Bernie Sanders wrote the ACA clause that allowed for VT to try single payer, but VT failed to raise

[pnwmom]

the taxes that were necessary to put single payer into place. Even though the Federal government was offering substantial funding through the ACA, that wasn't enough.

So the most liberal state in the country failed to approve single payer. Oregon also failed to launch a public option.

If Sanders couldn't accomplish this even on a signature issue in Vermont, how does he think he can lead the whole country sharply to the left on a multitude of issues? Despite a Congress that is far more conservative than the legislature in Vermont?

[eloydude]

1. So that was the fault of Bernie?

Excuse me, but the governor of Vermont ditched the "single payer" as soon as he could calling it a 'failure'.

The billionaires that are currently evading taxes are those who are responsible for the shortfall.

[stevenleser]

4. Yes, if he is claiming he is a leader. If he is claiming he can affect radical changes.

Where is the evidence of that ability?

[cui bono]

185. Where is Obama's?

I thought his failures were all the fault of the nasty ol' GOP?

[okaawhatever]

9. No, the Governor didn't "ditch it as soon as he could". The Governor knew he couldn't make it

happen, plain and simple. He also added the caveat "for now". Stop lying about it.


Vermont Gov. Peter Shumlin announced Wednesday that he was dropping plans for a government-provided health insurance system in the state, citing the measure’s cost.

The decision comes three years after Shumlin, a Democrat, signed into law legislation that paved the path for a single payer health system, called Green Mountain Care, by 2017. Under the law, state officials needed to come up with a financing plan by this year.

But Shumlin missed two deadlines for developing a financing plan before determining this week that paying for Green Mountain Care would have required drastic tax increases. According to the governor’s financial models, financing the system would have required an 11.5 percent payroll tax on all businesses in Vermont and a sliding-scale, income-based premium assessment of up to 9.5 percent.

“These are simply not tax rates that I can responsibly support or urge the Legislature to pass,” Shumlin said in a statement. “In my judgment, the potential economic disruption and risks would be too great to small businesses, working families and the state’s economy.”

http://www.salon.com/2014/12/18/vermont_abandons_plan_for_single_payer_health_care/

[pnwmom]

14. The Governor gave up after years of trying to get the tax increases through the legislature.

Some people here seem think Bernie is going to be a revolutionary figure who will single-handedly wrench the country to the left. How is he going to do that in the whole US when he failed even in the state that knows and loves him?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

51. Really? Who are these people?

I certainly haven't seen any among the folks who show up in Bernie Sanders group.

[Agschmid]

53. SUPPORT A CANDIDATE DONT TEAR SOMEONE ELSE'S DOWN.

Your analysis is flawed and you know it.

[pnwmom]

57. You haven't shown it is flawed. You're trying to avoid the discussion at all.

What in Bernie's history makes you think he will be an effective leader, when he would be the President of a country more conservative than Vermont, with a Congress also much more conservative?

In 24 years, what has he accomplished that shows his leadership skills and his diplomatic ability (both inside and outside the US)?

[Agschmid]

58. The whole premise of your argument is flawed...

Our current President had ZERO Foriegn Policy experience, obviously it's not a job requirement. Also Senator Sanders has done quite a bit in 24 years and to say he hasn't is just bull.

Heck the mans actions in the past two months on TPP are worth my vote.

[pnwmom]

60. When you claim that Sanders is SO much more progressive than Obama has been,

how can you say he will be better able to negotiate with the conservative Congress? When has he demonstrated great negotiating skills? Obama had a strong record of bringing people together. So did the late, great, progressive Ted Kennedy.

But what record does Sanders have? He's basically been a voice in the wilderness for 24 years, priding himself on his ideological purity.

Liberals like Ted Kennedy have accomplished great things by being willing to negotiate and compromise. Bernie Sanders seems to think he can accomplish things by lecturing people.

He is correct on the issues -- yes. But how does that correctness translate into accomplishing anything significant?

[Agschmid]

63. Ted Kennedy is dead, Obama is up against term limits...

You and I are clearly on opposite sides here, neither one of us is going to win the other person over.

It it what it is, but I refuse to belittle your candidate. We should be building people up not TEARING THEM DOWN.

[pnwmom]

68. My candidate will be whoever wins the primary.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting to hear from a Sanders supporter how they think he will be able to work with Congress to pass progressive legislation, in a country that is much more conservative than Vermont.

[Agschmid]

69. Okay let's flip the question, how will Hillary pass progressive legislation in a country...

Much more conservative than NY?

What's her competitive edge here?

[pnwmom]

73. I asked first but I'll answer anyway.

She has shown a willingness to work across the aisle, since her days of First Lady -- just like Ted Kennedy.

I don't see this willingness with Bernie Sanders. With him it always seems to be "my way or the highway."

[stevenleser]

153. She's not the one claiming she can. Sanders entire reason for running is based on it. nt

[cui bono]

188. What? What a load...

His entire reason for running is he wants to fix the country. What is wrong with that?

It is astounding how many people on a supposed Democratic board are willing to just throw aside all their principles for I don't know what. Are you all millionaires and billionaires who will benefit from another corporate president? I don't get it.

Bernie is a fighter for the people. There is no arguing that. Why would you want to distort his motives/claims? He is fighting for YOU.

[questionseverything]

164. well he did offer the amendment that got the fed audited

the only look we have ever had inside the fed, where we found they gave over 13 trillion in loans to foreign countries,companies as Americans were losing everything....more than out national debt at the time

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/senate-adopts-sanders-audit-the-fed-amendment

it passed 96-0, so looks like he bridged divides there

[JonLP24]

96. You're wildly misinformed about Bernie Sanders

Voice in the wilderness? Prides himself on purity?

He was having arguments (a report described overheard yelling) with McCain over VA reform but was still able to get the bill through compromising & all that and it worked. One of the few that had legislation he sponsored actually make it. He is in the top 10 in the Senate when it comes to working with the House.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

129. What ideological purity?

According to those vote monitor types, he's the '37th most liberal' Senator or somesuch. Are you saying those 37 Democratic Senators are all 'ideologically pure'? Sanders has been in the trenches negotiating, which is how he got good things like the Community Health Center expansion added to the ACA.

[pnwmom]

194. In 24 years, why hasn't he written more bills? And why do people here lionize him as such

a liberal if he's only the 37th most Liberal? DUers act like he's the only real progressive in the Senate.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

198. I have no idea why he's written or not written more bills.

Maybe he spends a lot more of his time actually negotiating to make other people's bills better.

Actually that 37th most liberal bit was a little sarcastic, I think those rating systems are all full of crap - they weight stupid votes and important votes the same, and they don't take people's reasons for their votes into account - so if Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and Harry Reid all vote for something for wildly different reasons, that vote still affects their scores the same way.

I think why Sanders, Warren, Brown and a few others have such a following is that they're simply speaking to something a lot of people believe is being ignored by most Democrats. Most stuff is baked in to the party - we EXPECT Republicans to basically be wrong about everything, and likewise we EXPECT Democrats to be good on social issues. If a Democrat is anti-choice, that's an aberration. But when it comes to economic injustice, we don't actually see a lot of Democratic champions. We just see a 'well, we're slightly better than them' attitude from many Dems. And there are a LOT of people hurting out here. More economic inequality, rich get richer, poor get poorer, more people in poverty under Democrats and Republicans alike. Democrats touting 'recoveries' that were massive payouts to the rich, with kabuki tax raises on them that still leave them getting ever richer, and the rest of us scrambling to simply fall into poverty less slowly.

[cui bono]

187. What is the reason for Obama's failures? Obama?

I thought you guys all said it was the GOP?

I'm so confused.

(Not that the Vermont thing was a Bernie failure. He doesn't run the state, he's a US Senator ffs.)

[merrily]

79. Come on now. You know that applies only to criticism of Hillary.

[Marr]

116. First, I haven't seen anyone saying that. Second, in this case, Sanders

would be starting from the position of trying to get Single Payer, rather than starting with a Republican plan and "negotiating" down from there.

Sanders has accomplished a lot. You're suggesting he's some sort of ineffectual, extreme idealist, and that simply isn't the case.

[pnwmom]

117. Saying what? That he tried to get it through for years? And the Governor

was trying to pass single-payer, which is not a Republican plan.

[Marr]

119. Saying that Sanders will 'single handedly wrench the country to the left".

I think a Sanders administration could accomplish a lot in that regard by informing and mobilizing the population, moving the national dialogue, etc.-- but no one is describing him as some sort of political Hercules.

My reference to a Republican plan was regarding Obama's goals on health insurance reform vs. Sanders. I would prefer a president who starts negotiating from an actual left position, rather than starting with a Republican plan.

You're trying to paint Sanders as an ineffectual idealist, and his supporters as out-of-touch "purists".

[stevenleser]

126. "You're trying to paint Sanders as an ineffectual idealist, and his supporters as out-of-touch...

purists"

Is there a reason that we shouldn't think both?

We have someone who has been in a position of power for 24 years who hasn't affected any major change in that time, and he is now claiming he should be given a bigger position with many if not more of the same challenges on a platform of affecting major changes.

And we have people supporting him who believe he can accomplish that despite a track record of 24 years that states otherwise.

I'm still waiting for an explanation of which Republican senators vote to pass his agenda.

[Marr]

135. He's passed more than Clinton, so what's with the crowing?

I mean, if your candidate had managed to get her anti-flag burning bills passed, that'd be on thing she could at least point to. But at present, the guy you're calling ineffectual is... if my calculator is correct...

...hmm...

Yes-- infinitely more effective than your preferred candidate.

This is a very odd angle of attack you've chosen.

[stevenleser]

136. He was in congress three times as long. And yet again evades the question.

What Republican senators vote for Bernie's agenda? Its a simple question.

[Marr]

143. Three times zero is zero.

As to your question, we would see. Sanders would make his case like any other president. Demanding details from the future is not an argument.

[stevenleser]

144. So there is no reason for a Sanders Presidency. He can't accomplish anything. Thats your answer. nt

[Marr]

155. Is that the only way you can win an argument?

Arguing against what you say the other person said rather than what they said?

Again, if you're going to use this point to say there's no reason for a Sander's Presidency, then there's no reason for a Clinton presidency, either.

[Bjorn Against]

145. What legislation that is good for the country would Republicans support?

If you expect Bernie to win Republican support then you should at least be able to tell us which Republican supported policies you want to see him work towards. Personally I can't think of a single good thing that Republicans want to see passed so maybe you can tell me what I am missing.

[stevenleser]

151. Then, see my #144. nt

[Bjorn Against]

163. 144 does not answer my question at all

You seem to be insisting that Bernie needs to get Republican support for his positions. If you are insisting that he support policies that can get Republican support then you should be able to tell us which policies that Republicans would support would be good for America.

As far as post 144 goes, if you think the only thing the Presidency is good for is getting legislation passed then you need to learn about the Presidency. Even if the President does not have the support of Congress they can still veto bad legislation, they can still make executive orders, they can still make cabinet appointments, and they can still make foreign policy decisions.

[Bjorn Against]

139. The Republican Senators won't vote to pass Obama's agenda either

I realize that you work for Fox News so your co-workers may have convinced you that the legislation that Republicans will vote for is good legislation, but many of us know that if the Republicans in the Senate support it then it probably bad for the country. I don't want Sanders pushing Republican supported policies because Republican supported policies have harmed the country. I would rather see nothing passed than see their agenda pushed on us.

[stevenleser]

141. Nice ad hominem. Bernie is the one running on a transformative agenda. The onus is on him and his

supporters to explain how he makes it happen.

And no, I do not work for any television network. But again, nice ad hominem. You realize that using ad hominems discredit you, right?

[Bjorn Against]

148. Are you no longer a Fox News analyst?

You have posted videos of yourself on Fox News on multiple occasions, it is not an ad hominem to point that out.

[stevenleser]

150. I've never worked for any television network. I have been a recurring guest on several.

And to claim that my opinion is somehow tainted because of it is an ad-hominem.

[stevenleser]

2. This is a general question that Bernie is going to need to answer.

He says things are going down the wrong direction and he wants to make big changes.

Where is the evidence he is capable of leading members of congress into making the votes he needs to make those changes.

He is in a substantial position already as senator. In that capacity, what transformative legislation has he created and how has he done at getting the rest of the senate to vote that way.

If we imagine him elected President, he has one less transformative senator to work with to vote on legislation, himself. Who votes for his bills? This is a particularly important question knowing that the chances are he will be dealing with a Republican senate and Republican house.

What is his track record for getting Republicans to vote Yea on his legislation? If he doesnt have a dramatically good record on that score, he can't be transformative. And if that is so, what is the argument for his candidacy?

[eloydude]

5. I'd rather have a very authentic and honest politician who cares about the 99%'ers.

Hillary can't match two of those abilities that Bernie has.

I'd ask Hillary Clinton, but she's currently busy triangulating for her next "policy".

[stevenleser]

6. Evading the questions I raised won't help. nt

[pnwmom]

15. I think the bottom line is the person has to be able to beat the Rethugs in the general.

Last edited Mon May 4, 2015, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Caring about the 99%ers, while important, isn't enough.

[Agschmid]

59. It's embarassing to see you belittle Bernie's policy positions to...

Caring about the 99%rrs, while important, isn't enough.

[stevenleser]

127. No, it's embarrassing to see people evade the real questions about what he can get done. nt

[Agschmid]

165. It's not an evasion, it's a legitimate "I don't know"...

Just like any D candidate, we have no idea what the make up of congress will be... And that is a huge part of what gets done.

[treestar]

158. that's admitting you don't care if anything actually passes

or actually happens.

[frazzled]

10. That information is easy to find

At GovTrack.us

To wit: Bernie Sanders has sponsored 341 bills during his time in the House and Senate. 3 of those bills have been enacted into law, only 1 of them being substantive (the other two are just naming post offices):

S. 893: Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 8, 2013
Enacted — Signed by the President: Nov 21, 2013

S. 885: A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office”.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: May 7, 2013

Enacted — Signed by the President: Nov 26, 2014
H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Apr 27, 2006
Enacted — Signed by the President: Aug 2, 2006

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#current_status[]=28

In addition, 2 bills were agreed to by simple resolution, both for holiday clothing and toy drives within the senate buildings:

S.Res. 577: A resolution permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Nov 12, 2014
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Nov 18, 2014

S.Res. 307: A resolution permitting the collection of clothing, toys, food, and housewares during the holiday season for charitable purposes in Senate buildings.
Sponsor: Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
Introduced: Nov 20, 2013
Agreed To (Simple Resolution): Nov 20, 2013

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=400357#current_status[]=6

That's about it. One cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans. I'm glad he keeps trying, but people have to understand that talking about things does not equate to getting those things done. In other words, it probably doesn't matter a whole lot which Democrat gets the nomination. The power of a president in a divided political environment is fairly limited. Obama has actually done better than most at getting some things done, but mostly using the very limited means of Executive action. But nothing as grand as a single-payer health system or reversing income equality can be done that way alone.

The only thing that matters is that a Democrat rather than a Republican tend the White House again. We may not make great strides forward (whether with a Clinton or a Sanders) but we sure won't walk backwards.

[stevenleser]

11. Yep, I've seen his legislative history. He can't say he can get done the kinds of things

he is talking about. He simply has no track record of getting substantive legislation passed. I like him despite that. He is an important figure, but to put someone in the White House who is running to transform the country but has no record of getting anything transformative done in 24 years or so of being in congress? That seems like a prescription for failure.

It's great that he says all the most progressive things and says he stands for them. That and $.25 won't even get you a cup of coffee.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Have you included in your search of his legislative history ...

any amendments to legislation that he did not sponsor? (though, in order to do so, one would have to assign a (arbitrary) value to the amendment)

[stillwaiting]

35. How in the world would you expect one of the few uncorrupted politicians to be able to

get through legislation in an overwhelmingly corrupted legislative body?

Big Money OWNS Congress. They don't own Bernie.

You really expect Bernie to be able to get his initiatives passed in a legislative body that is corrupted as ours? I think that's putting way too much unreasonably on Bernie.

If Bernie gets elected as President (I know that's a big if, but we're going to try) left-wing issues will be presented the way they should to the people. There's no politician better than Bernie in presenting left-wing political views in a way that lots of people can appreciate. Of course, they SHOULD appreciate left-wing ideas, but most of "our" politicians have a really difficult time both speaking on their supposed values and also fighting for those same values. People lose faith, and for good reason. There is very little fight from most Democratic Congresspersons. They have done a downright miserable job in elevating left-wing economic ideas in ways that resonate with the public, and that should come as no surprise due to the system we have. I have no doubt that Bernie WILL move the public's opinion on left-wing ideas in the direction that I want to see happen. The public supports left-wing economic policies, but just can't self-identify as progressive/left-wing due to the propagandized society we live in. Bernie can help break through that haze.

In addition, I can be quite sure and confident that no Grand Bargains that take more from the poor, working class, and middle class will be proposed with Bernie in the White House DEFENDING the 99%. I don't trust the other politicians running for President in that manner, and it really should be a big deal for everyone in the 99% when deciding who to support in the Primaries.

[stevenleser]

41. The excuses don't matter unless you can explain why it would change

You don't offer any reason other than wishful thinking.

You don't like this issue I raised. It's a fair issue and speaks to the heart of the reason he is running.

[stillwaiting]

45. Electing someone President who can radically shift Americans understanding

of political issues and where they stand has value.

And, you didn't address other aspects I pointed out regarding why Bernie would make a great President.

It's not wishful thinking to believe that Bernie would use the bully pulpit in a way that Obama and Clinton never did. A lot of good can result from that.

You can believe that is wishful thinking all you want. It's much more than that. It's about shifting Americans' political viewpoints, understandings, and desires, and it's about making Americans believe it's possible.

To reduce our belief in Bernie to wishful thinking is cynical and quite frankly insulting. If we never fight for political awakenings they'll never happen, and political awakenings can happen in a much, much faster span of time than TPTB would like that's for sure.

[stevenleser]

112. In other words, you offer wishful thinking against 24 years of Bernies inability to affect change.

It doesn't work.

[stillwaiting]

115. All of the media spokespeople are sure to be saying that over the next year.

Thank you for your rude dismissiveness.

One day I really hope to see this country wake up and reshape this country. You won't be part of that most likely.

P.S. When government is corrupted as ours is by Big Money, you don't blame one of the handful that isn't corrupted. Of course, YOU do, but you really shouldn't.

[stevenleser]

125. Because it's an obvious question given the circumstances that Bernie will have to answer.

In terms of the senate, we can boil it down to individual Republican senators. Which one of them is going to vote for any of the transformative changes you think a President Sanders would try to enact?

Vitter? Cruz? Inhofe? etc?

If you can't tell me how he gets any legislation passed that would make a Sanders Presidency substantively different than a Hillary Clinton Presidency, then all of this is wasted effort, isn't it?

[stillwaiting]

130. I've already addressed what good a Sanders Presidency could bring to our nation.

Go re-read my previous posts to you in this subthread. You ignored the points I made in them, called me a wishful thinker, and attempted to marginalize my opinions.

Ronald Reagan was a TRANSFORMATIVE President. We've been on the same horrifying track in many, many ways since his Presidency.

FDR was likewise a transformative President. Our country was on a very good track for several decades after his Presidency.

A lot of us believe Bernie could be transformative as well and put a stop to the Reagan Revolution. You clearly don't. Just try and not be so dismissive of us. If we don't succeed, most of us will fall in line, but some of us might not if too many people that support Establishment candidates browbeat us for supporting Sanders (not saying that's right or what should happen, but it's what very well could happen).

[stevenleser]

132. And it's all wishful thinking that has no chance of passing either house of congress.

Again, which Republican senators vote for a President Sanders agenda?

[stillwaiting]

159. Sanders can present his vision to get people in this country to vote for people that SUPPORT

his vision.

He can, and in my opinion would, tell the American people to send him a Congress that supports his vision. That would dramatically change the composition of the Congress.

Obama hasn't done such a great job presiding over the Democratic Party over the past 6 years. The Republican Party hasn't been this strong in a VERY long time throughout all levels of state and federal legislatures. It's a damn shame. I think Bernie would be radically different from Obama and Clinton both, and he (and we) would be rewarded with a much more progressive Congress ultimately. Bernie's not going to continue to prop up the Republican Party with calls for bipartisanship, and he shouldn't. He'll place blame squarely and EFFECTIVELY (huge missing factor recently) on the Republican Party.

Yeah, I know you think it's wishful thinking. I don't care, and many others don't either. We've only just begun this thing.

[Ed Suspicious]

192. Right on.

[Ed Suspicious]

191. "The power of the president is the power to persuade." (Richard Neustadt) Sanders will leverage

the groundswell of popular support and the increased voter participation of the reinvigorated populace that comes as a result of his no-nonsense, "for the people" approach to persuade congress to do the right thing by the people. He will be able to whip votes because he will put on display the power of populist positions and he will show that people vote for the straight shooter who has their best interest at heart.

That's my best stab at it.

[ieoeja]

12. Which gives him exactly 1 more than Clinton.

Shows how dysfunctional Washington is when two prominent Senators have sponsored only one substantive piece of legislation between them.

[stevenleser]

13. Two differences. #1 - She's not running on a promise to remake the country in a progressive image.

And, #2 - He has had three times the amount of time in congress that she has. 24 years vs 8.

If what you are saying, even though you aren't meaning to say it, is that despite what Bernie says, he can't really get anything more transformative done than Hillary can, I agree and I would say then what is the point of his candidacy?

[Agschmid]

64. And there you have it.

She's not running on a promise to remake the country in a progressive image.

[morningfog]

98. Yep. She's running for status quo.

That and she wants to be a champion.

[stevenleser]

103. Nope, see my #102. Nt

[morningfog]

146. Great to be back to the days of pragmatic woodchucks.

[stevenleser]

152. Ad hominems do not answer the question about your candidate. nt

[morningfog]

167. They are silly questions.

I'll let the honorable Sen. Sanders speak for himself.

[frylock]

168. IT'S HER TURN!!12

[stevenleser]

102. That's correct. Her campaign would be about Liberal incrementalism. Which is the only thing possible

Anyway.

[Marr]

120. LOL-- so it's ok that Hillary's done less, because she's not trying to improve things anyway.

How inspiring.

[stevenleser]

124. Nope. Interesting straw man though. nt

[Number23]

37. I'm glad for this thread and especially for this post. I don't see how in the world Sanders' action

in the Senate has lead to the screaming here that he is the ONLY candidate who cares about people. I love that he got that post office renamed but what in the sweet hell does that have to do with anything?

I mentioned before that I really like a lot of the things that he's said on some issues. Is that what's behind so much of this really overheated support here? What he's said and not necessarily what he's done? And the fact that so many of the folks doing this CRUCIFIED Obama and his supporters for supporting what he said (before we supported much of what he did) and the "cult of personality" crap means... what, exactly?

I'm starting to just get sick of all this. The hypocrisy and the double standards in this place from people who love to pretend that they are so much more principled than every other human being has just about worn me to a nub. If anything seeing this stuff has made me realize exactly how shrewd and smart Sanders (like Warren) must be.

[Tarheel_Dem]

85. Remember when Kucinich was the "anointed one"? Sadly, their legislative successes are on par.

Naming post offices is so "transformative", doncha think?

[Marr]

121. It's more than Hillary.

So I don't know what you're swaggering about.

[Tarheel_Dem]

200. It's just that Hillary's a serious contender for the office, Bernie is not. He just talks alot.

[Number23]

171. I am 100% serious when I say that I don't understand any of this really breathless, almost manic

support for the man. I agree with alot of what Sanders says too. Is THAT what all of this is about?

And the fact that the same crowd about to build a shrine in his name screamed at, insulted and called Obama supporters every thing they could think of for doing the exact same thing that they're doing now just makes all of this even more surreal.

I don't get any of this. At least Obama had a SIGNIFICANTLY higher chance of actually getting the office he was pursuing.

[Tarheel_Dem]

199. "Significantly higher". They say it's "to push Hillary to the left", but how much of the party....

is actually looking to make that happen? I guess we have to bust up the old shrine of Kooch, and replace it with one of Bernie with sparkly ponies and "democratic socialist" lollipops for everyone.

[JonLP24]

99. This was just legislation he sponsored that passed

On average Democrats have fewer bills enacted than Republicans, I think 1 every 3.4 years and Republicans 1 every 2.7. The VA reform came during 2013 one of the least productive years ever

Sanders tied for #3 with most laws enacted in 2013
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2013/senate/bills-enacted

No legislation passed in 2014 but tied for #10 for most bills out of Committee (Bob Melendez & Orrin Hatch had most legislation passed)
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2014/senate/bills-reported

Sponsoring legislation is far from the only job a Senator has -- he also scores in the top 10 easily when it comes to working with the House
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2014/senate/bills-with-companion

Compare him to others he is actually one of the more effective Senators

On edit - even the OP points to something successful Bernie Sanders managed to accomplish.

[stevenleser]

104. He's been in congress 24 years. That spin doesn't work. He's running to radically change

Things. And he has no track record to suggest he is remotely capable of carrying that out.

[JonLP24]

105. It isn't spin

You can go through each & every individual category, powerful cosponsors top 10, a variety of things shows he is a hard working Senator. Saying he has no track record isn't true.

[stevenleser]

108. It's spin. you're making excuses for why he couldn't do much in 24 years when he is running to be

Transformative in the context and reality that he would be facing a Republican dominated congress through which any of his agenda would need to be passed.

There is nothing in his record to suggest he would be successful at that. Your suggestion that in 24 years getting one substantive bill passed is somehow great is a spin response to that question.

He cannot get done what the implied promise of his entire campaign is about.

[JonLP24]

111. I said make comparisons -- how does he stack up

Its easy to find Republicans with legislation passed with their name on it, Democrats are another issue. Being in Congress your odds are significantly lowered of having legislation sponsored passed to find a detailed record isn't easy to find but see he has an amendments passed. Don't know if there were bills passed but something such as legislation rarely becomes law but I find it silly they keep holding him to some high standard -- Marcy Kaptur has 4 bills passed in 34 years. but I was wrong Bernie Sanders didn't pass any bills in 2014. In fact he passed 3.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/report-cards/2014/senate/bills-enacted

I get tired of these dishonest arguments but you don't think Bernie Sanders isn't aware of Congress given that he works with the chamber more than most of other Senators. Nothing in his record, his record shows he is more effective than most Senators including rarely missing votes (top 10 again there) but it simply isn't a matter of just getting legislation passed, it isn't a race to rack up the most bills passed (something he is doing better than most in. You could just literally write Republican bills if he wanted to get legislation passed but here is some recent legislation sponsored.

Some of Sanders’s most recently sponsored bills include...

S. 1041: A bill to eliminate certain subsidies for fossil-fuel production.
S. 964: Nuclear Plant Decommissioning Act of 2015
S. 922: Corporate Tax Dodging Prevention Act
S. 878: A bill to establish a State residential building energy efficiency upgrades loan pilot ...
S. 731: Social Security Expansion Act
S. 570: Comprehensive Dental Reform Act of 2015
S. 268: Rebuild America Act of 2015

[Number23]

174. Thanks for your links. And you're right, passing legislation is just one bit of a Congress person's

job. But it is a damned important bit.

Yes, he scores well when working with the House but he scores poorly when it comes to getting co-sponsors from the other side. Alot of the bills he's credited with are good, especially the one trying to reverse Citizens United. And he deserves alot of props for trying but he also deserves some responsibility for failing.

And the fact that he is listed as Sanders, I-VT - that "I" for independent there may affect people's feelings about him as well.

[JonLP24]

175. A lot of the bills & the record of Senate behavior are related to

the committees he's on such as Veterans' Affairs Committee which McCain is also on.

The Phoenix VA controversy really caught me surprised. Waiting in the lobby for the prescriptions (the long wait there my only complaint) there was a man handing out cards to complain about the VA on Facebook. It was puzzling, the older vet next to me looks at me ask each other what we think he says "We get damn good care", mine was "best health care I ever received".

A couple weeks later boom a media controversy. It was very misleading on the face, I don't deny there was probably a coverup but I wonder why they were lying & for who? The long waits, if a secret, were a badly kept one. My VA case manager several months earlier suggested the Southeast Clinic in Mesa. The one in Phoenix is centrally located of a large urban center that handles care of the entire state while getting ripped off by some for travel pay. (lying about mailing address, in theory you could say you live 50 miles away when you're down the street).

I followed it closely, Bernie Sanders was hitting all the right points. The most often thing repeated by the media was patients dying waiting for care but is the death because their appointment wasn't sooner or did they die for something unrelated? I don't doubt it has problems -- it needs more facilities like the Southeast clinic & more staff. McCain & others wanted to go in the other direction & there are reports where they overheard shouting matches but he managed to get a bill passed with McCain. It is a very strong example, I think, especially under the environment with the VA controversy.

Sanders, McCain reach deal to fix VA

Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Thursday announced a deal on legislation to reform the Veterans Affairs Department’s troubled health system amid a scandal over long wait times for treatment.

The $2 billion compromise measure gives the VA secretary expanded powers to fire poorly performing individuals, would allow some veterans to seek outside health care and would hire more doctors.

Sanders, the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee chairman, and McCain worked the last two days on how to merge their competing bills to tackle problems within the agency.

Announcing the deal on the Senate floor, Sanders said veterans' care "should not be a political issue" and that Americans had been "appalled" by revelations that VA officials around the country manipulated patient wait times, leading to long delays in care.

<snip>

On Thursday, McCain and Sanders said that neither side got everything they wanted in the bill.

"But right now we have a crisis on our hands and it is imperative that we deal with that crisis," Sanders said.

<snip>

Sanders said he convinced McCain to back hiring new doctors and nurses despite charges from GOP lawmakers that VA personnel only saw half the number of patients as private providers.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208396-sanders-mccain-reach-deal-on-va-bill

[JonLP24]

97. Compare him to others

It isn't like there is a Senator with a mountain of a legislation with his name of it that got passed. Look how many bills the other Senators got passed the same year of those.

[stevenleser]

47. The points I raised suggest there is no reason for him to be the nominee

Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[Ed Suspicious]

193. yes.

[still_one]

109. Actually, that is the problem with the Democrats in Congress, they won't necessarily stand by the

person the party choses to lead the nation, and that happens whether the ideas are left, right, or center. The Democratic party, and Congress are not a monolith. Democrats are a pretty inclusive group. That is both their strength and weakness.

Republicans today, on the other hand, is it is either their way or the highway. This is one of the reason that there are very few moderates in the republican party in Congress. In fact you could count them on one hand.

[Raine1967]

20. Politically, I believe you raise decent points.

I really like Sanders.

I would like to say that this piece of legislation was transformative.

As to the rest, as I said, fair points.

I would like to think that no candidate should run based on the fact that we have had for a number f years a do nothing GOP congress, and now a senate of the same do nothing attitude.

Overall, I do understand your point.

[cui bono]

189. With your outlook we will just keep getting Republican policy, just like the last 6 years.

Our country, our democracy even, cannot handle any more of that. We need to get back on track and the only way to do so is to elect someone who actually wants to do that. We'll figure out how once he gets elected. He will then have the people on his side and I'm sure that he will not squander that enthusiasm and I'm also sure that he will not begin 'negotiations' by giving the Republicans what they want so they can just ask for more.

Besides, why don't you work towards getting a Dem congress for him to work with instead of trying to ridicule the one candidate who is ALWAYS fighting for the 99%?

[daleanime]

3. Maybe because the people....

are far more liberal then their pay for congress?

[diabeticman]

7. WAIT? By your logic Because Bernie is the FEDERAL Senator representing Vermont and got a clause

into a NATIONAL health bill which would give his state a chance for single payer BUT because the state failed to meet the requirements it proves Bernie Sanders would not be a good President?

[pnwmom]

16. It proves there is a lack of evidence that he would be an EFFECTIVE President,

and that he wouldn't disappoint those who elected him thinking he could lead by sheer force of his personality.

[diabeticman]

19. ....

And I could bring up "failures" in Hillary's Career(s) and say that would prove she isn't going to be an effective President.


How about the Government Shut Down? Should we hold President Obama accountable for the temper tantrum the repugs took?


Is this ALL Bernie's fault?

In 1985, the Vermont legislature passed[44] and in 1986 voters narrowly defeated an equal rights amendment to the Vermont constitution.[45] In 2007, however. Governor Jim Douglas signed a landmark civil rights bill banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity by employers, financial institutions, housing, public accommodations, and other contexts, after it had passed both chambers of the legislature by a veto-proof majority.[46] Douglas previously had vetoed a similar bill in 2006.[47]

Upon his entry into office with the death of his predecessor in 1991, Governor Howard Dean faced a national economic recession and a $60 million state budget deficit. Facing some opposition in his own Democratic Party, he advocated for and received from the legislature a balanced budget.[48] This set a precedent of fiscal restraint, which has continued in Vermont through 2011.[5] In 1999, five moderate Democratic legislators, called "Blue Dogs", joined with Republicans to pass Democratic, but fiscally conservative, governor Howard Dean's plans for an income tax cut.[49]

In 2009 Governor Douglas vetoed a bill allowing marriage for same sex couples in Vermont. The Vermont House and Senate overrode the veto the next day.[50] Also 2009, Governor Douglas vetoed a budget bill—a first in Vermont history. The Democratically controlled legislature returned to special session and overturned the veto.[51][52]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Vermont

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Vermont

[Hoyt]

8. That's a good point. It's sad though, and I applaud Sanders for trying. But we have to be realistic

Not being able to deliver on that in Vermont isn't progressive.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. This has nothing to do with Sanders

But the whole Constitution was designed to militate against fundamental change or at least make it difficult. The Bill Of Rights can be seen as a small l liberal document but looking at the Constitution in toto it's a very small c conservative document.

[pnwmom]

34. It does in the sense that the people who think he can lead somehow by

sheer force of personality are sadly mistaken.

He has to be able to work with a Congress within which, over 24 years, he has managed to write and pass no really significant legislation.

[TheKentuckian]

22. What role does a US Senator have in a state legislature?

His job was to get the provisions in place which he did along with a lot of help for community based health centers which are also important.

If you think this is a fruitful line of attack, you are going to be surprised. There isn't a politician alive that isn't exposed on this weak ass angle even if they actually have a role in the process which Sanders clearly doesn't .

[pnwmom]

24. He helped write the law that allocated ACA money to Vermont, making single-payer possible there.

But even that very liberal state couldn't pull it off because they still would have had to raise taxes.

And in 24 years he's had very little ability to get his ideas passed through the US Congress.

So why do you think he would have more success as President?

[Chathamization]

49. It seems then that this is an example of him succeeding at his job, and the state politicians

fumbling. If you're arguing that the best we can hope from him (or any candidate) is to do their job (and not transform the entire country overnight), then I agree and this seems like a good example of Sanders doing his job well.

Of course, people focus too much on the federal level in general and the presidency in particular while ignoring major issues at the local level (as well as whatever hot topic is in the news), but that's nothing new.

[TheKentuckian]

100. He did succeed to the best the overarching situation would dictate. Once state pools and oversight

we're baked into the new cake what else is it that you think he was supposed to do?

That nit you are trying to pick is bullshit and making an honest effort toward doing the right thing is far more likely to succeed than not trying at all or running in the wrong direction.

Lazy frame job anyway, who was it that had shown all of this accomplished leadership anyway? Obama? That dude had never accomplished anything of note other than riding Dick Luger's coattails on non proliferation? What has Clinton done that was so great for Americans?
Most of these politicians are hot air with few to no wins and often anchors tossed to the American people so out of such a crowd the one that consistently is on the right side of the issues is a hell of a lot preferable to one looking to maintain a toxic and dangerous status quo.

[leftstreet]

23. Is this the same as Hillary failing to get healthcare in the 90s?

And that failure was on the national level, not state

Will this make her an ineffective leader?

[pnwmom]

25. Hillary learned from her mistakes and Obama basically took her revised plan

and they got it through Congress.

Bernie has had 24 years of getting very little done in Congress. He's used to being a voice in the wilderness, but how effective is he as a leader?

[Snotcicles]

28. Better back up, John Edwards came up with the plan not Hillary. nt

[L0oniX]

179. +1 Do you hear that beep beep beep of the truck backing up?

[DURHAM D]

180. Actually it was written by the Heritage Foundation

back in the 90s at the request of Senator Dole to use as the Republican alternative against what Hillary was proposing.

[Snotcicles]

182. Not quite Edwards wanted it to evolve into single payer. And other differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_Edwards

[DURHAM D]

190. First you said the ACA was John's idea

and now you claim it was not what John proposed.




Done

[L0oniX]

178. ^^^THIS^^^ Bravo! Thread win.

[cantbeserious]

26. I Will No Longer Settle For The Lesser Of Two Evils - Go Bernie Go

eom

[leftofcool]

27. This is a legitimate discussion and I would like to see answers better than "LOL"

[djean111]

29. I suspect that you would like to see answers like "Oh dear, I must switch to supporting Hillary",

really. Sanders' failure to raise taxes in Vermont, as a United States Senator, does not change my support of him one little bit, and certainly does not make Hillary look any better to me.

[leftofcool]

31. I would not want anyone to switch their support to Hillary.

It is not my business who you support. My business lies only in getting a Democrat elected to the WH.

[1StrongBlackMan]

32. +1 ...

Sadly, the question appears proving to be difficult to answer.

[Number23]

36. Yeah, I rec'd because of the potential to have an interesting chat about this

So far, most of the conversation on DU has been "Bernie is the Lord of Light and Hillary is a Third Way corpo stooge."

Well, we've all seen the many conversations about how/why Hillary is so horrible here (though most of the "explanations" are overwrought to say the least) but now I'd like to see what Bernie's positions are as well as his history as a Senator and how effective he was. This OP could have been interesting but it seems as if there is way more interest here in slamming Hillary than big upping Bernie. And it's pretty telling.

[CanadaexPat]

33. He wrote a health care provision that made it

Into law. Better than some did.

[DefenseLawyer]

38. His hair looks silly too

And I'll bet you he's even got a commie flag tacked up on the wall inside of his garage.

[pnwmom]

39. So you don't want to have a serious discussion about his potential effectiveness as President.

You're rather focus on jokes about his hair.

[DefenseLawyer]

40. I may have been implying that your "issue" was just as frivolous

But if it's something you think is important by all means stick with it.

[Cha]

43. That's a weird distraction.

[DefenseLawyer]

46. That is only a "serious question" for the most ardent of Clinton supporters

People who wouldn't vote for anyone other than HRC regardless of the political triumphs or failings of the home state legislature of any other candidate. You are as they say, "Preaching to the Choir" and I don't sing in public.

[Cha]

48. I don't have a candidate.. and it's still a weird distraction about "Bernie's hair" which I find a

non issue.

[DefenseLawyer]

52. Karl Frisch, Democratic strategist,

Recently made an apparently serious critique of Bernie Sanders that included disparaging remarks about the Senator's hair. It became a bit of a Twitter thing for a couple of days. I was making a tongue in cheek reference to that.

[uncleverusername]

56. Isn't Karl Frisch one of the clowns on the Stephanie Miller Democratic talking point show?

Who cares what he has to say. If the only thing you can criticize about Bernie is his hair, I don't see the problem.....

[Pooka Fey]

101. which is the reason why we can't have nice things in America

(credit to another DUer for this observation on another of the innumerable DU "Bernie's Bad Hair" threads)

Agreed. This IS actually a topic of discussion in the USA - a 1st World industrialized nation in which the child poverty rate surpasses that of Lithuania and Romania. Our talking heads prefer to discuss "bad hair". :Jean-LucPicardFacePalmGIF:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/29/child-poverty-in-the-u-s-is-among-the-worst-in-the-developed-world/

[-none]

162. Reference for the youngsters here.

[Agschmid]

42. Bernie was not the governor, or a part of the state legislature at the time...

So I don't see this as his fault.

I see what you did there... and I could turn it right around but I wont.

[pnwmom]

65. He arranged for funding through the ACA, which gave Vermont the chance to set up

its own single payer.

It isn't his fault. But it shows that the force of his personality -- and his correctness on issues -- isn't enough to ensure he accomplishes anything significant.

[Agschmid]

67. Government hasn't done anything significant for decades, might be nice to try something new.

Hyperbole, but you get my point.

[Aerows]

44. I find it absolutely fascinating

that a determination of a state's liberalism is whether or not they have single payer health care.

If being able to go to the doctor or the hospital is "liberal" count me in.

I'm not sure when being ill, injured or incapacitated was the definition of a person's right to citizenship and your insurance became your right to being entitled to life, but whenever that started, it became state sanctioned death panels.

If you live in a country that would see you die because you lack health insurance, you live in a country that sanctions a death panel.

It's time to start talking about realities instead of daydreams.

[pnwmom]

61. You misunderstood my point. I'm not questioning Vermont's liberalism.

I'm saying that even in the most liberal state of the country, Sanders wasn't able to push his health care agenda forward. So why does he think he will be more successful in trying to lead a large country that is much more conservative than Vermont?

[Aerows]

74. Why do people think

that "conservative" ideals and approaches to governance are worth a damn?

I don't. I think the conversation needs to change from "this might not work" to "well this isn't working, let's do something else."

We've done the conservative way. It isn't working. It's time for a new approach.

[pnwmom]

75. I don't think they are. But I want to know why you think Bernie Sanders

will be more successful as President than anyone else; and more successful than he has been in the Senate. As President, he will still have to work with a largely conservative Congress. What about his record makes you think he could be successful working with that bunch?

[Aerows]

87. This is my point.

Why are we working with a conservative Congress that has an approval rating somewhere around athlete's foot and food poisoning, and pretending it is popular?

[uncleverusername]

54. Vermont is not as liberal as you think.

Vermont is not as liberal as you think.

[pnwmom]

62. Maybe not. But what states are more liberal? n/t

[Agschmid]

71. ... Maybe Hawaii...

But VT's got that title on lockdown IMO.

Fair to say it's just Chittenden county, but that's also pretty much where everyone lives.

[Agschmid]

70. But... It is.

have you been to Alabama?

[lovemydog]

55. Things change.

Sometimes slowly. Sometimes quickly.

[Bonobo]

66. It's a great question but I would still vote for the candidate that doesn't quit before starting. nt

[Hekate]

72. Makes ya think about imaginary power vs. actual power. There is no magic wand. nt

[joshcryer]

76. Ron Wyden wrote that clause.

Vermont can still do single payer the fast rollout has been determined to be infeasible.

[davidpdx]

91. I'm curious if he did, because if so then the OP's whole line of reasoning is BS.

[joshcryer]

92. Bernie attempted to move it to 2014.

Here's a thread misattributing typical waiver language in the ACA (which enables single payer in states that want it) to Bernie Sanders: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024088636

Here's proof that Ron Wyden authored, again, typical waiver language (anyone could've done it): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_case_for_moving_forward.html

edit: here's an even better link proving it: http://www.cbpp.org/research/understanding-the-affordable-care-acts-state-innovation-1332-waivers

Vermont's failure to pass single payer isn't really any Democrats fault, it's about the numbers, and raising tax isn't feasible currently. The fault could probably be levied against states that didn't expand ACA thus pushing back total system coverage by a decade or more.

Vermont may still get single payer but it won't be by 2017. Perhaps 2020-2024?

[davidpdx]

94. Thanks for the answer

You are right it does appear Wyden was behind that. He's a great senator if he'd just get off the TPP train.

I can imagine taxes would have to be fairly high to fund single payer. We have universal in South Korea and we get taxed based on income and assets. I own a car and a house so I pay more. Still in the end considering the amount of health care I use I'm better off with it than without it.

Also what people often don't think enough about is if you are going to have single payer or universal the taxes have the go up enough to support those who can not afford health care. That does mean fairly large increases which are difficult to get through legislatures.

[joshcryer]

95. Gotta be 4%+ higher in Vermont.

Which apparently Vermont's liberals do not think is currently feasible. It's not that big of a deal. It'll happen eventually.

Not trying to overly downplay Wyden's contribution there but because the US is administratively run, you needed a waiver, otherwise the HHS's hands would be tied when better systems were being proposed by states (and yes the waiver doesn't rule out some private system, but it would have to at least be as good as the ACA if not better; which is unlikely to ever happen).

I just love that back in that original thread Bernie Sanders was misattributed to bash Obama and here it appears that he's being misattributed here to bash ... himself? Can't we just go with facts? And stop fighting for the sake of it? The OP is definitely a nice rhetorical argument and it certainly riled people up, but it's based on falsehoods.

Arguing for the sake of it. Pointless.

[deutsey]

107. Thanks for this information! n/t

[True Blue Door]

77. He created an opening. Others failed to use it.

It's one of the downsides of having a candidate who is a more capable activist than his own base. We already have plenty of experience of that with eight years of the Obama Presidency, creating openings all over the place that we ignore or belittle rather than using as platforms to produce further change.

Undoubtedly there would be plenty examples of that if we achieved a Sanders Presidency - he would create openings, and we would often ignore them and passively wait for him to do all the work. Then some of us would blame him for our own fickleness. That's just what it means to lead in a democracy.

[merrily]

78. How did Hillary do with Hillarycare? How about her two anti free speech flag burning bills?

I'd rather Sanders fail trying for the correct thing than Hillary succeed trying for the wrong thing, like an individual mandate ala Heritage Foundation or advocating for invading Iraq (not that she got anyone to vote for the invasion who was not already planning to, anyway).

And, Vermont is not the most liberal state in the country, either.

[pnwmom]

80. Which states are more liberal than Vermont? Hillary learned from the experience,

and her health care bill in 2008 was substantially the same as the ACA that finally got passed, with her help and others.

[merrily]

81. LOL! If you say so, it must be so.

No one is more educable than Bernie, though. If she learned, he learned 1000 X as much as she did--and not about how better to pass anti-flag burning bills or individual mandates, either.

[pnwmom]

82. You still haven't backed up your claim. Which states are more liberal than Vermont? n/t

[merrily]

84. That's your focus? SeriouslY?

[wyldwolf]

90. Isn't that the focus of the thread?

[Marr]

123. "Hillary learned from the experience". Do you know how aristocratic and gross that sounds?

You don't get a fucking do-over when you actively supported a war that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, on transparently bogus information. And you certainly shouldn't get the ultimate promotion afterwards. She was either deeply corrupt or insanely gullible. There's no third option, and either disqualifies her for the presidency.

'I feel just awful about your dead kid... Now make me President!'

[stevenleser]

134. Claiming someone learned from experience is a bad thing now if it's Hillary?

Hillary Derangement Syndrome is getting really, really, really bad.

[Marr]

137. Helping to sell a war based on transparently bogus information is shameful.

Saying they 'learned from it' is sickeningly glib.

Maybe you've forgotten her sales pitch:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/01/12/435624/-A-golden-oldie-Hillary-s-floor-speech-to-invade-Iraq

[stevenleser]

142. Do you ever respond to what is actually being said? nt

[Marr]

149. I did respond, and kept to the actual point, which was Hillary's IWR vote.

You attempted to change the topic to something vague and pleasant, asking if Hillary should be allowed to learn from her experiences (didn't even use the word 'mistakes' there-- nice).

Saying she 'learned from her experience' in helping sell the calamitous Iraq War is, as I already said, sickeningly glib.

[stevenleser]

154. No, her health care vote was the point. nt

[Marr]

156. You aren't very good at this. /nt

[Jamaal510]

83. K&R

[eridani]

86. Three Vermonters respond to Gov. Shumlin’s decision on health reform

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2015/january/three-vermonters-respond-to-gov-shumlin%E2%80%99s-decision-on-health-reform

Odd how payroll taxes would have been too high, but nobody ever said anything about how paying premium and most out of pocket expenses would have disappeared.

What the goddam bloody hell do people even mean by saying we can't afford to pay for health care for all? We are ALREADY paying twice per capita what other developed countries pay.

[quaker bill]

88. Different time

Taxing the rich was less popular then.

[wyldwolf]

89. this, of course, isn't a reflection on Bernie's desire for single payer. It's more a reflection of..

... of those who believe one person can actually enact major liberal policies without the legislative branch.

[joshcryer]

93. It's more of a reflection to argue for the sake of it.

[still_one]

110. and of course the legislative branch is required. Some of President Obama's Democratic criticis

fail to recognize that reality.

[stevenleser]

133. True. This is nothing new from that group. They think a President can govern by decree.

Of course, this is the first group to complain if anything President Obama does appears in any way to exceed his authority or appears to (even in an incorrect interpretation) infringe in any way on any amendments.

[stevenleser]

128. Yes, I've asked several Bernie supporters for names of GOP Senators who will vote for his agenda.

And I've repeatedly made the comment, if legislative realities mean that a President Sanders has no chance of passing anything more transformative than a President Hillary Clinton, explain what the reason is for his candidacy again?

[still_one]

106. It is an excellent point, but regardless of Vermont, the fact was we did not have the votes to pass

a public option in the Congress. The blue dogs had said they would not let that happen. The most prominent ones were Lincoln, both Nelsons, Bayh, Lieberman, and others. Not one republican voted for the ACA, and we needed those Democrats, or we would have not had any type of healthcare reform. We also had a very short time to achieve it, since the thin majority we had in Congress was not guaranteed after 2 years.

[lumberjack_jeff]

113. The country needs to turn hard a-port.

The shipping lanes are way the hell over there, it'll take some time, even if we turned 90° at this speed to get back to navigable water.

The fact that Vermont couldn't do it in 2010 shows how urgent a course correction is, not how pointless.

[jwirr]

114. The state asked for the waiver. I fail to see how the means that it was Bernie who got it. MN

was one of the first states to ask for a waiver regarding money to move developmentally disabled people out of the institutions to the communities. We did this as a state. Our legislators may have been in favor of it but they did not give it to us. There is a process that a state goes through to ask for a waiver.

[Comrade Grumpy]

118. Tag team hatchet job. You and Leser are quite the pair.

[stevenleser]

131. Ad hominems and other techniques for evading the questions won't help. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

161. I'm not evading questions; I'm ignoring silly shit-slinging and calling out the shit-slingers.

[treestar]

160. Well wait - I thought we had to criticize our leaders?

There has been plenty of Hillary criticism.

Bernie criticism is allowed too then.

[pnwmom]

170. You can't answer the question, so you call names instead. That's helpful.

[Warren Stupidity]

184. there is no question to answer. Bernie does not govern vermont or sit in its legislature.

Vermont's governor asked for and got the ability to implement their own single payer system with the ACA. He failed, not Bernie, to convince the legislature to provide the required funding to get the program going. You've invented some failure you believe Bernie needs to answer for, but it is bullshit. His role is in the federal legislature, not the state. Without state funding the program was not going to get started. End of story.

[pnwmom]

186. The question is:

Leaving health care aside, how does he think he can lead the whole country sharply to the left on a multitude of issues? Despite a Congress that is far more conservative than the legislature in Vermont?


I think if he succeeds at all it will be by compromising and working across the aisle -- like every other successful Democratic President. The people who think he can accomplish anything and remain the progressive that he has always been will be sorely disappointed.

[Warren Stupidity]

197. "Leaving health care aside" blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Your op attempted to claim "Bernie can't lead" based on Vermont's failure to implement single payer. Now you want to drop the predicate that justified your claim, conceding it had nothing much to do with Senator Sanders, and just assert your claim. OK. Whatever. Go Hillary!

[Marr]

122. I hear he has boxes in his garage. /nt

[hrmjustin]

138. Interesting.

[Ichingcarpenter]

147. Hillary co wrote and sponsored a bill against flag burning... it failed

........... just had a prison sentence and a $100,000 fine to back it up.

[treestar]

157. He's not a state official of Vermont

So he did his part voting for the ACA. He's a federal office holder, so he's not in direct influence of the state government of Vermont.

[m-lekktor]

166. lots of obnoxious comments in this thread from champions of the status quo.

makes me feel like i have "nothing" in common with the DEM party. :shudder:

No more Bushes, no more Clintons!! please go the fuck away

[Doctor_J]

173. you keep thinking you've seen how low the PUMAS will go, but it will get worse. Way worse

Blaming the shitty Obamacare on Sanders. They have no shame.

[Agony]

169. "it is better to show up than to give up"

somebody said that…hmmmm, who?

lotta "giving up on the right thing to do" goin' on around here. You just plain won't get universal single payer health care if you just give up...

[Doctor_J]

172. The president knew that the states would not be able to afford SP. The ACA was designed

to prevent us from ever getting healthcare. It's a giveaway to big insurance, nothing more

[L0oniX]

176. He doesn't have to lead the country left ...the country's left will be attracted to him and...

vote for him. How can anyone trust a candidate that can only win with the backing of the 1%'s money? Easy ...don't have a conscience and be willing to vote against their own best interests. It's disgusting that people are ok with big money in politics and have given up on fighting it but rather go along with it in order to win. Pathetic. I can assure everyone that Bernie will select a SCJ that will not be pro corporations or big money. Who else is out there that you can trust to do that?

[RandySF]

177. It's wrong to fault Sanders for Vermont and Obama for lack of Public Option

My understanding is that the taxes needed in Vermont would have been so crashing, that they just gave up. Obama was faced with a tough decision when the useless Joe Lieberman blocked the Option at the last minute. The fault lies not in either of these gentlemen, but Republicans and turncoats.

[pnwmom]

181. It's not his fault but it still begs the question.

How will Bernie Sanders be any more successful at implementing progressive policies than other Democrats have been? Obama, for example?

He will still be stuck with a conservative Congress; and even a state as liberal as Vermont wasn't willing to raise taxes, even for something as important as single-payer.

Every Democratic President has had to make compromises to make any headway, and that will happen to Sanders, too. The people who think he's going to be far more liberal and far more successful at implementing his ideas are just kidding themselves.

[MisterP]

183. soooo that somehow means 70-90% of the country doesn't want Medicare for All?

policies rarely match preference--or even need--and the gap's been growing since Raygun; sometimes they try to pass it off as protecting everyone from "tyranny of the majority" but a 1% minority hasn't been doing much better

[SMC22307]

195. Much of the country already embraces "sharp left" issues -- Bernie isn't exactly radical.

It's not Senator Sanders' fault that Vermont didn't get it together at the state level. Just like it wasn't Obama's fault that all states didn't expand Medicaid, eh? Or so we've been told.

Social Security is my pony issue, and I don't trust Obama. I need to learn more of where Hillary stands on protecting the social safety net. Straight talk, not triangulating bullshit. Bernie, I trust. As much as one can trust a politician, that is. When Americans hear his message, they'll fall in line. GUARANTEED.

Bernie will know he has a magic pen from Day 1, unlike Obama, for whom it took well into his second term. Hillary, from what I know of her, would wield it.

I imagine Bernie's SCOTUS nominees would be sound choices. And his cabinet and other appointees? No Wall Street stooges like Summers and Geithner, that's fer sure.

Bernie would use the bully pulpit, unlike Obama. Not sure how Hillary would use the power of the office in that regard.

Harmful trade agreements need to be stopped. Bernie I trust to put up a fight. Hillary, not so much. Not at all, in fact.

The New Democrat juggernaut needs to be stopped, and that won't happen with Hillary. Go Bernie.

[Enthusiast]

196. Completely unrecommended.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]