Ossoff and El-Sayed sharing a stage in Michigan in 2028 if he wins (I’m hoping he’s been chastened a bit with Piker’s “The Jews are asking for it” remarks; wishful thinking more likely)
Oh, I’m not saying El-Sayed would be VP, I’m just saying he’d get behind Ossoff if Ossoff got the Dem nod in ‘28, and would campaign with him.
Lots of things would need to happen, among them AES winning his race and using his first two years to show he’s not an extremist, just a fighter. I don’t put a huge probability on it, just speculating.
His Jewish identity so far hasn’t been much of an issue. The DSA types are relentless in going after Shapiro, Jared Moskowitz, Jeremy Moss, and others. But it just doesn’t seem sticky with Ossoff. I have no idea why.
I have a hard time trusting any current Dem who presents as moderate. There are too many instances of them doing so only to go full woke once in office (Biden) or just pretending to be suddenly moderate once on the campaign trail without actually saying how or why they've changed (Harris and very soon AOC).
I can see Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly having the balls to actually stand up to the progressives, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it either.
Call me a Doubting Thomas. I'll believe in the moderate Democrat once I see one in a prominent national office, in the spotlight, stare down the mindless horde and tell them to kick rocks.
I'm having a hard time with your suggestion that Biden was "full woke" as president. He was extremely supportive of police, asking and receiving large increases for federal support for police and repeatedly stressing his administration's support of local police. He was highly supportive of Israel, particularly after October 7, when he was the most visible world leader by Netanyahu's side. In such respects he was adopting positions entirely counter to the "woke" agenda.
It is true that he was a supporter of "Green New Deal" style legislation, but that is not "woke," although it has been carelessly lumped into the "woke" basket by some on the Right. Support for the conversion to renewable energy sources is part of a different basket of environmental positions that dates back many decades. He also adopted strong anti-monopoly positions; again, a tradition neither associated with "woke." The recent rise of anti-oligarchic politics among Democrats is an expansion of a position that the Party has stressed since the Reagan era.
I'm not saying Biden was "anti-woke." There are aspects of the "woke" agenda that Biden did adopt. He supported DEI and he expanded accommodations for trans people in various ways. But in no way was he "full woke," and he was by and large villainized by the DSA-style wing of the Left.
Hating Israel wasn't a requisite of the woke crowd until October 8, 2023.
But Biden was woke in many other ways, especially in his constant demonization of anything right of far Left in public discourse. Like so many progressives, he became an expert at hysterics. Biden called Georgia's election integrity law "jim Crowe 2.0" because that appeased the progressive hysteria of day, refered to "Transgender genocide" on several occasions, insisted on his VP being a woman of color (which eventually led to 2024's disasterous and highly avoidable loss to Trump), claimed his "green" legislation would stave off environmental disaster (while just funneling money to Dem-aligned interest groups) and gave the supreme court the middle finger with his executive-led student loan forgiveness (again to Dem-aligned individuals).
Pemulis, I think you're conflating "woke" and Left. You're certainly correct that Biden aligned with identity-politics in his expansive views trans rights, and he was voicing racial identity politics in his "Jim Crow 2.0" exaggeration and in his unfortunately "You ain't Black" remark. In those instances I agree that he was caught up in "woke" frameworks. His Green legislation and student loan forgiveness order were not "woke" policies, they were progressive policies. As a liberal who looks objectionably moderate to the far Left I strongly supported every element of the Green policy goals and believed that the manner that student debt had accrued probably justified some government intervention, though not on the scale of Biden's EO.
As I recall, Biden announced that he planned to choose a woman for his running mate, but did not specify a woman of color. He had bested several viable women candidates in the primaries (e.g., Warren, Harris, Klobuchar), and I saw his decision as being traditional ticket balancing, trying to assuage a large group of Democratic female voters, not the Party's "woke" wing. He did announce that he wanted to appoint a woman of color to the Supreme Court when Justice Breyer resigned. When GHW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall he was following the same logic of demographic balancing in a period well before "woke." (DEI did not begin with "woke": the "woke" period was when it came to overwhelm competing goals and merge with identity politics in a manner I think was largely toxic.)
I saw and see nothing in your original comment about Biden going "full woke" limiting its scope to a pre-October 7 period, so I see no reason to modify my comments about Biden's refusal to in any way shape US policy towards liberals in order to please a "woke" audience. If anything, I believe he was too influenced by a desire to avoid alienating more conservative Democratic Jewish voters and donors (many of whom nonetheless defected to Trump).
I do not agree with this framing, Ms. Hall. Title IX deals with such educational goals as securing hiring practices and compensation that do not discriminate against women; comparable budgetary support for women's education and sports; and protections for women (and men) against sexual harassment by teachers, staff, and fellow students. Most of these elements were substantially unaffected by Biden's EO, so saying that the EO "gutted" women's rights is a vast overstatement.
Trans people of both sexes had become clear objects of discrimination in hiring, harassment, and equal provision of education, and Biden's EO addressed those dimensions in a way consistent with the spirit of the original legislation, in my view. Where it differed inappropriately, in my opinion, was in the area of sports, where sexual segregation in the interests of opportunity and fairness was not a form of discrimination, and extension of "gender rights" to trans women (in particular) can and often does violate the principles of legitimate segregation of sexes. I would agree that this is an area of "woke" overreach to the detriment of women. It is, however, in practice an issue with very, very few real-world examples.
Women deserve the safety, dignity, and privacy of single-sex spaces. These include rape and domestic violence shelters, locker rooms and bathrooms, and prisons.
Women should not be required to trust any man on his word alone that he “feels” like a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling. It’s is a biological reality, and the social risks that accompany that reality.
Perhaps you don’t know what’s actually happening. Read the fine journalistic work of Genevieve Gluck at Reduxx. https://reduxx.info/
Here is a list of over 6,000 first-place finishes in the female category in sports (all sports, all levels) that were awarded to males who falsely claimed to be females. If you want to call that "very very few real-world examples", I don't know what to tell you.
Footnote from OP: "[Ossoff] also recently earned endorsements from two Republican mayors in Georgia whom his Senate office has worked closely with, with one explaining, “There are times when a person exceeds the party.”"
How common is this for the other folks you mention? I know Republicans have endorsed e.g. Kamala Harris against Trump, but is it normal for them to endorse Democrats in congressional or senate races?
I am starting to see that this lens of how people behave on a spectrum leaves out their decision making, both political and policy. Ultimately we need to elect people able to make decisions from a moral and strategic place.
The narrative I see in comments like this is that we believe people are hiding who they are (which we all do) and we are trying to discern their true colors. That they are merely a vessel for our values.
When I shift from spectrum/true colors thinking I see politics in a new manner
Sorry but I have to agree with several of the previous commenters. In the last 15 years or so, I've yet to observe any Democrat who, while running as a "centrist" or "moderate", actually performs as a centrist or moderate when elected. With a single exception of the senator from Pennsylvania, these "moderate" Democrats consistently support the party line with their votes. Fool me once...
"He also crossed party lines on immigration to support the Laken Riley Act."
We seem to have a weird situation where leftists won’t vote for a center-left candidate because they believe there’s a latent coalition for left-economic-populism. And moderates won’t vote for a center-left candidate because they think the center-left candidate is secretly leftist. So you get a sort of political no-man’s-land.
I think one reason I feel good about Ossoff is he actually seems to understand, and make, arguments for centrist positions. Basically a key test could be, are they able to actually articulate arguments for the center or does the centrism seem more performative.
Ultimately I feel like I kinda have to vote for candidates who seem credibly centrist, so leftist Democrats don’t say “centrists can’t win anyways” and nominate radical leftist wackos in the primary.
Note - duplicate comment to get it into the right sequence.
Per CNN Ossoff had 839 total recorded votes. He voted against the party majority 7 times. Less than one percent. As long as the Democrats continue their progressive crusade, voting against the party line less than 1% of the time does not qualify as even remotely centrist. YMMV of course.
Right, but how many of those votes were actually closely contested along party lines, versus naming post offices, confirming lower-level political appointees, and issues with either bipartisan or atypical-coalition support?
Excellent question. Without spending much more time than the issue is worth to me, I would hazard a guess that Ossoff is a reliable Democrat vote for any issue that is in the least controversial, similar to my two senators, Murray and Cantwell.
Well…meh. The Democrats are turning into what they loathed 15 or 20 years ago: an extremist mob. Woe betide anyone who says even a single hurty word. Things have reached a point where we use the word “centrist” to describe people who support men in women’s sports and places, surgical mutilation and drugs to treat mental illness in children, and want to stop supporting Israel.
This is insane.
And I have to ask: what, exactly, does it mean to “stand up to Trump?” So far, all I’ve seen is histrionics.
If the Dems want a leader who can actually win national elections and unite the country, they need someone who recognizes that a job needs to be done and gets down to doing it. And by “job,” I mean running the country to benefit us all as best as possible. We haven’t had a government interested in doing that in a very long time.
Trump is not running in 2028 guys. He can't and won't for numerous reasons. I know this disappoints all with TDS but that is the truth. So, now what? Gonna have to wait for after 2026 to see who you guys can start banging on.
Democrats haven't been with working people since FDR. Been a long long time and doesn't even look close to turning around soon, Democrats are the party of social causes, whatever that really means? More like a protestant (yes, I know he's Jewish) self-righteous, moralistic, holier than thou look. This guy is just another political hack.
The vast damage Trump will have caused will most certainly be around in 2028, though, and no one in the GOP will have the ability to run against it. They will either still be completely beholden to Trump or will have waited until way too late to disown him. (E.g., Tucker Carlson). That is the price you pay for rooting your leadership in a cult of personality.
Plus it’s plenty likely Trump (and Stephen Miller) will be firing off insane executive orders, and sending DOJ attack dogs after his critics, right up until his last days in office.
So, Minsky, who do I vote for? The democrats? omg they are terrible. They are not for working people. They are the social causes party. I used to lean democrat from my independent side a lot.
The last straw with them was when they killed Charlie Kirk and then mocked him and said it should have been done years ago. The "Jesus freak" the "bible thumper" sad sad sad I remember growing up in the 60's into the 70's We had these guys all over the place. We always showed them respect and never thought of harming them. But to kill him mock him then ridicule him. No more, that party is gone to me, not what I want to be a part of. I dislike most of them more than I do Trump and his gang. Least of the two evils, I guess.
Basically, they all suck vote for who you think sucks the least. That's where we are at, I believe. I am.
Is Ossoff soft on women's rights to their own sports and prisons, and against "gender medicine" for children and adolescents? It is very hard to pin political candidates down on this. Dems are avoiding transparency on these issues and I know a lot of women who will not vote Democrat until they come to their senses about their allegiance to this cult. Please advise.
Not hard at all to figure out what Ossoff thinks about women's rights: he's against them. Ossoff (like ALL Democrats in Congress) is a co-sponsor of the so-called "Equality Act", which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide.
Ossoff's comment about Natalie revealed more about his character, than years in office.
Every US Presdient has a "bodyman". They accompany Presidents nearly everywhere, but the bathroom and the bedroom. These are highly sought after jobs, that normally bring great, lucrative employment opportunities, after they end. They are historically men, because Presidents, thus far, have been male. Had Obama chosen a women, he would have been hailed in the Press for months, for opening the coveted position to females.
Instead Ossoff, so politically desperate to distract from his "elephant in the room", picks on a 37 year single woman, who survived Stage 4 cancer. What a guy! Are the physically challenged children of Reps next in Ossoff's game plan?
CNN, a few weeks ago, noted the quiet part out loud, on the air. Nepo baby Ossoff is the least "obvious" Dem Jewish candidate. Their words, not mine. The comment was so offensive I assumed I heard it wrong, until I replayed the segment. No matter how disgusting, the observation by Dem leaning pundits, said it all. As did the lack of outrage by the Press or other Dems. Imagine the same comment directed at a Black or Hispanic candidate.
The vast majority of Dems have no idea Ossoff is Jewish. When they learn, unless he fancies a midlife conversion to Islam or Catholicism, his Presidential aspirations are in dead in the water. The irony is the General Election would be a far easier hurdle, than wildly antisemitic Dem Primary voters.
Ronda, I share your frustration with how uncivil our politics have become, but there is plenty of blame to go around for that. Even if you don't think Trump is the cause of this development, he and the people around him have opened the floodgates to incivility and personal attacks. Trump famously mocked a mentally handicapped reporter live on TV, has treated female reporters terribly, and has routinely called Democrats "evil" and "the enemy within" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-democrats-enemies-within-rcna175628). His VP and likely successor has also called Democrats "terrible people" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-vp-attacks-democrats-terrible-135941565.html). These are their own citizens they're talking about!
Point is, I'd love for our politics to focus on disagreements about ideas rather than personal attacks, but neither party's hands are clean. (That goes for the growing antisemitism, too: https://x.com/davidshor/status/1888287606942625864)
I'm in no way defending Trump, who is indefensible. And there is certainly blame to go around including Biden, who seemed nearly genetically programed to repeatedly mention Reps are racists, on any day he actually spoke to the Press.
Lincoln fought a Civil War over slavery, and never referred to Southerners as racists in the way Biden routinely reminded the world, Reps were the real threat to the planet, not Putin, Xi or a nuclear Iran. Biden saw mythical Rep White Supremacists behind every US tree, and felt compelled to repeatedly warn Americans. The Press simply ignored it, and then forgot the rants, while Trump's tirades are magnified and take on historical importance.
My point is, everyone in the West knows the phrase "women and children first" because the West, and nations that share our values, treat women and children differently than the other 80% of the planet. Woman are not chattel. They are protected equals. Children are not labor or things to be abused.
No side has clean hands, but "Trump did it" is a lousy excuse and one that will carry less weight everyday. While Dems and Trump supporters are both reluctant to admit it, for all practical purposes, Trump is done, with the exception of Iran.
The elections, will be followed by the holidays. The new Dem House will begin Impeachment the day they are sworn in, and keep at it, until Trump exits the WH the final time. The bottom line is, I expected far better from Ossoff. I was wrong.
Yep, I agree that Biden often did not acquit himself well in that regard. I would also note, as I mentioned to another commenter, that I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. It's more that there's enough blame to go around, and I have seen plenty of people outraged at Ossoff's remark who have turned a blind eye to far worse from politicians whom they support. I'd love it if we got away from that altogether. (And my broader point in the piece was that, regardless of what one thinks about the moral element of his quip, Trump's circle knows it was politically effective.)
As an Obama to Trump voter, I’m theoretically at least somewhat indicative of who the Democrats need to win back. I find it frustratingly bizarre that the Democrats seem determined to emulate the things I find most distasteful about Trump while doubling down on the policies that make me view him as the lesser evil.
Agree entirely. This morning a Talarico clip shows him explaining the line that connects fossil fuels, white supremacy and capitalism, and then demanding they all be "dismantled". That any adult spews that nonsense is hard to believe. That he is up 2 points in Texas, seems impossible.
I once assumed the kid was well meaning, but very misguided. The problem now appears to be a 5th grade understanding of economics and the Constitution. He once begged Biden to place staffed, federal abortion facilities in Texas Federal Courthouses. Talarico seemed to believe that would magically be legal.
Insanity aside, let's not attack women and children seems like a low bar. Trump and Biden both had the excuse of age, to some degree. 40 somethings, like Ossoff, who enjoyed the best education money can buy, should know better. Attacking a women, doing a job that was always previously held by a man, has long been a way to exclude women from opportunities.
I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. My point is that it's not just Democrats who traffic in personal attacks or antisemitism, and folks should be careful when throwing stones from glass houses. We tend to see the worst in our opponents but turn a blind eye to the bad behavior on our own "side."
reminder: Natalie harp went on OANN and justified Jan 6. This oh the poor woman bullshit is absolutely pathetic. She chose to be there, she chose, like you, to drink the koolaid.
This is the same woman who sent out a tweet depicting the Obama’s as apes.
“Combative centrism” is an attractive formula, but the centrism cannot be confined to Medicare for All, court-packing and defunding the police while culturally contentious issues are quietly excluded from the accounting.
I am a centrist Democrat, a gay man and a Biden- and Harris-voter. I support the freedom of people who believe they belong to the opposite sex or no sex to live without harassment or discrimination. But I do not believe that gender identity changes a person’s sex, that males belong in female athletic competition, or that every intervention described as “gender-affirming care” should be placed beyond scrutiny—especially where children are concerned.
Ossoff has supported the Equality Act’s elevation of gender identity in federal law, endorsed legal recognition of self-defined nonbinary identities, and repeatedly voted against measures intended to preserve female school sports on the basis of sex. He may have defensible objections to the wording or federal reach of particular Republican bills, but he has not offered a centrist alternative that protects female competition, preserves legitimate single-sex provisions or acknowledges the growing medical controversy surrounding pediatric transition.
That does not make Ossoff an extremist, much less negate his moderation elsewhere. But it does reveal a significant omission in the case for his “combative centrism.” Gender-identity ideology is one of the clearest examples of the Democratic Party adopting positions that are unpopular, difficult to defend and injurious to its broader coalition. A politician who follows party orthodoxy on these questions without serious qualification should not receive an unqualified centrist designation merely because he has broken with the left on an older and more familiar list of issues.
Thanks for your comment, Ollie. I should be clear: I didn’t say I believe Ossoff is definitely a centrist—in fact I mention that he holds some views that will appeal more to progressives than moderates—but rather that it seems he is attempting to embrace “combative centrism.” Very few Dems today are (or are running as) true centrists. So I use that term to mean that he is shifting toward the center, even though he is still to the left of the country. But I appreciate that that may not be clear in the piece.
And I took care to point out that he is on the 20% side of key 80–20 issues, specifically the ones you mention. He is taking some of the right steps to position himself closer to the middle of the electorate than other Democrats, but there is still plenty of fodder for Republicans to attack him with. (For what it’s worth, he rejected that full list of trendy positions I mentioned in the piece all the way back in 2020, so this isn’t just a new development. But I agree with you that rejecting excesses of one’s side =/= being a moderate.)
"[Trump] is literally closing rural clinics and hospitals to cut taxes for George Soros and Elon Musk." -- right Jon, obviously Trump and Soros are peas in a pod.
In other news, I hope centrists note the #metoo hypocrisy of Democrats/liberals going after Natalie Harp; does anyone believe that if she took flak from Republicans while working for Biden, the press wouldn't be surrounding her with Metoo shielding?
If she wrote those deranged love letters to Biden while working for him? Yes 100% that'd be all over Fox News, NewsMax, One, and the podcast circuit. And those are mainstream media, literally the most consumed media across the US.
Ossoff paired Soros with Musk, not Trump. Trump's policies shift national wealth into the pockets of the super-rich regardless of their party. Ossoff's point in including Soros was to show that Trump has governed on behalf his fellow billionaires without regard to their politics, and at the expense of ordinary Americans without regard to their politics.
This is what moderates of any political party do. They focus on the common ground that Americans share across factional divides.
As for Ms. Harp, I think Democratic politicians would have been disturbed and pushed back strongly to the White House if anything like this had occurred in Biden's case. It is so unlike Biden in character that it would have set off the alarms that should have been set off about his increasing senility. The Harp/Trump relationship is not just about an older male and a younger woman; it is about a narcissist philanderer and an idolator. The comparison you want is with Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. The Democrats piled on Clinton appropriately (pre-#MeToo), but they badly failed to protect Lewinsky. Again, a situation quite different from the current one (but reflecting poorly on the Democrats of the mid-1990s).
You are either disingenuous or misinterpreting my points. For Ossoff to criticize Soros is to bite the hand that feeds him, though no one could for a moment truly believe Soros will cut him off. And my point about Harp and the press relates to the how the legacy/mainstream media are savaging a powerful woman -- not something they would have done to a Biden aide.
I have to admit, Mr. Kingsworthy, I find your comments, taken together, to be incoherent, so it is indeed likely I have misinterpreted you.
I myself do not believe that Soros would for a moment take issue with Ossoff's remark, or that Ossoff for a moment imagined that he would. You, however, indicated that Ossoff had said that Trump and Soros were "peas in a pod," which, where I come from, means that they are very much alike. I do think Soros would actually have objected strongly to that, but since Ossoff didn't say or imply it no hand was ever going to get bitten.
Your comment on the media and Harp does make me reflect. I focused on your "MeToo shielding" point. MeToo concerns believing women who expose harassment by a powerful man. Biden did encounter such a claim in 2020 from Tara Reade, a former low-level aide. Biden himself denied the charge, but also said that people should not dismiss it on his say so because it was always important to take women who claim harassment seriously, and he ordered that any evidence that the government had that would support her claim be revealed. Time Magazine quoted him as saying of voters, "I think they should vote their heart and if they believe Tara Reade, they probably shouldn't vote for me. I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade." He also said, "I'm not going to go in and question her motive, not going to attack her. She has a right to say whatever she wants to say, but I have a right to say, look at the facts, check it out."
Now, the Harp situation is not like that and in taking your initial comment seriously I went instead to the most relevant instance in the case of a Democratic president, noting that while I think many Democrats failed to protect the woman (Monica Lewinsky) they did not fail to loudly criticize Clinton (while nevertheless supporting his reelection).
Upon further reflection, I think you are framing MeToo in the Harp case as concerning the role of the press as "harasser." That's not what MeToo is about, but perhaps I could rephrase your statement this way: "If a female aide to Biden had formed the same relationship to him as Harp has to Trump, Democrats would have labeled conservative (or, perhaps even mainstream) press attacks as misogynistic." That would, at least, be a coherent claim. I think that, in fact, both the mainstream press and Democrats would have been all over Biden for allowing such a relationship to develop and persist. I do not think the current negative depictions of Harp are in fact attacks on her so much as attacks on Trump for allowing the relationship to develop and persist, but I'd agree that they must surely be hurtful to Ms. Harp.
The press savaging Harp would be misogynistic if the victim was a liberal. Ossoff was playing games putting Soros and Musk together -- and credit where credit is due, it was probably smart politics. Clarifications provided for the benefit of anyone still reading this exchange.
I would say to other commenters trying to handwave away Ossoff's centrist bonafides that at least when looking at the pattern of his sponsorship and cosponsorship of legislation, he is one of the most moderate members of the senate: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/jon_ossoff/456857
He is likely going to obliterate his opponent in the upcoming election in a purple state, and in doing so I think will be a solid indicator that confrontational centrism focused on the unprecedented corruption we are seeing carried out by the current administration and enabled by the present iteration of the GOP leadership is a far better route to political success than the less moderate-friendly DSA model.
His rejection and criticism of Piker shows sound judgment, and the uproar over his 'Natalie' comments is a bunch of disingenuous pearl-clutching, particularly once the complaints are set against everything Trump has said about his opponents, and everything Haberman and Swann have documented is going on in the Trump White House. (which should trouble everybody) Indeed, once you've read Natalie's actual letters, it should concern you that no one in Trump's orbit or Trump himself have recognized the unhealthy nature of her obsession with Trump, and maybe urged her to do something that will help her mental health, which is clearly not well. (I say that in all seriousness, not as a cheap shot--if she were my child or a friend of mine I would be worried about her)
I'm not focusing yet on 2028, as I tend to think it's too early for that, and there's a strong tendency among many to leap past the wins we had better achieve in 2026. That said, it's in your line, I 'm glad you weighed in, and I appreciate what you have to say. I have long had a positive view of Jon Ossoff, and so far, he has not disappointed, knock wood. I see him as substantive and dedicated to the public good. I do also have a friend whose judgment I trust who worked on Ossoff's first campaign, and what I'm seeing in him now comports with what my friend experienced then. I am hoping he wins by a big margin this November, and then we can see what the future holds for him (and us).
Ossoff's main concern on the Left is that he is Jewish. In a national race, that could be a primary deal-breaker.
On the Right, will he be another rubber-stamp partisan? His record is mixed here; he's no Fetterman. Of course, one could say the same about Collins and MAGA, just in the other direction. But gubernatorial candidate Geoff Duncan's sudden reassessment of his previous stock GOP positions when he became a Democrat is the kind of stuff that turns as many people off outside the party as it does to turn them on inside the party.
He is a formidable retail politician. His bashing of Musk and Soros in the same breath was a clever move. I would like to know how much money he is receiving from Soros though, directly or indirectly.
Two big things helping the Dems in GA: 1) A lot of the quality GOP candidates seem to be waiting on the sideline until Trump is out of the picture (e.g,, Kemp) and 2) Metro Atlanta becoming a magnet for progressive PMC types. #2 seems to be a megatrend, #1 will only last as long as MAGA does, and there seems to be no MAGA heir apparent (no, not Vance).
Think about this sentence that you wrote: "Then there is the elephant in the room: it remains to be seen whether Ossoff’s Jewish identity will be a liability for him at a time when Democrats’ souring views toward Israel may be engendering greater levels of antisemitism."
The very idea that we have to be calling Ossoff's "Jewish identity" an elephant in the room tells you everything you need to know about the miserable direction of the democratic party. Also, I don't like the term "Jewish identity." What does that mean? He identifies as Jewish, as a trans man identifies as a woman? He's Jewish. Just say it. Your language both trivializes who he is and attempts to make his Judaism less offensive to the radical left shitholes.
The fact that Ossoff is Jewish isn't a deal breaker, but the fact that he supports Israel's continued existence as a Jewish-majority state and opposes its replacement with an Arab-majority state is a deal-breaker for the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party. That seems to be The Litmus Test.
I don’t buy the “he’s a centrist” line for a second. Sherrill and Spanberger both claimed to be moderates. They aren’t. Also, Ossoff is Jewish, and that’s a deal breaker for the DSA wing of the Democrats.
I could see a detente with Ossoff and El-Sayed sharing a stage in Michigan in 2028 if he wins (I’m hoping he’s been chastened a bit with Piker’s “The Jews are asking for it” remarks; wishful thinking more likely)
If he wasn't chastened by the countless things Piker has said before I don't know why this recent comment would suddenly open his eyes.
No candidate who so strongly associates themselves with Piker could ever be a part of a moderate ticket.
Coincidentally: https://x.com/polltracker2024/status/2092957537217708092
Oh, I’m not saying El-Sayed would be VP, I’m just saying he’d get behind Ossoff if Ossoff got the Dem nod in ‘28, and would campaign with him.
Lots of things would need to happen, among them AES winning his race and using his first two years to show he’s not an extremist, just a fighter. I don’t put a huge probability on it, just speculating.
The DSA isn’t choosing the nominee.
Right, just like MAGA didn't choose the Republican nominee in 2016. Or so the establishment Republicans claimed, right up until they lost.
The size of the MAGA wing in 2016 was much much larger than the percentage of the Democratic Party the DSA now holds.
We’ll see. Midterms will tell us a lot.
In the Democratic Party, "centrist" means "Republican" or "neocon."
His Jewish identity so far hasn’t been much of an issue. The DSA types are relentless in going after Shapiro, Jared Moskowitz, Jeremy Moss, and others. But it just doesn’t seem sticky with Ossoff. I have no idea why.
His Jewish identity is irrelevant except it somewhat explains his Zionism.
I have a hard time trusting any current Dem who presents as moderate. There are too many instances of them doing so only to go full woke once in office (Biden) or just pretending to be suddenly moderate once on the campaign trail without actually saying how or why they've changed (Harris and very soon AOC).
I can see Josh Shapiro or Mark Kelly having the balls to actually stand up to the progressives, but I'm not sure I'd bet on it either.
Call me a Doubting Thomas. I'll believe in the moderate Democrat once I see one in a prominent national office, in the spotlight, stare down the mindless horde and tell them to kick rocks.
I'm having a hard time with your suggestion that Biden was "full woke" as president. He was extremely supportive of police, asking and receiving large increases for federal support for police and repeatedly stressing his administration's support of local police. He was highly supportive of Israel, particularly after October 7, when he was the most visible world leader by Netanyahu's side. In such respects he was adopting positions entirely counter to the "woke" agenda.
It is true that he was a supporter of "Green New Deal" style legislation, but that is not "woke," although it has been carelessly lumped into the "woke" basket by some on the Right. Support for the conversion to renewable energy sources is part of a different basket of environmental positions that dates back many decades. He also adopted strong anti-monopoly positions; again, a tradition neither associated with "woke." The recent rise of anti-oligarchic politics among Democrats is an expansion of a position that the Party has stressed since the Reagan era.
I'm not saying Biden was "anti-woke." There are aspects of the "woke" agenda that Biden did adopt. He supported DEI and he expanded accommodations for trans people in various ways. But in no way was he "full woke," and he was by and large villainized by the DSA-style wing of the Left.
Hating Israel wasn't a requisite of the woke crowd until October 8, 2023.
But Biden was woke in many other ways, especially in his constant demonization of anything right of far Left in public discourse. Like so many progressives, he became an expert at hysterics. Biden called Georgia's election integrity law "jim Crowe 2.0" because that appeased the progressive hysteria of day, refered to "Transgender genocide" on several occasions, insisted on his VP being a woman of color (which eventually led to 2024's disasterous and highly avoidable loss to Trump), claimed his "green" legislation would stave off environmental disaster (while just funneling money to Dem-aligned interest groups) and gave the supreme court the middle finger with his executive-led student loan forgiveness (again to Dem-aligned individuals).
Pemulis, I think you're conflating "woke" and Left. You're certainly correct that Biden aligned with identity-politics in his expansive views trans rights, and he was voicing racial identity politics in his "Jim Crow 2.0" exaggeration and in his unfortunately "You ain't Black" remark. In those instances I agree that he was caught up in "woke" frameworks. His Green legislation and student loan forgiveness order were not "woke" policies, they were progressive policies. As a liberal who looks objectionably moderate to the far Left I strongly supported every element of the Green policy goals and believed that the manner that student debt had accrued probably justified some government intervention, though not on the scale of Biden's EO.
As I recall, Biden announced that he planned to choose a woman for his running mate, but did not specify a woman of color. He had bested several viable women candidates in the primaries (e.g., Warren, Harris, Klobuchar), and I saw his decision as being traditional ticket balancing, trying to assuage a large group of Democratic female voters, not the Party's "woke" wing. He did announce that he wanted to appoint a woman of color to the Supreme Court when Justice Breyer resigned. When GHW Bush appointed Clarence Thomas to succeed Thurgood Marshall he was following the same logic of demographic balancing in a period well before "woke." (DEI did not begin with "woke": the "woke" period was when it came to overwhelm competing goals and merge with identity politics in a manner I think was largely toxic.)
I saw and see nothing in your original comment about Biden going "full woke" limiting its scope to a pre-October 7 period, so I see no reason to modify my comments about Biden's refusal to in any way shape US policy towards liberals in order to please a "woke" audience. If anything, I believe he was too influenced by a desire to avoid alienating more conservative Democratic Jewish voters and donors (many of whom nonetheless defected to Trump).
Biden changed Title IX through executive order, changing sex to gender in the law, thereby gutting women’s rights.
I do not agree with this framing, Ms. Hall. Title IX deals with such educational goals as securing hiring practices and compensation that do not discriminate against women; comparable budgetary support for women's education and sports; and protections for women (and men) against sexual harassment by teachers, staff, and fellow students. Most of these elements were substantially unaffected by Biden's EO, so saying that the EO "gutted" women's rights is a vast overstatement.
Trans people of both sexes had become clear objects of discrimination in hiring, harassment, and equal provision of education, and Biden's EO addressed those dimensions in a way consistent with the spirit of the original legislation, in my view. Where it differed inappropriately, in my opinion, was in the area of sports, where sexual segregation in the interests of opportunity and fairness was not a form of discrimination, and extension of "gender rights" to trans women (in particular) can and often does violate the principles of legitimate segregation of sexes. I would agree that this is an area of "woke" overreach to the detriment of women. It is, however, in practice an issue with very, very few real-world examples.
Women deserve the safety, dignity, and privacy of single-sex spaces. These include rape and domestic violence shelters, locker rooms and bathrooms, and prisons.
Women should not be required to trust any man on his word alone that he “feels” like a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling. It’s is a biological reality, and the social risks that accompany that reality.
Perhaps you don’t know what’s actually happening. Read the fine journalistic work of Genevieve Gluck at Reduxx. https://reduxx.info/
Here is a list of over 6,000 first-place finishes in the female category in sports (all sports, all levels) that were awarded to males who falsely claimed to be females. If you want to call that "very very few real-world examples", I don't know what to tell you.
https://hecheated.org
To be woke, one must first be awake. And cognizant.
Touché, Bob. - Bob
Footnote from OP: "[Ossoff] also recently earned endorsements from two Republican mayors in Georgia whom his Senate office has worked closely with, with one explaining, “There are times when a person exceeds the party.”"
Also apparently got an endorsement from Jeff Flake: https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/08/former-gop-sen-jeff-flake-backs-jon-ossoff-saying-character-matters/
How common is this for the other folks you mention? I know Republicans have endorsed e.g. Kamala Harris against Trump, but is it normal for them to endorse Democrats in congressional or senate races?
I am starting to see that this lens of how people behave on a spectrum leaves out their decision making, both political and policy. Ultimately we need to elect people able to make decisions from a moral and strategic place.
The narrative I see in comments like this is that we believe people are hiding who they are (which we all do) and we are trying to discern their true colors. That they are merely a vessel for our values.
When I shift from spectrum/true colors thinking I see politics in a new manner
We all hide who we are? That's a prety big claim, JBB, and I'm not sure I agree or really even know what you're talking about.
And I'm not sure "say what you mean and mean what you say" excludes politicians from being able "to make decisions from a moral and strategic place."
Big conversation not suited to a thread like this. I hear you and respectfully stand by what I said and am experiencing.
Sorry but I have to agree with several of the previous commenters. In the last 15 years or so, I've yet to observe any Democrat who, while running as a "centrist" or "moderate", actually performs as a centrist or moderate when elected. With a single exception of the senator from Pennsylvania, these "moderate" Democrats consistently support the party line with their votes. Fool me once...
Wouldn't this qualify?
"He also crossed party lines on immigration to support the Laken Riley Act."
We seem to have a weird situation where leftists won’t vote for a center-left candidate because they believe there’s a latent coalition for left-economic-populism. And moderates won’t vote for a center-left candidate because they think the center-left candidate is secretly leftist. So you get a sort of political no-man’s-land.
I think one reason I feel good about Ossoff is he actually seems to understand, and make, arguments for centrist positions. Basically a key test could be, are they able to actually articulate arguments for the center or does the centrism seem more performative.
Ultimately I feel like I kinda have to vote for candidates who seem credibly centrist, so leftist Democrats don’t say “centrists can’t win anyways” and nominate radical leftist wackos in the primary.
David Shuford
just now
Note - duplicate comment to get it into the right sequence.
Per CNN Ossoff had 839 total recorded votes. He voted against the party majority 7 times. Less than one percent. As long as the Democrats continue their progressive crusade, voting against the party line less than 1% of the time does not qualify as even remotely centrist. YMMV of course.
Right, but how many of those votes were actually closely contested along party lines, versus naming post offices, confirming lower-level political appointees, and issues with either bipartisan or atypical-coalition support?
Excellent question. Without spending much more time than the issue is worth to me, I would hazard a guess that Ossoff is a reliable Democrat vote for any issue that is in the least controversial, similar to my two senators, Murray and Cantwell.
Well…meh. The Democrats are turning into what they loathed 15 or 20 years ago: an extremist mob. Woe betide anyone who says even a single hurty word. Things have reached a point where we use the word “centrist” to describe people who support men in women’s sports and places, surgical mutilation and drugs to treat mental illness in children, and want to stop supporting Israel.
This is insane.
And I have to ask: what, exactly, does it mean to “stand up to Trump?” So far, all I’ve seen is histrionics.
If the Dems want a leader who can actually win national elections and unite the country, they need someone who recognizes that a job needs to be done and gets down to doing it. And by “job,” I mean running the country to benefit us all as best as possible. We haven’t had a government interested in doing that in a very long time.
Not a centrist at all.
Trump is not running in 2028 guys. He can't and won't for numerous reasons. I know this disappoints all with TDS but that is the truth. So, now what? Gonna have to wait for after 2026 to see who you guys can start banging on.
Democrats haven't been with working people since FDR. Been a long long time and doesn't even look close to turning around soon, Democrats are the party of social causes, whatever that really means? More like a protestant (yes, I know he's Jewish) self-righteous, moralistic, holier than thou look. This guy is just another political hack.
The vast damage Trump will have caused will most certainly be around in 2028, though, and no one in the GOP will have the ability to run against it. They will either still be completely beholden to Trump or will have waited until way too late to disown him. (E.g., Tucker Carlson). That is the price you pay for rooting your leadership in a cult of personality.
Plus it’s plenty likely Trump (and Stephen Miller) will be firing off insane executive orders, and sending DOJ attack dogs after his critics, right up until his last days in office.
So, Minsky, who do I vote for? The democrats? omg they are terrible. They are not for working people. They are the social causes party. I used to lean democrat from my independent side a lot.
The last straw with them was when they killed Charlie Kirk and then mocked him and said it should have been done years ago. The "Jesus freak" the "bible thumper" sad sad sad I remember growing up in the 60's into the 70's We had these guys all over the place. We always showed them respect and never thought of harming them. But to kill him mock him then ridicule him. No more, that party is gone to me, not what I want to be a part of. I dislike most of them more than I do Trump and his gang. Least of the two evils, I guess.
Basically, they all suck vote for who you think sucks the least. That's where we are at, I believe. I am.
Is Ossoff soft on women's rights to their own sports and prisons, and against "gender medicine" for children and adolescents? It is very hard to pin political candidates down on this. Dems are avoiding transparency on these issues and I know a lot of women who will not vote Democrat until they come to their senses about their allegiance to this cult. Please advise.
Not hard at all to figure out what Ossoff thinks about women's rights: he's against them. Ossoff (like ALL Democrats in Congress) is a co-sponsor of the so-called "Equality Act", which would make gender self-ID instantaneous and unquestionable nationwide.
He believes males should compete in women's sports.
Nope. He’s fully supportive of trans-insanity.
Ossoff's comment about Natalie revealed more about his character, than years in office.
Every US Presdient has a "bodyman". They accompany Presidents nearly everywhere, but the bathroom and the bedroom. These are highly sought after jobs, that normally bring great, lucrative employment opportunities, after they end. They are historically men, because Presidents, thus far, have been male. Had Obama chosen a women, he would have been hailed in the Press for months, for opening the coveted position to females.
Instead Ossoff, so politically desperate to distract from his "elephant in the room", picks on a 37 year single woman, who survived Stage 4 cancer. What a guy! Are the physically challenged children of Reps next in Ossoff's game plan?
CNN, a few weeks ago, noted the quiet part out loud, on the air. Nepo baby Ossoff is the least "obvious" Dem Jewish candidate. Their words, not mine. The comment was so offensive I assumed I heard it wrong, until I replayed the segment. No matter how disgusting, the observation by Dem leaning pundits, said it all. As did the lack of outrage by the Press or other Dems. Imagine the same comment directed at a Black or Hispanic candidate.
The vast majority of Dems have no idea Ossoff is Jewish. When they learn, unless he fancies a midlife conversion to Islam or Catholicism, his Presidential aspirations are in dead in the water. The irony is the General Election would be a far easier hurdle, than wildly antisemitic Dem Primary voters.
Ronda, I share your frustration with how uncivil our politics have become, but there is plenty of blame to go around for that. Even if you don't think Trump is the cause of this development, he and the people around him have opened the floodgates to incivility and personal attacks. Trump famously mocked a mentally handicapped reporter live on TV, has treated female reporters terribly, and has routinely called Democrats "evil" and "the enemy within" (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-democrats-enemies-within-rcna175628). His VP and likely successor has also called Democrats "terrible people" (https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/trump-vp-attacks-democrats-terrible-135941565.html). These are their own citizens they're talking about!
A lot of people seem indignant when the "other side" engages in these attacks but have trouble calling it out when it comes from people they support. Of course, I don't know your politics, but I have seen plenty of Trump's supporters express outrage over Ossoff's comments despite giving Trump a pass—or sometimes even cheering him on—whenever he attacks his political opponents in personal terms. This trend is even borne out in some recent survey data: https://www.pewresearch.org/chart/no-apologies-right-are-less-concerned-about-offensive-language-and-embrace-a-brasher-approach-to-politics-than-other-groups/
Point is, I'd love for our politics to focus on disagreements about ideas rather than personal attacks, but neither party's hands are clean. (That goes for the growing antisemitism, too: https://x.com/davidshor/status/1888287606942625864)
I'm in no way defending Trump, who is indefensible. And there is certainly blame to go around including Biden, who seemed nearly genetically programed to repeatedly mention Reps are racists, on any day he actually spoke to the Press.
Lincoln fought a Civil War over slavery, and never referred to Southerners as racists in the way Biden routinely reminded the world, Reps were the real threat to the planet, not Putin, Xi or a nuclear Iran. Biden saw mythical Rep White Supremacists behind every US tree, and felt compelled to repeatedly warn Americans. The Press simply ignored it, and then forgot the rants, while Trump's tirades are magnified and take on historical importance.
My point is, everyone in the West knows the phrase "women and children first" because the West, and nations that share our values, treat women and children differently than the other 80% of the planet. Woman are not chattel. They are protected equals. Children are not labor or things to be abused.
No side has clean hands, but "Trump did it" is a lousy excuse and one that will carry less weight everyday. While Dems and Trump supporters are both reluctant to admit it, for all practical purposes, Trump is done, with the exception of Iran.
The elections, will be followed by the holidays. The new Dem House will begin Impeachment the day they are sworn in, and keep at it, until Trump exits the WH the final time. The bottom line is, I expected far better from Ossoff. I was wrong.
Yep, I agree that Biden often did not acquit himself well in that regard. I would also note, as I mentioned to another commenter, that I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. It's more that there's enough blame to go around, and I have seen plenty of people outraged at Ossoff's remark who have turned a blind eye to far worse from politicians whom they support. I'd love it if we got away from that altogether. (And my broader point in the piece was that, regardless of what one thinks about the moral element of his quip, Trump's circle knows it was politically effective.)
As an Obama to Trump voter, I’m theoretically at least somewhat indicative of who the Democrats need to win back. I find it frustratingly bizarre that the Democrats seem determined to emulate the things I find most distasteful about Trump while doubling down on the policies that make me view him as the lesser evil.
Agree entirely. This morning a Talarico clip shows him explaining the line that connects fossil fuels, white supremacy and capitalism, and then demanding they all be "dismantled". That any adult spews that nonsense is hard to believe. That he is up 2 points in Texas, seems impossible.
I once assumed the kid was well meaning, but very misguided. The problem now appears to be a 5th grade understanding of economics and the Constitution. He once begged Biden to place staffed, federal abortion facilities in Texas Federal Courthouses. Talarico seemed to believe that would magically be legal.
Insanity aside, let's not attack women and children seems like a low bar. Trump and Biden both had the excuse of age, to some degree. 40 somethings, like Ossoff, who enjoyed the best education money can buy, should know better. Attacking a women, doing a job that was always previously held by a man, has long been a way to exclude women from opportunities.
I'm not making a "which side started it" argument or suggesting Democrats don't have agency and are merely reacting to or mirroring the right. My point is that it's not just Democrats who traffic in personal attacks or antisemitism, and folks should be careful when throwing stones from glass houses. We tend to see the worst in our opponents but turn a blind eye to the bad behavior on our own "side."
So you can dish it out but can’t take it. Got it. All the guy said was - travel with Natilie. MAGA is insufferable.
For pity's sake, just own that it was a vile, personal attack. You're ok with it which is your business, but let's not rewrite history.
Did Ossoff say she was a man? Or a monkey ? Or a piggy? Does he have a fondness for roadkill?
what elephant 🐘 are you talking about? I think it’s less about sex than her being a human binkie
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/08/ossoff-harp-trump-maga/688427/
This might help you become a bit more familiar with the situation.
Atlantic?
Written by a longtime Republican who worked in the Reagan and Bush White Houses.
So what? The only time the Atlantic would publish an article written by a Republican is when it bashes another Republican. What's his/her agenda?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/08/democratic-primaries-left-dsa-trump/688327/
Here’s an Atlantic article written by a Republican and critical of the Democrats.
I can't read the article, but the intro paragraphs stating voters want to move on isn't exactly critical.
Jackie Rosen has a better claim to being moderate than Ossoff but she is more obviously Jewish.
reminder: Natalie harp went on OANN and justified Jan 6. This oh the poor woman bullshit is absolutely pathetic. She chose to be there, she chose, like you, to drink the koolaid.
This is the same woman who sent out a tweet depicting the Obama’s as apes.
You can take this sentiment and shove it.
How closely have you studied Natalie Harp?
Yes, let's insinuate and smear a working woman because you hate her boss. Very manly.
This has nothing to do with her fucking gender and has everything to do with her character.
OK, smear a "person" because you hate "their" boss. Very manly.
It seems you haven't done your reading for this assignment.
Ossoff has said the correct critiques of Netanyahu too, so I’m pretty sure he’d be welcomed by most Dems!
Sorry, not a “centrist”.
“Combative centrism” is an attractive formula, but the centrism cannot be confined to Medicare for All, court-packing and defunding the police while culturally contentious issues are quietly excluded from the accounting.
I am a centrist Democrat, a gay man and a Biden- and Harris-voter. I support the freedom of people who believe they belong to the opposite sex or no sex to live without harassment or discrimination. But I do not believe that gender identity changes a person’s sex, that males belong in female athletic competition, or that every intervention described as “gender-affirming care” should be placed beyond scrutiny—especially where children are concerned.
Ossoff has supported the Equality Act’s elevation of gender identity in federal law, endorsed legal recognition of self-defined nonbinary identities, and repeatedly voted against measures intended to preserve female school sports on the basis of sex. He may have defensible objections to the wording or federal reach of particular Republican bills, but he has not offered a centrist alternative that protects female competition, preserves legitimate single-sex provisions or acknowledges the growing medical controversy surrounding pediatric transition.
That does not make Ossoff an extremist, much less negate his moderation elsewhere. But it does reveal a significant omission in the case for his “combative centrism.” Gender-identity ideology is one of the clearest examples of the Democratic Party adopting positions that are unpopular, difficult to defend and injurious to its broader coalition. A politician who follows party orthodoxy on these questions without serious qualification should not receive an unqualified centrist designation merely because he has broken with the left on an older and more familiar list of issues.
Thanks for your comment, Ollie. I should be clear: I didn’t say I believe Ossoff is definitely a centrist—in fact I mention that he holds some views that will appeal more to progressives than moderates—but rather that it seems he is attempting to embrace “combative centrism.” Very few Dems today are (or are running as) true centrists. So I use that term to mean that he is shifting toward the center, even though he is still to the left of the country. But I appreciate that that may not be clear in the piece.
And I took care to point out that he is on the 20% side of key 80–20 issues, specifically the ones you mention. He is taking some of the right steps to position himself closer to the middle of the electorate than other Democrats, but there is still plenty of fodder for Republicans to attack him with. (For what it’s worth, he rejected that full list of trendy positions I mentioned in the piece all the way back in 2020, so this isn’t just a new development. But I agree with you that rejecting excesses of one’s side =/= being a moderate.)
"[Trump] is literally closing rural clinics and hospitals to cut taxes for George Soros and Elon Musk." -- right Jon, obviously Trump and Soros are peas in a pod.
In other news, I hope centrists note the #metoo hypocrisy of Democrats/liberals going after Natalie Harp; does anyone believe that if she took flak from Republicans while working for Biden, the press wouldn't be surrounding her with Metoo shielding?
If she wrote those deranged love letters to Biden while working for him? Yes 100% that'd be all over Fox News, NewsMax, One, and the podcast circuit. And those are mainstream media, literally the most consumed media across the US.
Ossoff paired Soros with Musk, not Trump. Trump's policies shift national wealth into the pockets of the super-rich regardless of their party. Ossoff's point in including Soros was to show that Trump has governed on behalf his fellow billionaires without regard to their politics, and at the expense of ordinary Americans without regard to their politics.
This is what moderates of any political party do. They focus on the common ground that Americans share across factional divides.
As for Ms. Harp, I think Democratic politicians would have been disturbed and pushed back strongly to the White House if anything like this had occurred in Biden's case. It is so unlike Biden in character that it would have set off the alarms that should have been set off about his increasing senility. The Harp/Trump relationship is not just about an older male and a younger woman; it is about a narcissist philanderer and an idolator. The comparison you want is with Clinton and Ms. Lewinsky. The Democrats piled on Clinton appropriately (pre-#MeToo), but they badly failed to protect Lewinsky. Again, a situation quite different from the current one (but reflecting poorly on the Democrats of the mid-1990s).
You are either disingenuous or misinterpreting my points. For Ossoff to criticize Soros is to bite the hand that feeds him, though no one could for a moment truly believe Soros will cut him off. And my point about Harp and the press relates to the how the legacy/mainstream media are savaging a powerful woman -- not something they would have done to a Biden aide.
I have to admit, Mr. Kingsworthy, I find your comments, taken together, to be incoherent, so it is indeed likely I have misinterpreted you.
I myself do not believe that Soros would for a moment take issue with Ossoff's remark, or that Ossoff for a moment imagined that he would. You, however, indicated that Ossoff had said that Trump and Soros were "peas in a pod," which, where I come from, means that they are very much alike. I do think Soros would actually have objected strongly to that, but since Ossoff didn't say or imply it no hand was ever going to get bitten.
Your comment on the media and Harp does make me reflect. I focused on your "MeToo shielding" point. MeToo concerns believing women who expose harassment by a powerful man. Biden did encounter such a claim in 2020 from Tara Reade, a former low-level aide. Biden himself denied the charge, but also said that people should not dismiss it on his say so because it was always important to take women who claim harassment seriously, and he ordered that any evidence that the government had that would support her claim be revealed. Time Magazine quoted him as saying of voters, "I think they should vote their heart and if they believe Tara Reade, they probably shouldn't vote for me. I wouldn't vote for me if I believed Tara Reade." He also said, "I'm not going to go in and question her motive, not going to attack her. She has a right to say whatever she wants to say, but I have a right to say, look at the facts, check it out."
Now, the Harp situation is not like that and in taking your initial comment seriously I went instead to the most relevant instance in the case of a Democratic president, noting that while I think many Democrats failed to protect the woman (Monica Lewinsky) they did not fail to loudly criticize Clinton (while nevertheless supporting his reelection).
Upon further reflection, I think you are framing MeToo in the Harp case as concerning the role of the press as "harasser." That's not what MeToo is about, but perhaps I could rephrase your statement this way: "If a female aide to Biden had formed the same relationship to him as Harp has to Trump, Democrats would have labeled conservative (or, perhaps even mainstream) press attacks as misogynistic." That would, at least, be a coherent claim. I think that, in fact, both the mainstream press and Democrats would have been all over Biden for allowing such a relationship to develop and persist. I do not think the current negative depictions of Harp are in fact attacks on her so much as attacks on Trump for allowing the relationship to develop and persist, but I'd agree that they must surely be hurtful to Ms. Harp.
The press savaging Harp would be misogynistic if the victim was a liberal. Ossoff was playing games putting Soros and Musk together -- and credit where credit is due, it was probably smart politics. Clarifications provided for the benefit of anyone still reading this exchange.
Great article.
I would say to other commenters trying to handwave away Ossoff's centrist bonafides that at least when looking at the pattern of his sponsorship and cosponsorship of legislation, he is one of the most moderate members of the senate: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/jon_ossoff/456857
He is likely going to obliterate his opponent in the upcoming election in a purple state, and in doing so I think will be a solid indicator that confrontational centrism focused on the unprecedented corruption we are seeing carried out by the current administration and enabled by the present iteration of the GOP leadership is a far better route to political success than the less moderate-friendly DSA model.
His rejection and criticism of Piker shows sound judgment, and the uproar over his 'Natalie' comments is a bunch of disingenuous pearl-clutching, particularly once the complaints are set against everything Trump has said about his opponents, and everything Haberman and Swann have documented is going on in the Trump White House. (which should trouble everybody) Indeed, once you've read Natalie's actual letters, it should concern you that no one in Trump's orbit or Trump himself have recognized the unhealthy nature of her obsession with Trump, and maybe urged her to do something that will help her mental health, which is clearly not well. (I say that in all seriousness, not as a cheap shot--if she were my child or a friend of mine I would be worried about her)
I'm not focusing yet on 2028, as I tend to think it's too early for that, and there's a strong tendency among many to leap past the wins we had better achieve in 2026. That said, it's in your line, I 'm glad you weighed in, and I appreciate what you have to say. I have long had a positive view of Jon Ossoff, and so far, he has not disappointed, knock wood. I see him as substantive and dedicated to the public good. I do also have a friend whose judgment I trust who worked on Ossoff's first campaign, and what I'm seeing in him now comports with what my friend experienced then. I am hoping he wins by a big margin this November, and then we can see what the future holds for him (and us).
Ossoff's main concern on the Left is that he is Jewish. In a national race, that could be a primary deal-breaker.
On the Right, will he be another rubber-stamp partisan? His record is mixed here; he's no Fetterman. Of course, one could say the same about Collins and MAGA, just in the other direction. But gubernatorial candidate Geoff Duncan's sudden reassessment of his previous stock GOP positions when he became a Democrat is the kind of stuff that turns as many people off outside the party as it does to turn them on inside the party.
He is a formidable retail politician. His bashing of Musk and Soros in the same breath was a clever move. I would like to know how much money he is receiving from Soros though, directly or indirectly.
Two big things helping the Dems in GA: 1) A lot of the quality GOP candidates seem to be waiting on the sideline until Trump is out of the picture (e.g,, Kemp) and 2) Metro Atlanta becoming a magnet for progressive PMC types. #2 seems to be a megatrend, #1 will only last as long as MAGA does, and there seems to be no MAGA heir apparent (no, not Vance).
Margorie Taylor Green.
Think about this sentence that you wrote: "Then there is the elephant in the room: it remains to be seen whether Ossoff’s Jewish identity will be a liability for him at a time when Democrats’ souring views toward Israel may be engendering greater levels of antisemitism."
The very idea that we have to be calling Ossoff's "Jewish identity" an elephant in the room tells you everything you need to know about the miserable direction of the democratic party. Also, I don't like the term "Jewish identity." What does that mean? He identifies as Jewish, as a trans man identifies as a woman? He's Jewish. Just say it. Your language both trivializes who he is and attempts to make his Judaism less offensive to the radical left shitholes.
Yeah- no.
80/20 issues will sink them all
The fact that Ossoff is Jewish isn't a deal breaker, but the fact that he supports Israel's continued existence as a Jewish-majority state and opposes its replacement with an Arab-majority state is a deal-breaker for the progressive left wing of the Democratic Party. That seems to be The Litmus Test.
Hey Doug - Have you checked out where MAGA is on this (and just about everybody else - It's so wonderful Israel is bringing us all together)