Now that Scalia has passed away, the electability argument in the Democratic primary is taking on a new urgency. For this reason, perhaps, Bernie Sanders' campaign manager, Tad Devine, is making a preemptive strike in claiming that maybe Hillary can't be trusted on who she nominates to the SJC. Devine suggests maybe she will be soft on Citizen's United.
This ignores that the actual Right wing legal group that gave us CU has spent many millions to slander her in any way it can.
She along with President Obama and all Democrats repudiated this decision of the Roberts' Court.
It's not hard to get why Devine is lying about her intentions here-to fight back against the riding tide of the electability argument. But the first priority of Dem voters has to be that we win, not that we nominate 'the True Progressive.'
Meanwhile Stevens again repeated the falsehood that Bernie alone does not have a super PAC raising money for him. Yes he does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/
Overall, this has been the preferred tact of the Bernie campaign. Not to discuss issues but to attempt to somehow malign her character. You can't trust her based on who she's received donations from-rather than her record and what her policy proposals are.
"Why on earth would Bernie Sanders run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image?"
"As we’ve written: Hillary let Bernie off the hook in the last debate. She could have asked him a simple question: Does he believe President Obama is corrupt because of financial industry contributions? It’s a yes or no question that is central to the 2016 race."
"Does Bernie think President Obama is compromised by Wall Street contributions? If so, he should have the courage to say it. If not, he shouldn’t imply that a female candidate would be influenced by donations or speaking fees. There’s a word for that."
http://bluenationreview.com/bernies-reckless-war-on-hillarys-integrity/
Speaking fees are very common-not just for former politicians, but for artists, athletes, actors, all kinds of famous people. Why is it an issue for her alone?
Of course, it's not just Obama who Bernie is implicitly marginalizing but even FDR. As I've explained in previous posts, FDR also took Wall St. money-and put Wall St. folks in charge of regulation-and still got us Glass-Steagall, which Bernie says is the wholly grail of bank regulation.
This purist idea of his that being a progressive means you never accept donations from Wall St. would drum everyone out of the Democratic party except presumably himself-though he has a super PAC.
What's also clear is that if he were to be the Democratic nominee, Bernie would have to raise more money and coordinate more with outside groups to even hope to remain competitive. So this whole purist poise is false.
There is too much at stake for Democrats to get into a Holy War over who's the True Progressive. Holy Wars are for the GOP and Ted Cruz.
This ignores that the actual Right wing legal group that gave us CU has spent many millions to slander her in any way it can.
She along with President Obama and all Democrats repudiated this decision of the Roberts' Court.
It's not hard to get why Devine is lying about her intentions here-to fight back against the riding tide of the electability argument. But the first priority of Dem voters has to be that we win, not that we nominate 'the True Progressive.'
Meanwhile Stevens again repeated the falsehood that Bernie alone does not have a super PAC raising money for him. Yes he does.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/02/11/sanderss-claim-that-he-does-not-have-a-super-pac/
Overall, this has been the preferred tact of the Bernie campaign. Not to discuss issues but to attempt to somehow malign her character. You can't trust her based on who she's received donations from-rather than her record and what her policy proposals are.
"Why on earth would Bernie Sanders run a campaign premised on the destruction of Hillary’s public image?"
"As we’ve written: Hillary let Bernie off the hook in the last debate. She could have asked him a simple question: Does he believe President Obama is corrupt because of financial industry contributions? It’s a yes or no question that is central to the 2016 race."
"Does Bernie think President Obama is compromised by Wall Street contributions? If so, he should have the courage to say it. If not, he shouldn’t imply that a female candidate would be influenced by donations or speaking fees. There’s a word for that."
http://bluenationreview.com/bernies-reckless-war-on-hillarys-integrity/
Speaking fees are very common-not just for former politicians, but for artists, athletes, actors, all kinds of famous people. Why is it an issue for her alone?
Of course, it's not just Obama who Bernie is implicitly marginalizing but even FDR. As I've explained in previous posts, FDR also took Wall St. money-and put Wall St. folks in charge of regulation-and still got us Glass-Steagall, which Bernie says is the wholly grail of bank regulation.
This purist idea of his that being a progressive means you never accept donations from Wall St. would drum everyone out of the Democratic party except presumably himself-though he has a super PAC.
What's also clear is that if he were to be the Democratic nominee, Bernie would have to raise more money and coordinate more with outside groups to even hope to remain competitive. So this whole purist poise is false.
There is too much at stake for Democrats to get into a Holy War over who's the True Progressive. Holy Wars are for the GOP and Ted Cruz.
No comments:
Post a Comment