Here’s Why I Never Warmed Up to Bernie Sanders

Related Post Roulette

22 Responses

  1. Avatar greginak says:

    Agreed. A couple things. What seems clear from looking at what the repubs/tea party have accomplished in teh last 7 years is on some big things they care about they have lost bad and some issues they are slowly boring at hard wood. Revolutions sound great but are either bloody and messy or fizzle and don’t deliver. It is about slow changes and long hard work.

    The other thing that has left me feel meh about Bernie at times is the righteous insistence about how he is free from special interests. First “special interest” are groups you don’t’ like. They may be rich people/groups, who i think have to much power, but special interest itself has little meaning other then saying someone is a bad guy. Every prez needs the support of various interest groups, all of which can be called a special interest by someone. Hills doesn’t’ need to be prez to swim in money; she can serve on boards and make anodyne speeches around the world and rake in the dough. The groups that support her and donate are the same kind of people she has always been partial to based on her ideology.Report

  2. Avatar dexter says:

    Yeah, we should settle like we did in 68 when we settled for HH and got five more years of bloody stupid war and a million dead Vietnamese, dead presidents in foreign countries that were democratically elected and a US president that tried to over throw the constitution.
    This time we will have to settle for another neocon who will coddle the banks and thinks the idea man for Nixon’s foreign policy was a great secretary of state. So we will get more Libya and Honduras fiascos. I am so looking forward to it.
    Or we could settle for a racist misogynist individual that really believes that all undocumented people working here are raping murderers. Trump is a really gross human being.Report

    • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to dexter says:

      Do you really think tha Humphrey would have been worse on Vietnam than Nixon? Nixon’s handling and expansion of Vietnam allowed Pol Pot to take over Cambodia. He also intentionally hampered peace negotiations to win the Presidency.

      On the domestic issues, Humphrey would have continued the Great Society more than Nixon. He would have also appointed liberals to the Supreme Court.

      There also would be no Watergate.Report

      • Avatar dexter in reply to LeeEsq says:

        @leeesq, I think Hubert “light at the end of the tunnel” Humphrey would have been vastly superior to Richard “peace with honor” Nixon. But I think McCarthy would have been vastly superior to HH. That’s all I am saying. I hate Nixon and Kissinger with the heat of seven O stars.
        I don’t think Clinton will lose to Trump, but I would prefer Sanders and don’t think we should settle. Clinton’s ideas are just more neocon pretend to be democrat while bombing places we have no business bombing.Report

        • Avatar James K in reply to dexter says:

          @dexter

          This is a fair point. Drum’s article focuses on economic policy, and on that front he makes a good point – for Sanders to implement his economic polices he would need the cooperation of a lot of people who have no inclination or incentive to cooperate with him.

          But on foreign policy he would have a lot more autonomy, theoretically Congress could force his hand by declaring war, but Congress reasserting its war powers would at least be a step in the right direction.

          Basically, if you want Sanders to start an economic revolution Drum is right, you’re not going to get it. But if you want a less belligerent foreign policy, then I can see why the prospect of President Sanders would be appealing.Report

          • Avatar InMD in reply to James K says:

            I think the premise of your own point (which is correct) is what proves Drum’s ultimate argument here wrong. Constitutionally Clinton and Sanders would be under the same constraints when it comes to domestic policy. Neither of them is likely to have a friendly Congress and even if they did neither of them are going to be able to implement their domestic economic policies in anything remotely resembling what they say they want.

            For some reason we insist on pretending during presidential elections that we’re picking a king who with the wave if a hand can make anything happen but that’s not the case. On those matters where the president has most control (like foreign policy) Sanders is an infinitely superior candidate. The criticisms Drum makes of Sanders’ economic policy preferences apply equally to Clinton but he, like the rest of the non-conservative media, is invested in a Clinton victory so of course he lacks that type of perspective.Report

          • Avatar dexter in reply to James K says:

            @james-k, I don’t expect a revolution or do I really want one, but a different attitude about fraud would be a bonus. The new president could appoint an AG that would not settle multi-billion dollar fraud cases by fining the miscreants pennies on the dollar of profit. It would make my day to see some of those masters of the universe doing hard time in Leavenworth and serving tea to 400 pound serial killers.
            The government just made another case against a bank and they fined them less than half of years net and let the bank use the fine as a tax write off. That is not right and a good president could put an end to some of that.
            Holder settled a case about laundering money for the drug cartels. He fined them and said America can’t put them in jail because that would hurt business. Then he went to work for the banks.Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko in reply to dexter says:

      So have we reached this point for you yet?

      Report

      • Avatar dexter in reply to Burt Likko says:

        @burt-likko, I did vote for Nader in 2000, but only because I live in a state where the blues have as much chance of winning an election as I do beating Lebron James one on one. If I lived in Florida I would have voted for Gore.
        I sincerely hope that Sanders does not run as a third party candidate.Report

        • Avatar Morat20 in reply to dexter says:

          By the time California votes, just getting on the ballot in most states would be a difficult to impossible challenge.

          Worst he could do is play “a pox upon both your houses, my supporters should say screw you to both parties and stay home!” which I don’t see him doing.

          Unlike, say, Trump, Sanders can’t really convince himself that he got screwed out of the election.Report

          • Avatar North in reply to Morat20 says:

            Also, let us be clear, Bernie has been pretty up front in saying that he will support the eventual nominee and he’s run his campaign from the getgo in a manner designed to minimize self inflicted wounds. I’d be utterly astonished if he refused to pull with the Dems once the contest is over; his entire MO this campaign has been suggesting the opposite.Report

            • Avatar Alan Scott in reply to North says:

              Disagreed. I think that was maybe true in March, but it certainly isn’t true today. I think his campaign has done a lot of damage to Clinton.

              The problem is, Bernie’s only real selling point was the illegitimacy of Clinton. His suggestions that his specific policy ideas were better was always pretty flimsy. It was always about how Hillary is the kind of candidate to take money from Goldman Sachs, and Bernie isn’t. That someone engaged in the political system and the political status quo wasn’t able to do the job in ways that actually help the American people. He got slapped when he actually used the words, but his entire selling point was that Hillary was unqualified to be president. And the longer he stayed in the race, the more he had to lean on that, because he didn’t have anything else that worked.

              Was he polite when he said it? Sure. But no amount of politeness in the phrasing heals the rifts caused by the idea.Report

            • Avatar notme in reply to North says:

              Just b/c Bernie may support the nominee doesn’t mean his supporters will. He was on NPR saying that it’s up to Hillary to convince them to vote for her, not him.Report

  3. It’s very unfair that Tina Fey had to spend an hour in hair and makeup to do Sarah Palin, but Larry David didn’t even have to change his voice to be Bernie.Report

  4. Avatar Kazzy says:

    (Something seems off with the formatting here, though damned if I know what to do about it!)Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *