Centrists of the world unite!

[DanTex]

Chris Matthews was willing to kamikaze his career, comparing the potential first Jewish president to the Nazi invasion of France, in order to prevent all Americans from having healthcare! That's how much the establishment and the media wanted to stop Bernie.

Sadly, as a Bernie supporter, I must say, it seems to have worked. Chris Matthews, Jennifer Rubin, and the rest have taken a big step towards making their dream of the status quo become reality.

We'll see tonight how the delegates look, but right now it's looking pretty good for Biden. If Joe is the nominee I will, of course, enthusiastically support him and donate to him. Intramural squabbles are fine, but Trump is nothing to mess around with. We cannot afford any "Bernie or Bust" stupidity this time around. I sincerely believed, and continue to believe, that Bernie would have a better chance of beating Trump, but once we have a nominee, that doesn't matter anymore, what matters is winning back the White House.

[LexVegas]

1. ...

[el_bryanto]

2. Look really - I don't mind wearing these corporate chains. I've just been assured by

Centrist democrats that they will take a principled stance against flogging, and that is good enough for me.

Bryant

[Demsrule86]

3. Great post Dan. And I agree about supporting the nominee...but Chris in his defense did

not go against Sanders in the foolish tirade because he was anti-Jewish but because Chris grew up with the red scare...and he still fears communists...yeah I know Sander is not a communist.

[showblue22]

4. In order to prevent all Americans from having healthcare?

That's not true. We just don't believe Bernie is the one to have any solutions on the healthcare front. I believe Biden can bring more better health care to more people and Bernie would just polarize the process so nothing gets done.

[DanTex]

9. I have no doubt that you are sincere in believing that Biden can bring more better healthcare

to more people. But I don't believe that is true about the establishment in general. There are too many people and institutions that have vested interests in the profits of various industries.

[Walleye]

51. Ah. There's that pesky establishment again

[IronLionZion]

5. The other party doesn't have this problem. They went hard right

it's good that our party has liberal and centrist choices in our primaries to produce a stronger platform and campaign for the general election. I think we can win this time.

[NYMinute]

6. The "establishment" talk is utter nonsense

Lifelong Democrats are supporting another lifelong Democrat over an independent. It is neither surprising nor shocking. Even Sen. Warren, when she drops out, will support Joe Biden.

This is about party unity and Democrats like me do not want to blow up the party. Very simple indeed.

[Sloumeau]

7. You wrote:

Chris Matthews was willing to kamikaze his career, comparing the potential first Jewish president to the Nazi invasion of France, in order to prevent all Americans from having healthcare! That's how much the establishment and the media wanted to stop Bernie.

Odds are this is very wrong. Chris Matthews is a diabetic, and apparently he did not manage his blood sugar well. Diabetics can kinda go nuts and babble nutty things when their blood sugar is unstable, which is most likely why Chris Matthews started rambling about Central Park, Nazi's, France, and Bernie Sanders.

Chris Matthews spent much of his career not saying nutty things. It has been almost completely in the past few years that he started to say inappropriate things. He needed to retire, but he did not sacrifice himself in some plot to stop Bernie Sanders.

[DanTex]

13. I don't think he knew he was ending his career when he made all those unhinged anti-Bernie rants.

But I also don't think it was just his diabetes. He obviously didn't want Bernie to be president, along with the rest of the establishment.

[Sloumeau]

16. He definitely did not want Bernie to be the nominee.

However, I think it was diabetes that made him say those crazy things out loud. Chris Matthews knows that journalists are supposed to be more impartial than he was being and that you should not call the followers of Jewish people Nazi's or brownshirts. His lack of blood sugar just meant he did not have self-control in order not to say the quiet stuff out loud.

What he did was wrong, and he needed to go, but I really doubt that he intentionally planned to fall on his sword to try and stop Bernie. I suspect he was completely off his meds and not watching his diet properly.

[The Mouth]

36. I'm a diabetic, too

But if I say stupid, racist and/or anti semetic shit on the job, I'll get my ass fired, and rightly so.

[ChubbyStar]

55. I would think that Chris has pretty good medical coverage

People looking after him, family, friends, MSNBC, you know he is somebody who can afford insulin. I find this excuse in the other post to be a far reach.

[frazzled]

8. Let's abandon that term altogether

Honestly, "centrist" would suggest someone who stands halfway between a Republican and a Democrat. That's just not true, especially as the Republican Party has moved so very far to the right. It doesn't apply to any of the candidates (well, maybe Bloomberg, who is literally half Republican and half Democrat.)

Maybe Left Center is the appropriate term (or is it center left?). People who are in the middle of the Democratic Party: not too far to the right of the party, and not too far to the left. All our candidates are certainly quite liberal.

And let's start dropping the term "progressive" from the vocabulary as well. Nobody even knows exactly what it means or how to define it.

Other words I'd like to never hear again:

Billionaire (it gets used by one candidate 50 times a day, meaning essentially 400 people in the country I can use as a bogeyman)
Corporatist (mainly just an ad hominem slur)
The People (who are they? People are everyone, from left-wing radicals to neo-nazi stormtroopers)

[Doremus]

60. Got it.

Everything will be fine as long as we never utter the words progressive, billionaire, corporatist and The People again.

Who knew it was that simple?

[frazzled]

62. Not that simple

we should also abandon uttering the word "rigged"!

[The Mouth]

64. I find "Socialist" really problematic, too.

It can mean so many different things, and has. 'National Socialist', 'International Socialist', Democratic Socialist, 'Social Democracy'. A 'socialist' in one country 120 years ago might believe very different things than a 'socialist' in a different country now.

Personally, I think of "Centrist", when used to describe a Democratic politician, official, or pundit, means "about half way between the most extreme members of the Democratic party". The extremes being difficult to define precisely, but with most of us kind of knowing where they are. 'To the right of AOC and the left of Manchin' would be the sense I think many of us use it. But your point is well taken, after all, Manchin is by some measures a 'centrist' being about halfway between most Democrats and a large number of more liberal Republicans.

"Fascist" is another word used by people who often have no clue that it has an actual definition (Capitalism and a market economy but single party political rule) and use it to mean "right wing assholes I find yucky" to the detriment of constructive discussion.

[AGeddy]

10. The only centrist candidate in the Democratic party is Mike Bloomberg

Biden is a classical liberal, as is Amy.

Pete is very progressive.

Liz is very progressive.

Bernie is ultra progressive.



Your labels need work.


ps. Matthews kamakized his career because of being a misogynistic dope, not because of his bad Nazi-France analogy.

[King4ADay]

14. Biden voted for the Iraq War and NAFTA.

The former killed lots of people and the latter killed lots of manufacturing jobs in the very states that we will need to win in November - and people remember.

As such, I'm not entirely sure 'Classic Liberal' is quite the label for him.

[AGeddy]

19. 80% of Democrats voted for Iraq war. They made a mistake.

One 17-year-old vote does not define a career.

[King4ADay]

20. Fair enough.

But Kerry and Clinton did too, while Obama opposed (though didn't vote), and one of the three was elected to the Oval Office.

Sanders also voted against for what it's worth - I guess he doesn't make as many mistakes.

[AGeddy]

21. Sanders voted five times against the Brady Bill. Sanders voted against the Assault Weapons Ban

At one time, Sanders had a B+ rating with the NRA.


Yes, he has made many mistakes.

[King4ADay]

22. Guess we'll have to see whose mistakes matter more to voters.

So far it looks like the electorate is more forgiving of Sanders, but time will tell.

[LanternWaste]

40. Keep moving the goalposts....

[King4ADay]

41. I suppose you could look at it that way.

Although it's not my intention - the person upstream was explaining that Joe's vote for the Iraq War was a simple mistake, so I only wanted to point out that he's right and everyone makes them; including our last two defeated candidates who as it turns out also made the same mistake.

Have a GREAT day.

[ehrnst]

65. About Iraq votes...

In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: "Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

[King4ADay]

66. Cool.

Imagine how much easier it will be for Sanders (or Trump) to simply say "Biden voted for the Iraq War, I did not" compared to Biden (or Trump) to say...that.

[ehrnst]

67. I guess acting as though you didn't read my post is

something you think lends credibility to your response?



Here it is again:

In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: "Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."

Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

You're welcome! Have a great day!

[brush]

53. Was Obama even in the Senate then...'03?

[King4ADay]

59. No he was not, so I wrote 'opposed but didn't vote'.

.

[Hoyt]

35. Lets pull out the Sanders/Warren crud that poor foreign workers are just scabs taking American jobs.

[King4ADay]

37. Hadn't thought of that, but go for it if you feel that way.

[TexasTowelie]

42. And NAFTA also created jobs, particularly in the states along the US-Mexico border

that are gaining population and will gain more Electoral College votes after the 2020 census. Arizona and Texas are close to transforming from red to blue states, incomes are rising in areas stricken by poverty, and on the other side of the border employment and wages have risen which has resulted in less immigrants from Mexico coming into the U.S. which actually increases our national security. I thought that should bear mentioning since you are lamenting the loss of manufacturing jobs in the Rust Belt states.

[King4ADay]

43. Awesome !!!

Good thing the folks in the Rust Belt have a place to move if they want to get their jobs back.

[TexasTowelie]

44. I think that it is only fair to note that there are two sides to every coin.

It isn't the first time in the history of this country when people have moved in order to find employment. I had a lot of friends that lost high-paying jobs in the oil field back in the 1980s when the price of oil plummeted from $40 a barrel to $10 a barrel.

[King4ADay]

46. I couldn't agree with you more on this point.

You are absolutely correct - I'm just pointing out that some of the states who were hurt by NAFTA are the very ones that we desperately have to win in order to take back the White House, and saying 'but it created jobs elsewhere in the country' to people who lost theirs is cold comfort.

[TexasTowelie]

50. I think that at least some of those manufacturing jobs were lost because of other considerations

besides NAFTA. Those manufacturing jobs were also sent to countries that were not part of NAFTA, such as countries in Asia. The manufacturing sector was no longer competitive on a global basis. There was also job loss in the textile industry that were concentrated in southern states.

FWIW, job losses in the U.S. economy were not limited to blue collar industries or jobs that required only a modest amount of education and technical skills. I worked with an IT company in Dallas and a lot of that work was outsourced to India.

As far as NAFTA was concerned, the negotiations were started under Reagan so both political parties can take credit and can take blame. The Democratic Party took a hit when a lot of textile jobs were lost in the South. I certainly sympathize for those that lost jobs, but I think that it is over-simplifying the situation by saying a trade agreement cost us those jobs. Those jobs were either going to disappear because the factories were no longer competitive or the alternative to keeping those jobs was to impose tariffs which is essentially a tax on the consumers purchasing the products being manufactured. Undoubtedly, some people weren't able to put together the pieces of the puzzle while others were capable of understanding the complexities and they either relocated or they found work in other fields.

[King4ADay]

52. Yep, not to mention how automation has changed the landscape where manufacturing is

concerned.

I *think* we are pretty much in agreement - my only concern where NAFTA is concerned is one of perception - Trump ran on renegotiating it, won and then gave us the USMCA and it seems popular with those in the states that were affected the first time around.

[Recursion]

61. I mean, yes. This is the least mobile generation in US history

People today are more likely to live in the ZIP code they were born in than ever before. People need to move to where there are jobs, like we always did before.

[mcar]

63. What's wrong with moving for a job?

People do it all the time.

[marble falls]

45. NAFTA did not kill jobs in the US. A lot of Democrats supported NAFTA including President Clinton

But do you know who else was against NAFTA? Donald J. Trump.

About those dead jobs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAFTA's_effect_on_United_States_employment

U.S. employment increased over the period of 1993–2007 from 110.8 million people to 137.6 million people.[12] Specifically within NAFTA's first five years of existence, 709,988 jobs (140,000 annually), were created domestically.[13] The mid to late nineties was a period of strong economic growth in the United States. When a country is experiencing economic growth (i.e. GDP is increasing), there is usually also an increase in employment.[14] Thus, because trade liberalization can sometimes contribute to increases in GDP, it can help to bring the rate of unemployment down in a country. The U.S. experienced a 48% increase in real GDP from 1993–2005. The unemployment rate over this period was an average of only 5.1%, compared to 7.1% from 1982–1993, before NAFTA was implemented.[13] Critics of NAFTA argue that the 1990s economic boom was driven by technological change, however, and that employment growth in the 1990s would have been even greater without NAFTA.[15]

Proponents reject the claims of some that the free trade agreement is destroying the manufacturing industry and causing displacement of workers in that industry. The rate of job loss due to plant closings, a typical argument against NAFTA, showed little deviation from previous periods.[16] Also, US industrial production, in which manufacturing makes up 78%, saw an increase of 49% from 1993–2005. The period prior to NAFTA, 1982–1993, only saw a 28% increase.[13] In fact, according to NAM, National Association of Manufacturers, NAFTA has only been responsible for 10% of the manufactured goods trade deficit, something opponents criticize the agreement for exacerbating.[17] The growth of exports to Canada and Mexico accounted for a large proportion of total U.S. export gains.[18] However, the growth of exports to Canada and Mexico in percentage terms has lagged significantly behind the growth of exports to the rest of the world.[19]

According to the Democratic Leadership Council, "the most direct measurement of the impact of trade agreements on employment is the number of jobs supported by exports."[20] It is estimated that 8500 manufacturing jobs are supported by every $1 billion in US exports.[13] Because $12 billion of average annual gains in exports were created by expansion of North American trade, more than 100,000 additional US jobs were created, but this measure does not account for jobs lost due to rising imports.[13] More importantly, it has been noted that in export-oriented industries, wages are 13-16 percent higher than the national average.[13]

Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA's implementation, but also believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker's wages.[citation needed] That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage deflation in certain sectors. However, during the Clinton administration, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries.[21]

[King4ADay]

47. From your snippet.

Others agree with the notion that there has been an increase in net jobs due to NAFTA's implementation, but also believe that these net gains are coming at the price of worker's wages.[citation needed] That is, high-paying manufacturing jobs are being lost and replaced by lower paying jobs and is causing wage deflation in certain sectors. However, during the Clinton administration, the sources of new job creation were in relatively high paid sectors and industries.[21]

Then because I can Google too:

NAFTA skeptics cite the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs as a reason to criticize NAFTA and to be wary of future trade deals. According to the CFR, the U.S. auto sector lost roughly 350,000 jobs between 1994 and 2016. Many of those jobs were taken up by workers in Mexico, where the auto sector added over 400,000 jobs in the same period.

Those who mourn the loss of good-paying factory jobs for lower-skill workers in sectors like auto and textile manufacturing are not generally swayed by statistics that cite the NAFTA-induced growth in higher-skill jobs. These NAFTA critics argue that the U.S. should always have plenty of middle-class jobs for those without a college degree.

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/the-pros-and-cons-of-nafta

[marble falls]

48. From a website called smart ass. You got to better than that! how about some figures and facts? ...

Meanwhile up thread you thought my information when presented by Nurse was "Awesome".

[King4ADay]

49. smartasset.com

.

[ChubbyStar]

57. Do you understand boxing?

Often times the knock out punch happens because the opponent has given you enough chance to hit his weakness. Hence the final blow.

[boston bean]

11. Weird. I don't think Democrats are status quo.

[Celerity]

56. certainly not from this Trumpian hellish nightmare that has engulfed the planet

[handmade34]

12. I appreciate the sentiment of your third paragraph

I hazard a guess to say there is no Democrat that doesn't want all people to have healthcare and Chris Matthews comments were not just about stopping Bernie...

and... the status quo is not the goal by any Democrat... the goal is progress and making life better for everyone, just not by "revolution"

[honest.abe]

26. Exactly.

I was thinking of posting something just like this but you worded it so nicely!

[Happy Hoosier]

15. "comparing the potential first Jewish president to the Nazi invasion of France"

Listen to the clip. That is NOT what he said, and your spin is unfair. He was remarking on the sudden success of the Sanders campaign and was paraphrasing a conversation between Churchill and a French General. If anything he was complimenting the success of the Sanders campaign.

Was it awkward? Yes. But Matthews is fan of Churchill and pulled up a quote he thought was related in some way.

He was NOT comparing Sanders to a Nazi.

[jmg257]

18. Ssshhh- don't bring facts into this discussion - they kill a good rant!!

Hmmm...unless maybe Reynaud & Churchill had it in for Bernie too?!

[Hoyt]

38. Exactly. He was remarking on Sanders quick assent.

In fact, Matthews began his remarks by saying he was reading a book about Germany overrunning the previously though impenetrable French fortifications.

Probably not the best metaphor considering Sanders is Jewish, but I don't think that had anything to do with the comment.

[jmg257]

17. Yep - When CM said re: the Campaign "It's Over!". Clearly he was wrong to say that.

His declaring Bernie the winner before SC and ST was quite premature.

[Happy Hoosier]

23. Well, CM was more nuanced than that...

... but he was impressed with the Sanders surge.

[jmg257]

30. Agreed - I think we all were! Much has changed since, it seems.

[ehrnst]

32. +1000

[HarlanPepper]

24. ...

[ehrnst]

25. Upset that Warren wouldn't quit and do the same for Bernie?

#WarrenEndorseBernie Trends as Sanders Supporters Urge Warren to Drop Out And Endorse Her Fellow Progressive...

https://www.newsweek.com/warrenendorsebernie-trends-sanders-supporters-urge-warren-drop-out-endorse-her-fellow-1490124

[DanTex]

29. That probably would have helped, yes. It's probably too late now.

[ehrnst]

31. But when Klobuchar and Buttigieg do it....

it's somehow unfair.

[DanTex]

33. I didn't say it was unfair.

[ehrnst]

34. That headline and your post make it clear though.

[JustAnotherGen]

27. He said that about Bloomberg? Or Steyer? Or Sanders?

All three?

[SiliconValley_Dem]

28. That's politics. Normal distribution preferences will favor the center in most cases

There are outliers like 2016, and possibly this election will be the first with 2 extreme candidates in the general. In that case, tie goes to the incumbent.

[LanternWaste]

39. 30-year career millionaire politicians pretending to be anti-establishment unite too!

But I get it... the guy who calls everything outside his bubble 'divisive' is now actually pretending that unity is divisive.

I'm guessing tomorrow you'll inform us everyone's chocolate rations have increased by a few grams a week too!

[NurseJackie]

54. Aw.