He always talks about how he lost his first race for the House because he was for an assault weapon ban in 1988. What he leaves out is when he ran again in 1990-and won.
"When Sanders first ran for the House of Representatives, in 1988, he lost to a Republican named Peter Smith, the scion of a banking family. During Smith’s first term, he co-sponsored an assault-rifle ban. In 1990, Sanders ran again, and the N.R.A. went after Smith, sending letters to its Vermont members describing Sanders as the lesser of two evils, since he wasn’t publicly supporting the ban. Sanders won. This is the origin of the critique that Sanders has weak gun-control credentials for a progressive. Vermont is a gun-friendly state: twenty-eight per cent of its residents own firearms, according to a recent survey, and it has some of the nation’s most permissive gun laws."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/the-populist-prophet
It was Smith then who lost for supporting the assault weapon ban and Bernie won by not supporting the ban. This is hardly the kind of record that can leave us confident of breaking the NRA;s veto of gun reform.
Look, the reality is no issue in Bernie's mind is very important except the issue of income inequality. I certainly agree that's a very important issue. But you listening to Bernie's stump speech you still get the idea that for him every problem is a nail.
"Huck Gutman, one of Sanders’s close friends, is an English professor at the University of Vermont; from 2008 to 2012, he served as Sanders’s chief of staff in the Senate. “It doesn’t matter what issue comes up—Bernie understands that the fundamental issue for Americans is economic,” Gutman said. “His record on abortion, on gay marriage, on a great number of things has been very good and very liberal, but he never sees those as the central issues. The central issue is: Are people doing O.K., or are a small number of people ripping them off?”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/the-populist-prophet
The problem of gun control is not about economics. Sure there is a very powerful gun lobby-that has been pretty good to him.
It's not just his record, it's that he doesn't see it as an important issue-any issue but economics he sees as a 'diversion.'
He had the same basic attitude on race. Then Black Lives Matter got their hands on him. Now he says more of what they want to here.
Still at that Iowa Black and Brown Forum Hillary when she discussed racial issues clearly had a much greater depth over understanding of the issues.
Then there is problems of sexism which he still sees as not so important.
"When Sanders first ran for the House of Representatives, in 1988, he lost to a Republican named Peter Smith, the scion of a banking family. During Smith’s first term, he co-sponsored an assault-rifle ban. In 1990, Sanders ran again, and the N.R.A. went after Smith, sending letters to its Vermont members describing Sanders as the lesser of two evils, since he wasn’t publicly supporting the ban. Sanders won. This is the origin of the critique that Sanders has weak gun-control credentials for a progressive. Vermont is a gun-friendly state: twenty-eight per cent of its residents own firearms, according to a recent survey, and it has some of the nation’s most permissive gun laws."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/the-populist-prophet
It was Smith then who lost for supporting the assault weapon ban and Bernie won by not supporting the ban. This is hardly the kind of record that can leave us confident of breaking the NRA;s veto of gun reform.
Look, the reality is no issue in Bernie's mind is very important except the issue of income inequality. I certainly agree that's a very important issue. But you listening to Bernie's stump speech you still get the idea that for him every problem is a nail.
"Huck Gutman, one of Sanders’s close friends, is an English professor at the University of Vermont; from 2008 to 2012, he served as Sanders’s chief of staff in the Senate. “It doesn’t matter what issue comes up—Bernie understands that the fundamental issue for Americans is economic,” Gutman said. “His record on abortion, on gay marriage, on a great number of things has been very good and very liberal, but he never sees those as the central issues. The central issue is: Are people doing O.K., or are a small number of people ripping them off?”
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/12/the-populist-prophet
The problem of gun control is not about economics. Sure there is a very powerful gun lobby-that has been pretty good to him.
It's not just his record, it's that he doesn't see it as an important issue-any issue but economics he sees as a 'diversion.'
He had the same basic attitude on race. Then Black Lives Matter got their hands on him. Now he says more of what they want to here.
Still at that Iowa Black and Brown Forum Hillary when she discussed racial issues clearly had a much greater depth over understanding of the issues.
Then there is problems of sexism which he still sees as not so important.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/01/why-we-need-liberal-democratic-woman.html
This is a conversation I've had with Bernie supporters online-who are about as much fun to talk to as Jehovah's witnesses, and as about as persuasive.
They accuse Hillary of 'identity politics' by simply talking about a woman's right to choose. They tell me Bernie believes in it too just doesn't talk about it all the time.
And that's just it. He may believe in a woman's right to choose but it doesn't have a very high priority with him. Certainly not next to economic inequality-it's just identity politics. A diversion from the real problem.
He may believe in a woman's right to choose but does he realize how serious a threat that right is right now with the GOP's show trials against Planned Parenthood in the House, to the way that red states have successfully cut off access to the point that this right is a right in name alone?
Some feminists say the War Against Women is over and women lost.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/planned-parenthood-abortion-the-war-is-over
So while Bernie nominally believes in choice what capital is he really going to devote to it?
But anything that isn't an economic stump speech he sees as a waste of time.
"Paula Routly, who is the publisher of Seven Days, a popular weekly in Burlington, told me a story that captured the counterintuitive Sanders charm. In 2012, she hosted a gathering of alternative-newspaper publishers, and tried to show them Vermont at its most distinctive. One evening, Jerry, of Ben & Jerry’s, scooped ice cream; on another, Senator Sanders stopped by a group dinner. As Routly recalls, “There were no niceties or glad-handing before he launched into a brief but impassioned rant, tailored specifically for our group. He told us we were doing a great job of covering the arts but a lousy one reporting on economic issues. Message delivered—he didn’t want to meet anyone or eat anything or answer any questions. He was out of there.” Everyone loved it. “He only talks to people in one register, but it’s a very effective one,” Routly said.
Right. But can you win the Presidency talking in just one register? Yet, Bernie doesn't have a deep understanding of economics which may explain why he chafed yesterday that Hillary was being like Karl Rove in asking for details on his single payer plan.
"Despite this abiding interest, Sanders does not seem to have immersed himself that deeply in the extensive literature on inequality. When I spoke with him in his Senate office, I asked him how his ideas on economic fairness were formed. “No one can answer that,” he replied. “How were your ideas formed?” He did not particularly warm to discussing the theories of such economists as Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty. (Gutman told me, “I read a third of Piketty’s book. I don’t think Bernie would read a page of it.” Sanders was interested less in academic arguments, Gutman said, than in hard numbers that “exemplify the disparities he sees and feels and hears about from people.”) Sanders dutifully mentioned that the economist Stephanie Kelton is an adviser to the Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee, of which he is the ranking member, but he was ardent in his admiration for Pope Francis, who has condemned the “economy of exclusion.” Sanders called the Pope “an extraordinary figure,” adding, “My God, he came along right at the time we need him!”
So Bernie is a believer rather than a thinker or someone who strives to be a knower. He knows he's right in his economic policies-he can't be bothered to actually show his work.
This is a conversation I've had with Bernie supporters online-who are about as much fun to talk to as Jehovah's witnesses, and as about as persuasive.
They accuse Hillary of 'identity politics' by simply talking about a woman's right to choose. They tell me Bernie believes in it too just doesn't talk about it all the time.
And that's just it. He may believe in a woman's right to choose but it doesn't have a very high priority with him. Certainly not next to economic inequality-it's just identity politics. A diversion from the real problem.
He may believe in a woman's right to choose but does he realize how serious a threat that right is right now with the GOP's show trials against Planned Parenthood in the House, to the way that red states have successfully cut off access to the point that this right is a right in name alone?
Some feminists say the War Against Women is over and women lost.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/planned-parenthood-abortion-the-war-is-over
So while Bernie nominally believes in choice what capital is he really going to devote to it?
But anything that isn't an economic stump speech he sees as a waste of time.
"Paula Routly, who is the publisher of Seven Days, a popular weekly in Burlington, told me a story that captured the counterintuitive Sanders charm. In 2012, she hosted a gathering of alternative-newspaper publishers, and tried to show them Vermont at its most distinctive. One evening, Jerry, of Ben & Jerry’s, scooped ice cream; on another, Senator Sanders stopped by a group dinner. As Routly recalls, “There were no niceties or glad-handing before he launched into a brief but impassioned rant, tailored specifically for our group. He told us we were doing a great job of covering the arts but a lousy one reporting on economic issues. Message delivered—he didn’t want to meet anyone or eat anything or answer any questions. He was out of there.” Everyone loved it. “He only talks to people in one register, but it’s a very effective one,” Routly said.
Right. But can you win the Presidency talking in just one register? Yet, Bernie doesn't have a deep understanding of economics which may explain why he chafed yesterday that Hillary was being like Karl Rove in asking for details on his single payer plan.
"Despite this abiding interest, Sanders does not seem to have immersed himself that deeply in the extensive literature on inequality. When I spoke with him in his Senate office, I asked him how his ideas on economic fairness were formed. “No one can answer that,” he replied. “How were your ideas formed?” He did not particularly warm to discussing the theories of such economists as Joseph Stiglitz and Thomas Piketty. (Gutman told me, “I read a third of Piketty’s book. I don’t think Bernie would read a page of it.” Sanders was interested less in academic arguments, Gutman said, than in hard numbers that “exemplify the disparities he sees and feels and hears about from people.”) Sanders dutifully mentioned that the economist Stephanie Kelton is an adviser to the Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee, of which he is the ranking member, but he was ardent in his admiration for Pope Francis, who has condemned the “economy of exclusion.” Sanders called the Pope “an extraordinary figure,” adding, “My God, he came along right at the time we need him!”
So Bernie is a believer rather than a thinker or someone who strives to be a knower. He knows he's right in his economic policies-he can't be bothered to actually show his work.
But on issues like the gun control epidemic of the assault on a woman's right tho choose-that stuff is just a diversion in his mind for what really matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment