So I notice some BMGers all fired up and saying we should only speak positive things about the candidates we support and ignore anything that would make them unattrcative to a reasonable thinking Democrat.
One self-described “ardent supporter of Hillary” blogged
We posted a while back calling on liberals to stop the negative personal attacks within the party and highlight Hillary and Bernie’s positive shared ends through different means ; AND to really start focusing on the general election and the Republican nominee whoever that may be.
What the hell does that mean?
I’ll tell you what it means. it means do not say anything bad about Hillary. That is what it means. If you want to defeat her you are not allowed to compare your record to hers if it makes her look bad. No siree. Better not point out things a voter might want to know yet Hillary sure enough ain’t gonna tell them.
Nope that’s bad. We need to shun anyone who dares to bring up Hillary’s down side.
SHE’S THE MOST QUALIFIED ! Why bother with anything else. No need to.
So, let’s all do what the Hillary people are telling us to do. Do not question her, go along to get along, and be happy we have her. Just like the establishment wants.
I say fight harder people. Her people want to make the act of questioning her on the Wall Street money the same as calling her fat and ugly.
Now let’s not take this lying down. Get out there and don’t stop demanding answers.
mike_cote says
The Eleventh Commandment was not original to Ronald Reagan, but was popularized by him. Republicans supposedly learned this during the Goldwater/Rockefeller primaries and the Reagan/Gerald Ford primaries, and Democrats supposedly learned this during the Jimmy Carter/Ted Kennedy primaries, so stop being such a pompous ass and learn from History already.
JimC says
n/t
pogo says
…Reagan, who split the GOP in 1976 by running against a GOP incumbent President, whining about not attacking fellow Republicans 4 years later when he is the front runner.
Christopher says
…that if you can’t say something nice about someone…
You can make a positive point about your candidate which also implies a contrast with the other candidate and yet not be so personal or negative.
JimC says
That politics and religion are impolite dinner topics. So we invented the stammtisch.
As usual, Ernie puts it more bluntly than I would, but his essential point is correct. Of course the frontrunner camp wants us to “unify.” The team with a lead in the sixth inning wants the ump to call the game, whereas the other team looks at the rain says, “Oh come on, it’s not that bad.”
Still some ball to play …
petr says
…
The most common response to critical comments I have made about Sen Sanders is to accuse me of being a Clinton supporter. This is egregious mindreading fail, since I am not a Clinton supporter. The logic, such as it is, is that criticism of Sanders is opposition and if I am in opposition, I must be in support of Clinton. This default manichean posture affects the debate in two ways: it provides an excuse to elide the actual (and often legitimate) criticism and it denies potential commonalities between two candidates, leaving supporters of the one unable and unwilling to support the other at any point at all.
This diary, and your comment is no different; you and the diarist are both trying to read minds. And you fail. while it is not yet mathematically impossible that Sen Sanders will be the nominee is highly improbable and, under those circumstances, it’s entirely fair to ask if Sanders’ supporters can buckle down for the Democrats, if not for Clinton herself, and not throw a moody because they didn’t get what they wanted. Those who are asking for ‘unity’ (whatever that might mean) are, at the least, doing so in response to demonstrated dis-unity and contentious statements made and are not resorting to divination of intent and prophecy of motives.
Funny thing is, we’d probably have stronger candidates overall , and a better chance, if we took the opportunity to confront criticism as sincerely proffered party building rather than political jujitsu and position jockeying. Any party that encompasses the spectrum from Sen Sanders to Secretary Clinton might find that an absolute necessity.
edgarthearmenian says
do not call me a racist or a fascist if I disagree with you.
SomervilleTom says
Don’t open doors you aren’t eager to walk through.
petr says
… to refrain from calling you either a racist or a fascist except in those instances in which you may say or do racist and or fascist things. I further promise; that I will call the sky blue only when it is blue; I will breathe at regular intervals; I will tip the waitstaff; I will sleep when I am tired; and eat when I am hungry (including my vegetables); nor will I question the roundness of the earth.
All these things I promise, and one more: I will state the obvious when it becomes apparent that some have missed it.
fredrichlariccia says
because you bring a constructive, independent perspective to problem solving.
Thank you for keeping the dialogue positive, substantive and enlightening.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
seriously dude. I have no idea what the hell Petr said.
Suppose long ago one of the candidates voted to stop federal funding of all abortions. Suppose it was Hillary. Would it be negative to point that out?
johnk says
and someone used it as an example.
Christopher says
For this example give me a diary titled “My candidate stands firmly for a woman’s right to choose.” over one titled “The other candidate can’t be trusted on reproductive rights.” any day.
Mullaley540 says
Would it be negative to point our that Bernie voted for the Crime Bill that he’s railing against today?
Would it be negative to point our that Bernie signed a traditional marriage petition in the 90’s?
Would it be negative to point out Bernie is all for Defense Spending when it involves F-35s for the VT ANG?
Would it be negative to point out that Bernie is for holding all manufacturers accountable for product liability EXCEPT gun manufacturers?
Would it be negative to point out that your Saint Bernie is, heaven forbid, a POLITICIAN?
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Is it negative to point out Hillary’s votes? Is it negative to point out out the Wall Street $peeches?
I say no. What say you Mullaley?
judy-meredith says
N/T
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Is Bill’s draconian crime laws fair bait?
Mullaley540 says
“It is firmly my believe that clearly there are people in our society who are horribly violent, who are deeply sick and sociopathic, and clearly these people must be put behind bars in order to protect society from them.”
— Bernie Saunders in House well before boting for the Crime Bill
doubleman says
That’s absurd cherry-picking. Literally the next words out of his mouth:
He was clear at the time that he hated much of the bill but voted for it largely because of VAWA.
Mullaley540 says
If one accepts Sanders’ explanation about why he voted for the crime bill, then why not accept Hillary’s explanation for her vote for Iraq War Authorization?
Clinton explained at the time that she was voting to give W and weapons inspectors leverage.
Can you forgive Clinton for her acknowledged mistake for trusting the President as you have apparently forgiven Sanders for voting for the crime bill? Both votes affected millions negatively.
johnk says
so there you go. It’s his bill. He used it in campaigns years later to show that he was tough on crime. But that is Clinton’s fault? Ha ha ha ha … what a joke. It just gets worse and worse for Sanders.
judy-meredith says
Sorry for the fat fingers.
Christopher says
…if you devoted an entire post to any one or more of those items rather than focus on promoting Clinton.
petr says
… I think we may have touched upon one of the sources of your anger.
Would you like to talk about it?
If it wasn’t negative, you wouldn’t point it out. If it wasn’t something angry that (even if only superficially) impinged upon something important you wouldn’t say it. Issues that arouse anger are not important to you. Only anger is. You piggyback upon the issues (that you know everybody else cares about) because without it you know you’d be just another wannabe street prophet vomiting out his incoherent rage to an uncaring world. It’s touching, in a way.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Stay on her, that’s how.
The reasonong that she is the nominee no matter what so therefore do not knock her is so against American and political principles. The pro-Sanders wing of the party has to stay on Hillary, as do others.
Mullaley540 says
Stay on him, that’s how. Hold Bernie to the same standards he would have us hold Hillary.
(BTW. The pro-Hillary wing of the party IS the Democratic Party. Bernie Sanders filed with the FEC last month as an INDEPENDENT for his 2018 US Senate Re-Election Campaign. He considers himself only as a Democratic for HIS purposes in this Presidential election.)
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
That’s the establishment talking. Anyone who votes in a democratic primary is a Democrat for the purposes of this election. Your vote does not count twice event though you believe you ARE the Democratic party. This thinking is why people do not want Hillary.
Talk about self-privledge.
Mullaley540 says
Why did he file as an INDEPENDENT in his signed FEC filing for his 2018 US Senate re-election campaign?
TheBestDefense says
In Vermont, a person cannot register to vote as a member of a political party. It is not legally possible.
https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/frequently-asked-questions/voter-registration.aspx
Mullaley540 says
While your point about VT voter registration is informative, it is beside the point. What’s at issue here is what Sanders filed with the FEC under penalty of perjury. Filing with the FEC entails party identification. Somehow Patrick Leahy, also a US Senator from VT, files with the FEC as a Democrat. Why can’t Sanders now that he joined the Democratic Party last year in order to run for President. Is Sanders really serious about being a Democrat, or is he just going to go back back to his independent ways as soon as Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee for President? His FEC filings indicate that his Democratic Party days are numbered.
In case you’re curious, the following link is campaign money’s report on the state of Sanders finances for his 2018 Senate campaign.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/campaigns/bernard_sanders-senate.asp?cycle=16
TheBestDefense says
yeah, but, as I have posted here previously, I am not a Sanders supporter. I was simply correcting your DAMF comment about Sanders’s party registration (none, because you cannot choose a party affiliation) in his home state of Vermont and the party he chose for his Presidential campaign.
SomervilleTom says
TheBestDefense is responding to words that were never written.
Mullalely540 wrote “Why did he file as an INDEPENDENT in his signed FEC filing for his 2018 US Senate re-election campaign?”. That sentence clearly speaks of his FEC filing, not his “party registration … in his home state of Vermont”. There is no mention of Vermont voter registration and nothing to “correct”.
Similarly, there is nothing in Mullaley540’s comment to suggest that TheBestDefense (or anyone else) is a supporter of Mr. Sanders.
What there is, instead, is a straightforward and perfectly legitimate criticism of FEC filings.
ryepower12 says
is to make these kinds of arguments.
I mean, who’d want the millions of people Sanders is inspiring to get involved — who’ve been outside of party politics for years or decades, or are first time voters — when we can instead try to score some cheap points in a primary by saying all these newly people who love Bernie aren’t “real” democrats because the candidate they support isn’t a “real” democrat, either.
Go ahead. Keep making those establishment arguments. It’ll become a fulfilling prophecy, and our party will continue to decline.
ryepower12 says
.
Mullaley540 says
Is it not ironic to claim narrowing of the party while pushing ideological purity?
In Sanders World, President Obama needed a primary challenger in 2012. Hillary Clinton is not “progressive” enough. And, now Nancy Pelosi is not liberal enough. Just how small of a tent is the Sanders version?
And, where are all these legions of newly active liberal voters that Sanders and his followers claim? So far, both 2016 voter registrations and turnout is below 2008 — not that it is a good thing.
ryepower12 says
Seriously, congratulations. You have displayed some serious talent as a master of bending reality, warping the truth and strategically use of making mountains out of molehills if it’ll serve some small point.
What you’re not so hot at is providing evidence to back up your claims.
Look at the kinds of people supporting Bernie and where they line up on the issues. If that’s “ideological purity,” I’ll eat my hat.
Bernie’s fighting an establishment that’s been in power for a very long time, but it’s not an establishment that’s in any risk of being eradicated. Even if Bernie won, Big Business and establishment wings would have a very, very large seat at the table. His fight isn’t to destroy (or narrow), it’s to make sure the New Deal/Great Society wing of the party — that’s been dormant since the early 90s/late 80s — has a seat back at the table, a seat we haven’t had for a very, very long time, and that the party is responsive to the voters first and foremost.
Additionally, almost every core issue that Bernie’s fighting for enjoys wide, popular support in opinion polls, and is only truly opposed by a tiny few — generally the people with the most money.
It is not “ideological purity” to try to move the Overton window of our country back to the left. That said, our corporate-interest-led status quo does represent an ideological purity, though. That’s why they’ve worked so hard to deny any liberals a seat at the table, and why we’ve seen establishment Democrats work as hard as liberals in the 90s to demean and attack liberal causes as Republicans. If it weren’t for elite’s ideological purity, and their success in advancing it, we wouldn’t be having this fight.
Heck, just look at how hard Wall St and their favored pols in our party are working to cap Elizabeth Warren at the knees — and then get back to me about ideological purity.
You think this is an indictment on Bernie. It’s actually an indictment on HIllary, who by all accounts is well poised to win. If anyone should have inspired massive turnout, wouldn’t it be the person who’s won the most delegates thus far?
Bernie’s had some huge success on this front, but only in localized pockets — generally the states where he’s had the most time to campaign in and which were ideologically tilted more to his direction/message.
But, fort the record… in the states Bernie’s won, there has been record or near-record turnout. Everywhere else? Our numbers are down huge.
I’m not going to blame either candidate for the smaller turnout numbers, though, after 8 years of a Democrat in office. The general election is a different race, and I’ve seen no real evidence to suggest that the GOP’s record primary turnout will have much bearing in the general election (particularly as the GOP’s about to implode at their convention).
Mullaley540 says
Why is Sanders for California pushing a Democratic primary challenge to Namcy Pelosi? Is Pelosi insufficiently pure?
Christopher says
Pelosi is a solid San Francisco liberal by all accounts.
TheBestDefense says
You made a wise choice Christopher. The post does not hold up to any kind of internet search. Even the SoS in California shows nothing about an opponent. If there is a lunatic in the Bay area who is running against Pelosi then neither the Democratic Party nor Sanders should be blamed for what is a pretty clear smear.
Mullaley540 says
Really? Try Google.
Here’s just one of MANY examples:
https://secure.berniesanders.com/page/event/detail/44ywz
Like it or not, Sanders for California is pushing a Democratic Primary opponent to Nancy Pelosi.
Mullaley540 says
Delegates in CA are assigned in CA by Congressional District by how they have historically supported Democratic candidates. For example, Nancy Pelosi’s CD gets 9 delegates while other “Republican” districts get only 4. In general for the June primary, Clinton is expected to perform better in those historically Democratic CDs while Sanders is expected to perform best in historically Republican districts. So, supporting Picus like Sanders for California is doing is particularly stupid politics — that is, if your goal is to maximize delegates.
Correction: Technically, the Pelosi-Picus primary is not a Democratic primary as CA has adopted a non-partisan primary system. But given the liberal nature of CA CD12, it is effectively a contest between Pelosi and Picus.
Mullaley540 says
Here’s BernieTV pushing Picus:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VliFSQnyuhw
Apparently, the national Sanders campaign is also behind Picus against Pelosi, too.
ryepower12 says
They are not the “national Sanders campaign.”
Whatever you’re smoking…. it’s the good stuff.
ryepower12 says
from your own link:
AKA not sanctioned by the Bernie Sanders campaign.
Also, that event is not set up by “Sanders for California,” it’s set up by “Veterans for Bernie,” which is probably comprised of the two people who signed up for the event…. one of whom is probably the primary opponent.
Mullaley540 says
Dismiss those two references if you want. (Please note that they use copywrited Sanders letterhead and they are on the secure BernieSanders.com website). How about the dozens of other examples that any simple google search reveals? (Try using Sanders and Picus as search words). The cumulative import is clear to anyone not wearing Bernie blinders: the Sanders campaign is pushing a primary challenge to Nancy Pelosi.
BTW have you noticed a pattern here? Primary challenges to powerful, liberal women by old white guys with an underlying message of the womenfolk not being ideologically pure enough. Tell me again how this is building the party.
JimC says
How does a primary challenge build the party? Is that really what you just asked?
I haven’t run down the links so I don’t know if Sanders is encouraging a challenge to Pelosi, but if he is, so what?
I keep reading on this very website that competition is good, and of course we all know everything said on BMG is true.
Mullaley540 says
Personally, I’m reluctant to support primary challenges to Incumbent Democrats — particularly those in red districts/states.
I am really opposed to primary challenges to incumbent liberals, like the CA CD12 case.
I welcome lots of candidates to non-incumbent primaries, like this year’s Presidential primary. But all candidates should be vetted, not just the favorite. And, once it’s clear from actual voters who the nominee is (like it is for Clinton this year and Obama in 2008), then the losing candidate should tone down the subjective attacks (e.g., questioning judgement, whether one’s “qualified” or not, …). I was just as upset with HRC’s campaign tone & actions in 2008 as I am upset with Sanders campaign tone & actions today.
ryepower12 says
You’re reluctant to support primary challenges to incumbent Democrats, “particularly” in red districts/states.
But you’re also “really opposed” to primary challenges in liberal, safe seats?
If you oppose primary challenges in conservative districts and oppose them in liberal districts… when exactly would you support a primary challenge?
This full-throttled support of the establishment ensures an insular party leadership where it’s difficult or impossible to challenge the status quo, and dissuades any kind of new voters or people from joining our party — and the new energy that would come with them.
I think your views are dangerous for the party, if we’re to be a party that’s responsive to the people and times — and not just the big donors.
Mullaley540 says
You can work on ideological purity in your small tent. I’m focusing on the prize: winning the house, senate and statehouses throughout the US. And yes, getting those majorities may entail electing people that are not as liberal as we would prefer.
Historically, progressive causes advance most when Democrats control more legislative bodies (House, Senate and Statehouses). Having only liberal Democratic legislators, but in the minority, will keep progressive causes in the wilderness.
Meanwhile, I’d appreciate you not misrepresenting statements to fit your narrative. I did not state no challenges to incumbents in liberal safe districts. I said no challenges to liberal incumbents.
BTW If you have an incumbent liberal, in a red or blue district, why would you wish to weaken that incumbent with a primary challenge? I’m all for challenging blue dogs in liberal districts.
I’m reluctant to challenge blue dogs in red districts for the simple reason: Do we really want to risk something worse — electing a Republican? At least, a blue dog votes for our liberal Speaker and Committee Chairs. Although blue dogs can be infuriating when they give GOP obstruction cover by occasionally siding with them. (Joe Lieberman being exhibit A; and he was in blue district!)
ryepower12 says
voting records actually tell very little about where a politician is — there are lots of opportunities for pols to pad votes, and many different ways to count them.
That’s why I’m not “misrepresenting” your statement — if you go by voting records, there are very few congressmen and women who are “blue dogs” representing very liberal districts if you line up all the issues and declare some liberal and others conservative, and tabulate them all as if each vote is the same. What matters are the key issues that have a chance of passing, or that we had a chance to prevent from passing — things like the fast track on TPP.
That’s why we need primaries. Primaries are a way for the local members of a party to decide whether a politician is liberal enough for their own district on issues that matter — whether those districts are red, blue or in the middle. Primaries are a useful tool and we shouldn’t dissuade anyone from using them. Incumbents have every advantage; they can face the occasional primary challenge, and trying to suppress a primary challenge may make that challenger stronger.
ryepower12 says
1. Link or it didn’t happen.
2. No Democratic official is entitled to their position. Incumbents have to run in primaries like everyone else. Nancy Pelosi serves at the pleasure of her district, not the other way around.
Mullaley540 says
1. What is it about Bernie supporters that they can’t seem to use google themselves? And, they act like they’re in a bubble where nary a discouraging word is spoke about their Saint?
2. Ever wonder why Sanders has few accomplishment in his long Congressional career? (And please spare us the “amendment king” nonsense pushed by Sanders sychophant Matt Taibbi; 23 relatively minor amendments in 34 years is less than one a year). Or, why not a single one of his Senate colleagues support him? Maybe because Sanders has a history of pissing off his natural allies (google search words Frank and Sanders). Today he’s pulling the self-defeating stunt of encouraging his supporters to press a primary challenge to the liberal house minority leader.
JimC says
In fact I think some decaf might be in order.
SomervilleTom says
I know it’s a quibble, but again we see a reaction to something that wasn’t said.
“Sick” is not “tired”. I know they are often said together, but in this case they were not. The comment (title) says “Sick of Googling…” and I, for one, can see why.
That comment comes after multiple instances, on this diary alone and in the past day, of fervent assertions that are readily disproved by a simple Google search. The specific comment provoking the response comes AFTER earlier comments here and here providing the requested links.
It seems to me that a reasonable starting point for civilized discussion is to actually LISTEN to (or read) what others have said (or written). I think that when somebody — and especially a relatively new BMG participant — offers links as requested, then perhaps a “thank you” is more appropriate than a snarky comment about caffeine levels.
JimC says
In my arrogant opinion, snark is appropriate when someone’s comments speak of magic words, “See No Evil” supporters, etc.
Also, no one is forcing anyone to google.
Mullaley540 says
BTW, I am not a new BMGer. I lost my password years ago, and it was tied to an email I stopped using in 2003. I finally got my email and password corrected recently.
ryepower12 says
backed a primary challenge to Pelosi.
It hasn’t happened anywhere except in your paranoid delusions.
And Tiabbi called Sanders the “Amendment King” because Bernie set the record for the number of amendments while he was in Congress. No easy feat.
If you’re going to attack people for being overly rosy on Bernie or not seeing faults, then at least don’t be dismissive of his accomplishments.
You clearly sound like you need a break from this primary. I highly suggest a night or weekend in which you don’t think or read or do anything campaign related, because your posts read as unhinged.
Mullaley540 says
Are you confident Pelosi voters in CA CD12 will overlook the copywrited Sanders logos on Picus campaign materials and pro-Picus stuff on BernieSanders.com and note the distinction that Sanders’ support is not “official”. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Are you confident that Pelosi won’t remember how the Sanders campaign is behavior for her own primary?
ryepower12 says
As I’ve already noted, anyone can post events on Bernie’s website. Should you have an issue with that, please remember that Hillary’s website is set up the same way — and I’m sure I could find some event hosted on the site that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t love or condone if I looked hard enough.
So… I can’t be sure if you’re lying, or just badly misinformed — and will withhold my judgment on that. However, going forward, if you continue to suggest that any random event posted on a candidate’s website constitutes that campaign’s full-fledged endorsement and support for that event, it will be a lie, particularly for a national campaign with hundreds or thousands of volunteer-led events a day.
Furthermore, re: logos, there’s about 5 million “Sanders for X” groups on Twitter, Facebook, etc. etc. etc. that all use Bernie’s copyrighted logos. Almost none of these groups are officially associated with the campaign.
Bazillions of events have been hosted by these groups, which also use Bernie logos. That something is copyrighted doesn’t mean it is officially sanctioned by the campaign. People take images without permission on the web all the time, and often times it isn’t even illegal. (In fact, I’d imagine that Bernie’s logos, etc., are copyrighted under a creative commons license.)
Yes, for two reasons.
1) She’s a grown up interested in the responsible management of our government, and certainly isn’t going to make a mountain out of a molehill.
2) She wouldn’t be where she is today if she was in the practice of elevating a gadfly into a behemoth, particularly those gadflies who are trafficking in the name of others.
Having seen this guy’s website, I doubt Picus will even make it to the general election ballot in Majority Leader Pelosi’s reelection campaign, and I doubt the Nancy Pelosi campaign is quaking in their boots about him or anyone else right now.
Finally, why should we even be worried at all if Nancy Pelosi “remembers” this? I have the expectations that our party’s leaders will let bygones be bygones after a campaign is over, and will proceed in the business of running our country, not holding grudges. Don’t you?
Do you think people who hold grudges and want to use the party to exact revenge should be rewarded in our party?
I don’t think that at all applies to Nancy Pelosi, who I have tremendous respect for and am glad has continued to remain our party’s House Majority Leader.
However, you seem to imply that she does, and that this is somehow something we should respect. I find that kind of thinking in Democratic circles very scary, and McCarthy-esque. We don’t need to blackball anyone who opposes a Democratic candidate, and we shouldn’t reward any politician who would. The implication of your views on this issue are, IMO, antithetical to the ideals of our party. I hope you’ll re-calibrate.
kirth says
Was just trying to see if the existing downrate was M540, as I expected. It was.
We ought to be able to correct accidental ratings like civilized websites allow.
Mullaley540 says
Can others also play this game?
Is that all we need to do? Call something “establishment” and POOF magically the argument is won!
Mullaley540 says
Sorry to break it to you, but Sanders is behind by 2.4 million votes NOT because Hillary votes count more. In fact, the number of delegates Sanders has received are actually more than the proportion of actual votes he’s received. (Caucus votes, on average, lead to more delegates than primary votes.)
BTW, is privilege a magical word, too?
johnk says
Sanders Caucus state wins had that effect, his delegate count is higher in proportion that actual votes.
JimC says
I’m not entirely sure I get that, but I think that’s what’s being offered.
kirth says
Or you can compare the other candidate’s supporters to Tea Partiers.
Christopher says
…but you will not find any diaries or comments from me which attack any candidate, only those that defend mine.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
but it doesn’t make you better than everyone, as you believe
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
Seems to be a pretty broad definition. Depends upon whom you support I guess.
johnk says
have you ready anything on this web site lately. Anything factual is attacked. They all know their attacks are junk. But they post them anyway.
Christopher says
…between a post that is pro-Sanders and one that is anti-Clinton.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
?
judy-meredith says
And thank you for pointing that out . I guess if Hillary can take it I should be able to. And Mullaley, thank you for the sweet paragraph response to the crime bill.
Christopher says
…to tear down another Dem candidate. I’ve just been saying that my very strong preference is we stay positive.
kbusch says
This diary has a sort of typical fascination with what people are “allowed” or not “allowed” to say — as if this were a classroom, church, or funeral where some kind of decorum had to be maintained. EB3’s ongoing battle against his over-controlling parents continues.
But this is a very unpolitical way of looking at things. If one thinks that the Sanders’ campaign’s efforts to drag the Overton to the left is a worthy goal, one might still recognize that that effort is much easier under a Clinton Administration than a Cruz Administration. So most of us have a hierarchy of goals. Clinton besmirching does not not help Overton window dragging. Likewise marginalizing Sanders (he’s not a “real” Democrat — in our very narrow two party system) is parcel with keeping “liberal” as a word of rebuke — not something that’s good for any Democrat’s general election campaign.
Let’s not forget either the years of the Republican noise machine working hard to undermine Bill Clinton. They’ve attempted the same with Benghazi and Secretary Clinton and thereby created some kind of weird amorphous suspicion that something bad and dishonest has occurred without even naming what that was. Likewise, the excesses of anti-communism that afflicted our civic life from the Joseph McCarthy era to the fall of the Berlin Wall have made it very difficult for the U.S. to have any of the left-of-center parties one finds in Europe or Canada. We are ill-served if we let reheated anti-communist paranoia or recycled Scaife effluvia pollute our public discourse.
Within those constraints, it seems quite reasonable to wonder about hawkishness or votes on gun bills or the racist effect of anti-crime legislation or the clarity of plans with respect to big banks.
jconway says
Particularly your second paragraph which essentially sums up my own views regarding the primary. The Sanders campaign was always about moving the Overton window and it has succeeded dramatically beyond expectations. Socialism is no longer a dirty word, neither is liberal or progressive, it is more rather than less likely future candidates and leaders will be produced by this campaign. I want to maximize his primary success.
That said, hierarchy of goals is a useful way of looking at the bigger picture and I would agree with you there that this year of all years is the time to vote for the Democratic nominee against the Republican. No contest.
Jasiu says
I just have to pipe in here to note EB3’s continued skill to lob the troll bait at BMG and everyone’s gobbling it up. I can’t blame EB3 at this point – I actually respect the skill s/he employs in creating a shit storm every time.
judy-meredith says
n/t
terrymcginty says
Just in case you thought that we did not notice that your sole purpose on this blog seems to be to divide Democrats, be aware. We notice. Nice try, but we got ya!
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
You have me wrong. I’ve been put on this earth to bother people like you. Party affilliation not a factor. Get over yourself.
centralmassdad says
Jeez these threads are a bore. Can’t someone get a good piece going on how crappy Speaker DeLeo is or something?
If there really is a primary challenge to Pelosi, and the challenge is actually a threat, that would suggest to me that a lot of the speculation of how the Sanders campaign is really moving the Democratic Party to the left might actually be true.
If there really is a rising ideological movement, then it doesn’t care about “building the party” so much as it cares about directing the party, and a target like Rep. Pelosi would be a huge step in that direction– rather like the way that movement conservatives took out powerful Republicans like Sen. Bennett a few cycles ago signaled a new power center in that party, which “establishment” leaders ignored, to their present dismay.
That would actually be an interesting development. The presidential primaries are no longer particularly interesting because they aren’t really competitive at this point. Sanders people are realizing that and are engaging in some spleen-venting.
I remain convinced that a significant chunk of Sanders’ support comes simply because he is a man, and that his wow-socialism campaign would have fizzled against Candidate Biden, if that’s how the chips fell. This entire post provides little in the way of evidence to the contrary.
eb3-fka-ernie-boch-iii says
The legislature has been a big yawn. How much longer can Dempsey wait to be speaker? How long will the federal investigation last which means Deleo has legal bills which can paid out of campaign account. he needs to be speaker so he can still raise money so he can pay lawyers to keep an eye on the corrup Fred Wyshak.
As for the sexist part of voters I suggest if you replace eother candidate with Elizabeth Warren you wouldn’t say that.
Many people just don’t like Hillary.
JIm Marzilli has same problem.
Mark L. Bail says
with political insurgencies: they don’t realize the party is a coalition. They think that the party is ossified and is doing it wrong and that they are needed to change things for the better. Never mind that Bernie Sanders just joined the Democratic Party or has spent prior years badmouthing it. These folks are necessary. We’ve been operating with a clipped left wing for too long.
There’s a difference between Bernie and Hillary supporters in general. Hillary’s tend to be more closely aligned with the actual party. Many, but by no means all, of Bernie’s supporters are more loosely connected to the party and politically inexperienced. Some act like born again Christians, trying to spread the Gospel of Bernie, immune to anything else but his Word. I heard a guy on the radio who left the Greens to vote in the New York primary for Bernie. He said Hillary had no policies other than what she took from Bernie. Her website is full of her policies on tons of issues.
I’m not trying to say that Hillary’s supporters are better. They may be more unthinking. They may be part of the problem, rather than open to new solutions. There is, however, a significant difference between some Hillary and Bernie supporters.
Christopher says
…that supporters’ attitudes towards the other candidate is lopsided. We see much more Hillary-bashing from Sanders supports it seems than Bernie-bashing from Clinton supporters. Right here on BMG I can think of a few Sanders supports who can’t seem to find a single nice thing to say about Clinton to the point of hating her almost as much as the VRWC does, but Clinton supporters seem to be more welcoming of Sanders in the race and may even agree with him on various issues.
centralmassdad says
She can afford to be more magnanimous because she is winning, and is about to win outright. He is losing and his people are realizing it, so they are taking their desperate measures now. HRC never really had to run at him hard. If by some streak of miracles he winds up as the nominee, I think he is toast in the general.
Christopher says
…especially compared to 2008, but I’m referring to supporters.
Christopher says
…the above comment was downrated by exactly an example of a BMG Sanders supporter I was talking about!:)
Mullaley540 says
That Green Party member is in for a rude awakening next Tuesday when he tries to vote in the NY Democratic Primary. Unless he changed party registration one year ago, he can’t vote in the Democratic Primary. Sorry, them’s New York rules.
I’ve long suspected that even though pollsters indicate Clinton will win NY by double digits, they are actually overstating Sanders’ actual vote. Thousands of Sanders voters are going to find out that, as registered Independents or recently re-registered Democrats, they are ineligible to vote in this year’s NY Primary.
Let me beat the wholely predictable hue and cry from Bernieland next week and agree beforehand that, yes indeed, that’s voter disenfranchisement. You may have cried wolf before, but this time it will definitely be the real deal.
(Note: Even as an HRC supporter, I do not approve of New York’s long period to change party registration. Like dailykos, I am for all delegates to be chosen by closed state primaries with same day registration (not open primaries and certainly not those undemocratic caucuses). Having long periods for changes in party registration simply discourages party building).
Mark L. Bail says
having to re-register in October.
Voting should be as easy as possible. New York’s stupid system benefits Hillary, but that’s not the point, as you say. There should be as little as practically possible between the will of voters and their franchise.
ykozlov says
Thousands of new voters registered before the deadline, so they can vote. But it’s far too little too late. The NY system with closed primaries and a 6+ month deadline is awful. I know people who would like to vote but can’t because of this.
There is a bill in committee to open up the primary, but of course it’s too late for that.
Also there are continuing shenanigans with changed registrations in NY and CA like in AZ. People are suing. By the way here are some reports of disenfranchisement in other states.
So, yes, HRC will win NY, mostly due to disenfranchisement. I hope no Democrats are cheering about this.
The fun part is that Drumpf’s children don’t get to vote for him either.
Christopher says
…but I actually like the idea of closed primaries. Pick a side for crying out loud. Here in MA it dawned on me that since unenrolled voters can pull either ballot they also are allowed to vote for partisan state and town committees, which especially doesn’t seem right. My understanding of the rationale for the early deadline is precisely so one really is loyal to a party without necessarily knowing who the individual candidates are. As long as the rules are the same for all I see no disenfranchisement.
ryepower12 says
1) It ensures that our candidates aren’t just responsive to the party machine, but also liberal voters in general.
2) Look at what has happened in recent history on the GOP side with closed primaries. Closed systems leave that risk. (Same-day registration would help mitigate it, but there’s still a lot of people our party needs to be responsive to who wouldn’t register as a Democrat to vote in a primary, even if they intended to re-register as an unenrolled a day later.)
Christopher says
…should register with us. They could help move the party in MA to the left in practice rather than just in theory.
SomervilleTom says
Since, as you’ve made so clear so often, the institutional party has NO mechanism for influencing elected officials who are affiliated with the party, how would having more liberal voters register as Democrats change anything?
I understand that every organization wants its numbers to increase. I don’t see how such an increase would have any measurable effect at all.
I’ve been a registered member of our party for as long as I’ve lived in Massachusetts. It seems as though most of what I hear, especially from you, is about how little that party can do to anybody for anybody about anything.
I think it’s time for the institutional Massachusetts Democratic Party to reshape ITSELF, so that it has more carrots and more sticks.
So long as Colleen Garry and Denise Provost stand side-by-side with the VERY SAME benefits and limits from the party they each belong to, then I see NO reason how membership in that party does anything.
Christopher says
…by participating in the caucus/convention process open only to members, or run for state and local committees.
SomervilleTom says
The national Democratic Party explicitly rejected racism in the aftermath of the 1968 convention. It made it clear that the national party would not support, campaign for, or otherwise aid segregationist politicians even if they claimed to be Democrats.
The Massachusetts Democratic Party can do that today regarding LBGT discrimination, abortion rights, and a number of other bedrock Democratic principles.
So long as Colleen Garry enjoys the full support of the institutional party, it is hard to understand why anybody who opposes the bigotry that is her stock-in-trade will join the party.
We are already supposed to be Democrats. Democrats already oppose discrimination and support a woman’s right to choose. In my view, it’s long past time that the organization start making changes and stop making excuses.
ryepower12 says
.
Christopher says
…but I still say it makes zero sense for independents to have a say in the composition of partisan committees.
SomervilleTom says
Hillary Clinton will win New York because it is her home state and polls continue to show her at something like at 2-1 (65-35) advantage. Yes, it’s true that some voters who were not registered as Democrats will be excluded from this primary.
I don’t think there are nearly enough of those to make a difference. I therefore think that your phrase “mostly due to disenfranchisement” is an exaggeration.
centralmassdad says
The states where Sanders has done the best–where he has gotten all of his “momentum”– are the caucus states where people aren’t allowed to vote at all.
The oddest thing about the Sanders folks here (and in my facebook stream) is how far off in the woods of magical fairy-dust thinking they are.
“We want Sanders because Health Care is a human right!”
“Well, what does that mean? What will happen when he is elected?”
… … … ” Um… … Goldman Sachs! Release the speeches! And Bernie will break up the big banks!”
“Well, how?”
… … … … “Um… … Hillary is funded by Wall Street! ”
“Well, he is down 10 points in NY and has no obvious path to the nomination.”
“Umm… Iraq vote! Libya! Momentum!”
The reality-distortion field is remarkably strong.
ykozlov says
This is a gross exaggeration:
Caucuses have a lot of problems, but people do go and vote. In fact most of these states have had open caucuses and/or same day registration, so more more of the electorate can go and vote than in e.g. NY/AZ, and so they did – in record numbers in some places.
All caucuses work differently. I understand many do actually have paper ballots, if that’s how you define voting.
The rest of your post is flamebait.