This message was self-deleted by its author

[Ken Burch]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Ken Burch) on Mon Apr 24, 2017, 11:08 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Cary]

2. I don't understand why I have to be enamored with Sanders.

I don't do cults of personality.

Why do you?

[Ken Burch]

6. You don't have to be enamored.

It's just that the man has done nothing to be vilified.

And if we make Sanders values unwelcome in this party, we'll never win again.

We'll be stuck at 49% for the rest of eternity, with no possibility of ever increasing our vote.

[Me.]

8. The Entire Future Of The Dem Party Depends On A Man

who isn't even a dem?

[JudyM]

13. Write to Schumer and Perez, see how they respond.

[Me.]

16. If They Think So, Dems Have A Real Problem

If the party stands on the back of BS, a person who isn't even committed to the party, we certainly are doomed to fail.

[JudyM]

21. They appear to be pretty convinced that his alliance is important, that doesn't mean the whole party

is standing on his back.

[Me.]

25. What I Noticed The Weekend

Was Perez backpedaling his unqualified approval of Mello and I'm betting Schumer may find he was a little too fast on the BS front....they certainly weren't expecting the push back that reared its head this last week.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. They know enough to keep their eye on the future

It isn't the rural support that Sanders has that has them most impressed. It is the younger generations of voters who clearly broke toward Bernie during the primaries. They're not going to just hand over the keys to him but they won't be pushing him toward any exit either.

[Tom Rinaldo]

24. Not the party, no. But winnig elections depends on winning Independent votes

Gallup has been ruing a poll for years that asks: “In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent? “ On March 17 2017 26% said Republican, 42% said Independent, and 30% said Democrat.

Sanders is a bridge to many of those voters who in very large numbers choose to identify as Democrats.

[Me.]

45. While You Have a point, I Will Point Out 2 Exceptions To It

First, the poll is Gallup. Secondly...

“Younger people, whites and men—groups that skew toward Sanders—are significantly more likely to identify as independents than older voters, people of color and women”

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

That last group, women, make up at least 50% of the party and in fact 95% of women of color kept faith with the party this last election. They matter and their issues should count.

And I would, just as a reminder, point out that reproductive rights are also an economic issue of major importance.

[Tom Rinaldo]

50. I absoluely agree with your points

But I disagree that younger women, whatever their political self identification, did not skew toward Sanders, not as dramatically perhaps as men though.

And while we may all be struggling with how to handle Democratic politicians who personally hold pro-life positions while vowing to not let that influence their policies moving forward in their new office (examples of this scattered throughout thread), Bernie's own record on this is superb: http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Bernie_Sanders_Abortion.htm

[Me.]

66. He Does Have A Good Record

So far. But let me say that rhetoric and the candidates you back matter. Also, we have had some good reps and senators who have skirted the issue, so far. But, if the Cons continue to hold the house, senate & Wh, this issue will at some point become a focus as the Cons try to overcome Roe V. Wade and then...well you can guess the dilemma the Dems will face.

[Tom Rinaldo]

83. Well so far it goes back about 25 years in Sanders case

That is a very consistent record through both good times and bad.

[Ken Burch]

59. Not ONE man.

It's about millions of people(some of whom voted for HRC in the primaries)who support the ideals that man's candidacy represented, and want those ideals added to-not as a replacement for, but added to-the best of what we stood for THIS year.

It never ever HAD to be social justice OR economic justice-the Democratic base OR those who should be with us but aren't-it's about BOTH.

We don't have to choose between. We can and must stand for justice for all-or at least justice for the great majority.

[Me.]

89. Good Then If It's Not One Man In The Form Of BS

Because it seems to me he's being sold as the savior of the DEm party around here and if we don't fall in line...well wasn't you who said the party would fail?

[Ken Burch]

93. I said the party can't prosper if Bernie's ideas and supporters are made unwelcome.

And making those ideas and people unwelcome is the real reason people are vilifying Bernie.

And if he's not going to run for president again(as he's not)what's the POINT of anathemizing the person?

[Samantha]

124. Why do you say he is not going to run again?

A few weeks ago, a reporter asked him that question, and Sanders responded he hasn't ruled it out. Just curious why you say he won't.

Sam

[Ken Burch]

129. He'll be 79.

And I truly don't think the guy wants to run again.

[Plucketeer]

60. Please tell me!

What the hell is SO important about having a (D) next to his name????? I've been married to the same gal for 32 glorious years and I've NEVER worn a wedding ring. Believe it or not, she trusts me to be out of her sight without that (M) designator in full view! This is a nation of FREE WILL - or it's supposed to be.
I'm an atheist, but I don't go around painting the faithful as idiots. I can actually talk to them about any number of subjects without secretly thinking how stupid they must be because they have an invisible (R) [religious] that I know about. A "D" is a letter - like the twenty-five others. At best it shows a tendancy - not an irrevocable enlistment where all have to march in perfect lockstep or be banished. Geesh!

[Me.]

86. It's An Issue

Of commitment, of the thinking that we should be led and fall in line behind someone who says he isn't one of us. And when he says that I believe him but it doesn't incline me to follow him.

[Plucketeer]

122. OK

So tomorrow, Bernie embraces a (D) Proclaims that EVEN THO he's acted and voted like a Democrat for years and years, he's now making it official. Got himself a big, fat (D). But he just keeps on bein' Bernie. Refuses any corporate cash, and ignores the expectations of corporate donors in the pursuit of things like Medicare for All. What then?

[smirkymonkey]

72. Yeah, go figure.

I can't understand all this doom saying over the controversy about one candidate who isn't even really a democrat.

There are other people out there you know! (not you, Me, just addressing the general fanbase).

[YOHABLO]

84. The Democratic Party lost it's way at some point, and if you are in denial about it. Well

that's your problem

[Cha]

133. That's just someone's bullshit agenda.. The Democratic

Party is full of Real Pro-Choice Progressives like Jon Ossoff fighting for Tom Price's seat in Georgia..

Whom BS couldn't be bothed to lift a hand for on Election Day.

[Cha]

132. Ah Hell No.. not even close.. he just thinks it does.

[Cary]

11. Nonsense

Vote Democratic!

[delisen]

26. No we will battle voter suppression and win

[Ken Burch]

32. Everyone in the party agrees we need to battle voter suppression.

But that won't make any difference if our next fall campaign isn't radically different than this one.

We need to represent everyone who's left out in the cold, and fight for change from the bottom up.

[George II]

34. As I asked elsewhere on DU a few days ago, if we're losing to candidates that are further right....

...than ours, how does moving further left change that?

[quakerboy]

52. If i offer you

a glass of orange soda, or a glass of some sort of carbonated, flavored Orange drink with 2% real juice(of an unspecified fruit) with plenty of high fructose corn syrup and some artificial sweeteners just for fun, which would you chose? The soda or the "juice"?

Now, how about if I offer you a glass of orange soda, or a glass of freshly squeezed orange juice?

Thats how.

[George II]

56. I really don't see how your analogy fits into this discussion.

[fleabiscuit]

110. Me either.

[JudyM]

9. You don't have to be. Just respect others who find his values an important complement to the party.

[Cary]

12. Respect has to be earned

[JudyM]

15. I'm sorry you don't respect him, but if you respect Schumer, Pelosi and Perez you may reconsider

his value to the party. I'm not an apologist for him, I just see him as a huge asset to a stronger 2018 and 2020 result. Cutting him down doesn't help the party - the party has already decided without question that they want him on our side - they created a position for him as an important political ally.

[delisen]

37. You see him as a huge asset-isn't that enough?

Why keep selling him to people who have apparently decided that he is not?

Schumer, Pelosi, and Perez don't own the minds of Democratic voters.

What sort of voters would we be if we just accepted what others want rather that thinking for ourselves?

[JudyM]

39. People who claim to be big on supporting the party might actually give some weight to what the party

leadership has determined is the best course.

[delisen]

51. I think people do evaluate but ultimately we have to make

our own decisions. That is the wisdom of grass roots organizing, isn't it?

In the immediate aftermath of the election,many leaders accepted the outcome on its face--until the people spoke and they realized there was going to be a Resistance.

Legislators such as Schumer and Pelosi have a job to do-whether the president is Republican or Democratic and whether they themselves are in the majority or the minority. They tend to follow the pattern laid out for them. They do not always see the big picture.

[George II]

35. Very true, and respect is a two-way street.

[Tess49]

78. Me neither. I'm not now, and never will be. n/t

[Me.]

3. So Does That Mean That Anti-Choice People Who Get elected To The Dem Party

Will vote against reproductive rights or a woman’s right to choose, will they vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

Well I don’t appreciate where they come from and can’t see that I ever will. Seems pretty easy for some to throw this issue over the side.

[JudyM]

17. No, Roe v Wade is actually the litmus test they are using.

[Me.]

18. That Doesn't Make Sense

If they are against something why would they vote for it

[Ken Burch]

40. They can take the position Teddy Kennedy and Mario Cuomo took:

That is, that they are personally opposed to abortion but will not vote to use the power of the state to restrict the choices of others.

[Me.]

46. Good Point

[progressoid]

19. Schummer endorsed Bob Casey Jr.

For the 2006 midterm elections, the Democratic Party showed signs of being more open to high-profile pro-life candidates, most notably when the pro-choice head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Senator Chuck Schumer, endorsed the ultimately victorious pro-life Senatorial Candidate Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania. Casey, along with the other pro-life Democrats in the Senate, gave Democrats the margin of control after the 2006 election, which resulted in Democrats getting a 51–49 division of the Senate

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

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. And Clinton used him as a surragate during her presidential run

"Soft-spoken Bob Casey grows into role as surrogate"

...But the Scranton native known for his mild manner has taken on a sharper tone as he stumps for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who also has ties to northeastern Pennsylvania. Casey is a top Democrat in a battleground state, making his advocacy even more crucial to her campaign...

Casey already has backed Clinton during her appearances here, with introductions at events in the primary and by promoting her remarks on terrorism following her event in Pittsburgh last month..."
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/elections/mc-democratic-convention-bob-casey-clinton-20160726-story.html


Wikipedia writes of him:

"Casey, like his father, is pro-life. He has publicly stated his support for overturning Roe v. Wade. that was in 2000 and I don't know his current position on that] From Casey's election until Specter's party switch in April 2009, Pennsylvania had the distinction of being represented in the Senate by a pro-life Democrat and a pro-choice Republican (Arlen Specter). He supports the Pregnant Women Support Act, legislation that grew out of Democrats for Life of America's 95 -10 Initiative. The Initiative and the Pregnant Women Support Act seek to reduce the abortion rate by providing support to women in unplanned pregnancies. He expressed support for the confirmation of both John Roberts and Samuel Alito for seats on the Supreme Court of the United States; these judges are believed to be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. Casey also opposes the funding of embryonic stem-cell research.

In January 2010 during the Healthcare debates, Senator Bob Casey was heckled for his handling of the abortion provisions in the healthcare bill and for not taking a hard-line, uncompromising pro-life stance. Casey was the primary sponsor of an amendment to prevent government funds from being used for abortion services, but when he tried to organize a compromise that appealed to both Democrats and the party's lone holdout, Sen. Ben Nelson, he angered some religious groups.

In 2011, Casey was rated by NARAL Pro-Choice America as "anti-choice" and was not endorsed in their election guide. That year, he voted against defunding Planned Parenthood, against H.R.1 and for cloture for the nomination of Goodwin Liu, earning him a 100% rating for those three votes."

[Ken Burch]

42. That's right.

So nobody can claim "purity" on this one.

[fleabiscuit]

115. Bob Casey is a Liberal Populist.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Bob_Casey.htm



Edit: BTW, Both BS and HRC are rated hard core liberals.

[Tom Rinaldo]

116. Sure. He is a valid Democrat if you don't rule him out on Prolife grounds

I also know some radical Catholics who are anti-war, anti-death penalty, anti-capitalist, and anti-abortion.

[fleabiscuit]

117. Go check what you're saying compared to what is actually recorded would be a good start. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

120. No offense intended but I really don't understand what you are trying to communicate here n/t

[beam me up scottie]

57. Didn't he speak at the convention too?

[progressoid]

63. Yeah I think so.

Apparently some Catholics don't consider him pro-life enough. NARAL gave him a 25% rating!

[beam me up scottie]

68. 25% is too high for them and not high enough for me.

Unfortunately both of my current senators have a 0% NARAL rating.

[safeinOhio]

4. Alt-quote? N/t

[JI7]

5. it was his response to ossoff and referring to anti choice types as progressive

[Cha]

135. Yes, they're purposely glossing over BS endorsing Mello as a "progressive"

who has been "aggressively anti-choice" and dismissing Pro-Choice Progressive, Jon Ossoff on Election Day in Georgia.

BS couldn't be bothered except to say.. "he isn't prepared to back Democrats just because of a party label"


Tom Perez Gets it NOW..

Link to tweet

[JudyM]

7. You left off this important part of the quote/background info:

“If you have a rally in which you have the labor movement, and the environmentalists, and Native Americans, and the African American community, and the Latino community coming together, saying, ‘We want this guy to become our next mayor,’ should I reject going there to Omaha? I don’t think so.”

People would be helping the party far more by getting to work for the party getting Dems elected, rather than incessantly harping on every flaw they can tittilatingly exploit about Sanders. The party wants him on our side, they want him to be strong to bring more voters out on Election Day and and more small money donors out, as well. Attempting to cut him off at the knees only hurts us.

[Ken Burch]

43. Thank you for that.

A lot of people would rather lose without Bernie than win in an alliance with his supporters.

[LakeArenal]

75. Ken, I have agreed with you often.

Thanks for your persistence.

[mopinko]

10. wonder what bernie would say about someone who didnt support

the minimum wage? or healthcare for all?
would he still invite those people into the tent?

does he still think hillary is unfit to serve as a dem?

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. We currently have several senators with pro life beliefs actually

... including Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, and Sens. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, and Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and Tom Kaine in Virginia (Tim still supported the Hyde Amendment until he shifted that position to join Hillary on our presidential ticket).

Their vote go to Chuck Schumer to be the Senate Majority leader at the start of every Congressional session (bfore that they went to Harry Reid.

And the thing is it is not uncommon for Democratic politicians who are/were pro life to "evolve" their position when they enter the U.S. Senate with six year terms and a state wide voter base to seek reelection rather than whatever the demographics were in some smaller office that they rose up from. The Senate is where the screws traditionally get turned on prolife Democrats to come around to the mainstream Democratic position on reproductive freedom.

It is not that dissimilar than how things played out for my U.S. Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand REGARDING GUN RIGHTS. When she was first appointed to finish out Hillary Clinton's term she was a Congresswoman representing a somewhat rural and conservative upstate congressional district AND she had high ratings from the NRA. That (and some other such things) really upset a lot of NY state liberals like me at the time who were alarmed about her pending appointment to the Senate. But once Kirsten no longer had to represent a somewhat narrow constituency when trying to win reelection things became different Kirsten EVOLVED big time in her new job. She began to represent al New York State Democrats. Now I love her.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. excellent post

[pangaia]

33. Me too !!!

[Ken Burch]

36. And I remember that were told, in the Eighties, that we HAD to let Casey speak

at the national convention...and how our national party essentially IMPOSED the guy as our nominee in PA.

[beam me up scottie]

55. Excellent post. This should be an op.

[riderinthestorm]

100. Yup. +1 nt

[LovingA2andMI]

130. Knowledge Is Power....

Thanks for sharing it!!

[frazzled]

20. Nice try, but ... gong

He made this statement only after a resounding outcry from large segments of the Democratic base, and negative stories in the national press.

So no. What people were reacting to is his having proclaimed Mello a worthy progressive, taking the time to travel to Omaha to rally for a mayoral race (really?), at the same time that he dismissed Ossoff as "not a progressive" (afterward admitting he hadn't bothered to even check).

What is rightly irking people is that a single senator thinks he has the right to proclaim who is progressive, according to his own narrow priorities. We don't agree with his definition of progressivism.

You can quote all the after-statements made in the wake of a virtual firestorm, but he created the firestorm.

[comradebillyboy]

27. Looks like the Unity Tour wasn't so unifying after all. ..nt

[NastyRiffraff]

30. Even his former press secretary said he wasn't right for the Unity Tour

Symone Sanders, who was Sanders’s campaign press secretary (no relation), said her former boss does want to bring Democrats together, but acknowledged that his focus is to push progressive policies. “He told all y’all,” she said. “He’s not a Democrat. He’s an independent who cares about the issues.” Moreover, Sanders has no patience for the tightly scripted messaging that might have benefited a tour as delicate as this one. “Nobody puts baby in the corner,” she joked, “and nobody tells Bernie Sanders what to do.”

In retrospect, she said, “Maybe Bernie Sanders isn’t the guy for the unity tour.”
Why Bernie Sanders's Unity Tour Failed

(emphasis mine)

[wildeyed]

64. I got an email about that.

Just rolled my eyes....

That said, I don't thing most 'regular' Democrats give a fig about the supposed divisions in the party. People on the ground in my state are united by their disgust with Donald Trump and the GOP. Local Democratic Party meetings are standing room only, and it is not just Sanders supporters packing the rooms. It is moderate women who vote but generally don't talk much about politics too. Everybody there just REALLY wants to bounce the GOP. In NC we are doubly enraged since we have been dealing with a particularly moronic state GOP party and viciously gerrymandered legislature too.

I am not overly worried. What would infuriate me is if leadership allowed personal resentments to interfere with building the coalitions we need to beat the pants off the GOP in mid-terms. There is nothing I care about more than that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Nice rry, but... gong

"at the same time that he dismissed Ossoff as "not a progressive" (afterward admitting he hadn't bothered to even check)"

Sanders literally passed on proclaiming who is and is not progressive regarding Ossoff. He made no such dismissal.

"When asked Wednesday whether Ossoff is a progressive, Sanders said to the Wall Street Journal: "I don't know."

"If you run as a Democrat, you're a Democrat. ... Some Democrats are progressive and some Democrats are not," he said."

He could have handled that impromptu question better but Sanders proclaimed nothing. That is the opposite of passing judgement.

Later he did this:

"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) endorsed Georgia Democrat Jon Ossoff on Friday after he took criticism for refusing to call the candidate in the high-profile House election "progressive."

"Let me be very clear. It is imperative that Jon Ossoff be elected congressman from Georgia's 6th District and that Democrats take back the U.S. House," Sanders said in the statement released by his political office.

"I applaud the energy and grassroots activism in Jon's campaign. His victory would be an important step forward in fighting back against Trump's reactionary agenda."

While the statement puts Sanders behind Ossoff in his bid against Republican Karen Handel, Sanders didn't reverse earlier comments about Ossoff that drew ire from national Democrats. "
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329927-sanders-endorses-ossoff-but-wont-call-him-a-progressive

[beam me up scottie]

58. Well done!

Thanks for that.

[seaglass]

85. Neither OR or Sanders was supporting Ossoff. Bernie got called on it and issued the second

statement. Are you trying to say that Bernie never heard off Ossoff before he was asked because this was a very visible race and as outreach leader he should have been maybe outreaching.

[Tom Rinaldo]

140. You seem confusd about his role

" and as outreach leader he should have been maybe outreaching."

I've seen others also make wild claims that Bernie Sander is Head of Outreach for the Democratic Party, and then complain about that, or the job he is doing. But that is not and has not been his role. As others are quick to point out, Bernie isn't a member of the Democratic Part, number one, and number two the Democratic Party has no such position. Bernie however is a member of the Democratic Caucus in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic leader in the Senate appointed Bernie Sanders to the position of
"Chairman of Outreach"
Bernard Sanders – (I – VT)
sanders.senate.gov

That is an internal leadership position on the leadership team of the Democratic Senate Caucus Here is a link that makes that clear: https://democrats.senate.gov/leadership/

His role has nothing to do with races for the House of Representatives. It is quite a leap to assert that Sanders had never heard of Ossoff, but it is not odd to assume that he may not have known a great deal about him much beyond the fact he was the Democrat seeking that seat. And the more I learn about that Congressional district the more I am convinced that with the electorate he is trying to appeal to the last thing Ossoff needs is for Bernie Sanders to trumpet what a progressive Ossoff is. There was a good discussion on AM Joy about that Sunday. You may notice that Ossoff skillfully deflects when he is asked whether or not he is a progressive.

[seaglass]

141. Since you are so clear about his role as Chairman of Outreach, why don't you explain what that role

is and the actions he has taken to fulfill that role. Or is it just a vanity title?

Please. Bernie did not need to trumpet Ossoff's progressive credentials, he should have just kept his mouth shut or stated something about supporting Democrats. Why did he go on the unity tour with the DNC if he didn't want to support Democrats?

[Tom Rinaldo]

142. Honestly you should ask Chuck Schumer.

It could be a vanity title I don't know. The same may well be true of other titles given to Senators appointed to the Senate Democratic Caucus Leadership team. It is a tradition in the Senate to give titles to those who are on the leadership team. I don't think the titles signify much beyond the "Whip" and top deputy designations. What is significant though is being added to that team. They are consulted at meetings that do not include the whole caucus.

Sanders supporters don't make a big deal about his "important" title. Only those who have problems with him seem to do that.

[spirald]

95. "not a progressive" - where did that quote come from?

I was unable to find the first sentence in the source you cited. Where did you get that from? It doesn't seem to be accurate. Who is being quoted as saying "not a progressive"?

[Tom Rinaldo]

102. It came from post #20 above. And I was correcting it with my post

The poster I was responding to wrote:

"So no. What people were reacting to is his having proclaimed Mello a worthy progressive, taking the time to travel to Omaha to rally for a mayoral race (really?), at the same time that he dismissed Ossoff as "not a progressive" (afterward admitting he hadn't bothered to even check)."

You are right that such a quote from Bernie Sanders doesn't exist. That was the point I was making.

[spirald]

109. my bad, I'll ask #20

Fictitious quotes really chap my ass. I've seen this one going around and I want to trace it to its origin.

[emulatorloo]

127. It isn't fictitious though.

I hate fictitious quotes too.

However Bernie actually said those words.

[frazzled]

125. He said ""He is not a progressive" to the Washington Post

And what you are quoting was said well after every media outlet took him to task for coming to the side of a non-progressive mayoral candidate while dismissing another candidate for a federal position as "not progressive" (then saying he didn't know: why didn't he bother to know? Why are there two standards?" You can't just make stuff up. He said it.

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-turn-to-sanders-and-his-star-power-to-rebuild-the-party/2017/04/19/78c38efc-2502-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.d628120f0d51

This is not the first time we've seen this kind of gaffe, and then when the storm hits, a retraction. I think you need to accept this.

[LovingA2andMI]

131. That's A Two-Fer For The Knowledge Is Power Thread Post Response....

Thanks Again, For Sharing! Keep Doing So!!

[spirald]

114. Please identify the source of "he dismissed Ossoff as "not a progressive""

I don't think Bernie said this. Bernie said "I don't know" when asked if Ossoff was a progressive. All evidence points to this being a neutral statement.

Perhaps we should be reading the riot act to whoever reported the fictitious quotation "not a progressive". Whoever did so was the arsonist who created the firestorm and blamed it on Bernie. This is the kind of misinformation that destroys democracy by starting factional wars within the party. That is some evil shit and whoever published this lie needs to be held to account.

Please provide the source of your fictitious quote so we can raise hell.

Thank you.

[frazzled]

123. Sure: "He's not a progressive," he said. (Washington Post, April 19, 2017)

The WaPo has a slew of fact checkers, so you can bet on the quote as being accurate. Here it is, with further commentary:

Sanders was less interested in the Ossoff race. “He’s not a progressive,” he said. He was endorsing Democrats based on their economic populism; they could differ from progressives on social issues but not on the threat of the mega-rich to American politics.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/democrats-turn-to-sanders-and-his-star-power-to-rebuild-the-party/2017/04/19/78c38efc-2502-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.d628120f0d51

It's always good to do a recheck of your version of a story ... it's always just a google away.

[spirald]

126. Looks like David Weigel is responsible.

Nobody else is reporting he said that. Weigel is interpreting, committing journalistic malpractice by double-quoting it. It's unclear in what specific context he claims Bernie said this.

[frazzled]

128. Because he said it to the Washington Post

They don't make shit up. They record quotes and have fact checkers check them. How far will you twist into knots to create a narrative that satisfies your own version of reality?

You asked where he said it, I gave it to you. If you don't read the Washington Post, it's not your fault, but you can accept it once it is pointed out. He said it. That he said something else (which is not, frankly, very exculpatory at all) later and to a different newspaper (the Wall Street Journal, favorite source for all things progressive) is neither here nor there. You can't accept one quote and not another. Reality doesn't work that way.

[spirald]

138. Still not buying it

This Washington Post article says nothing about where and when Bernie supposedly said Ossoff "is not a progressive". The interview they reference in the first part of that article is the same interview that was in the WSJ along with other media outlets. All the other outlets are reporting that he said "I don't know".

I wrote to the author, requesting clarification and the relevant part of the interview transcript. I'll post his response when I get it.

I generally trust the Washington Post, but when there is something suspicious like this that significantly changes the narrative it's alway good to verify. Surely they would be able to support such a claim if it were true, and would be happy to publish a correction if not. If they can actually verify it, I'll retract my claim on that statement, but the currently available evidence points to that quote being in error. It's possible that its an honest mistake that was overlooked by their fact checkers.

You are correct, you can't accept one quote and not the other. They make no sense together, but the fact that everything I've read on this from multiple sources reports the "I don't know" version except for this one indicates that we have a big problem here that's worth investigating to find the actual truth.

[Cha]

136. Well stated, frazzled.. BS created this whole shit-storm

when he endorsed Mello, who has been "aggressively anti-choice, as a "progressive".

And, dismissed the Pro Choice candidate, Jon Ossoff, on Election Day in Georgia as someone.. "he isn't prepared to back Democrats just because of a party label"

Jon Ossoff has a stellar progressive platform and running in an Important Election for Congress to replace Tom Price.

Mello is running for mayor of Omaha, Nebraska.. why was the "progressive" endorsement given to him by "The Director of Outreach, and not Jon Ossoff?

BS still won't say Jon Ossoff is "progressive".. not that he needs that freaking label from BS to win.

[Hoyt]

28. IMO, Sanders hurt us in '16 election to some degree (likely small), but I agree with THAT statement.

[still_one]

31. The Democratic issue is simple on this, it is about choice. A person can be

a Democrat against abortion, and for choice. They are all compatible.

In fact, that is currently the law, though it is slowly being whittled away.

However, no one has the right to mandate to a woman what she should do regarding this issue.

It even goes to the extreme where these anti-choice groups want to expand it to make it illegal not only in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, but also in the use of birth control.

Ironically, most of those who advocate such extreme anti-choice views, also tend to be for the death penalty, against food stamps, school lunch programs, and have no problem having the country bomb the shit out of some village filled with civilians

Ain't hypocrisy grand...

[NurseJackie]

38. LOL

[mac56]

41. Great post, Ken.

[leftofcool]

47. I don't care what Bernie says or does, or thinks, or talks about or anything else.

[Ken Burch]

53. I'm only bringing it up because the guy's being accused of taking a horrible position

that he doesn't actually take.

Three have been tons of threads vilifying the man and anathemizing his supporters-at a time when we need an alliance with both it we're to win in 2018 and 2020.

[Tom Rinaldo]

104. Word n/t

[NurseJackie]

107. No, that's not what people are upset at. You know that. Stop playing games.

[Ken Burch]

113. That is what people are upset with.

Bernie did not endorse an anti-choice candidate AGAINST a pro-choice candidate.

And he didn't say choice doesn't matter or even that it should matter less.

[NurseJackie]

121. LOL

[Jakes Progress]

48. Here is the problem with this defense of Bernie.

It has to do with his priorities. Bernie is a one-note song. It is always about the lousy rich people. First we deal with the capitalists, then anything else is considered.

If this OP were his argument, he would have endorsed and campaigned with Ossof instead of demurring because he wasn't sure of the candidates socialist bona fides. He would have enthusiastically campaigned for Hillary instead of grumping through the final months of the general election.

If it is okay with Bernie to elect an anti-choice candidate because we need to elect Democrats who will fight the banks, why not elect non-socialist candidates who will fight the anti-choice forces. Bernie is not consistent with this. His only schtick is capitalist revolution. He has a lot of white men who agree that that is the most important thing. But the Democratic party has many faces. Economic Justice is certainly way up there. But not at the cost of Social justice. Environmental justice. Feminist justice. LBGTQ justice.

Had Mello campaigned with the same standard that Joe Biden uses, it might be less of an issue. But to demand that the party rearrange things to support an anti-choice mayor over taking time and effort to support a Democrat who could take over a very symbolic house seat is too much to let go.

Bernie is going to have to do something that neither he nor trump is good at: He has to admit that he is wrong and correct his error. Here's hoping.

[Yavin4]

49. But, if a candidate is against say Single Payer, but progressive on everything else....

We should kick him/her to the curb, right?

[Ken Burch]

54. No. We have't actually had a candidate like that, though.

Neither HRC nor Obama(good people though they are)were ever "progressive on everything ELSE". A lot of things, but not everything. Both turned out to be well to the right on defense issues, in an era in which use of force has accomplished next to nothing for this country or the world.

[Steven Maurer]

69. I'm curious as to why you think Obama or Hillary doesn't qualify

As Senator Sanders is giving his blessing to this anti-choice candidate, can you explain exactly what positions he has that he's far more progressive on, than either President Obama or Secretary Clinton, that would justify such consideration?

For instance, is this new Sanders-endorsed anti-choice candidate much to the left of defense issues?

The reason I'm asking is because otherwise you're applying a double standard. Everything else the same, being anti-choice is more forgivable than being dubious about the political likelihood of getting single payer.

For me, being anti-choice is a far worse problem, because with economic issues the dispute is more about the viability of such solutions when Republicans are favored, whereas the public is largely pro-choice, so there is no political pressure to take such a position.

[Ken Burch]

73. If I have this right, the candidate Bernie is supporting is running to be mayor of Omaha

In that race, foreign policy is a moot point.

For that matter, so is choice.

(edit)although, as Omaha Steve pointed out, that candidate has made it clear that he will do nothing to restrictive access to reproductive choice.

Is the real issue that this candidate is supposedly anti-choice(I don't know that he would actually try to restrict choice as mayor)or that Bernie is the one who's endorsed an anti-choice candidate? How is his doing so any different than Hillary having Senator Casey act as her surrogate on the campaign trail?

HRC and Obama are progressive on many things...but the example you gave was of a candidate who is progressive on every issue OTHER than single-payer. I did still support both of them in their fall campaigns.

[Steven Maurer]

88. Fair enough

I tend to be someone more on the pragmatic side of things as well, so for me a lot of this is forgivable. No less than the Oregon's Senior Directory of NARAL has said to me that if you're personally pro-life, but not using the law to shove your beliefs down other people's throats, that really means you're pro-choice.

I just want to make sure that the big-tent opens in every direction. Very few people are completely orthodox. I'm certainly not.

[Me.]

94. Choice Is Never A Moot Point

And it can up in the strangest/most surprising ways

[Ken Burch]

97. There are two candidates in the Omaha mayor's race

Mello(progressive, and has made it clear he will be pro-choice as mayor)
the incumbent(reactionary, implacably anti-choice).

Therefore, working for Mello in Omaha is the only possible pro-choice vote.

It's not possible to elect a pro-choice mayor later(Nebraska will be anti-choice for the rest of eternity)by refusing to support Mello this year.

[Me.]

103. Pro-Choice Now

But really what he's saying is he won't work to restrict reproductive rights. Which is fine but just keep in mind, in the past he has lined up with Ben Nelson, the senator he once worked for.

[Tom Rinaldo]

106. To be honest I think we keep personal belief pro-choice Democrats on the reservation with scrutiny

So I don't object to activists pinning Mello down on the difference between his personal belief system and the role that government can/should play in restricting the freedom a woman should have to make decisions that effect her life and give her equal opportunities in life as to what men enjoy. That is a constructive intervention, one that has been needed before with other "prolife" Democrats and no doubt will be needed again.

Job well done - Mello felt the heat and reacted accordingly. Between the two viable candidates to become Mayor of Omaha he by far offer the better choice, and if he keeps his word, strike up another win for "evolution" on views. Neither those who questioned him nor those who are supporting him are acting inconsistent with our professed goals on this important matter.

[Me.]

112. On THis Post We Can Agree

[wildeyed]

61. I actually agree that if the party plans to be competitive in all 50 states,

we need to get our heads around the fact that there will be more culturally conservative Democrats. I do not believe that the party should waiver in it's pro-choice stance, just understand if we plan to actually win, we need to include these representative in the big tent.

I find it galling. I am a woman with a 16 year old daughter. But her interests will be better served if we have control of congress with a few more socially conservative reps than of the GOP has control. It is what it is. Electoral math often forces compromise that is a bitter pill to swallow.

That said, I suspect that the bitterness people are expressing has more to do with Sanders' idealism in the primary when it is contrasted with his current pragmatic vision of the party, not what he is actually said. When you say "but that is basically the argument that anti-Bernie people have made" you are correct. It is galling to have said a thing and be told you are wrong and then have the person who called you wrong say the same thing.

Personally, I am ok with it. I don't love it, but I doesn't bother me too much. Sanders is a politician, and saying things because they are politically expedient and help get votes or consolidate power, then changing their mind later is a thing that politicians do. Plus, Donald Trump and the current GOP are so apocalyptically bad, I got no outrage left to spend on intra-party battles.

I dunno. I see Sanders as an effective surrogate in some of these very white, socially conservative states. The history there is not always conservative on economics and religion. Nebraska had a strong socialist movement around turn of the century. Kansas had a radical, religiously motivated anti-slavery movement. If Democrats can revive that sprit, we might make in-roads. I think they like Sanders style. He did well there during the primary. If he can corral some votes and flip a few congressional seats, more power to him.

I am curious, do you support Sanders' statement about supporting anti-choice Dems in conservative states or not? You seem bitter about the "DLC third-way crowd" for doing the same thing. How is it different now?

[bekkilyn]

81. Some compromise is necessary, but never when it comes to basic human rights. (nt)

[elmac]

62. yawn

[mwooldri]

65. In Europe it's called "coalition politics".

We do it already - see the Republicans split 3-4 ways, and Democrats 2-3 ways.

People have to accept that although the US is essentially a two party system, the parties themselves are big-tent parties, with factions fighting each other at times.

[OilemFirchen]

67. Pragmatism's now hip?

Thank god! I'm gonna go celebrate with a gluten-free gooseberry IPA!

[R B Garr]

74. +1, It's amazing! I'm going to have one of those umbrella drinks!

[randr]

71. Bernie is saying that in order to win you need to compromise

My heart says that if you remain true to your principles and lose, you have still won.
My personal choice is always to go down fighting rather than lose what I am fighting for.

[Ken Burch]

79. For the record, this current discussion started because Bernie endorsed somebody for mayor of Omaha

who had a "pro-life" voting record in the Nebraska legislature(a body that will be right-wing on all issues for the rest of eternity)but who has said he will not work to restrict choice as mayor.

I just go up to speed on that part of this myself.

[H2O Man]

77. I think Bernie

is the best representative of our party at this time. I think he's the most intelligent, open, honest and fair politician in DC. That doesn't mean I agree with him on everything, but he is definitely a much-needed leader in the party right now.

[bekkilyn]

80. I don't agree with Bernie in this particular case

but I do agree that he's strangely using the same Third Way-type argument I see all the time on this site whenever someone argues against people like Manchin. I find it ironic that now it's suddenly not okay to vote for someone just because there is a D next to the name.

Maybe now though some are seeing the reasoning behind the "people over party" stance.

We have to have at least *some* standards where we draw the line.

[SirBrockington]

82. The Primary is over and has been for some time

[Tom Rinaldo]

111. Correct. And attacks on Bernie Sanders are still increasing in recent days

I don't enjoy this type of back and forth that has dominated DU all weekend in particular. But if it must be done it might as well include a wide ranging examination of the real issues on a substantive level, rather than have it go on endlessly as essentially a trashing of one political figure who happens to have an excellent record on reproductive rights. I refuse to be intimidated into silence by a chorus of negative talking points.

[dsc]

87. Unless he is willing to say the same thing about economic issues

which he hasn't and isn't then it is putting economic issues ahead of social ones.

[Ken Burch]

90. Not true.

And there are no areas anywhere where the only electable Dem would be a candidate who is socially liberal but right-wing on economic issues.

The candidate Bernie endorsed in Omaha, btw, made it clear that he would not work to restrict choice if elected to the office he is now seeking.

[dsc]

96. says you

While not democrats several gop people have won races with exactly that set of beliefs. But regardless of whether such a strategy is effective or not, the simple fact is he refuses to compromise on economics at all when it comes to social issues he is more than willing to do so, and that means he favors one set of issues over the other. That is his right, but it is equally our right to push back against it.

[Ken Burch]

98. He actually has compromised on economics

He's not trying to get the entire economy nationalized.

And the candidate he has endorsed for mayor of Omaha(this is what started the firestorm)USED to be anti-choice, but has now made it clear that he will be pro-choice if elected mayor, so in practice Bernie didn't compromise at all.

(especially since there are ONLY two candidates in the Omaha mayor's race-Mello, who is now effectively pro-choice, and the Neanderthal incumbent).

[dsc]

105. and he would accept such heresy in the case of economics?

Unlike Kaine, who had been in office post change, for years before being named Mello said something like 5 minutes ago, I'll stop regulating abortion, hasn't had any chance to prove it, and people should just trust that. NC tried that with McCrory 4 years ago, and he wasn't governor 6 months before he regulated abortion. I have no problem with a consistent application of voting for Democratic candidates but that isn't what Sanders nor his supporters have been advocating. Again, he, and for that matter you, have every right to favor whatever issues you like but we have the right to push back.

[flamingdem]

91. The attacks on Bernie are unwarrented, Mello is not being given any trust at all here

and it sure seems to be about continuing to fight the primary. As if we have that luxury!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/bernie-sanders-jon-ossoff-abortion-progressive-heath-mello/523770/


On Thursday, Mello told The Huffington Post, however, that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care,” if elected. Jane Kleeb, the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party and board member of Our Revolution, a group that emerged out of the embers of the Sanders campaign, said in an interview that The Wall Street Journal and NARAL had “mischaracterized” Mello’s legislative record.

“Heath is a strong progressive Democrat, and he is pro-life, and you can be both things,” Kleeb said, adding: “What Heath did actually was stop a bill to make ultrasounds mandatory by getting Republicans in our legislature to agree to make them voluntary.”

Mello’s vow did not satisfy NARAL, however. “It’s not enough to issue a statement for political expediency when your record is full of anti-choice votes,” Ilyse Hogue, the organization’s president, said in a follow-up statement. “The Democratic Party’s support of any candidate who does not support the basic rights and freedoms of women is disappointing and politically stupid.”

[mcar]

92. That statement is correct, but...

why did he seem to go out of his way to support and endorse Mello and yet cast doubt on Ossoff?

My objection is not to the very real fact that the Democratic party is indeed a big tent. I was never among the crowd who insists on primarying red-state Democrats for doing what they need to do, within reason, to keep their jobs (that is, after all, what a 50-state strategy is all about).

I just find it a bit confusing that Senator Sanders publicly cast doubt upon Ossoff while at the same time he was making the statements you quoted in your OP. If Ossoff's "progressive" bona fides are questionable to the good Senator, why isn't Mello's stance on women's rights - a purely Democratic, liberal, progressive policy - questionable as well?

[spirald]

99. He didn't cast doubt opon Ossoff

His response "I don't know" was a no-opinion response. Ossoff didn't choose to characterize himself as a progressive.

[mcar]

101. That would count as casting doubt

In such an important, tight race, couldn't he have just said "I support Ossoff?"

Especially when he went out of his way to praise Mello as a progressive.

Seems to me this is politics 101. We have a very real enemy. We need all the Democrats we can get.

[spirald]

118. The casting of doubt was done by whoever spun his response, not him.

The problem here is that Bernie answered the question frankly. At the time, Ossoff didn't neccessarily call himself a progressive as he wasn't concerned with labels.

Bernie's response was spun to generate a factional war among the left. Bernie is more of an honest, frank individual than a savvy message crafter, and that is certainly a liability here. Media has a field day spinning what Bernie says because he doesn't spin-proof his statements- this is part of why he comes across as authentic, and it is a vulnerability in a sense.

We have a situation where a specific fictitious quote of Bernie is floating around ("not a progressive&quot that I suspect was the spark of this, and I think tracking it down and finding the perpetrator will be very informative.

[Rilgin]

137. The other quote floating around is also suspect and is big spin

The most fervent Bernie haters here who have posted endlessly the last few days have contrasted calling Ossof "not a progressive" with stating that Bernie has called Mello "a strong progressive" also using quotes and a "rising star" and other strong endorsement words that seem to contrast with full quotes from his actual interview with respect to his attendance in Omaha and relation to Mello.

I have not found any support that Bernie made any statement calling Mello a progressive, a strong progressive or used the word endorse. As part of the Unity tour he spent one day in Omaha and his actual quote on Mello (paraphrasing) was that he Sanders hoped the democratic mayoral candidate wins because even if he disagreed with him on some issues (meaning unrestricted pro-choice for Bernie), to preserve choice democrats have to win. Just like "I don't know" has been spun to mean "he is not a progressive". Bernie's attendance in Omaha on the unity tour and expression that he hopes Mello wins has been spun to mean Bernie thinks that Mello is a strong progressive and that Bernie strongly endorses him.

I did see one source for the quote "not a progressive" in a Washington post article. However, it does not say where Bernie is supposed to have said it and it may be the source of the misquote of "I don't know" as reported by other reputable news organization.

Like you, it would be nice if some of the haters on this site actually put forth evidence of quotes they attribute to Bernie and a link to a Newspaper article that does not contain any information about where Bernie is supposed to have said something is useful but not actually dispositive. If he said either of these claims, you would think there would be video of it or at least full quotes identifying where and in what context he said it.

[SaschaHM]

108. Funny. This wide tent benefit of the doubt wasn't given to Corey Booker or Joe Manchin here on DU.

You can't spend a year screaming about not moving to the right, calling for progressive primaries to red state dems, throwing around terms like corporist or neoliberal shill etc and then act like you've been for a big tent when someone Bernie endorses doesn't pass the purity tests used to bash other Dems.

I'm all for Political Pragmatism, but this is just Bernie scratching the back of someone who endorsed him and worked for him. Unless he's going to go campaign for Joe Manchin's or Donelly's re-election next, I don't buy this new found love for political pragmatism.

[Tom Rinaldo]

119. He has repeatedly called for a 50 state strategy

What do you think that looks like when you get past the slogan level? Mello was endorsed by the Omaha Teachers Union (the first time they ever endorsed by the way - here's a link to their statement: http://www.omaha.com/news/politics/city-election/omaha-teachers-union-endorses-heath-mello-in-mayoral-election/article_427d26a7-652c-562f-9cb4-1f892d5e656d.html ) and by the Sierra Club in Nebraska as well as by other groups of a relatively progressive nature.

It's Nebraska, not New Jersey. True, West Virginia isn't exactly New Jersey but not only is Joe Manchin a well established incumbent who doesn't need Bernie to help him initially become viable - I'm not sure he even would want that association if Bernie had any inclination to offer it.

And you know, Bernie does have a day job.

[Progressive dog]

139. That must be why BS endorsed so few

Democrats and why he tried to get someone to primary President Obama. He wanted to get Democratic control.