Lol: I have had it with naive Bernie Sanders idealists

[cali]

Jedediah Purdy, a professor at Duke Law School and occasional contributor to the Huffington Post, takes issue with liberal economist Paul Krugman’s assessment of the Bernie Sanders campaign’s operating theory of change as unrealistic and naive. Krugman writes, “The question Sanders supporters should ask is, When has their theory of change ever worked?”


<snip>

Sound familiar? It should. This is precisely the impetus behind every extremist movement in history. Sanders and his supporters too often exemplify a political manifestation of this black and white ideology. One of the consistent criticisms of Bernie Sanders throughout his career is that he’s self-righteous and unwilling to entertain any position or belief that doesn’t exactly match his. Back in 1991, when Bernie was still new to Congress, progressive icon Barney Frank said of him, “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.”


<snip>



The problem with Bernie Sanders and his supporters isn’t ideological. The difference between Sanders and Clinton is a matter of degree more than any fundamental ideological disagreement. They both advocate moving in the same direction, but by different methods. Bernie Sanders says he will bring about a political revolution to make his dreams of a democratic socialist society come true, which seems an unlikely proposition given that the GOP is sure to control one house of Congress and may well control both. Hillary Clinton advocates a pragmatic approach: protecting the progressive gains won under the Obama administration, taking what new gains may be possible in a divided government and setting the political table to back for more later.

Historically, it is this latter approach that has produced change. In any democratic system of government, progress is incremental. Only one time in our history as a nation have we seen such sweeping ideological change at a fundamental level happen in a brief span of time, and that change came at the price of five years of bloody civil war and some 500,000 deaths.


http://www.salon.com/2016/01/26/i_have_had_it_with_naive_bernie_sanders_idealists/


The author is wrong. There are clear ideological differences on issue after issue, but the real crap in this piece, is the author attempting to scare voters by tying Bernie and his supporters to violence, not to mention that he's essentially calling Bernie's supporters stupid.

[uponit7771]

1. They're not being educated about the math to overcome the historically gerrymandered GOP congress...

.. because either Sanders doesn't know or he doesn't want to show the hurdle that is in front of them when it comes to his agenda.

Making the case that congress is in the way would make his critiques of Obama's pragmatism sound petulant, seeing his hurdle will be higher than Obama's in 08

It's disenginous at best at this point, tell people the WHOLE truth and let them decide for themselves

[jeff47]

5. Congress has been investigating Benghazi for years, and repealed the ACA 60 times.

How will Clinton get that same Congress to expand the ACA. Be specific.

Also, we have been fighting for single payer in this country for 80 years. Why do you think we'd abandon that fight if it can't happen in the next two?

[uponit7771]

8. She wont, specific enough? She's not promising the improbable but as many measures she can take

... unilaterally that she can to either influence legislation or direction of industrty.... Sanders will soon follow

[jeff47]

11. No, she's promising to strengthen the ACA.

Now, I understand the confusion because she still hasn't quite managed to release any specifics of what she would strengthen.

So how will she get those "strengthen" bills through Congress? Anything that would be a significant boost to the ACA would require funding, and thus Congress.

Also, you skipped over the much more important question: Why do you think we'd abandon an 80-year-battle when we can't win in the next 2?

[uponit7771]

13. Yeap, and some of that can be done unilaterally !!! Don't need congress, Sanders will soon follow

... cause people will catch up to his shell game

[jeff47]

16. No, any significant strengthening would require funding, and thus Congress.

She can't boost Medicaid spending, for example.

The ACA provides virtually zero ways the executive branch can act unilaterally because any improvement costs money. And if it costs money, Congress has to allocate that money.

It's almost like you're repeating some sort of pie-in-the-sky fantasy about what your candidate could do in office. And you'd never do that, right?

And yet again, why do you think we'd abandon an 80 year battle if we can't win it in the next two?

[uponit7771]

17. All strengthening isn't money related, false dichotomy

[jeff47]

18. Then list some that do not cost anything.

And good luck doing so. Clinton hasn't managed to.

Also, why do you think we'd abandon an 80 year battle if we can't win in the next two?

[uponit7771]

50. Require all drug companies to list the amount they sell to other countries and open those markets

... to everyone or not enforce the law that says you can't buy from them.

Simple, she can do that as president ...

next?

[jeff47]

55. So being told how much we are being screwed is strengthening the ACA?

You do realize that the law you're talking about is banning reimportation, right?

So how, exactly, does the drug companies formally announcing how badly they are screwing us over strengthen the ACA? And are you under the illusion that it is impossible to contact a pharmacy in another country and ask for pricing? 'Cause we can already do that.

Also, you keep forgetting to answer why we should abandon the 80 year battle for single-payer if we can't win it in two.

[uponit7771]

58. Now, letting everyone else know how much medicine cost somewhere else and allowing

... Americans to buy it abroade.

Either way, something off the top of my head... I'm sure there are many other ways that her and a staff can come up with.

[jeff47]

62. That's reimportation. And that requires Congress, because you have to change existing laws.

So got any ideas that actually doesn't require Congress?

I'm sure there are many other ways that her and a staff can come up with.

It's been a year. They've proposed zero. Kinda odd for someone claiming they can get things done.

Also, you still haven't managed to talk about the reason you entered the thread: Your claim that we would abandon the 80-year battle for single-payer because we can't get it in the next two. Why'd you make that claim?

[uponit7771]

81. That's if the executive wants to enforce that law, president prerogative... again, there are many

... ways to skin this cat that involve unilateral decisions

[LondonReign2]

83. Unilateral decisions, eh? So then a Preseident Sanders could accomplish

EXACTLY the same things as a President Clinton, correct?

Huh, I could have sworn I've heard a whole bunch of Clinton supporters scream that Sanders can't possible accomplish any of his agenda. All along it turns out he could accomplish EXACTLY the same things as Hillary through unilateral decisions! This is good to know, don't you think?

[uponit7771]

84. He'd follow her lead sooner or later but hasn't proffered this as a means to his ends... he wants

... to go through congress

[jeff47]

88. What lead? She hasn't announced any way she would strengthen the ACA. (nt)

[jeff47]

85. So, your claim to start enforcing the law was that she would stop enforcing the law.

Yeah...starting and stopping are so similar.

So your claim is Clinton would do great things by...ignoring the laws Congress passed. Boy, that's a wonderful precedent to set. I wonder what W would have done with that?

again, there are many ways to skin this cat that involve unilateral decisions

Then why has the oh-so-experienced and prepared candidate produced exactly zero ways?

Oh, you just keep ignoring that whole "we've been fighting this for 80 years" thing. Do you really think history goes away when you ignore it?

[uponit7771]

86. I don't think I claimed to START enforcing the law, my point being she could choose NOT to enforce..

... the law on reimporting and make medicines cheaper...

rabbit hole, point being there are many ways

[jeff47]

87. So many ways that Clinton has announced exactly zero ways?

Huh....almost like there actually aren't many ways, and you're avoiding that problem just as badly as you're avoiding answering the question "We've been fighting for this for 80 years, why would we give up if we can't win in two?"

[senz]

45. "Strengthening the ACA" attaches her image to Obama's.

It means nothing beyond that.

[uponit7771]

82. To people who hate Obama with a passion of course it doesn't, to people who don't hate him it

... means a lot

[senz]

89. I've been an Obama supporter from the getgo. Love the guy.

But I know that Hillary -- who tried to destroy Obama in 2008 and will probably never forgive him for snatching her coveted prize away -- is trying to "mean a lot" to Democrats who support Obama but don't know much about her. She's saying, "See? I'm Obama's natural heir; I'm just like him." She's trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

But she's nothing like Obama. Obama never kissed oligarchic rear ends like Hillary does. Obama never traded favors for money like Hillary has. Obama never fought dirty like Hillary did. Obama cares about poc and the poor in a way that wouldn't even make sense to Hillary -- except as another phony ploy for a campaign.

Obama is head and shoulders above Hillary. Don't try to put them in the same category.

[roguevalley]

44. its bogus based on the simplest fact. There is no one in the democratic party that the

republicans hate as much as her. They LOATHE her. They believe she murdered Vince Foster. How does anyone think that ANY proposal she wants or needs has the ghost of a chance of getting past? Even Obama probably won't face the hate they feel for her. Everyone says Bernie can't get anything through the congress as it is. If that is true, how does the lightning rod of Republican and conservative hatred manage that feat?

She won't. She's even a bigger problem for that simple fact than a man they know and have worked with already. It is bs to assume that she has a greater potential than bernie to get things done. She has less. They hate her with the fire of a thousand suns.

Krugman is a fool. He assumes that bernie won't have coattails. The only one who won't have them is HRC.

They actually believe she murdered people. How is that going to get anything done but her impeachment if she wins, something some of the republicans already say they are planning for. And understand. It doesn't matter if she warrants it. Her husband is exhibit one.

[cali]

7. Oh please. I'm quite well versed on gerrymandering.

And from what I've read over on reddit, so are his young supporters. It's myth that his supporters expect instant changes- in Congress or anywhere else.

And nothing disingenuous about it, Bernie has been clear about the formidable obstacles.

And he certainly has made the case that congress is in the way.

Gotta laugh at Hillarians piously going on about how disingenuous Bernie is when they are supporting someone who has a documented history of evasiveness and plain old lying, not to mention flip flopping.

It's so Clintonian

[uponit7771]

9. You're not versed in answering simple questions though, I asked you the other day what the avg min..

... minimum to overcome the gerrymandering in each district...

Haven't heard from yah on that yet.

Overt Strawman on the "instance changes" ... no one cares about that... why don't we just build on what we've done so far?!

No he's not made the case that congress is in the way or how MUCH they're in the way... he's proposing congress will listen to people if there are enough of them and they wont... they don't give a shit

[cali]

12. I don't recall the question, dear.

But please stop making things up.

[uponit7771]

15. Good, I asked it again in the post you just responded to.. .if you're versed in gerrymandering

... this number is easy...

Seeing they digitally gerrymandered the districts this time it's also pretty static...

I'll wait...

Either way, love Sanders like a play cousin but think he should stop throwing stones are promising unicorns

[Nitram]

20. Uponit, well done.

Calm reason in the face of a sarcastic refusal to back up a claim to be well-versed" in gerrymandering. Clearly someone is exaggerating their authority on the subject.

[notadmblnd]

34. Apparently you're not versed in answering simple questions either

as Jeff47 is still waiting for you to answer this question that he asked no less than four times in this thread alone

why do you think we'd abandon an 80 year battle if we can't win it in the next two?

Just keeping it a hundred here.

[uponit7771]

36. No, that's about 1% seeing I don't have a "didn't answer a question indicator" and I don't

... know what the hell this person is reffering to

You gottah link, I don't cut and run

[notadmblnd]

42. What would I need a link for?

I'm talking about you not answering a question that was asked of you, then you turning around and demanding an answer from someone whom you did not get an answer from when you asked one.

[uponit7771]

59. I need the link so I can answer the question cause I have no idea what you're talking about

[Qutzupalotl]

78. Here are some links to Jeff's question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1070136
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1070202
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1070231
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1070294
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1071085
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1071173

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Has a commitment to reach across the aisle for incremental change been the key to republican success

The republicans have gained power, influence and control by applying more force than we have.

Incrementalism is a recipe for more losses. "Protecting progressive gains" is an expectation to win the game by playing defense alone.

[Nitram]

21. If incrementalism is a recipe for more losses then why...

...has Obama achieved as much as he has. And he set the stage for more gains by his successor. I fear Bernie would lose it all because he insists on having all or nothing.

[sibelian]

28. For a lot of Bernie supporters I think issue is the *nature* of the gains.

Undeniably Obama has made significant progress, I don't think anyone could take that from him. But I think a number of Bernistas are deeply concerned about what kinds of gains are the ones we need to pursuing at the present time, and some of the gains people want to see (and want Bernie to deliver) are not perceived in the same way by different demographics. His aims may appear highly ambitious to some, but to others they seem not so much as "ambitious" as urgent and necessary. Also, there is great frustration with the seemingly intractable nature of the American political system.

[lumberjack_jeff]

41. Other than the ACA, for which his election was a mandate...

...Those achievements are overstated. In fact, many of those achievements are his failures, such as failing to reach a grand bargain to "save" social security.

[guillaumeb]

3. Naive does not equate to stupid. But Krugman's theory is suspect.

Under Krugman's theory of pragmatic change, one protects current gains and taking what gains might be possible. What, can one reasonably ask, might be possible gains if we take as a given that the GOP will continue its obstruction?

The only things that were passed during the first Clinton Presidency were bills that benefited the 1% at the expense of the 99%. Is this the model that Krugman envisages? One hopes not.

And under the Obama Presidency, the insurance industry was given a massive subsidy called the ACA. Yes, millions of people did gain access to some level of healthcare, but at a big cost. And the TPP is even worse than NAFTA, the deal passed by Clinton.

The theme is that only glacially slow progress can be made in the US. If this nonsense had been followed in the 1960s, the Vietnam War would still be going on, and blacks would still not be able to vote.

[Nitram]

24. "The only things that were passed during the first Clinton Presidency were bills that benefited the.

...1% at the expense of the 99%." B.S.! What about adding more than 22 million new jobs? Raised education standards, increased school choice, and doubled education and training investment. Enacted the most sweeping gun safety legislation in a generation. Expanded efforts to provide mothers and newborn children with health care.

[A Simple Game]

68. Your last paragraph.

Not to mention Social Security, medicare, medicaid, etc., none of these were "incremental" gains.

President Kennedy proved you can get the people to come together for great change when he asked them to demand we place a man on the moon. Perhaps the steps were incremental but the idea wasn't.

As for the ACA, it is better than nothing but is also another grand way to channel more money to the 1%.

[m-lekktor]

4. I am not familiar with the author of this, John Avignon.

I'll have to google him and see what he is all about. This is a common elitist attitude I see often." Leave us 1 percenters alooooone!"

[Nitram]

25. It is not elitist to be pragmatic, realistic and objective.

Unless the candidate you support is idealistic, unrealistic and subjective.

[m-lekktor]

29. those are all code words for business as usual, don't rock the boat, centrism.

in your subject line.

[Nitram]

32. They are only code words to someone who has already made up their mind that they are.

Close minded to a fault.

[Lordquinton]

64. I know I want a Pragmatic President

Would you want a Pragmatic marriage? "Hey LQ, how's the wife?" "Oh, you know, we've got a pragmatic,sustainable marriage"

Let's reach for the stars again, last time we did we actually made it!

[Downwinder]

6. Another Yalie.

[Betty Karlson]

10. When pragmatism is co-opted by corporatism,

the pragmatism needs to be re-invented by idealism. Because corporatism never works. Never has. Never will.

[NCTraveler]

14. Good piece. Thanks for sharing. nt.

[Nitram]

19. I'd say the author is right on the money.

Clinton and Bernie want the same things we do - they only differ on the best way to accomplish it.

[Goblinmonger]

22. No they don't

Couple biggies:

Single Payer: Sanders wants it; Clinton doesn't
Marijuana Laws: Sanders wants normalization (at least); Clinton doesn't

There are more, but you can start by showing me where I'm wrong on those two.

[Nitram]

26. Easy. They both want affordable health care for all.

They both want to rehabilitate the justice system. They differ on the best ways to achieve that.

[Goblinmonger]

27. Clinton does not want single payer.

That seems like a pretty big difference.

And how exactly does Clinton say she is going to change the system so that so many African Americans aren't in prison for stupid drug charges? All she ever does when anyone asks about that is talk about heroin.

[Nitram]

30. They both want affordable health care for all Americans.

They differ on the best way to achieve that. Clinton will build on the success of the ACA, Sanders will start over in spite of a solid GOP majority in the House and could very well lose everything we've gained.

As for marijuana, from the HRC web site:

Focus federal enforcement resources on violent crime, not simple marijuana possession. Marijuana arrests, including for simple possession, account for a huge number of drug arrests. Further, significant racial disparities exist in marijuana enforcement, with black men significantly more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white counterparts, even though usage rates are similar. Hillary believes we need an approach to marijuana that includes: allowing states that have enacted marijuana laws to act as laboratories of democracy, as long as they adhere to certain federal priorities such as not selling to minors, preventing intoxicated driving, and keeping organized crime out of the industry.

[Goblinmonger]

35. "Sanders will start over"?

I missed where he said that. But that aside, how, exactly is Clinton going to "build on the success of the ACA" when she will have the same "GOP majority in the House" that Sanders will and they have voted to repeal the ACA somewhere in the neighborhood of a fuckload of times? Because Clinton becomes president, the GOP House will see the error of their ways and try to "buildon the success of the ACA"? Don't piss in my ear.

And from your blurb on marijuana: She'll do nothing federally. Cool.

[senz]

38. "Hillary believes."

When have we ever heard Hillary discuss these things? Her website "opinions" are a collection of blurbs written by aides to sound attractive to the average Democrat (which she is not).

[Lordquinton]

67. Hillary will do nothing about Marijuana laws, thanks for the info

She'll let AA men continue to rot in prison, and keep on with the current administration's threat of a federal raid on any pharmacy or shop that sells it.

Sounds like a terrible position.

[senz]

39. That's because her aides haven't given her a talking point on AAs in prison

on stupid drug charges. She's coming from an old-fashioned white middle class notion of Black street behaviors.

[Nitram]

65. I don't follow, senz. Is there not a problem with over-incarceration of AAs?

What does that have to do with "an old-fashioned white middle class notion of Black street behavior?"

[senz]

74. That's what we're discussing: the over-incarceration of AAs.

My comment is in response to Goblinmonger's reasonable question and observation:

And how exactly does Clinton say she is going to change the system so that so many African Americans aren't in prison for stupid drug charges? All she ever does when anyone asks about that is talk about heroin.

[Nitram]

77. From the Clinton web site, all designed to benefit African Americans in particular:

Focus federal enforcement resources on violent crime, not simple marijuana possession. Marijuana arrests, including for simple possession, account for a huge number of drug arrests. Further, significant racial disparities exist in marijuana enforcement, with black men significantly more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than their white counterparts, even though usage rates are similar.

Prioritize treatment and rehabilitation—rather than incarceration—for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. Over half of prison and jail inmates suffer from a mental health problem, and up to 65 percent of the correctional population meets the medical criteria for a substance use disorder. Hillary will ensure adequate training for law enforcement for crisis intervention and referral to treatment, as appropriate, for low-level, nonviolent drug offenders with mental health or addiction problems. She will also direct the attorney general to issue guidance to federal prosecutors on seeking treatment over incarceration for low-level, nonviolent drug crimes. Read more on Hillary’s plan to tackle America’s epidemic of addiction.

End the privatization of prisons. Hillary believes we should move away from contracting out this core responsibility of the federal government to private corporations, and from creating private industry incentives that may contribute—or have the appearance of contributing—to over-incarceration. The campaign does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists or PACs for private prison companies, and will donate any such direct contributions to charity.

Promote successful re-entry by formerly incarcerated individuals. This year, the number of people released from state or federal prison will reach approximately 600,000. For those given a second chance, and for the health and safety of the communities to which those individuals return, the reentry pathway must not be littered with barriers, but rather paved with a fair opportunity for success. Clinton will work to remove barriers and create pathways to employment, housing, health care, education, and civic participation.

Eliminating the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine so that equal amounts of crack and powder cocaine carry equal sentences and applying this change retroactively.

Reforming the “strike” system to focus on violent crime by narrowing the category of prior offenses that count as strikes to exclude nonviolent drug offenses, and reducing the mandatory penalty for second- and third-strike offenses.

[senz]

90. Did she finally drop private prison industry bundlers?

[treestar]

23. He makes some good points.

Your commentary is not a fair one on the actual article.

Why do people have to bend and twist things to play the victim? No one said anything about violence. Yet the changes demanded would take more than our system provides for. Our system makes change tough. It divides the power. The Republicans still have a say. That's not being negative, that's a fact. When do we have a voting public with no Republicans? It may take another couple hundred years for all we know.

[Fumesucker]

31. If only we could be more receptive to Republican ideas then we can get something done

All these liberal extremists who are not receptive to Republican ideas are the problem with Washington, get rid of them and the ridiculous dysfunction we are seeing will melt away and the parties can come together in Hillary's Warm Purple Space to get things done.

[DanTex]

33. "Sanders doesn’t have supporters as much as he has believers." Spot on.

Great article, through and through.

[senz]

37. Sanders' views match those of FDR and all successful democratic socialist nations.

FDR changed America for the better, and democratic socialist countries invariably score at the top of national happiness surveys. Democratic socialism works for all the people. The current post-Reagan system works only for the very rich.

Furthermore, the people want these changes. They are doable and they are popular.

The naysayers are either cynical, uninformed, or actively benefiting from predatory business practices. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans represent the naysayer group.

If the people can't do this peacefully, they will do it by other means. You can't keep people down forever.

[Fast Walker 52]

43. "The current post-Reagan system works only for the very rich." -- #nailedit

and all excellent points in the rest of your post.

[senz]

57. Yes, we must tell the truth over and over again

because the mass media isn't going to do it for us. I guess we're the "people's media."

Thanks for your kind words, Fast Walker.

[Fast Walker 52]

73. what gives me some hope I think this time, people are really avoiding the traditional media

and there are so many places to get news besides the corporate mainstream crap.

[senz]

76. Yes, technology made Bernie's candidacy possible.

We had to get to the point that we could talk amongst ourselves, unmediated.

[MisterP]

53. didn't he joke he was a bit to the right of Ike?

that's why they have to insist "we're not Canada!" "we're not Denmark"--they even pretend Canada has no group-identity issues ...

they RELY on getting us to give up before we begin: they blame us for not voting after carefully making sure to give us every reason not to

[senz]

71. Yes, the national consciousness now reflects Fox News themes

even among some so-called "Democrats" (thanks to DLC, third-way sell-outs, including the Clintons). Ike, with his national highway system, would be a "socialist" today.

As for their dishonest/rightwing arguments, did you see this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511067903

and this comment in another thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1068859

It's good we're having this type of discussion here.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. I'll take an idealist over a collaborator any day.

A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. Thomas Paine (Idealist)

[DownriverDem]

47. Not me

Eight years of repub obstruction had done it for me. We need someone who can move us forward. Then in 8 years the country will be where we want them to be. Sad to say, they country is not enough left. They will be, but we have to pave the way, get the 2020 census done and vote to make sure the repubs aren't running it all again.

[CharlotteVale]

48. Me too. And that's exactly what Hillary Clinton is, a collaborator.

[Nitram]

63. Your rhetoric is absurd, Vale.

Are you going to shave her head and parade her naked through the streets? You have no idea what you are saying.

[CharlotteVale]

69. Your overreaction takes protesting too much to very disturbing depths.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Nitram]

70. On the contrary, Vale, I'm letting you know that your misuse of words is harmful....

...and inappropriate. I see this kind of absurd rhetoric from Bernistas all the time, and I find it immature and disturbing.

[DownriverDem]

46. Politically Naive

I wish it weren't true. The repubs want Bernie, but no Bernie supporter can tell me why.

[americannightmare]

49. When I read things like this...

it tells me that Dem centrists shouldn't be concerned about leftists like me not turning out to vote if Hilary is the nominee; their concern should be that we'll vote for Jill Stein. Blackmail can go in both directions...

[Nitram]

66. Love the overheated rhetoric and the threats.

Oh my goodness, a real live scary leftist socialist Democrat! Hide the women and children!

[americannightmare]

93. Yawn...

that is all...

[HenryWallace]

51. Wow..... Smart guy(?)

"Only one time in our history as a nation have we seen such sweeping ideological change at a fundamental level happen in a brief span of time, and that change came at the price of five years of bloody civil war and some 500,000 deaths. "

Apparently this guy missed:

- The first five years of Regan’s administration,

- The several years following John Kennedy’s assassination,

- And that “New Deal” thingy.

[libdem4life]

52. I seem to remember a crazy politician who said we could go to the Moon.

Boy did he catch it for that one. Gravity won't allow it. We weren't created to go to other planets that gawd didn't place us on. There is no technological basis in reality.

Yes, It was JFK. And yes, we did go to the Moon...last I checked. Guy's name was Armstrong, I believe.

[nyabingi]

54. This "go slow" philosophy of the status quo

is the reason why Republicans are in a position to control Congress again during the next presidency. Too many Democrats are silent about the anti-democratic nature of gerrymandering because too many of them have safe seats in the big house and don't want to rock the boat. Instead of sitting back and saying "We can't do what Bernie says because the Republicans won't let us", the Democrats should have been fighting like hell (filing lawsuits, etc.) to get a handle on gerrymandering, on a national level.

Republicans consistently received less votes than many of their Democratic challengers, yet they ended up with more seats in Congress. Clearly, the will of the people is being ignored. The same can be said of Republican efforts to suppress the votes of traditionally Democratic voting blocks. I'll be damned if not one major Democrat raised hell about it, no one joined any of the marches that have been taking place, etc. They just say back like frightened children instead of fighting back.

If not for gerrymandering, there would hardly be any Republicans in Washington to stifle progress and the will of the majority of people in this country.

Sure, Bernie will have a hard time getting many of his policies passed into law, but I think many of his supporters would rest easier knowing we have a president who is fighting like hell to champion these positions - the president has the loudest megaphone of them all when it comes to shaping public opinion. If there is no one in a position of power to champion these ideas, they'll never get mentioned. Hillary offers only Republican-lite ideas which ultimately serve to make sure her rich 1% buddies keep raking in all the loot.

[VulgarPoet]

56. What utter bilge.

Just another "enlightened" establishment crony trying to get disenfranchised voters to lay back down, roll over, and take eyes off the birdie to accept the oligarchy's favored child. Way to condescend to the very people the article's complaining about in the bloody html link. Already speaks volumes about the content.

[PyaarRevolution]

60. Screw Barney Frank.

I have had it with that Corporatist! We know he was against auditing the Fed and as a member of the GLBT community he should be ashamed of himself for wanting to throw Transmen and women under the bus regarding ENDA.

[Hulk]

61. I'm slow, so I don't get the point of this message,

..and I don't want to reread it.

What I do know is that Bernie has pulled the conversation in the direction of real issues facing this nation. You can call it "to the left" if you like, but I prefer to call it "toward reality".

We can settle for someone who isn't willing to focus this country on issues that will make a difference to 99% of Americans, but would rather look for little margins that enable the 99% to reap a few more table scraps from the wealthy and corporate masters. I'm not willing to settle.

I'd rather elect someone who points out the obvious, sheds light on the gross economic injustice, and even fails on reaching any one of those important goals, than to settle for someone who is satisfied with taking baby steps that mean absolutely nothing in the big picture.

This is probably the best chance we'll ever get, and certainly in my lifetime, to strive for dramatic changes to our near dead American Dream. Hit them head on, and put faith in the American people that they would be willing to accept a man who is a "democratic 'socialist'" than to elect some hate monger, religious fruitcake or other phony stuffed shirt who promises us smelly bull shit that we all recognize as shit soup.

Congress needs to be the focus, because if Bernie gets the White House, we're going to need to grease the legislature to get the wheels turning, and we have too many rusty, corrupt, bat-shit crazy shills keeping their seats warm in Washington DC today. Poco a poco; but it can be done. Call it a"revolution" if you like, but I think it is nothing more than "an awakening of the people". If we can't do it, then we're fucked!

Amen.

[Fast Walker 52]

72. yep!

[politicaljunkie41910]

75. Wow! When Paul Krugman thinks you're naive and too extreme that's saying something.

Sanders supporters need to start listening to people besides themselves and their extremist supporters. As one who supports Hillary, my disagreement with Bernie is rooted in the concept that we tried universal health care already, and trying to eat the elephant in one bite didn't work. So what does Bernie do, he introduces his "democratic socialist" platform on steroids. Change happens over time, and we have to be realistic. For a leader to call for unrealistic change, all at once is only setting his supporters up for disappointment. Then when you call for a "revolution" and people's expectations aren't met, they want to start burning things down, and when was the last time that worked to achieve anything.

[Mike__M]

79. Ronald Reagan.

No way could that happen.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

80. If Sanders supporters are such potentially violent imbeciles as the author suggests

does he still want them voting for his preferred candidates?

It seems to me if someone came up to me and said, "Bernie has completely alienated the KKK vote" the only reasonable response would be --

"GOOD!"

[Oilwellian]

91. Has anyone checked into this cat's background?

I found his Facebook page. Apparently his only claim to fame is studying acting and directing at Shanghai Theater Academy. I fucking kid you not. Why is anyone taking what he says, seriously?


https://www.facebook.com/john.avignone/about

[Gothmog]

92. Bernie Sanders: I won't get as many votes as Obama in '08

The main theme from the Sanders people is that Sanders will be viable in the general election because he will generate a revolution where millions of non-voters will come out and participate. The premise of this resolution seems to be falling apart http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/politics/bernie-sanders-barack-obama-2008-iowa/index.html

Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that he clearly needs a strong voter turnout to win in Iowa on Monday, but he has no expectation of reaching the high-water mark set by then-Sen. Barack Obama in 2008.

"Obama in 2008 ran a campaign which is really going to stay in the history books. It was an unbelievable campaign. In places they ran out of ballots, as I understand," Sanders told reporters after a meeting with the United Steelworkers in Des Moines, Iowa. "The turnout was so extraordinary, nobody expected it. Do I think in this campaign that we are going to match that? I would love to see us do that, I hope we can."

But he added, "Frankly, I don't think we can. What Obama did in 2008 is extraordinary."

Almost twice as many people showed up to caucus in 2008 for the Democratic candidates as had in recent Iowa presidential contests, something largely attributed to Obama's strong appeal and even stronger ground organization. Obama's upset of Clinton in the 2008 caucuses helped launch him to the nomination.

Sanders has been clear that he needs a high turnout at the caucuses Monday with many of his supporters being first-time caucus-goers. But he hasn't placed a cap on his expectations before.

Without a high turnout, Sanders' revolution is dead