I say this as he calls himself a Socialist and has a history of dismissing the Democratic party as 'bankrupt' and Tweedle Dee to the GOP's Tweedle Dum. Now he wants our votes?
"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
This is where purist politics gets you. In Maine the insistence of left-liberals in running third party gave them Paul Lapage-not once but twice.
"You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“We have to ask ourselves, ‘Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?’”
"Bernie Sanders, everybody—the same Bernie Sanders who is running to become the Democratic Party’s candidate for president of the United States."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181#ixzz3lRZ3D4K6This is where purist politics gets you. In Maine the insistence of left-liberals in running third party gave them Paul Lapage-not once but twice.
In Britain, the leftist Scottish Independence Party (SNP) has served to entrench the Conservatives in office. This is why Labour may be right in going with Jeremy Corbyn this time."
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/11/jeremy-corbyn-leader-uk-labour-party
The fact that David Cameron-the Conservative Prime Minister-is declaring Corbyn 'Unfit to lead Labour' probably isn't going to hurt him either.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/11/jeremy-corbyn-leader-uk-labour-party
After all, he might be the one guy to turn the Scottish Left from SNP.
In a way you can give Sanders credit for running as a Democrat rather than third party. Doing it this way will avoid a Naderite result.
Still, I for one would like to know exactly what it means to call himself a 'Socialist' or even a 'Democratic Socialist'-is that just Fabian Socialism? What about Hugo Chavez who was elected after all?
Is that his idea of a Democratic Socialist?
Nader called for the nationalization of the Fortune 500. Does Sanders seek any kind of broad nationalization of the economy? I think these are reasonable questions for him to answer.
If there isn't much difference between a Democrat and a Democratic Socialist-why not call himself a Democrat?
As far as Hillary going after Bernie there are a couple schools of thought.
1. Some bedwetters are fretting that she needs to go after Bernie a bit more. At this point she and he have had a total nonaggression pact.
2. However, the worry is that this could alienate a lot of the Bernie supporters she will need to come to her when it's done.
If she did decide to go on the offensive there are certainly some issues to question him on.
1. His lack of support for gun control. To an extent this is due to his state of Vermont, but this is someone who voted against the Brady bill.
2. Immigration. He has said that immigrants take American''s jobs which is wrong on the economics.
3. Overall his candidacy is based on the Green Lantern Theory of presidential power-that he alone is so pure that he will singlehandedly change Washington.
But it takes a party to do that. His appeal is mostly to the purist white liberals who probably believe that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was a documentary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=0
I haven't seen what issues Bernie is so superior to Hillary on. She has a comprehensive plan to end voter suppression, to increase wages in the Uber economy, and bring down college tuition.
All I hear from the Bernie maniacs is that she's 'Too close to Wall St' which is not a specific. As for money in politics, I'm not so sure this is the biggest issue in the world as long as liberal and Dem groups can also donate and raise money.
Less money means less activism as well. So I'm not an anti money purist.
2. However, the worry is that this could alienate a lot of the Bernie supporters she will need to come to her when it's done.
If she did decide to go on the offensive there are certainly some issues to question him on.
1. His lack of support for gun control. To an extent this is due to his state of Vermont, but this is someone who voted against the Brady bill.
2. Immigration. He has said that immigrants take American''s jobs which is wrong on the economics.
3. Overall his candidacy is based on the Green Lantern Theory of presidential power-that he alone is so pure that he will singlehandedly change Washington.
But it takes a party to do that. His appeal is mostly to the purist white liberals who probably believe that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was a documentary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html?_r=0
I haven't seen what issues Bernie is so superior to Hillary on. She has a comprehensive plan to end voter suppression, to increase wages in the Uber economy, and bring down college tuition.
All I hear from the Bernie maniacs is that she's 'Too close to Wall St' which is not a specific. As for money in politics, I'm not so sure this is the biggest issue in the world as long as liberal and Dem groups can also donate and raise money.
Less money means less activism as well. So I'm not an anti money purist.
No comments:
Post a Comment