You Gotta Love Bernie!
By Chris Carlson
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders appears to be on the cusp of sinking the vaunted, well-financed and well-staffed Clinton election machine. It’s a notion that the vast majority of the political punditry class, and the political cognoscenti (especially those inside the beltway) thought to be absolutely unimaginable.
One could hear it anywhere — some version of the “Democrats will never nominate one who calls himself a “progressive socialist.” Well, Bernie just may surprise.
Listening to Bernie and Hillary, the differences become more clear each time they debate or share a platform. One speaks with an undeniable sincerity, the other sounds like an automaton — a flat-sounding almost plaintive voice.
It reminds one of that great scene in the classic movie “2001” when the onboard computer has tried to kill Dave, the astronaut who has gone outside the spacecraft to make a repair. The computer, named Hal, is trying to reason with Dave.
“Dave, listen to me. I suppose you are upset with me. And you have a right to be. But the mission must go on. Dave, talk to me Dave,” Hal pleads.
Just as many Democratic voters in New Hampshire, as well as across the nation, have stopped listening to Hillary Clinton’s plea to support her historic quest to be the first woman elected president, Dave does not listen. He relentlessly goes into the computer’s “brain” and turns Hal off. Hal’s credibility and trustworthiness is gone—as is Hillary’s.
Bernie clearly speaks with more passion than Hillary. He has stayed on message relentlessly while Hillary has bounced between various messages. He’s following the KISS formula and its resonating. He is absolutely correct in pointing out that the top 1/10th of 1 percent, the wealthiest, are subsidized by the middle class.
What’s worst, they brag about their status.
There are numerous stories of extraordinarily wealthy individuals boasting about paying no taxes.
Readers are invited to read New York Times tax writer’s David Cay Johnston’s fine books that document in painful detail the many ways the average American subsidizes the wealthy. Read “Perfectly Legal” or “No Free Lunch” or “Read the Fine Print.” If you’ve got a pulse, you’re spitting mad.
When Bernie makes it clear he has no SuperPAC, nor received any money from Wall Street, like the $17.2 million Hillary has received, more and more voters know what he is saying.
The great irony is that the oldest person in the race has so galvanized the nation’s under 45 years of age crowd, and especially those in college, that his plausibility of winning the nomination and the November election grows with each passing day.
National polls have him almost dead even with Hillary, within the margin of error. His campaign team thinks Bernie did actually win the total vote count in Iowa and also point to six Iowa precincts which supposedly were dead even where Hillary won the coin flip each time.
Conventional wisdom is that Bernie will clobber Hillary in New Hampshire, so watch for the spinmeisters and biased media to play down a Sanders’ victory. Candidly, many media scribes engage in the “expectation” game and then breathlessly proclaim how their pre-vote speculation did indeed happen. Of course there’s no one engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy.
Conventional wisdom says that South Carolina is Hillary’s firewall that will offset the midships blow she took in Iowa and the possibly 2:1 loss in New Hampshire. Much is made of the commanding lead she has among African-American voters there.
Bernie, however, is countering with the endorsement of one of the most influential NAACP leaders in modern times — Ben Jealous. Bernie has another gambit in his favor the media is ignoring — there are many white Democratic voters who are strong supporters of gun rights.
Bernie voted against the Brady Bill five times and he’s never been a big anti-gun senator in part because there are several major gun manufacturers in his state. Like rural states and rural areas across the nation, there are many gun owners. Thus, Bernie is not anathema to the National Rifle Association, though his rating is now an “F” because the NRA perceives a major shift to the left and support for more gun controls. If Bernie pulls off the upset, however, and beats Hillary in South Carolina, his momentum may be unstoppable.
As Bernie’s national surge continues, look for Hillary to attack more and harder. If she gets too nasty, look for Bernie to play the Wal-Mart card.
It could unfold as follows: “Madame secretary, you say you will be a fighter for the average working person. However, you served on the Wal-Mart board for six years, from 1986 to 1992.
“During that time did you ever fight for an increase in the minimum wage? The answer is no, isn’t it? Did you ever argue for equal pay for equal work? The answer is no, isn’t it? Did you ever argue for health benefits to be extended to the thousands of part-time Walmart workers? The answer is no, isn’t it? Did you ever in the confines of the board room argue for the right of Wal-Mart employees to form a union? The answer is no, isn’t it?
“You tell folks to look at your record. Well I have, Mrs. Clinton, and the record belies your claims.”
Game, set, match. It’s all over.
A native of Kellogg, journalist Chris Carlson pens his column from his retirement home near Medimont in Northern Idaho. He is a former teacher and was press secretary to former Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus.
Ah yes, Bernie Sanders.
Never owned a business
Never invented anything
Never had a 9-5 job
Never proposed a single bill that pass after 25 years in office
Lived off welfare before he was elected to office
74 years old, net worth about $300,000
Says he can fix healthcare and the economy
Says he wants to be President.
Just like his hero Karl Marx, he has succeeded at nothing.
Too many people hear what they want to only.
Nope, voting for Bernie is a vote against something worse, called Hillary. Bernie has nothing good going for him at all.
Ah yes, Bernie introduced 301 bills; 3 passed.
two of which renamed post-offices. His other bill tied increases in veterans benefits to cost of living adjustments for social security.
Hillary renamed a post office, named a highway, and changed the designation of the Kate Mullany House in Troy NY from a historic landmark to a historic site out of the 353 she passed. So much for knowing how to get things done, right?
John Kasich, out of the Republican candidates has passed five of the 63 bills he introduced: welfare reform in 1996, tax reform in 1997, and the balanced budget act in 1997. The only Republican in the race of any consequence in my opinion, but he so far has little funding.
Marco Rubio, Ted cruz, passed one each, which were of small consequence.
If Bloomberg enters the race, he has similar liberal/progressive views to Bernie Sanders along with the conservative stance on some social and economic issues that will get him elected against either Hillary or Bernie. He could skin the Republican candidates alive with his billions and his political gravitas as opposed to the front runner Donald T.
So, Jenuwin, per you everyone isn’t a leader and has accomplished nothing. Thanks for agreeing with my idea that we throw everyone out and start all over.
This year is turning into, not who are you going to vote for but more like, who are you voting against. Got lots of those people in the running.
Good reply. Now, what are your solutions given what you see?
D.R.,
Thanks for your reply; however, since you asked me, I believe in the message that Bernie Sanders is putting forth, except instead of continuing to emphasize that Well Street is to blame (which sounds like some gigantic conspiracy theory) he should amplify his message of a rigged economy, which began to develop under the sainted leadership of Ronald Reagan and continued to expand thereafter. I thought this was an interesting read::
“The North American free trade area that the agreement creates will produce 25 percent more goods and services than the European Community, giving North America enough economic muscle to challenge the emerging unified market in Europe and an East Asia market dominated by Japan. The NAFTA also will offer Americans cheaper goods, and increase U.S. exports by making them more affordable for the rest of the world. Moreover, it will create an estimated 200,000 new jobs for Americans, reduce illegal immigration from Mexico, help tackle drug trafficking, strengthen Mexican democracy and human rights, and serve as a model for the rest of the world.
President Clinton has correctly described the agreement as “just a first step. . . .”
excerpt from a 1993 Heritage foundation post of an essay by Michael G. Wilson titled The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan’s Vision Realized.
Bernie Sanders has said that he is firmly against the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. The more one reads by way of comparison between the TPPA and NAFTA the more they sound alike, even though a number of people say that NAFTA has been a lesson for the TPPA. Both “trade agreements” are less about trade and more about corporate privilege than anything else. Both do a number on American workers BIG time. Both say that they provide more jobs. In fact the TPPS will take away jobs and expose American workers to the low wages that N. Korea, for example is enjoying. Both were designed to defeat union organizations. Ross Perot’s prophesy of a “Giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the U.S, was fulfilled.
Maybe under the leadership of someone, if not Bernie Sanders, then someone who espouses his philosophy of efficient government and more grass roots movements (a political revolution) will be able to lead us out from under the
power of the present Oligarchy with its heavy influence at the very core of our government. So much so that it defies any political leadership.
Bernie is right that the only way is for the people to rise up en masse to take back power. Anarchy has awakened and has both eyes on us all. (Gloom and doom from Jen) However, not one to just sit back and do nothing, I will be sending my contribution to the Sanders campaign forthwith if not sooner.
Jen –
You and Bernie are absolutely correct about the fact that elimination of trade creates jobs. All you have to do is imagine a situation where, (using Adam smith’s example), the tailor DOES “make his own shoes”. In fact, before he can even start to “make his own shoes”, he has to raise his own steer, (’cause he can’t trade with the rancher) tan his steer’s hide himself (cause he can’t trade with the tanner), and THEN “make his own shoes”. And during the process, he must raise his own fodder to feed his steer, because, again, he can’t trade with the farmer. Guaranteed, that tailor will never be idle again
You see, you and Bernie are indeed correct, once you eliminate trade, there is no such thing as unemployment. Makes us wonder, Howcum nobody ever thought of that before??
Good reply. Ah yes, ‘rigged economy’ where 200,000 new jobs (one months worth for those coming into the job market each month at best) is good? No, jobs for the roughly 93,000,000 people out of work that the FEDS no longer count because they ran out of ‘benefits’ long ago would be more encouraging. 422 months worth just to replace what we’ve lost over roughly 7+ years. That’s just over 35 years at that rate. Lost them 5X faster than we’re gaining them.
What does Bernie say about that? Why, nothing because he would have to borrow multiple trillions of dollars to put them back on unemployment insurance and that solves what? Jobs are gone, guess where? $355,000,000,000 to China for a big one.
There is a cartoon of a foolish young man with his arm around Bernie and saying, this sounds great, how are you going to pay for it and it shows Bernie stealing the young man’s wallet while smiling and agreeing with him.
Nope, Karl Marx is Bernie’s hero and we all know what Karl Marx solved and accomplished.
Ah, yes, ‘rise up en masse and take back power’ and you will find yourself taking it back from the ‘closet’ socialist won’t you? Bernie the poster boy for the problems, never the solutions.
Send twice the contribution, he needs more suckers. 4 more years of a guy worse than Obama is just what the U.S. doesn’t need.
Truth hurts in your world, doesn’t it? So, you ignore it and run with losers instead? Yes, Hillary is one of the losers. Not looking good this morning is she?
Oh, George Washington wasn’t ‘native born’ but keep running with that as if it means something. Per Obama’s Lolo grandmother he wasn’t native born either, but the democrats in Hawaii made up a birth certificate having him born at a hospital that didn’t go by that name for several decades. I’m personally acquainted with a guy that got fired there for refusing to go along with what the politicians in Hawaii ordered. But label it a ‘conspiracy theory’ and run with that dead end.
What’s the old saying, “a fool and her money are soon parted?” There’s a price to success and it’s called hard work, not more contributions to smooth talking communists in disguise as a progressive when he’s anything but.
When anarchy comes, will you be out in the street starving or worse to welcome it? You’ll find the ‘eyes’ you refer to in your bathroom mirror. They’ll be saying to you, why was I so stupid?
Oh, Yellen announced today that ‘future’ rate increases would be slow. Zero rate increase is pretty slow if I say so myself. How’s your 401K doing? Send Al Gore some more money. You’re 12F right now and we’re considering not transporting oil/gas as it costs more to ship that we can sell it for. Where is a socialist when you need them?
D.R.,
You are making the common mistake of equating Marxism and communism with Democratic Socialism, a system that has been in place within the U.S. economy and sanctioned by our government since Roosevelt.
The difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a political system under which the state controls the means of production and the working class is in charge of society. Socialism is an economic system under which all individuals have their basic needs met. Marx and Engels collaborated to put forth the doctrine upon which communist governments and economies are based. Near as I can recall, anyway.
I should rather err by being a “fool” and parting with my money for a man such as Sanders than the likes of a Marco Rubio or other Karl Rove trained neoconservative Hawk monkey. I guess from a late report this morning, Rove is training most of the lesser Republican candidates how to win; with special focus on Jeb Bush of course.
C.R.,
I have never denied that trade is a good and necessary thing; however, your “invisible Hand” illustration above works differently when the shoemaker relies on man made material for the upper and leather for the soles and both are made in China. U.S. farmers feed and raise the cattle, we save our milk and water bottles to ship to China so they can be recycled into plastic uppers for the nice faux leather shoes. Chinese workers tan the hides and make shoes at a mere fraction of the cost that American workers could produce them. Is that your idea of Adam Smith’s simple and common sense economic strategy for a strong and viable economy that includes everybody, not just the huge corporations that are ripping off the Chinese workers in order to stiff the American trade unions and keep from paying U.S. taxes.
By the a “Tailor” makes the suits in Hong Kong, not the shoes).
Jen –
Not so (that the system works differently when such and such takes place in China). The principles of economics do not distinguish political borders, nor man-made materials vs natural materials.
It is to our advantage when foreigners sell us their goods at a fraction of what it would cost us to make ’em ourselves. The falsehood that arises from the bogus notion that low-cost foreign goods hurt us or hurt our domestic economy is grounded in the ridiculous idea that there is only some finite amount of work to be done in the world, and therefore if foreigners begin to do the work we formerly did for ourselves before the world became ‘globalized’ that we will be stuck with nothing to do. The very concept is asinine!
Work is NOT finite. There is ALWAYS something that can be done to make ourselves happier or better off. If foreigners are willing to do the onerous stuff for us, it frees us up to do the less onerous stuff, does it not?
D.R., Sorry your post was so full of rambling stuff and misinformation that I can’t reply.
I don’t consider myself as one who is “running with losers, however. The only losers in politics that I have seen lately are those who are trying to ride the coat tails of the long dead Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of those who wouldn’t know a winner from a NASCAR wreck.
C.R., When we have to ship our natural and man made resources to the Chinese so that the Hong Kong “Tailor” can make our suits (Shoemakers make shoes) the trade template that you attribute to Adam Smith goes out the window.
Anyway, your Adam Smith theory has been stood on its head by the kind of “free” trade that our great country has fallen victim to. It is free in name only as shown by the results of the trade agreements that have given the name “trade” a bad name.
I am sure that Adam Smith has turned over in his grave at the way his sound and sensible theory has been turned on its ear. He was against monopolies of any kind, and the U.S. economy is at the mercy of them.
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning. Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or “higher stage” of socialism.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism). Strange, the rulers always have more needs than the ordinary citizen in communism.
The socialist principle of distribution according to deeds— that is, for quality and quantity of work performed, is immediately possible and practical. On the other hand, the communist principle of distribution according to needs is not immediately possible and practical—it is an ultimate goal.
Bernie is yet to explain how he plans on doing things in his world. Bet he won’t go there, will he? Seems the communists failed miserably several years ago but run with it again as if the outcome will be different a second time?
For not replying your post was rather long in context nevertheless.
So when no one has to work for anything, Bernie’s people are in 7th heaven?
Come on down, I’ll take you to the 3rd world where they ship us their children, minus parents for us to raise because their version of economics depends on ‘drug adled’ americans at best. Oh, they don’t like to be call ILLEGALS, they think they’re immigrants. Sort of like the difference between socialism and communism depends on who you’re asking.
D.R.,
Due to the strange machinations of the “captcha code” I did not believe that that the first response to your comments was posted so I wrote another, shorter version in which I declined to try to go into detail. I could see from your use of the terms socialist, communist, and Marxist that you were equating Bernie Sanders and his Democratic Socialism with them. The “definition you outlined above is merely a slogan first used by the French and later adopted by Marxists.
C.R.,
The problem with the outsourcing of our manufacturing to other countries is that it has aided in the elimination of competition, both economic and personal. If you go back to the 1600s Levellers and read about their opposition to monopolies, it is like reading the precurser to Adam Smith. They were all for free trade, both domestic and foreign as long as it didn’t lead to monopolies. They recognized, however that competition was essential to a healthy system and a healthy country that gave all the opportunity to work and raise a family. The competition as defined by corporations justifies the existence now of multinational Ogiloptic entities that block price compeitition and don’t care diddley squat for the many who need to work for a living wage.
I don’t have the economic gravitas to get my head around what has happened to our economy over the past few decades, but I do know that it has changed drastically and that it is not a healthy change. Just purchasing cheaper goods is not enough to make up for the obstacles to progress in smaller businesses and the existence of a crumbling infrastructure and mounting debt or the armies of lobbyists that are ensuring that the government is no longer by or for the people.
Jenuwin,
As regarding “CAPTCHA code”. If you response is more than roughly two paragraphs long, more often then nore the CAPTCHA Code changes, trouble is if you’re typing it doesn’t appear.
Click on the M with a circle around it to the right of the code and a new one will appear and that one will almost always work.
Bernie is a loser and the only reason for me to vote for him is to make sure the real loser Hillary doesn’t get in. This voting season is a lot of voting against a lot of people with few choices to vote FOR anyone at present.
Every debate between Hillary and Bernie, family members BERNIE,BERNIE, BERNIE!!!!!! We then go to his web site and send him money. He hits the nail on the head of what people know to be true, the game is rigged against the middle class, we have a price gouging healthcare system that puts 800,000 families at the risk of medical bankruptcy every year, as the productivity increases where the people, the employees are not sharing in the profits, working at jobs that people have to choose between food and going to see a doctor. I notice most of you who slam Bernie are probably on Medicare, maybe receiving a safety net payment and you have yours, tough luck, and die.
Of course, if Bernie is not successful then our support and money will go to Hillary. We hope she is listening to Bernie and adopt his concerns. But we will absolutely not support the crazies of the Republican bunch, I don’t think we can afford 4 or more years of trickle down, Billionaire and Corporate buying our government and turning our Democracy into a Plutocracybrun by Oligarchs.
Go Bernie
“Nail on the head?” No, just hits you on the head of your pocketbook that no one can afford.
Obamacare that is a disaster is sooooo wonderful? Nope.
Interest rates at zero is really sharing profits wouldn’t you say?
93,000,000 people out of work and not being counted is a choice? True, a bad one.
I paid for Social Security and Medicare for years and now it’s not mine to use?
Democrats have no one running for them this year other than losers.
Go Bern. Losers are losers.
Democrats in Nevada voted, all roughly 6,000 of them. 48% Bernie, 52% Hilliary, she won with 240 votes. 8,000 voted in 2008.
Republicans voted in Nevada, all, 73,552 of them but the media is silent on what they voted on? Not important per the media.