I'm predicting, with great confidence, the GOP opposition research machine is hard at work right now. They're scrutinizing the writings and pictures of every Democrat. All of their school newspapers and yearbooks. They're looking at every appearance and photo they can find.

If I were them, I'd find the most controversial stuff and hold on to it for the last few months of the general election. Maybe some stuff can be released during the primaries to manipulate who becomes the nominee. The Flores/Biden allegations may be just that.

Who can blame them for this strategy? It works beautifully. If you think Roger Stone is idle right now you're not thinking. I'd guess there's a "Leeann Tweeden" sort of kindling out there to start a fire for just about any candidate. Someone or something Stone or his one of his type, working with the GOP, can throw out there to get a good scandal under way. FOX will feature it 24x7 and then the rest of the "media" will have to cover it.

The real question is: Are we going to let them get away with it? Are we going to allow a "But her e-mails" October Surprise again this time to swing the election? It's clear that no amount of dirt and abhorrent behavior will ever bring down Trump.

We have to stop jumping on the GOP assassination squad every time they start a scandal. We have to start standing behind our people until there is more than a bunch of accusations. No, I'm not saying we have to support a sexual assault predator like a Trump, a Kavanaugh or a Roy Moore. I'm saying there is a huge difference between the validity of the allegations we accept as true, then dispose of a candidate and the reality of the candidate's behavior. I think everyone here on DU is familiar with the fact eye-witness testimony is the least reliable form of testimony. Ten people in the same situation will see the same event in ten different ways. None of them are lying or intentionally misrepresenting the event. We allow the GOP to use this with the accusations of people like Franken. Then, when there is a Kavanaugh, they use this to foster the "he-said/she-said" arguments and get away with it. Even though, when it comes to the GOP, there is usually a huge amount of corroborating evidence against the accused.

For a non-sexual assault example, think about VA Gov. Ralph Northam. Everyone wanted him to resign over 35-year-old pictures. Yes, they were racist photos. But they were from 35 years ago. No one wanted to stand up and say "Hey, wait a minute. Let's look at his record." Which, by the way, is clearly the opposite of a racist, white supremacist. We supported that GOP scandal and ratfuck.

Then there are the policy disagreements. The GOP knows we like to have purity in our candidates. Well, that's not going to happen. Do I love the "hard on crime" stuff Harris did while she was a prosecutor? Hell no, I don't. That's not going to stop me from supporting her if she's the nominee. I realize at the time and place she did that it was probably the best way to continue being prosecutor. Does that make her an opportunist - hell yes. But, FFS, ALL politicians are opportunists at some point.

We have to stop reacting to every piece of meat they throw out the way Lindsey Graham acts to affection from Trump. We can't get all spun up about every. single. thing.


-- Now, go ahead and pile on me and tell me how we have to be better than them. Note, I never said we didn't need to be better. I just said we need to be fair and confirm accusations, confirm racism and bigotry before we throw people away.

Think about how they've said Mueller has overstepped his mandate. If the rest of the indictments come from SDNY and others they won't be able to make the case indictments about his foundation and taxes, etc. are improper because they came from Muller. Coming from regular prosecutors with obvious jurisdiction they are solid.

I think, if people were honest, they'd acknowledge a major reason Ilhan Omar gets so much crap is she wants to talk about how the STATE of Israel and the hard-right in Israel treat Palestinians.

Her words may not be the most eloquent, nor the most well thought out when she speaks. So people take advantage of the fact she isn't polished in her presentation. They take her not-so-great wording and twist what she means to be what they want it to mean so they can discredit her and take her down before she can actually make us have that difficult discussion no one wants to have.

I don't know a lot of people here who are fond of Netanyahu and his far-right coalition. THAT'S who she's talking about when she makes statements. She's not talking about all Jewish people as a class. People know that if they're not being intellectually dishonest. But the politicians in DC, and many people here on DU do not want to have any discussion about whether or not the STATE of Israel and the hard-right in Israel, treat Palestinians poorly. I know I avoid the topic almost completely because I don't want to risk being banned for being called anti-Semitic.

Just as the Trump and the hard-right in the US deserve to be called out for their treatment of minorities, so too does Netanyahu and the hard-right of Israel for their treatment of people.