Some of the vetting on Bernie Sanders

[Jitter65]

When it comes time to make speeches, Sanders has slammed defense corporations for political gain.
“We know that there is massive fraud going on in the defense industry. Virtually every major defense contractor has either been convicted of fraud or reached a settlement with the government,” Sanders said in Iowa City last year at a town hall. “We need a strong military, it is a dangerous world. But I think we can make judicious cuts.”

But when those defense corporations come to his own backyard, he quietly welcomes them in.

https://medium.com/@isitanygood/the-timeline-of-sanders-bull-3d73b743da36#.6qxi8fp9x

[cosmicone]

1. Bernie is a big fan of the 1.3 TRILLION F-35 n/t

[Armstead]

5. He's not a big fan....Suince it was a done deal he wanted to steer some money to VT

That's what reprfesentatives of states tend to do in Congress.

Given his druthers, I'm sure he would rather have seen that MIC spending redirected to something like healthcare.

But being pragmatic and realistic, he wanted his state to benefit. It's called representing your state.

[DanTex]

12. LOL. My the excuses you come up with.

[Armstead]

14. No it's the truth

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. more lies from you

It was already authorized to be built, so he voted to have it built in vermont so at least his constituants would get jobs from the deal
Video here
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511108173

[cosmicone]

17. ROFLMAO

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. i think your meds need adjusted

Bursts of inappropriate laughter is one of the signs

[Gothmog]

2. Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders

Sanders has not been vetted Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Match up polls are worthless because these polls do not measure what would happen to Sanders in a general election where Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads.

[Armstead]

6. Meh...he's already been branded as a crazy socialist

Those who are scared off by that label are the same ones who were scared off when Obama was branded as a "Marxist muslim Saul Alinsky community organizer from the ghetto of Chicago" and will also be scared off by the labeling of Clinton as a "corrupt free spending liberal."

[Gothmog]

7. The Kochs and Karl Rove have not run $300 million of ads using the MTP footage

The attack ads from this appearance on Meet the Press write themselves https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

Meet the Press ✔ @meetthepress
CHUCK TODD: Are you a capitalist?@BernieSanders: No. I'm a Democratic Socialist.
8:33 AM - 11 Oct 2015

And, in those five words, Sanders showed why — no matter how much energy there is for him on the liberal left — he isn't getting elected president.

Why? Because Democrat or Republican (or independent), capitalism remains a pretty popular concept — especially when compared to socialism. A 2011 Pew Research Center survey showed that 50 percent of people had a favorable view of capitalism, while 40 percent had an unfavorable one. Of socialism, just three in 10 had a positive opinion, while 61 percent saw it in a negative light.

Wrote Pew in a memo analyzing the results:

Of these terms, socialism is the more politically polarizing — the reaction is almost universally negative among conservatives, while generally positive among liberals. While there are substantial differences in how liberals and conservatives think of capitalism, the gaps are far narrower.

...The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

You can try to argue that the two terms are not the same but that will not stop the Kochs from running $200 milion to $300 million using that term in negative ads that would be very effective.

[Armstead]

8. I don't believe in operating based on what Karl Rove and the Kochs might do

[Gothmog]

9. I live in the real world where such actions are important

[Armstead]

10. Then you should be afraid of what they'll do to Clinton too

Because they are going to let out all of the stops....and there will be things you never dreamed about.

I'm sure they have some Kerry Swiftyboat style surprises waiting for the General Election against her on their desk.

[Gothmog]

15. Rove has been running several million dollars of attack ads against Clinton already in the primaries

The GOP wants the weakest possible candidate and has been running attack ads against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. The GOP even tried the old McCaskill trick to try to help Sanders win some primaries.http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-01-28/republicans-take-their-sanders-advocacy-to-the-next-level

Add Republican operatives to the list of strong Bernie Sanders supporters in the Democratic primary, along with progressive activists and young voters.

A super-PAC founded by Republican billionaire Joe Ricketts is making its first foray into the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, spending $600,000 on a television ad in Iowa calling Sanders "too liberal," according to The New York Times.

The ad then spotlights two of the policies that have helped fuel his rise in the Democratic primary—his calls for "completely free" college education and more taxes on Wall Street and the "super-rich."

"It's exactly the same thing we did with Todd Akin," said Caitlin Legacki, who served as communications director to Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's during her successful campaign in 2012. "They're clearly trying to use the exact same playbook."

Four years ago, McCaskill spent nearly $1 million in TV ads calling Akin "too conservative" in an effort to promote him, rather than his two opponents. He won the primary, then McCaskill trounced him on Election Day.

"More than anything that should be a concern for Democrats, because you don't make those kinds of investments in support of a candidate from another party unless you believe there's a good reason for it," Legacki added.

Here is a good clip from Maddow

Sanders has received the benefit of millions of dollars of GOP attack ads and GOP dirty tricks and he is still trailing Hillary Clinton in delegates and by 2.5 million in popular vote.

What more do you think that the GOP has left? The real world is a nice place. I like living in the real world

[Armstead]

16. If you like the real world then you might want to remember that....

the GOP has a goldmine of new material in Clinton's e-mails (not just they "scandal" part, but all of the deals and information about her performance in that job in the released ones) plus a lot of information about the Clinton Foundation, those speaking engagements....and who knows what else? that they're holding close to the vest so far.

And rather than "wanting" the weaker candidate, it is also possible that the GOP has simply bought into the conventional wisdom that Clinton is already the defacto nominee -- and rather than waste their time on Sanders the primary ads against her are simply a warm up for the all out assault they'll launch against her in the General Election campaign.

[Gothmog]

18. Denial is not just a river in Africa

Rove knows what he is doing and Rove, the Kochs and the GOP know that Sanders is a very weak general election candidate. Again, even with a significant amount of support from Rove, the Ricketts, Future 45 and the GOP, Sanders is still trailing Hillary Clinton. To date, the Clinton campaign have been treating Sanders with kids gloves. VOX had a good article on the potential lines of attack that Sanders would be exposed to if Sanders was the nominee. http://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10903404/gop-campaign-against-sanders One of the more interesting observations in the VOX analysis is the fact that Sanders have been treated with kids gloves compared to what Sanders would face if he was the Democratic nominee. I strongly agree with the VOX's position that the so-called negative attacks against Sander have been mild. Form the article:

I have no interest in litigating any of these attacks here. Like any Democrat elected president in 2016, Sanders wouldn't be able to get much done, but he would block attempts to roll back Obama's accomplishments and have a chance to fill a few Supreme Court vacancies.

When Sanders supporters discuss these attacks, though, they do so in tones of barely contained outrage, as though it is simply disgusting what they have to put up with. Questioning the practical achievability of single-payer health care. Impugning the broad electoral appeal of socialism. Is nothing sacred?

But c'mon. This stuff is patty-cakes compared with the brutalization he would face at the hands of the right in a general election.

His supporters would need to recalibrate their umbrage-o-meters in a serious way.

The attacks that would be levied against Sanders by the Kochs, the RNC candidate and others in a general election contest would make the so-called attacks against Sanders look like patty-cakes. The GOP and Kochs are not known for being nice or honest and as the article notes there are a ton of good topics available for attack. Raising taxes is never a good campaign platform (Just ask President Mondale). The GOP would also raise the socialism and age issues if Sanders was the nominee.

Again, I agree with the VOX position that so far, Sanders has not been subject to negative attacks close to what the GOP would use against Sanders and the attacks against Sanders if he was the nominee would be brutal. I urge Sanders supporters to read the VOX article to start to get a feel for what real negative attacks would look like.

[frylock]

21. Oh noes!! Not Karl Rove!

[Viva_La_Revolution]

13. 40 years in elected office, no scandels, no rumors even

All the false accusations have just slid right off him.

Yet you guys keep saying this, hoping there is something. Just because your candidate has so many. Please stop projecting.

[cosmicone]

20. ^^^ THIS ^^^^ n/t

[CentralCoaster]

3. Bernie has been vetted plenty, Clinton's vetting is bottomless cup of coffee.

There's nothing about Bernie to be revealed, he's been in politics so long it's all been said.

And whatever dirt might have been there would be out right now, this week, coming from Hillary surrogates.

Nope, sorry, there's nothing to vet.

Clinton, on the other hand, still has more and more revelations to be used against her in the general.

This OP makes no sense, there's no basis for the conclusions drawn.

[Gwhittey]

4. Yea let us nomiate Clinton She is a fighter

No GreenPeace person going to tell truth around Clinton. She fights back.