When he gets to talking about Bernie Sanders it's as if he and I share a brain.
"Sunday night, I watched the fourth Democratic presidential debate so you didn’t have to."
"Sunday night, I watched the fourth Democratic presidential debate so you didn’t have to."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/01/18/bernie-sanders-doesn-get-how-politics-works/GYDR7MTl0Vu3TSAHRMWipJ/story.html?s_campaign=8315
A fine public service, but I watched it too. I'm sure many who read his piece didn't' however.
"Initial impression: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and democracy won. This was a substantive debate, devoid of the histrionics, name-calling, and fact-free pronouncements that are pro forma in the Republican presidential confabs. Both of the leading candidates did a good job of playing to their respective bases of support. Clinton came across as the pragmatic, level-headed, won’t-rock-the-boat candidate; Sanders as the passionate reformer who wants to start a revolution. As for Martin O’Malley, he seems like a nice man who has no chance of being elected president."
Yes-Hillary is the fox who wants incremental reform and Bernie's the hedgehog who thinks the answer to every question is 'We need to breakup the big banks and get the money out of politics!'
Of course why say it if you an shout it? Unless the subject is gun control.
Ok, so now Cohen gets real and his take is very similar to mine:
"Now for my deeper impression of the debate: even with his rising poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire, I find it increasingly difficult to take Sanders seriously as a presidential candidate."
Yes! I don't see him as remotely presidential. A President has to be able to do more than have a few thunderous slogans. So much of being a President is about coalition building and this is something he's never been able to do-or for that matter he's never been able to get many bills passed. He has interest in just a few issues and everything else you sense he sees as a distraction-or maybe the answer is to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
"Maybe it’s the fact that he’s 74, would be the oldest man to ever become president, and yet couldn’t be bothered to release his medical records until a Clinton surrogate attacked him for it."
Now, I will admit, when I first heard about this, I thought maybe that was over the line or at least that the Clintonites shouldn't do it as they'll just get killed for it. But it did lead to the records being released and Michael Tomasky argues it's a legitimate question. Bernie may be as healthy and as spry as a young 60 year old-he looks it. But at 75-which he would be at the time of his inauguration-it's a fair question.
"Maybe it’s that Sanders finds a way to answer virtually every question by turning it back to another predictable and one-dimensional attack on Wall Street and big money."
Ok, now for me, this is where my real complaint is. His responses are just very canned and predictable. And like Cohen says they are one-dimensional. As they are so one-dimensional, I'm never sure just how much he really understands even his own pet issue.
The one thing that comes out in comparing what he says about financial reform and what she says, is that she has a much deeper understanding of the whole issue than he does.
It's not hard to say 'Let's break up the big banks and get the money out of politics.'
He also tends to exaggerate this as a panacea to all our problems. Every thing is a nail for Bernie's hammer.
"Maybe it’s that he gets away with proposing unrealistic policy ideas that have little chance of being passed even by Democrats in Congress, let alone Republicans, and then gets praised for being authentic. Sunday night Sanders finally released his single-payer health care plan, which is all of eight pages and provides little detail on how he’ll implement a complete restructuring of the US health care system. That’s at least an improvement over his plan for breaking up the banks, which is four pages and just as short on detail."
Yes, and when he's asked to elaborate, he fails to do so. He has no answer to how all this is going to actually get done with Congress in the shape its in.
Even-especially?-the Democrats wouldn't work with him and his sanctimonious, holier than though poise is not the way to get people on board with reservations.
The funny thing is, Tom Brown finds it scary how far Trump has gotten and how seriously people take him but I'm with Cohen. It scares me how much Bernie is allowed to just skate on his talking points as 'being authentic.'
I don't see him as remotely suited to be President of the United States where you have to deal with many issues and constituencies not just a few of your pet issues.
I find his moral sanctimoniousness his sense of self-righeousness very annoying. The fact that he simply refuses to ever change his mind or admit he's changed his mind reminds me of stubborn Right True Believers like Reagan and W. Bush and not a liberal Democrat, who does evolve over time.
"Maybe it’s that his political pronouncements and calls for revolution increasingly remind me of the most annoying classmates in my political science classes in college."
Indeed.
"It’s all that and something else — Sanders really does have a singularly naive and simple-minded understanding of American politics. He genuinely seems to believe — and I know this because he repeatedly yelled it at me during the debate — that money is the root of all evil in politics and that if you get the big money out, great things will happen. Sanders said that “a handful of billionaires . . . control economic and political life of this country.” He argued that Republicans and Democrats don’t “hate each other.” He called that a “mythology.” Instead, he said, the “real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.”
"I’m sorry, but that is a maddeningly simplistic — and wrong — explanation of how American politics works."
"How someone who’s been in Washington as long as Sanders can believe that all that stands between doing “what the American people want [Congress] to do” is something as simple as reforming campaign finance is stunning. Sanders, who brags the NRA gives him a D- rating, is the same politician who supported legislation giving gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits and voted against the Brady Bill. Why? Perhaps it is because Sanders comes from a state that has few gun control laws and lots of gun owners. Yes red-state senators who oppose gun control receive contributions from the NRA. They also have constituents who oppose gun control measures and vote on the issue — like Bernie Sanders. It’s as if in Sanders’ mind, parochialism, ideology, or politics plays no role . . . in politics."
At the end of the day, it's hard to talk about 'What the American people want Congress to do' as the American people disagree with each other on what that is.
"Take single-payer health care, which Sanders claims has been difficult to enact because of a corrupt campaign finance system that allows the “pharmaceutical industry” and private insurance companies to spend millions in “campaign contributions and lobbying.”
"On the one hand, Sanders is right — those are powerful interests. But so are doctors and hospitals, who’d pay a huge price if single payer became law; so are Republicans, who fought tooth and nail to defeat Obamacare and would do the same for a single-payer plan; so are Democrats, who couldn’t even support a public option for Obamacare and are unlikely to support single payer; so are Americans, who may not be inclined to support another restructuring of the health care system — a few years after the last one. It’s not just about money; it’s also about a political system constructed and reinforced to block the kind of massive reform Sanders is advocating. Money is important, but it’s not even close to the whole story."
Cohen rightly asks how someone in Washington so long is so clueless about this. And that's just it-Bernie has been a singularly unproductive member of Congress and then the Senate. He hasn't passed many bills but has given lots of speeches.
"This is frankly what’s become so frustrating about Sanders campaign. I give the man credit for raising issues all too rarely heard in presidential debates, and as a protest candidate, Sanders is playing a vital role in the political process. But now that Sanders’ campaign has gathered steam — and he is ludicrously claiming that he’s more electable than Hillary Clinton — Sanders needs to do more than just sound the same tiresome platitudes and one-dimensional arguments about the evils of Wall Street. He needs to take the job of running for president seriously. If Sunday night was any indication, that’s still not happening."
And that's about it. If Bernie is a protest candidate then he is playing a vital role. But he is not the man to actually lead the Democratic party or the nation.
A fine public service, but I watched it too. I'm sure many who read his piece didn't' however.
"Initial impression: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and democracy won. This was a substantive debate, devoid of the histrionics, name-calling, and fact-free pronouncements that are pro forma in the Republican presidential confabs. Both of the leading candidates did a good job of playing to their respective bases of support. Clinton came across as the pragmatic, level-headed, won’t-rock-the-boat candidate; Sanders as the passionate reformer who wants to start a revolution. As for Martin O’Malley, he seems like a nice man who has no chance of being elected president."
Yes-Hillary is the fox who wants incremental reform and Bernie's the hedgehog who thinks the answer to every question is 'We need to breakup the big banks and get the money out of politics!'
Of course why say it if you an shout it? Unless the subject is gun control.
Ok, so now Cohen gets real and his take is very similar to mine:
"Now for my deeper impression of the debate: even with his rising poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire, I find it increasingly difficult to take Sanders seriously as a presidential candidate."
Yes! I don't see him as remotely presidential. A President has to be able to do more than have a few thunderous slogans. So much of being a President is about coalition building and this is something he's never been able to do-or for that matter he's never been able to get many bills passed. He has interest in just a few issues and everything else you sense he sees as a distraction-or maybe the answer is to reinstate Glass-Steagall.
"Maybe it’s the fact that he’s 74, would be the oldest man to ever become president, and yet couldn’t be bothered to release his medical records until a Clinton surrogate attacked him for it."
Now, I will admit, when I first heard about this, I thought maybe that was over the line or at least that the Clintonites shouldn't do it as they'll just get killed for it. But it did lead to the records being released and Michael Tomasky argues it's a legitimate question. Bernie may be as healthy and as spry as a young 60 year old-he looks it. But at 75-which he would be at the time of his inauguration-it's a fair question.
"Maybe it’s that Sanders finds a way to answer virtually every question by turning it back to another predictable and one-dimensional attack on Wall Street and big money."
Ok, now for me, this is where my real complaint is. His responses are just very canned and predictable. And like Cohen says they are one-dimensional. As they are so one-dimensional, I'm never sure just how much he really understands even his own pet issue.
The one thing that comes out in comparing what he says about financial reform and what she says, is that she has a much deeper understanding of the whole issue than he does.
It's not hard to say 'Let's break up the big banks and get the money out of politics.'
He also tends to exaggerate this as a panacea to all our problems. Every thing is a nail for Bernie's hammer.
"Maybe it’s that he gets away with proposing unrealistic policy ideas that have little chance of being passed even by Democrats in Congress, let alone Republicans, and then gets praised for being authentic. Sunday night Sanders finally released his single-payer health care plan, which is all of eight pages and provides little detail on how he’ll implement a complete restructuring of the US health care system. That’s at least an improvement over his plan for breaking up the banks, which is four pages and just as short on detail."
Yes, and when he's asked to elaborate, he fails to do so. He has no answer to how all this is going to actually get done with Congress in the shape its in.
Even-especially?-the Democrats wouldn't work with him and his sanctimonious, holier than though poise is not the way to get people on board with reservations.
The funny thing is, Tom Brown finds it scary how far Trump has gotten and how seriously people take him but I'm with Cohen. It scares me how much Bernie is allowed to just skate on his talking points as 'being authentic.'
I don't see him as remotely suited to be President of the United States where you have to deal with many issues and constituencies not just a few of your pet issues.
I find his moral sanctimoniousness his sense of self-righeousness very annoying. The fact that he simply refuses to ever change his mind or admit he's changed his mind reminds me of stubborn Right True Believers like Reagan and W. Bush and not a liberal Democrat, who does evolve over time.
"Maybe it’s that his political pronouncements and calls for revolution increasingly remind me of the most annoying classmates in my political science classes in college."
Indeed.
"It’s all that and something else — Sanders really does have a singularly naive and simple-minded understanding of American politics. He genuinely seems to believe — and I know this because he repeatedly yelled it at me during the debate — that money is the root of all evil in politics and that if you get the big money out, great things will happen. Sanders said that “a handful of billionaires . . . control economic and political life of this country.” He argued that Republicans and Democrats don’t “hate each other.” He called that a “mythology.” Instead, he said, the “real issue is that Congress is owned by big money and refuses to do what the American people want them to do.”
"I’m sorry, but that is a maddeningly simplistic — and wrong — explanation of how American politics works."
"How someone who’s been in Washington as long as Sanders can believe that all that stands between doing “what the American people want [Congress] to do” is something as simple as reforming campaign finance is stunning. Sanders, who brags the NRA gives him a D- rating, is the same politician who supported legislation giving gun manufacturers immunity from civil lawsuits and voted against the Brady Bill. Why? Perhaps it is because Sanders comes from a state that has few gun control laws and lots of gun owners. Yes red-state senators who oppose gun control receive contributions from the NRA. They also have constituents who oppose gun control measures and vote on the issue — like Bernie Sanders. It’s as if in Sanders’ mind, parochialism, ideology, or politics plays no role . . . in politics."
At the end of the day, it's hard to talk about 'What the American people want Congress to do' as the American people disagree with each other on what that is.
"Take single-payer health care, which Sanders claims has been difficult to enact because of a corrupt campaign finance system that allows the “pharmaceutical industry” and private insurance companies to spend millions in “campaign contributions and lobbying.”
"On the one hand, Sanders is right — those are powerful interests. But so are doctors and hospitals, who’d pay a huge price if single payer became law; so are Republicans, who fought tooth and nail to defeat Obamacare and would do the same for a single-payer plan; so are Democrats, who couldn’t even support a public option for Obamacare and are unlikely to support single payer; so are Americans, who may not be inclined to support another restructuring of the health care system — a few years after the last one. It’s not just about money; it’s also about a political system constructed and reinforced to block the kind of massive reform Sanders is advocating. Money is important, but it’s not even close to the whole story."
Cohen rightly asks how someone in Washington so long is so clueless about this. And that's just it-Bernie has been a singularly unproductive member of Congress and then the Senate. He hasn't passed many bills but has given lots of speeches.
"This is frankly what’s become so frustrating about Sanders campaign. I give the man credit for raising issues all too rarely heard in presidential debates, and as a protest candidate, Sanders is playing a vital role in the political process. But now that Sanders’ campaign has gathered steam — and he is ludicrously claiming that he’s more electable than Hillary Clinton — Sanders needs to do more than just sound the same tiresome platitudes and one-dimensional arguments about the evils of Wall Street. He needs to take the job of running for president seriously. If Sunday night was any indication, that’s still not happening."
And that's about it. If Bernie is a protest candidate then he is playing a vital role. But he is not the man to actually lead the Democratic party or the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment