Something something feet of clay and all that.
Democratic Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders said he wouldn’t end the lethal drone program on Sunday in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos.
“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said. “What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective.”
Well yeah, if they weren’t effective, they wouldn’t be used at all. Of course, there are people who would prefer that military drones would in fact not be used.
Bernie ain’t one of them, just so you know.
gussie
And there are people who are satisfied with the current number of innocent people killed. Perhaps Bernie ain’t one of them, either.
marduk
Nobody anywhere thinks that drones should never be used for any reason ever.
Bobby Thomson
I feel a great disturbance in the Internets, as though tens of firebaggers suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
You’d better get on with your exercises.
Mike J
He sold us under the veal pen!
rikyrah
He also had no problem with keeping militias armed within the USA…
I’m just sayin’.
Bobby Thomson
Ah, so the solution to the cognitive dissonance is that no one ever opposed drooooooooooonz. Got it.
Gin & Tonic
Let’s just drop bombs and fire dumb artillery instead, like the good Lord intended. That’ll be better.
Watchman
Most people understand that views “evolve”.
Your junior high school petulance is pretty constant, however.
Cacti
This bothers me not at all.
OTOH, his petition for a conscientious objector exemption from the Vietnam draft is a touch concerning.
The legal requirement for CO status is that you oppose serving in a war under any circumstance, even if to repel a hostile invasion or a domestic insurrection.
Somewhat of a problematic position for someone who is running to be Commander in Chief of the U.S. armed forces.
John O
I would use drones to get bad guys if I was President. I’ve never been sold on any of the alternatives, and there are people in need of being removed.
trollhattan
Also, too, feel the Mittmentum.
With each passing week, the Republican Titanic gets smaller and the iceberg gets larger.
John O
@Cacti: Right. Much more problematic!
gene108
Bernie was also not one of the zero Senators, who agreed with President Obama in allocating funds to move GITMO prisoners to an Illinois Supermax, i.e. he voted with everyone else to keep GITMO where it is.
guachi
I’d rather a drone be used than a manned craft with a much lower dwell time on target. I’d also rather have a small unmanned aircraft than a larger easier to spot airplane.
Derelict
I’m trying to figure out what you might think is the proper moral position here. As a commander in war, if I have the ability to send a bomb, bullet, or missile to kill “the bad guys” instead of putting one or more of my men in danger, you can bet I’ll be using a drone. So I’m pretty sure you’re not advocating that we never use drones under any circumstances.
But from there, we start descending into shades of gray and moral certainty becomes much less, well, certain. I think Bernie’s stance (barring further elucidation) is reasonable: Drones are a tool we can use, but we’ve been using them very indiscriminantly and killing and maiming people we shouldn’t, and killing people in countries with which we are not at war.
Watchman
Case in point: what is the purpose of this thread other than to try to start a circular firing squad?
How does that help inform anyone, or contribute to the debate over who the Democrats should nominate next year?
Bobby Thomson
@Derelict: war means killing people we shouldn’t. Military action means killing people we shouldn’t. Bernie is being naive in suggesting that drone strikes can be done with zero collateral damage. The options are do nothing, drones, humans on the ground (who also make mistakes), or conventional bombing that kills even more people.
Mike J
If Bernie’s run does nothing but shut up the people who who think remotely piloting a plane is uniquely evil, he’ll have done some good.
Cacti
In 2006, Congressman Sanders also voted “aye” on the following Republican amendment to a DHS appropriations bill:
The most liberalist candidate ever supported the Minutemen border thugs.
John O
@Watchman: Oh, jeez, here I was taking it for granted this was just another way-too-early, nothing better to talk about circle jerks in the first place.
In any case, this one’s easy for me, Bernie as the last honest man in Washington gets my primary vote.
Digger O'Dell
If Hillary had said this, we’d never hear the end of it from the Feel-the-Bern types.
Chris
@trollhattan:
Because if there’s one thing the Republican voters want to see right now, it’s the “RINO” “moderate” “Republican who can win” the Establishment sold them three years ago, that they voted for while holding their noses, and who went on to lose anyway.
I’d be thrilled. I got a lot of schadenfreude out of watching Romney get slapped down by That One, I’d get a lot of it from watching it happen again, this time at Donald Trump’s hands.
Cervantes
@Watchman:
The word “baiting” comes to mind.
Brachiator
@Gin & Tonic:
This.
I get so weary with dumb ass mutha fukkers who act as though drones were some extra special death ray that was the only device that had ever been invented.
@Cacti
Is CO status permanent? I guess it makes for an interesting theoretical discussion, and maybe some voters would hold it against him. Doesn’t mean anything with respect to constitutional requirements to be president.
Marmot
Please pardon my ignorance here, but are drones supposed to be worse somehow from the usual manned-aircraft-style bombing and artillery shelling? I’ve never understood that.
EDIT: I see Gin&Tonic has a similar comment. So … no?
Mandalay
@Cacti:
Oh bullshit. Sanders had the stones to openly oppose an absurd and evil invasion of a country on the other side of the world. Meanwhile pseudo-patriots like Cheney and the Bush pretended to support war, while doing all they could to avoid going themselves.
Sanders is exactly the kind of principled person we need as president. We won’t get suckered into mindless pointless wars every time our fragile national pride gets hurt by some nasty brown people.
Cervantes
@Mike J:
I don’t know of anyone who thinks that. Do you?
Watchman
@Cervantes: Lots of other words about the thread’s author come to mind as well.
I suppose every group needs a Ralph Wiggum.
Cacti
@Brachiator:
I don’t see an easy way for him to square the circle of being morally opposed to personal participation in war, but just aces with sending other people to fight and die in them.
moderateindy
I just don’t get people’s problems with drones. They seem to be the best alternative when it comes to surgical strikes. If your alternative is to do nothing at all, that’s a reasonable argument, which I would disagree with, but understand. But if we are pursuing this strategy of going after these guys, drones make the most sense. Putting in ground forces put solsdiers lives in danger, and probably isn’t much better as far as collateral damage is concerned. Bombing, or missiles would kill more innocent people. So logically drones make the most sense. The alternative is to do nothing militarily, which is not the best strategt IMO.
So Cole what say you? What actions would you take to solve the problem, or do you think we should do nothing?
Yatsuno
@Watchman:
Soon as he becomes a Democrat I’ll consider his candidacy. Until then he’s a sandbagging opportunist without the courage to run as an independent. And yes it matters.
bystander
If only Bernie’s dad could have gotten him a cushy berth with the Brooklyn Air National Guard, we could be spared the embarrassment of his CO application. Or he could have just gotten his girlfriend pregnant and married her. Or shat his pants for a week and showed up for his physical.
Seems to lack the wiles and cunning to be a successful POTUS.
Davis X. Machina
@Marmot:
Yes. They’re not sporting. No pilot is risking his or her life.
Mandalay
@Watchman:
It’s worthless, and the OP is just engaging in some cowardly and lazy trolling.
Mike J
@Yatsuno:
Of course it matters. If it didn’t matter, he’d call himself a Democrat.
Cervantes
@Bobby Thomson:
And what does “war crime” mean?
Cacti
@Mandalay:
CO doesn’t mean philosophically opposed to serving in some wars. It means philosophically opposed to participating in any war, for any reason, under any circumstances. It makes no distinction between Iraq, Vietnam, or WWII.
Watchman
@Yatsuno: After he starts winning primaries, will he be good enough? Hillary is fading quickly in N.H. and Iowa.
Bobby Thomson
@Mandalay: he didn’t oppose an evil invasion. He opposed any war, full stop, including the American Revolution, the Civil War, WWII, and the Star Wars trilogy (at least in principle – some people believing in just wars were coached to say the right things). Presumably he is no longer a complete pacifist, based on his actions in Congress alone. But people who would be persuaded by something that happened over 50 years ago ain’t voting for Bernie anyway.
Amir Khalid
@trollhattan:
The party establishment needs someone who can shout down Donald Trump. Mitt Romney has other merits, but not that one.
Watchman
@Mandalay: This is far from the first time either.
It’s pretty sad, really.
NonyNony
@Marmot:
No.
But there are many folks on the left who somehow think that “drones” controlled via a remote pilot in Virginia and dropping bombs on wedding parties is eleventy-billion times worse than having a guy in a bomber dropping bombs on wedding parties. Many of these folks who scream about drones also appear to be the same people who think Bernie Sanders would be a million times more awesome as President than Barack Obama has been.
I have never, ever understood this position. It makes zero sense and has never made any sense. The problem is the dropping of bombs on wedding parties, not whether the thing dropping the bombs is controlled by a pilot physically flying above the wedding party or a pilot sitting in a chair in Virginia.
(And Sanders would do exactly what Hillary Clinton would do and what Barack Obama has done about dropping bombs on wedding parties – try to extricate ourselves from the Middle East as much as possible and in the mean time continue to drop bombs that will accidentally hit wedding parties. Because the only way to instantly shift US foreign policy positions in the Middle East is to inject a whole lot of chaos a la George W Bush. You can’t get out of disastrous wars by doing what W did as President – it’s the kind of thing that only works to get into disastrous wars.)
Bobby Thomson
@Cervantes: intentionally killing people we shouldn’t and losing the war.
There’s no such thing as a clean war.
Marmot
@Davis X. Machina: Good answer, sarcastic or not. Artillery it is!
Mike J
@Cervantes:
Generally speaking, targeting people you shouldn’t.
Origuy
@Davis X. Machina: Before WWI, a lot of people in the Royal Navy thought submarines weren’t sporting. It didn’t stop the Germans.
Mandalay
@Cacti:
Clinton and GW Bush fit your description perfectly, yet you only have problems with Sanders? You are the one with a circle squaring problem.
Sherparick
@Cacti: If Vietnam was being fought by professional soldiers and not draftees, I understand your point of view. But Vietnam was about drafting, particularly those not politically connected or savy (see Bush, Cheney, Qualye, Rove, etc.) and sending them to kill people who were literally fighting for the independence of their country. It was a cause that had more than few human rights blemishes of its own, but then most independence movements have that problem (see Ireland, “The Troubles”). Looking back on it, I can’t think of a more awful cause, at least since the Philippine Insurrection, which at least was fought with volunteers and professionals.
Of course if Vietnam had been fought only with volunteers and professionals, we have been there 10 years longer, if not still there. (Look how long we will be staying in Iraq and Afghanistan.)
Reference drones, they are not different in kind then any other U.S. effort at killing the designated enemies of the country. The question should be, whether it is drones or dumb bombs or bayonets, is “should we be murdering people on behalf of the State in this particular circumstance?” Because, as Sherman said, that is the essence of war, murder of other human beings and risking your own death or dismemberment, along with that of your friends and colleagues in the process. “Its glory is all moonshine.” Like Sherman, this is a is pretty high bar for me now, usually nothing less than the survival or protection of the U.S. and its citizens from a direct threat. In Afghanistan, and perhaps with ISIS, I can see it being met. In Pakistan, Yemen, and the rest of the world – No, not on what I know now.
Yatsuno
@Watchman: Nope. He has had nothing to do with building up smaller tier candidates. He has no party affiliation and therefore will have no coattails and no guarantee of a lower Congressional victory/improvement. He will become the defacto leader of which party exactly? His own? How does he shepherd legislation through Congress?
FlipYrWhig
@Cervantes:
ISTR page upon page of comments hither and yon around the blogosphere about “Flying Death Robots.” So, yeah, there are many people who think it, or profess to think it. (The real issues then as now: (1) civilian casualties, (2) oversight over any President’s ability to target individuals.)
Amir Khalid
@Watchman:
Is Bernie gaining ground anywhere else, in addition to those two states?
Cacti
@Mandalay:
So the best defense you can come up with for the paragon of progressive purity is “Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did it too”?
Peale
@Cacti: I do have to say that whether Sanders or Trump or Bush or Clinton (although not so much but her husband), I am not looking forward to Vietnam and what people did during it returning yet again as a presidential election issue.
Archon
@Mandalay:
I’m confused, is Bernie Sanders position on a controversial issue like drones irrelevant to whether he should be the Democratic nominee or not?
Marmot
@NonyNony: That’s pretty much as I figured.
Drones : Terminators :: Clones : Zombies
I wonder what proportion of anti-drone folks are anti-vax.
Back in Gulf War 1, I remember an anti-war activist campaigning against “smart bombs.” Oddly similar.
WereBear
@Cervantes: Thank you for letting me know about how Safari works for you on the iPad. I appreciate it!
pluege
not true, at least not in the military/strategic sense. They could be completely useless, but because they cost a lot of money, including the weapons replacement, using them regardless of effectiveness still has the benefit of putting taxpayer money into the pockets of the 1%. Military goodies, once paid for are no longer of use to the 1%. The toys must be used up so the 1% can make money providing replacements.
Bobby Thomson
@Watchman: you again? Sheesh.
Cacti
@Amir Khalid:
I’ve not seen any recent polling for Nevada or South Carolina, which are the next two after IA and NH.
Those would also be the first real tests of whether he had any significant black or Hispanic voter support.
Brachiator
@Cacti:
Again, it depends on whether you think that being a CO means “forever and ever and ever,” or whether a person can change his or her views.
And I suppose someone could ask him in an interview or a debate, and then you could judge his answer. Until then, the dilemma you see is more theoretical than anything else.
BTW, would a committed pacifist be unqualified to be president in your eyes?
Mike J
@Amir Khalid:
I remember well Howard Dean’s polling in Iowa. He got out the vote in Iowa City and Ames, not so well in places that didn’t have a university.
Mandalay
@Watchman:
Indeed. I understand that there must be times when OPs are just not in the mood to post, or have nothing to say. In that case just post an open thread. But to lob a smear bomb without any supporting argument, which is what this OP does, is just craven and contemptible.
geg6
@Bobby Thomson:
@Mike J:
Seriously. You guys made me LOL at work.
Anoniminous
@Amir Khalid:
AFAIK, the only polls are national, Iowa, and New Hampshire. PPP willing be polling South Carolina this weekend.
Mandalay
@Cacti: I’m just pointing out that you are coming across as a wacko with a grudge over what Sander did fifty years ago.
ribber
“Well yeah, if they weren’t effective, they wouldn’t be used at all. ”
Pretty sure torture, especially waterboarding, the kind used by the Inquisition and North Korea to elicit false confessions, were not effective for our purported purpose of intelligence-gathering. And yet we used it anyway despite its ineffectiveness, so I wouldn’t be making that logical leap.
Belafon
I had seen this article, I would have posted it for the following reason: To find out just how many people will start to think that Sanders isn’t left enough for them. My view of this point in time of the election is that it’s more about watching other people than watching the candidates.
geg6
@Watchman:
What the hell are you talking about? I get from my progressive “betters” all the time that I am being drummed out of liberalism (no, I don’t call myself a “progressive” because I’ve never been embarrassed to be a liberal, unlike those progressive “betters”) because I am not out there screaming about “feeling the Bern!” all day long and that I have praised Hillary for some things. Well, this just goes to show them that he’s not the purity pony they think he is. Though they’ll likely ignore it because it doesn’t fit their narrative for him and because they are really no different from the crazies on the opposite side of the ideological divide.
FTR, I’m not sold on either one, though if I had to choose one today, I’d vote Hillary just because I can’t stand the crowd that Bernie Sanders seems to be attracting. The typical holier-and-more progressive-than-thou assholes who have no idea who Bernie actually is or what he supports (or not).
Emma
I don’t expect a candidate to share all my views. Drones are down my list of must-haves in a candidate.
@geg6: Ditto.
Amir Khalid
@Yatsuno:
This is a very important consideration when you’re picking a president in the American system: whether a given candidate has the political and other resources to achieve a stated agenda. I see here a lot of Bernie people rhapsodising over his pure leftiness, preferring it to Hilary’s perceived centrism. But without enough allies in Congress, Bernie will find it hard to make his legislative-agenda items happen.
Obama has had way more allies there, and he had a hard fight to get Obamacare passed. If I were an American liberal, I’d readily give up a little ideological purity for more ability to get things though Congress.
geg6
@Cervantes:
Are you new here?
Bobby Thomson
@Mandalay: the nerve of Zandar, defaming Sanders by quoting him accurately. What does people knowing one of the candidate’s opinions on a matter of public policy really accomplish? Let’s stop the circular firing squad and get back to talking about Hillary’s email.
geg6
@Yatsuno:
Yup. So sick of so-called Democrats who refuse to back an actual Democrat.
geg6
@Watchman:
Nope. He won’t be good enough for me. If he doesn’t change his party affiliation, I won’t be voting for him in any election. Ever.
sparrow
@Cacti: I don’t think Sanders can honestly be sold as some kind of war-mongering candidate. Seriously? Wacko with a grudge indeed.
I’m not happy that drones are being used way more than they should be, and that civilians and innocents are dying. That sucks. I think arguing no one should use drones ever would be an idiotic stance for a presidential candidate in 2015.
geg6
@Amir Khalid:
Short answer: No. And there is some question as to how well he’ll even do in those two states.
Cacti
@Amir Khalid:
At present, Sanders hasn’t received even a single endorsement from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, despite being the only Senator who belongs to it. It’s not a small caucus either. 69 members, including Sanders.
sparrow
@geg6: Who gives a shit about party affiliation, honestly? Issues are what matter. The parties are a corrupt system and the democrats are as complicit as the republicans in keeping our semi-democracy just that (I am not saying there are no good dems or that they are not better options, just that 99% of them are in it primarily for personal gain and want to keep the system exactly as is). I was forced to register as a dem to vote in the primaries in Maryland, but a much more reasonable system would be open primaries like California has. Then I would go back to being a proud Indy.
Bobby Thomson
@geg6: oh, he’ll win New Hampshire and at least finish a very close second in Iowa. His rallies in South Carolina looked pretty white.
Cacti
@sparrow:
Only Sanders supporters are calling names in this thread.
But criticism of Bernie makes you a “wacko” with a grudge.
Gotcha.
Belafon
@Amir Khalid:
I saw a great quote from someone at the IAEA in regards to the Iran negotiations that I’m trying to find again. He said he was wary of people who follow ideologies because that tended to be replaced by egoes. It applies in a lot of cases.
geg6
@sparrow:
I do. It matters to me. I work hard, within the party, to get as many of them elected as I can. And your “both sides are the same” shit is the biggest, stupidest and most morally corrupt stance I can ever imagine. You aren’t on my side. You want to be considered a special snowflake, never sullied by anything as nasty as a party. That way, you can go around acting morally superior, as if you have no personal blame or stake in what happens to the rest of us.
Parties matter. If they don’t matter to you, you’re not on my side. Which means you are the enemy, just as much as the GOP is.
Mandalay
@Yatsuno:
You’ve nailed my biggest concern about Sanders. I’m amazed that he seems to be getting a free ride over that.
Cacti
@sparrow:
People who are registered members of a political party?
geg6
@Bobby Thomson:
Don’t be so sure about either NH or IA. But he won’t get much at all in SC.
Davis X. Machina
@Cacti
The Congressional Progressive Congress is the largest Democratic membership caucus in Congress, and 4x the size of the Blue Dogs, this despite the Democrats constantly lurching rightwards over the last ten years.(1)
(1) as reported by every progressive blog in captivity. Oh, and the DLC folded in 2011.
Davis X. Machina
@Marmot: Only over open sights. Indirect fire isn’t terribly sporting either.
Cacti
@geg6:
If he doesn’t win either New Hampshire or Iowa, he’s finished.
Peale
@Yatsuno: I agree. Unfortunately there are lots of voters who think the parties are part of the problem and for some reason, want to offer up the Democratic one. Maybe they assume the Republicans will nicely follow suit eventually.
priscianus jr
@Cacti: I don’t see an easy way for him to square the circle of being morally opposed to personal participation in war, but just aces with sending other people to fight and die in them.
He wasn’t “morally opposed to personal participation in war”. For that reason he was not granted CO status. He only applied for it, and he did that because he was morally opposed to participation in that particular war.
Mike J
@sparrow:
No, you weren’t. You were forced to register as a Democrat if you wanted to help choose the leader of the Democratic party. If you want to choose the leader of some other party, register as a member of that party.
Open primaries are an awful idea. If you aren’t a member of the party, why should you get to decide its leadership? I don’t get to vote on the leadership of the John Birch Society or the LDS Church. Why should people who aren’t Democrats get to vote on the leader of my party?
kdaug
Stone knives and bearskins, the new Queensberry rules.
Paint your faces with dung, boys, it’s time to go to war! Guns, germs, and steel absolutely unallowed!
priscianus jr
@Mandalay: You’ve nailed my biggest concern about Sanders. I’m amazed that he seems to be getting a free ride over that.
Imagine that, the guy actually wants to win.
Cacti
@Mike J:
I guess it’s possible that the local DNC precinct committee chair held a gun to sparrow’s head and made them register as a Democrat.
Cacti
@priscianus jr:
It’s a shot in the dark, but maybe, just maybe there’s a correlation between Sanders spending the last 25 years saying he’s not a Democrat, and the complete lack of endorsements from any former or current Democratic officeholders for his campaign.
kdaug
Reference 1
Mandalay
@priscianus jr:
Sure he does. But Sanders is not a Democrat, and he doesn’t want to be a Democrat. That position is far more problematic for me than his positions on drones or Vietnam.
Bobby Thomson
@Mandalay: to the contrary, I’m happy he’s not an egotist like Nader and actually doesn’t want a Republican to be elected.
kdaug
Reference 2
Bobby Thomson
@priscianus jr: thank you for that information. That makes more sense.
kdaug
Reference 3
dedc79
@geg6:
I’m reminded of Homer Simpson’s great quote: “To alcohol, the cause of and solution to all of life’s problems”
The Democratic Party is a big problem: Just yesterday everyone was talking about what a sellout and worthless person Debbie Wasserman Schultz is. In the days/weeks before that, we had countless posts about what an awful democratic senate leader Schumer will be. In contrast,
Sanders, regardless of his official affiliation, has been more loyal to the supposed progressive ideals of the democratic party than most democrats in the house and senate. Ignoring this problem, or grouping those who have concerns about the direction of the party in with the enemy, is unhelpful.
THAT SAID, the democratic party remains the best solution available. We don’t have the luxury of ditching the democratic party. We have to work with it, because the only other party out there with any sway is simply too much of a danger to this country and its future.
ETA: This is perhaps a distinction without a difference to some, but I consider myself a progressive who nearly always votes for democrats. I do not identify as a Democrat even though I’ve never voted for a Republican.
kdaug
War. War never changes.
Skippy-san
I’m fine with that. Bernie is on the right side of US domestic issues-and like it or not there are some real thugs out there in the world that deserve a drone strike, or more. I am not proposing 1000’s of Soldiers on the ground and neither is Bernie. But as President he would have to respond to attacks on Americans-and its good to know he has thought about it.
HR Progressive
The current use of the drone program sounds like it has to change. Innocent people should not be obliterated with the alarming frequency that we’ve seen over the past 15 years.
That said, the idea of “DRONES IZ BAD NO DRONES EVAR” being a part of United States foreign and military policy…I wouldn’t call that “as bad” as the horrors they’ve wrought over the past decade and a half, no, but I’d call it a pretty bad idea as well.
Increase the intel, and blow up only sadistic fucks instead of, say, wedding parties? Bomb’s away. I’m sorry if that’s a little too realpolitik for some of you.
kdaug
Alternatively.
(May have had a hand in that one)
dedc79
This sure sounds to me like a criticism from the left of the Obama administration’s drone policy. If you think Sanders doesn’t go far enough, and this is something that’s of critical importance to you, then how can you in good conscience consider voting for Hillary Clinton?
Davis X. Machina
@dedc79: Parties are porous — at least the local Democrats are. More porous than the Freemasons, or the GOP, anyways. I am a county and town Democratic committeeman, and frequent state convention delegate, even though I pay dues to be a member in another party altogether.
They don’t seem to care much.
Amir Khalid
Does Bernie intend to be an independent President, should it be he that takes the oath of office in 2017? How would he govern then? As I understand, the last independent President was George Washington, and the political scene was different then.
jl
@dedc79: I don’t understand the continued fuss about the ‘registered Democrat’ issue. Vermont, like I believe Illinois and many other states, does not allow voter registration by party affiliation. So, in Vermont, Sanders cannot be a ‘registered Democrat’.
How do people from those states identify with a party? They run for office in a party’s primary and get nominated by the party. That is what Sanders is doing.
Are we going to rummage through every politician’s past to determine, to each individual’s satisfaction, that a politician ‘really’ belongs to the party? Or is the Democratic party going to be an exclusive little club that only deems people who have run as Democrats or voted as Democrats all their lives as ‘real’ Democrats.
Another major political party has followed that approach. Witness the repeated attacks against Trump charging that he is not a ‘real’ Republican because he had more liberal views in the past. I don’t think that approach ends well.
Cacti
“I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat.” (Sanders, 1985)
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.” (Sanders, 1986)
“I am not a Democrat. Period.” (Sanders, 1988)
“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?” (Sanders, 1990)
“I am not a Democrat.” (Sanders, 2013)
“I am running for the Democratic nomination for President.” (Sanders, 2015)
Oh, which of these things is not like the others, which of these things does not belong?
dedc79
@Amir Khalid: @Amir Khalid: Many of Washington’s concerns/warnings regarding the impact of political parties on the American system of governance have been borne out.
jl
@Amir Khalid: Sanders will be elected as a Democrat and he will function as a Democratic president in terms of relationship with Democratic Congressional caucuses, that is, he will have their political support most of the time.
The Framers of the Constitution did not like partisan politics and did not make plans for a system with official roles for political parties. I don’t know of any formal system for partisan political governance at the federal level. The franchise is mostly determined at the state level, and that is where most decisions are made about how formally partisan politics is recognized. And local jurisdictions can declare their elections and governments non-partisan in many cases, depending on the state system.
The official Democratic Party rules do not require its presidential nominee to be an official member of the party. Which makes sense, because that would disallow nominees from states that do not allow voter registration by party.
Some one knows different, chime in.
Edit: another example of lack of formal recognition of partisan affiliation, the Speaker of House does not have to be be a member of the majority party in the House, and does not even have be a Representative. You just have to get a sufficient number of votes to be Speaker of the House, and maybe a registered voter, I forget the details.
dedc79
@jl: You and me both.
NobodySpecial
If people think drones are so great, give the cops drones. After all, you wouldn’t want them to possibly lose officers hunting down criminals.
Something being effective doesn’t preclude it being a terrible idea.
CONGRATULATIONS!
This is a shit-poor post, straight up. I expect better from you, Zandar.
beltane
@jl: That’s correct. There is no registration by party in Vermont. If you vote in the primary, you get a choice of a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot. That’s it. Howard Dean was also not registered as a Democrat and neither is Pat Leahy.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@sparrow: It’s impossible to have a functioning government without parties. Trying to build a separate coalition for every issue that comes along doesn’t work. The people who wrote the Constitution hated parties and wanted it to prevent them from forming. Despite that, within five years, all of them were part of one. It doesn’t work.
Benw
Just read through the comments. Holy cow! Bernie’s pro-GITMO, pro-Minutemen, and pro-drones!? He a fucking badass.
SANDERS/DRONES 2016
Mike J
@jl:
Every other elected official in Vermont seems to be able to call themselves Democrats or Republicans. Why can;t special snowflake Bernie?
beltane
@Mike J:
That’s actually not true. The previous mayor of Burlington was not a Democrat or Republican, and there are a few members of the legislature who are not Democrats or Republicans. Jim Jeffords finished his term as an Independent as well.
The whole fixation on party loyalty is kind of funny considering the current chair of the DNC won’t field candidates against Republicans in her own state and actively sabotages the sitting president of her party on foreign policy.
Cervantes
@geg6:
I’m new everywhere.
I notice you did not actually quote anyone who holds the stated beliefs. I presume it’s because you were far too busy!
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@dedc79:
And yet, he helped found the Federalist Party. The problem isn’t parties; the problem is that politics is inherently messy and all of the Americans who desperately want their politics to be free of actual politics are delusional.
Mandalay
@jl:
No rummaging is needed with Sanders, and it is not simply a technical point of registration. Sanders has explicitly rejected being a Democrat for many years.
He’s a good man, I am glad he is running, and if Clinton were to withdraw for any reason he stands a goood chance of becoming president. But it still doesn’t sit well with me that he is comfortable running as a Democrat when he chooses not to be a Democrat in Congress. Sanders is supposed to be the principled politician – right? – yet this seems shamelessly opportunistic.
Jenny
@beltane: But Howard Dean and Pat Leahy are Democrats. Bernie is not.
The argument that some offer that Bernie can’t be faulted for not being a Democrat due to the Vermont’s procedure is wrong, because in spite of this, Howard and Leahy still became Democrats.
If they could, so could have Sanders. But he choose not to.
Cervantes
@FlipYrWhig:
YMSTRT but I notice you did not actually quote anyone who holds the stated beliefs. I presume it’s because you were far too busy!
Those are important problems, I agree.
john carter
I only wish we had used drones in Vietnam (had they been available as today’s). Maybe then more of my friends would be alive today to take part in this discussion with those who haven’t had to put their lives in harm’s way.
Jenny
@Mandalay:
It would depend on the timing. If she withdrew before Super Tuesday then there would be pressure on Gillibrand and Warren to jump in. The women on my twitter feed (who aren’t political) have nevertheless been furious about the attacks on Hillary (they really want a women President). Then there are others, especially super delegates, who don’t see a Socialist as an electable alternative (how many Socialists have ever won a state race (?), let alone a national race).
Cacti
@Jenny:
I think if Hillary dropped out, Biden would almost certainly jump in and the party establishment would rally around him.
If Hillary dropped out, and Biden didn’t throw his hat in the ring, chaos would ensue.
At that point, you might see a serious draft Gore movement.
J C
That’s the most idiotic way to ask the question. We uses tanks, choppers, and missiles all the time on a battlefield. On a battlefield with our troops NO ONE SHOULD OBJECT. It’s when they are used in non-battlefield zones when civilians are put at great risk that we have to decide whether they should be used. That’s the question that needs to be asked. When are civilian casualties and unintended consequences too much?
I literally learned nothing from this.
Roger Moore
@NonyNony:
While a lot of opposition to drones seems to come from people who react to them viscerally, there is a legitimate worry that drones make it politically easier to sell wars to the public. One of the things that has gotten people to oppose war is the threat of them, or people they know, being directly at risk. Sending in drones to do the fighting for us eliminates that objection to war, making future wars more likely. I’m not 100% sold on that argument, but I think it’s a serious one.
jl
OK, fine Sanders does not say ‘I am a Democrat’ and has not chosen to run in a Democratic nomination process until now;
if people think that disqualifies him as Democratic nominee for office, and won’t vote for him because of that, that is their decision and I don’t care.
But it is really just an informal subjective test of Sander’s partisan loyalty. Don’t try to pretend it is more than that.
@Mandalay:
” Sanders is supposed to be the principled politician – right? – yet this seems shamelessly opportunistic. ”
I’m not sure what set of principles you are referring to here. If Sanders ran a third party bid, I think he would seriously damage the chances of the Democratic nominee for president in 2016, even if Trump went third party too. I don’t know how it is ‘shamelessly opportunistic’ to run a very uphill battle against a overwhelming front runner, when Sanders could hog all the glory of noble principled third party run.
And I think HRC still has an overwhelming lead, considering the whole nomination process. We just have one poll, which may be an outlier, showing Sanders catching up to her in Iowa. Maybe that will change, but I am going to wait for a confirmatory poll before I start thinking Sanders has much of a chance.
Uncle Cosmo
@Mike J: You posted this so I didn’t have to. Gracias.
FTR I’ve been active in MD Democratic Party politics for over 40 years & I can testify from experience that during that time we’ve had more DINOs than Jurassic Park. In the greatest population centers (Baltimore City plus Baltimore County, Montgomery & Prince Georges Counties) there is precious little Republican Party activity at the local level; winners of the Democratic nomination for the state legislature or city/county councils there are generally elected easily. Party primaries are restricted to voters registered as party members. So it makes sense to register as a Democrat in order to have the maximum effect on who ends up as one’s local representatives. And that will continue to be the case until & unless the GOP manages to conduct viable campaigns in the bulk of the districts (47 for the state legislature).
Having said that, many of those same registered Democrats have been perfectly happy to vote for Republicans for Governor or President.
Consider:
2012 Presidential: Obama 61.7%, Romney 36.6%
2014 MD State Senate: 33 D, 14 R. (70.1% D)
2014 MD House of Delegates: 91 D, 50 R. (64.5% D)
but
2014 MD-Governor: Hogan (R) 51.6%, Brown (D) 46.9%
In 4 gubernatorial elections since 2000, a Republican has won 2 and a Democrat (specifically, Martin O’Malley) 2.
Freemark
@Cacti: I find it so weird Democrats care so strongly if Bernie calls himself a Democrat. It seems more like a Republican ideal to me to be more concerned if someone is a ‘real’ part of the club. It very disturbingly similar to the jingoism ‘I back my country, right or wrong’.
I’m a registered Democrat and I have only voted Democrat the last 16 years. But if a Republican were running that was better position wise, honesty wise, etc. I would have no qualms about voting for that person. There is nothing wrong with taking into consideration how that person would deal with others in the government, but choosing solely based upon which cliche they belong to is pretty f’d up.
For those who think Bernie should have run as an independent my only question is why do you hate the Democratic Party and America so much that you want to give the Presidency to the Republicans. Bernie is literally showing more loyalty to the Democratic Party than you are. By your statements you would literally vote for Zell Miller over Berni Sanders in any election. Think about how fucked up that is.
As for the people who say he can’t win the primary so fucking what. That is why we vote. If he loses Hillary, O’Malley, Biden, or somebody else will be the nominee. If he wins it will be because the Democrat club members chose him as being more representative of their ideals than the other candidates. As a registered member of the club I solemnly state that Bernie Sanders best represents the Democratic ideals If one reads the The Democratic 2012 Platform of all the candidates currently running Bernie Sanders best exemplifies its positions. Whoever wins the Democratic nomination I will be voting for them. Not because they are the Democratic nominee but because they are much better than the other option.
Cervantes
@Mike J:
A good general definition, I agree.
@Bobby Thomson:
A convenient definition, no doubt. I can see why you’d like it.
Did someone claim otherwise?
dedc79
@Mandalay:
Refusing to declare allegiance (edited from “align”) to a political party that has so often failed to uphold progressive ideals even though it may limit his own political advancement seems to me to be a very principled stand.
Meanwhile, the opportunistic thing to do would be for him to run as an independent. Instead, he’s running as a democrat to push a progressive agenda. At some point he will bow out, but hopefully after having pressured Hillary into moving left.
I don’t get the party registration purity test. There’s not an issue – domestic or foreign – where Sanders would be to the right of Hillary Clinton.
Jenny
@jl: What partisan loyalty does he have when he refuses to join like Howard, Leahy, Governor Shumlin, and Congressman Welch?
You can argue that you should vote for Bernie on different grounds, in spite of his lack of partisan loyalty.
But ask your self if Hillary refused to join the party and was an independent, wouldn’t Blogs be ripping her apart on this one issue.
Brachiator
@dedc79:
So we have Trump pushing the GOP more towards the right, and Sanders hoping to push Clinton towards the left.
We know what Trump’s key issues are, notably his despicable attitude towards Latinos, and an insane bullying posture with respect to business and foreign trade. And so far, Trump is not conceding ground, or promising to bow out gracefully.
But what Sanders’ position is so pressing or important that Hillary should adopt it? I keep hearing vague gassing about Sanders’ perfect progressive agenda, but I have yet to see anything interesting or substantive. So far, despite some good intentions and warm and fuzzy sense of goodness, Sanders is something like a combination Trump gadfly and Naderite spoiler threatening to siphon votes away from Clinton come November.
But what exactly is Sanders good for?
dedc79
@Brachiator: A fair question. Where I think he’s best suited to apply pressure is on financial/wall st. reform. Frankly, I’m not sure I trust Hillary to hold onto Obama’s few accomplishments in that sphere, let alone expand on them.
It’s also the issue the media and the other candidates (D or R) are most likely to ignore, but I have to think it will come up during the democratic debates.
Omnes Omnibus
@Brachiator: Sparring partner.
Freemark
@Brachiator: His position on TPP, Keystone XL, private prisons, Wall Street, college funding, infrastructure spending, and many others Hillary should adopt. If she adopts even one of those Bernie Sanders was worth it. There that was easy.
As for being a ‘Naderite spoiler’ a large reason he is running in the Democratic primary is to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Betty Cracker
@Brachiator: Sanders has said he will not play spoiler, so that particular Nader comparison is off base. If you compare Clinton’s 2016 rhetoric and positions with her 2008 edition, she has moved left. It wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility that having a challenger on the left moved her in that direction. Sanders has people talking about the corrupting influence of money in politics and galloping wealth inequality, and that’s a good thing.
Archon
@Roger Moore:
Killing people without risking your own men makes using drones and it’s endless war implication more politically palatable is a fair critique. My other concern is that drones is literally a weapon of terror. It can strike at anytime, without any warning. Because we aren’t beyond accepting the death of innocent people to take out legitimate targets, literally nobody is safe within the target area. We aren’t targeting civilians like “real terrorists” do but in some ways, when it comes drones it’s a distinction without a difference.
Now if the terror of being “droned” scared people into American compliance I might be okay with it, but I suspect it’s use hardens the local populace in ways that, say an artillery or B-52 attack wouldn’t. I could be wrong though, and I hope smarter people than me are thinking about that.
Roger Moore
@beltane:
There may not be party registration by voters, but there certainly is party registration by candidates, which is why voters are presented with Democratic and Republican ballots, and why both Leahy and Dean had a (D) after their names. It isn’t a problem that Sanders isn’t registered to vote as a Democrat, but it is problematic that he has avoided joining the Democratic party as a candidate.
Brachiator
@dedc79:
To be blunt, apart from whining about Wall Street types who evaded punishment and the pointless hope to simply resurrect old law, I don’t see that progressives have a clue about what financial reforms might actually help the economy. Has Sanders ever offered something that sounds like a solution?
People want jobs, a cure for unemployment, an antidote to wage stagnation. Credit relief might be interesting.
@Betty Cracker
Fair point, but I was thinking more about Sanders’ supporters, who might feel that they haven’t been given a reason to switch their support from Sanders to Clinton.
If this is the best that Sanders’ offers, he is not going to go very far.
VidaLoca
@Omnes Omnibus: Omnes, since you’re here, a question for you. To what extent are you aware of a campaign field organization for Sanders in Madison?
10,000 people at the Coliseum at that rally in early July. Has anything been done to organize them?
Next to nothing being done by his campaign in Milwaukee so far and what is being done is pretty clearly led by people who have not the vaguest idea what they’re doing.
jl
@Brachiator: Sanders wants a financial transaction tax to fund his proposal for eliminating tuition at public universities, wants to pass legislation to break up the too-big-to-fall banks, wants to move health care reform towards a single payer, Medicare for all, system, wants to expand Social Security and has specific proposals to fund by tax increases rather than benefit cuts. He also wants to start a mass political movement to apply pressure to Congress to achieve those goals.
You can agree or disagree with those proposals, you can say that they are unrealistic. But those seem to be fairly specific proposals that are distinct from anyone else running.
Jenny
He was a Pacifist? Oh boy.
I like Bernie as a Senator, but I can’t support him because a Socialist who’s in his mid 70s is unelectable. Now add being a Pacifist to the fire.
He’s going to have to explain when did he stop being a Pacifist and why. It’s not going to go well. It is going to sound like he faked being a Pacifist to dodge the draft. That he didn’t want to risk his life but is willing to risk the lives of others.
And if they found this, along with the rape fiction he wrote in an obscure publication, what else are they going to find.
Roger Moore
@jl:
“Are you a member of the party whose nomination you seek” seems like a completely objective test of party loyalty to me. It may not be an ideal test, but it’s not at all subjective.
Omnes Omnibus
@VidaLoca: I get the same impression here.
Bobby Thomson
@dedc79: guns.
Betty Cracker
@Brachiator: My guess is that the Sanders supporters who will refuse to vote for HRC should she win the nomination will be the same ones who voted for the Green Party in 2012 because they were disappointed in Obama. It’s not a large enough group to be concerned about, IMO. I fully expect Clinton to win the nomination and Sanders to endorse her when she does. My sense is he’s in this to push his issues to the fore. He doesn’t think he’ll win and understands how important it is to keep the GOP out of the White House.
Freemark
@Brachiator: Since it is better than what any other candidate offers you have no point.
jl
@Roger Moore: What does ‘member of’ mean in a state that does not register people to vote by party affiliation? Sanders belongs to the local Democratic club? Sander’s official party membership is the same as Obama’s. Obama cannot register to vote as a Democrat either.
Cervantes
@Jenny:
What “rape fiction”?
Mandalay
@dedc79:
It would be if he wasn’t using them right now to assist his own political advancement. Sanders wants to reject and embrace the Democratic Party at his personal convenience.
The best of luck to him, but let’s not pretend that he is being principled.
Denali
In New York anyway, the elections are controlled by the Democratic and the Republican Parties. If Sanders does not register as a Democrat, he will not even appear on the ballot. Candidates from the Socialist Party stopped appearing because they received so few votes in the election. People may like what Sanders says, but he is not a viable candidate.
Cacti
@Jenny:
Someone will probably call you names for this observation.
Cervantes
@Betty Cracker:
@Freemark:
There is (1) criticism of Sanders that engages his proposals and shows why something else might be better; and then there’s (2) criticism of Sanders that amounts to little more than free-ranging contempt for “progressives.”
Or rather, I’m pretty sure (2) exists.
Freemark
@Denali: “The New York State Board of Elections now says that Bernie Sanders’ party status should not pose a barrier in his attempts to get on the state’s primary ballot for next year’s presidential election.”
He is by any definition a viable candidate. Whether or not he will win will be seen at voting time.
Cervantes
@Denali:
That’s very interesting.
Meanwhile:
Cervantes
@Jenny:
Reasonable question, but not insurmountable.
Has Sanders been asked? Have you tried asking?
Cervantes
@WereBear:
Does it work for you?
Anyhow, you’re welcome, of course.
Mandalay
@Jenny:
Oh please. There are a gazillion chickenhawk politicians out there, including GW Bush, Bill Clinton, Cheney and Gingrich who did try to doge the draft. Sanders didn’t. Unlike them, he had the courage of his convictions, and objected to a mindless, evil war.
Besides, the majority of voters probably weren’t even born when that happened, and many Americans are just sick of our perpetual warmongering. Sanders has some serious concerns to address, but this isn’t one of them.
Cervantes
@Roger Moore:
Problematic how?
VidaLoca
@Cervantes: I’ll add a third: (3) with every passing day, Sanders’ campaign looks like nothing but vaporware.
You pointed me toward a link a couple of days ago (Bernie Sanders Is Turning Crowds Into Volunteers in Iowa) that I’ll accept as a counterexample and I’ll link it here if anyone wants to read it. While I think it’s interesting it will take a lot more to convince me that he has a chance. Especially in light of the fact noted upthread that he’s getting no endorsements from places like the House Progressive Caucus it means that if he’s putting together organization at all he’s not doing it from regular Party people (who, like it or not have experience in mid-level campaign management), so he has to be doing it with people who don’t have any past experience at what they’re trying to do.
And maybe that’s a good thing because if he were to get nominated (evidently using the Underpants Gnomes’ system of campaign organization) he’d likely be sandbagged by the Democrats the same way the sandbagged McGovern in 1972.
Today is September 1. Caucuses/primaries start six months from now. A whole bunch more follow in March. Can anyone cite an example of a past case where a candidate declared in May and with no initial organization came from the outside of the Party to win the nomination?
If not, what is the point of a debate about party loyalty, or God help us, principle?
Cervantes
@jl:
@Freemark:
The two of you have listed a number of his proposals.
I think his not accepting certain kinds of campaign “donations” is also noteworthy.
Cervantes
@VidaLoca:
Is that really a third?
In any event, it’s fair to ask: Despite his rallies mysteriously having the largest crowds of any candidate running this year, can he harness that interest and energy and put it to good use? We shall see.
Keith G
@jl:
While Sanders’ party affiliation is not a technical barrier, I do want the “Democratic” President of the United States to give a large and mighty shit about the future of the Democratic Party and to engage in party building activities as a very important part of her/his term in office.
We do need a deeper bench and we need the leader of our party (Yes the US President has served a role as a de facto leader) to aggressively work to address that need. This has not been a high enough concern of the current president and I think that it shows.
Now if Bernie would agree to that, I might not be philosophically against his nomination, but I still doubt I would vote for it….as things stand now. Great ideas aside, he hasn’t shown me he has the skill to run the most complex human organization in existence.
Cervantes
@Mandalay:
That war was evil.
It was not precisely mindless.
Freemark
@VidaLoca: The way I look at it if he can get enough people to vote for him to win the nomination then his organization is good enough. If he can’t he won’t win the nomination. It has always been thus in my lifetime. From the other side the fact he is doing so well (leading strongly in NH, only 7 behind in IA) without a major campaign organization is extremely impressive. The actual reality, whichever way you look at it, is we really won’t know until much closer to the primary when the majority of people become much more engaged.
I really do wish the DNC would stop sand bagging and have a debate or two much earlier. I personally would like to hear from the top 3 or 4 candidates in a debate format sooner rather than later. I think it could help more people become engaged.
Thoughtful Today
Bernie Sanders TV interview, punctuated by TheHill.com, with my emphasis:
“I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case,” Sanders said.
“What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective,” he added.
“There are times and places where they have been absolutely counter-effective and have caused more problems than they have solved. When you kill innocent people, what the end result is that people in the region become anti-American who otherwise would not have been.”
Cervantes
@Freemark:
Thanks for spelling that out.
Cervantes
@Thoughtful Today:
And compare that to what was posted above.
@J C:
Pretty silly, anyway.
VidaLoca
@Freemark: I agree that Sanders’ poll results are impressive but there’s a huge disjuncture between poll results and votes: you have to be able to get the people who claim to support you, out to vote. It doesn’t work to leave GOTV to the Underpants Gnomes.
moderateindy
@NobodySpecial:
Which term do you prefer, strawman, or red herring? How about dumbest fracking argument ever. I think tanks are a great idea for an army, but not so much for the cops. See how easy keeping two slightly disparate ideas in your head at one time was?
As far as the importance of party affiliation is concerned…. obviously from my moniker I’m not a huge fan. Living in Illinois, and being at times in my life intimately exposed to the inner working of IL politics, I have a much more cynical view of the party system. I have worked a few times for Democratic candidates, but have voted for Republicans at the state and local levels often. One political party having too much power is usually bad for everyone. See the name Mike Madigan.
Also, blind loyalty to one political party is simply dangerous, as it gives too much power to few people. And the idea that someone would not vote for Sanders, because he isn’t a Dem is beyond moronic. You gonna sit it out and let the Republican possibly win? Nothing wrong with fiercely supporting your candidate, but when push comes to shove you owe it to your country to vote for the candidate you believe will be best for it’s future, and not sit home like a whiny little child that didn’t get it’s way.
dedc79
@Bobby Thomson: and if there was any chance in hell of passing gun control legislation that would give me pause, but there isnt, so it doesn’t
Cervantes
@dedc79:
You two and me three.
Sophist
Your faith in the military’s (and its civilian leadership’s) ability to be perfectly rational actors is touching.
@trollhattan:
@NobodySpecial:
So the military shouldn’t have anything you wouldn’t want a beat cop to carry? The Navy is gonna look pretty silly trying to project power in water wings…
NeutronFlux
Donation complete
JimGod
All you people bitching about Sanders not being a Democrat would turn the bitching up to elventy if he were running third party. And so would I. Either he’s a third party spoiler or he’s not. That’s the only consideration here. All other complaints on this issue are baloney.
JimGod
@Davis X. Machina: American parties are. We are the only democracy to not have party membership cards that entitle members to nominate candidates for office. This is due to us using primary elections, run by the state, to nominate candidates. I’m writing my masters thesis on this very topic, about how the US came to use primaries and nobody else did. It’s fascinating. But the people so concerned about party on this blog need to understand that if they want a closed, centrally organized party then this country needs to abolish primary elections. Which isn’t going to happen. Unfortunately.
JimGod
@geg6: Except when it comes to democracy and voting and ballot access laws, both sides are the same. This is one of the few areas where that saying is true. The Democratic Party enjoys its place in the duopoly we have in this country and actively makes ballot access as hard as possible for any candidate of the left or center who wants to run with another label. This is empirical reality. I only vote for Democrats but I’m not blind to the corruption and general authoritarian nature that both Democrats and Republicans employ to keep all others off the ballot.
Cervantes
@NonyNony:
Of those “many folks on the left,” could you actually quote, say, one?
Or regardless of what they’ve said, do you just “somehow know” what they all “somehow think”?
Quite.
Cervantes
@JimGod:
And out of “debates,” and so on.
sparrow
@JimGod: Thank you.
Thoughtful Today
LOL @ “All you people bitching about Sanders not being a Democrat would turn the bitching up to elventy if he were running third party.”
For the record: Bernie WON’T run third party.
Moreover:
Bernie’s run an astonishingly respectful campaign with laser like focus on issues, not personalities.
If you’re hung up on personalities and club memberships, well …
I hope you’ll start considering the issues involved. They’re important.
sparrow
@Denali: This is flat out false and has been refuted repeatedly. Sanders, should he win the democratic primary, would be on the ballot in New York.
Omnes Omnibus
@Thoughtful Today: People are capable of focusing on the issues and thinking that it is important for a person seeking the Democratic nomination to consider himself a Democrat and be willing to say so.
Freemark
@VidaLoca: I agree that is why people who don’t like Sanders shouldn’t not like him because of his campaign organization. He won’t win the primaries if he can’t get organized. If he does win then he did get organized and it shows he can handle it. I think we will all have a much better idea by December if he can get organized.
Thoughtful Today
A surprising number of Democratic Party members don’t know how their Party actually works.
For instance:
Superdelegates are inherently anti-Democratic.
Superdelegates attempt, in the Democratic Party, to shut out Obama was met with considerable outrage back in 2007 and 2008.
Apparently not enough outrage to change the anti-Democratic mechanism that Clinton is again trying to use in 2015/16.
Cacti
@moderateindy:
Thanks for the insight, Mr. Brooks.
Freemark
@Omnes Omnibus: I have no problem with people considering it important. It is statements like this
which I think is pretty screwed up.. And that was from someone I like and agree with on most issues. That sounds way too much like “‘You are either with us or against us”. When you sound like that guy you need to re-evaluate what you are thinking.
JimGod
@Thoughtful Today: You’re confused. I was criticizing the people who are complaining about him not being a Democrat. My message is that he is explicitly seeking the Dem nom. because he doesn’t want to be a spoiler. And yet hes being criticized for it and encouraged by some in the thread to run independent. Those same people would then scream spoiler at him for running independent from now till 2050. That was my point.
Bobby Thomson
@dedc79: one could say the same about legislation where Bernie is to Hillary’s left.
Cacti
@Freemark:
Well, the problem with the above is that POTUS is a singular office, not a shared one. The candidate who wins less than 270 electoral votes gets 0% of the office, while the candidate who wins more than 270 gets 100% of it. And no one since George Washington has won the Presidency without the support of one of the major national political parties.
Understanding all of that, when a particular candidate has spent his entire public life avowing his non-membership in a certain political party, and why he has never considered himself a member of the same, an explanation is in order for why he believes members of that party should vote for him as its Presidential nominee.
Thoughtful Today
Hmm….
Republican Trolls masquerading as Democratic Party Purity Trolls?
Dems often need independent votes to win.
Exclusionary tactics help Republicans.
JimGod
@Cacti: Because he wants to be President and the only way to remotely do that in this country is to run under the labels of the only two major parties that we allow ourselves to have. And since the Republican party is nowhere remotely near Sanders on the ideological scale, the Democratic party gets the honor. This is not a hard concept to understand, he’s working within the confines that both parties have built over the past century in this country. If ballot access laws were liberalized and made uniform across the country for federal offices and if we did away with primary elections, then yes, it would make sense for him to launch an independent bid. In the US, in 2016, it does not make sense to do so.
Cacti
@Thoughtful Today:
Hmm…a total coincidence I’m sure that movements like “no labels” or critiques over concern with party affiliation are nearly always shorthand for “don’t vote for the Democrat”.
Cacti
@JimGod:
You unintentionally summarized the problem.
Bernie has been too pure to be Dem for his entire public life, but now we “get the honor” of him stooping to our level and running for our party’s nomination.
Pass.
JimGod
@Cacti: An honest question: would you rather he be independent and a potential spoiler next year?
JimGod
Another thing a lot of people on here don’t get. The state of Vermont uses electoral fusion, where you can run on multiple party lines on the ballot. Sanders actually did run on the Democratic line in 2006 to prevent a Republican from winning the primary and the ballot line and winning votes from yellow dog voters. It is possible with such an electoral setup to run and win outside the two major parties or as an outsider with major party support. It should also be noted that in all his House and Senate campaigns the Democratic Party of Vermont has never run a candidate against him. Clearly coalition building has happened in the state, I can’t imagine it would stop now.
Cacti
@JimGod:
I’m not convinced that he won’t go that route anyway.
“I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.”
-Bernie Sanders
July 22, 2011
Thoughtful Today
More to the point:
Exclusionary tactics supported by The Usual Trolls explains a lot about Who They Really Are.
Freemark
@Cacti: You should read before posting what you just said makes absolutely no sense. You are saying that after winning the DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY from DEMOCRATIC voters that Bernie would have no support from the Democratic Party. That is one of the poorest arguments I’ve ever read on Balloon-Juice. Especially when that avowed ‘non-Democrat’ has even had the LEADER of the Democratic Party, one Barack Obama, campaign for him in the very recent past.
I think he is a long shot to win the nomination but saying that if he wins the very people who helped him win will stop supporting him is pretty damn strange. Matter of fact it is much more likely that because he’ll have to run such an amazing campaign to win that if he wins his coattails will be the longest we’ve seen in many generations.
Cacti
@Freemark:
Nope.
I’m saying that the Vermont purity troll, who’s too good to call himself a Dem, wants us to ignore all of that and make him the Dem nominee anyway, because he’s Bernie Sanders and that’s all the reason he needs.
Thanks Bern, but, no.
Betty Cracker
@Cacti:
So you think Sanders lied when he explicitly said he will not run a third party campaign?
Cacti
@Betty Cracker:
Possibly.
I guess we’ll find out, won’t we.
Is this the part where you follow up with how scandalous it is to think a politician might be lying about their intentions?
JimGod
@Cacti: With all due respect, that is asinine. Why would Sanders or anyone go thru the hurdles of trying to capture a major party nomination and then turn around and have to do double or even triple the work to overcome the horrendous ballot access laws in this country in a very compressed time schedule? It makes no sense. Independent and third party candidates are running as such NOW precisely to just get on the ballot. Sanders would have to do the same in a 6 month or less window. Frankly impossible.
Cacti
@JimGod:
Could the same thing not be said of Donald Trump? But he’s made no promise not to run indy if he doesn’t get the R nom. Same logistical issues as Bernie, but more money in the bank.
JimGod
@Freemark: Not to mention he’s caucused with the Dems since first coming to Congress in 1990. He is not an unknown entity to them. This idea that he’ll stand alone if elected is just not grounded in reality.
JimGod
@Cacti: Except, as mentioned before, we have an explicit promise from Sanders that he will not do that. And your quote of him from 2011 has absolutely no applicability to what is going on in 2015 and 2016. So comparing Trump and Sanders is really comparing apples to batshit, isn’t it?
Betty Cracker
@Cacti: Nope. I was just curious about the depths of your weird (though utterly unsurprising) hostility toward Sanders.
Freemark
@Cacti: So you are too much of a Democratic purity troll to vote for a Vermont purity troll because he never changed his chyron to a D from an I? He has campaigned for Democrats, he has caucused with Democrats, he has supported Democrats for leadership in the House and Senate, he in general has been one of the biggest and most consistent supporters of Democratic policies in the Senate, and back in his own state
but he has talked about the Democratic Party poorly on occasion, something no Party member would ever do, and has I instead of D after his name on TV. I get it.
I think its an outrageously bad reason for not liking someone, but I get it.
Cacti
@Freemark:
Nope.
Just a Democrat who votes for Democrats.
I know that rankles the Sandernistas, but there it is.
Mandalay
Bernie Sanders four months ago:
http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/04/30/in-bid-for-democratic-nomination-sanders-remains-an-independent
It’s beneficial to both Sanders and the Democratic Party that he runs as a Democrat (as opposed to an Independent), and I support him, but the dismissive attitude from some here that him not being a Democrat is much ado about nothing is very short sighted. There are real consequences to him running against “genuine” Democrats, and real consequences in the unlikely-but-possible event that he wins the presidency.
With the notable exception of the Middle East, Democrats have been strongly supportive of President Obama. You would not see that level of support from Democrats in Congress for President Sanders, (just as President Trump would probably not get strong support from Republicans in Congress).
Mandalay
@Freemark:
It’s not a matter of liking or not liking Sanders – that’s just a strawman you fabricated.
It’s a matter of Sanders having rejected the Democratic Party, and no amount of quotes about how he helps out the Democrats changes that. It may be great that he pulls his rivals to the left during the campaign, but there are real consequences to having an Independent run as a Democrat for president, including having a shitload of Democratic frenemies in Congress should he actually win the presidency.
JimGod
@Mandalay: No Democrat has ever challenged him for his House or Senate seat. You’re talking about something that really isn’t there. And if the Congressional Democratic Party is as petty as you seem to think it is, then this country is really lost.
Cacti
@JimGod:
0 members of the House or Senate Democratic Caucuses have endorsed Sanders, including none of the other 68 members of the Progressive Caucus.
Is it because they’re all petty?
Thoughtful Today
And again.
No.
Bernie won’t make a third Party run.
And keep in mind:
The loudest troll falsely asserting otherwise doesn’t know the difference between a “primary” and a “general election” …
Thoughtful Today
[sigh]
Democratic Party members who think it’s a Member’s Only Club is one of the reasons why Republicans control Congress and the majority of Governorships.
Assume most of the Purity Trolls For Democrats are really just closet Republican Trolls.
Sherparick
@geg6: There is no problem in being critical from the left about Democrats and liberals. It is how you make them, as FDR said, go further then they otherwise would have gone. However, when it descends into narcissistic Naderism and Firebagging and Greenwaldism, and professes to see no difference between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich or George W. Bush and Al Gore or Hilary Clinton and the 17 sociopaths running for the Republican nomination, it makes me gag. There are likely hundreds of thousands of people dead now who would not be dead if Gore had beaten W. There likely would not have been a great recession in 2007 – 2009. We would be far down road on regulating green house gases. And we would not have Roberts and Alito on the Supreme Court. If one of these sociopaths win, they will be creating a Supreme Court determined to bring back the “Gilded Age.” http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/09/creeping-lochnerism
Freemark
@Sherparick: I agree with you and so does Bernie Sanders.
Gemina13
Oh, looky, a circular firing squad. Is it some remnant of FireDogLake? Is it DailyKos? No, it’s Balloon Juice, led by Zander!
I’m going for a nice five-mile hike now.
JimGod
@Cacti: Stop being willfully ignorant. My petty comment was in reference to assertions made by you and others that as an Independent President, he would have no allies in Congress. I pointed out correctly that he is allied with the Vermont Democratic Party and Democrats in Congress. In the unlikely event he is nominated and elected, he will have a groups in the House and Senate that can pass legislation and work with him. As far as endorsements go, they probably think it’s Hillary Rodham all the way. So be it. But campaign endorsements have nothing to do with Presidential-Congressional relationships and you know it, so cut the crap.