Bernie Sanders is not liberal enough

[Motown_Johnny]

Based on his voting record concerning gun control and a jobs bill from 12 years ago, he does not deserve the support of people who want a liberal nominee.


Therefore we should turn to Hillary Clinton as our nominee.




Can't any Hillary supporters see how crazy this line of thought is? Attacking Bernie as not liberal enough just makes us want the most liberal candidate possible even more. There is no way it will get us to turn to someone to the right of him on most issues.

[DCBob]

1. Who said Bernie is not liberal enough??

[RiverLover]

2. If someone is one issue like that, O'Malley is the better choice.

“I’m pissed” comes with a series of policy prescriptions O’Malley promises to make a centerpiece of his campaign moving forward. The plan is modeled on policies O’Malley signed into law as Maryland governor that drew the ire of the NRA and its allies and praise from gun control supporters. O’Malley is proposing a national assault-weapons ban, tightening background checks, and efforts to end so-called “straw purchasing,” where firearms will be purchased legally on behalf of someone unable to legally purchase them.

O’Malley’s gun policy agenda is similar to ones Democrats and President Obama hoped to pass after the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. In the presidential field, it puts him in a more unique position: Bernie Sanders, the senator from Vermont and according to polling second place candidate in the Democratic nomination race, voted for an assault-weapons ban and expanded background checks in 2013, but has not expressly called for a ban since announcing his presidential candidacy.

Gun-rights advocates ultimately defeated the 2013 effort, leaving Obama, he said Thursday in his remarks after Charleston, with little recourse policy-wise.

The former Maryland governor appeared to take issue with Obama’s read on the situation in D.C. — namely, that nothing can be done about new gun laws while Congress is divided the way it is — on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Friday.

“I think you have to advocate for it in Congress,” O’Malley said. “I think when incidents like this happen, we shouldn’t say, ‘well, it’s just America. That’s just the way it is.’”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/martin-omalley-launches-major-post-charleston-gun-control-pu#.jymB056rQ

Along with sound gun control, he's also an advocate for reinstating a modern version of Glass-Steagall, is against Keystone pipeline, wants CO2 emissions curbed at the most realistic rate capable of possibly saving life on earth, and more!

[LiberalArkie]

3. How about, He is not a liberal Democrat because he is "Independent" that must mean he can not

commit to anything. I have heard that and had to laugh.

[HassleCat]

4. It's kinda true. Sorta.

I see what they're getting at. Sanders is not real big on some of the traditional liberal stuff, particularly when it comes to making promises to voters whose loyalties are based on racial, ethnic or religious affiliation. The Republicans accuse Democrats of attracting minority voters by "pandering" to them with promises of social programs, etc. And there is a kernel of truth in there. Traditional liberalism has established minority hiring quotas, job training programs, etc. that appeal to minority voters. Notice I didn't say "help" them. There is very good case to made that many of these programs help a few individuals, but do little to change the larger economic picture, which is why progressives prefer to focus elsewhere. It's that old argument about whether we should fight for racial justice first, or economic justice first, or something in between. I don't know if there is a right answer, but liberals tend to favor social and racial justice, while progressives tend to favor economic justice. The liberal vs. progressive question may or may not be an issue of who is more to the right or left, but it's kind of tricky that way. Look at Lyndon Johnson, who fought for the voting rights act, and appointed Thurgood Marshall, yet referred to black people with the n-word.

[merrily]

5. Rated F by the NRA. Rate #1 liberal in the Senate. Rated 97% by the NAACP. Rated !00% by NARAL.

Rated 0% by pro-lifers. Rated 100% by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Advocated on behalf of immigrants in, among other things, a 20 minute speech in 2013.

But on DU, he's the racist, misogynistic Chair of the Board of the NRA who needs to be educated on Democratic values. On top of all that, what's his name, the SOCIALIST, has never a single word about immigrants.

It's a fucking joke.

[rock]

6. Agreed, it is a crazy line

But one I don't recall every having heard it. A few opinions. Bernie is plenty liberal enough in my opinion. Hillary is quite liberal too. But I'm more liberal than the two of them put together. Of course, these are just opinions.

[Ron Green]

7. Forget the labels. It's time to elect someone who tells people the truth

about the bought system of "representation," including our "Democratic" front-runner.

[PatrickforO]

8. Yeah, that's just crazy pretzel logic...

Bernie is liberal enough for me, that's for sure. That's why I'm supporting him through the primary season and hopefully into the general election. And more hopefully still, as President!

[Maedhros]

9. They're desperate to find a way to criticize Bernie, because their own candidate

has so many weak spots.

It's just an attempt to keep us on the defensive.

[BainsBane]

10. I think the point is he isn't perfect

Like all candidates he has strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, too many are willing to not only gloss over his weaknesses, but turn their back on liberal policies like gun control because of his voting record. What I have learned is that too many here care more about his career than issues. I have also learned that people who have trashed Clinton non-stop for years freak out when anyone suggests Sanders might not be perfection itself.

Candidates stress the priorities they care about. Sanders has made clear what his are, and Clinton has made clear what hers are. They appeal to different segments of the electorate. It just so happens that Clinton directly speaks to the most reliable Democratic constituencies, women and people of color. The point is not the Sanders doesn't care about them, but rather he prioritizes economic issues.

Additionally, if you think that flap about his NPR interview is limited to a couple threads on this site, you have no clue. That did serious damage to him. People can tell every person of color in America they have no right to question Sanders, but that only makes things worse. Every citizen has every right to question all the candidates, and people who insist otherwise show themselves to be anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. Responses to these threads have shown me how little principle means to too many, how their reverence for someone they see as a great man trumps all. In doing so, they work to suppress citizen engagement. A people's movement cannot coexist within an ethos that places one politician above the citizens he represents.

I seriously doubt those posters think you will vote for Clinton. I think it's more of a case of giving you all some of your own medicine. Clearly you can't take it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

11. I don't even have a point. Just wanted to post this picture of John Kerry duckhunter

[beevul]

12. Whats "liberal" about suing manufacturers for misuse of a legal product?

Bernie apparently answers "nothing" to that question.

Whats your answer?