I’m sure the Trump oppo research dept is digging up whatever they can find on Curbelo right now. He better hope his wife is unambiguously attractive or she’s in for a misogynistic tweet-storm.
Oh good, not much “dog face/slob/fat pig” fodder here for The Donald I guess.
P.S.-It’s a goddamned shame when you find yourself relieved a woman is “attractive” by today’s shallow norms because it means Donald Trump might leave her alone. Geez…
Wow! a GoPer with a BRAIN and a HEART!
Truly incredible in this day a time among the GoP brand.
I can’t say I blame him. He’s sitting in a South Florida (heavily Cuban), R +4 district that he won in 2014 by beating the incumbent Democrat. He represents an excellent opportunity for a Democratic pick up. Expect to see many more of these.
He’s already “clarifying”. It’s going to be a long season.
I was waiting for a Republican to make sense.
Because, logically, if you think Trump is just so beyond acceptability- just a complete disaster in the making - then you either have to support Hillary or not vote. Otherwise, your protestations ring hollow.
"What I’ve said publicly over and over again to the media is
I will not support Mr. Trump under any circumstances.
That does not mean automatically supporting Hillary Clinton.”
Just need statements like Rep Curbelo’s to keep making MSM news-cycles with regularity.
These are the type of soundbites that fence-sitting (I)s need to hear.
Peel off 5% of the those undecideds–
and we could see down-ticket races being affected–
where CW thought not.
jw1
He know that’s voting for Trump would be an immoral decision. That’s a nice first step. However, if it is immoral to vote for Trump, it would be equally immoral to not vote for Clinton. Mathematically speaking, not voting or voting for a third party in a contest between Trump and Clinton is like giving Trump half a vote. Half of immoral is still immoral. That goes for you too, Jill Stein voters.
Good, if true. Of course there’s no way to verify this on election day.
Agree in full. It is almost shocking that an R would even admit to knowing a woman in Key West who runs a woman’s clinic much less actually talk to one without mansplaining something or other.
Yeah, sure he will. If voter privacy is protected, how’s he going to prove it? I don’t believe a thing that comes out of most Republican politicians’ mouths, especially the ones who vote against the needs and wants of their own constituents. Fuck them.
LOL…heads are exploding all over Faux News right now because they just announced that Obama killed ISIS’s #2.
Why didn’t he kill the #1 guy? Lame.
It doesn’t really matter; just saying these things out loud is worth a thousand votes, since it will probably affect many other disaffected GOP voters.
I think these reports often prove untrue. 6 months from now they’ll finger this same #2 as behind some new bombing.
“We though we got this guy, but we didn’t. Nevermind.”
What the hell the fanfare about killing #1 or #2 or #3 eludes me. If you took out the CEO of Dow Chemical it wouldn’t mean the company would fold their tent and close shop. There’s all this emphasis on getting chief operatives, which I suppose serves a legitimate strategic goal, but it’s doesn’t address the fact there are dozens of people within whatever terrorist group you’re dealing with that are ready to move up the ladder. Al Qaeda and the Taliban still cause us no end of problems and we wiped out an entire players deck of bad guys a dozen years ago. Color me unimpressed when we bag a 1 or 2 or 3. So what?
I remember a tradition started during the Iraq war about killing the #3 guy in Al-Qaeda, which we proceeded to do - once every Friedman unit - for the duration.
Yeah, I came to think of Al Qaeda as a bank, having a couple dozen vice-presidents. You could kill a #2 three times a month because there evidently were 30 of them.
I saw it more as Whack-A-Mole. As soon as you knock off #3 or #2, #4 or #3 is just waiting in the wings to move up the ladder.
I’m surprised anyone would want a job that had such a short term of employment.