Bernie Sanders Faces Firestorm Over ‘Progressive Purity Test’

[riversedge]

I just do not think it was wise for Sanders to take this route.



Bernie Sanders Faces Firestorm Over ‘Progressive Purity Test’
http://bluenationreview.com/bernie-sanders-progressive-purity-test/

By Peter Daou
February 3, 2016
3232 Shares

Bernie Sanders has decided to go hard negative in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton’s historic Iowa victory. Problem is Bernie doesn’t do negative well. It’s not his brand and it’s not his message.

For all of 2015, Hillary and Bernie put the GOP to shame with a healthy, uplifting, respectful debate about issues that matter to working Americans. The lead-up to Iowa intensified, with both sides drawing sharper contrasts. But for the most part, the Democratic candidates have run a remarkably amicable contest.

Until now, that is.

The post-Iowa tone has taken a decidedly negative turn, with Bernie questioning Hillary’s core beliefs, not exactly something Democrats take kindly to......................


..................
Jill Filipovic
✔
@JillFilipovic

Can you be moderate on guns and still progressive though? Is that the one exception to this rule? https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/694967235333484544 …
2:34 PM - 3 Feb 2016

142 142 Retweets
185



Armando @armandodkos

Do everyday progressive go on Lou Dobbs to argue against comprehensive immigration reform Sen Sanders?

2:39 PM - 3 Feb 2016
YouTube @YouTube



more.....................

[winter is coming]

1. Firestorm? I've seen bigger flames than that on birthday candles.

It's a squirrel.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511139514

[TheBlackAdder]

38. Perhaps it has to do with the cosy inbred group of corporate friends? As an example...

.


Check out the link...



Hillary Clinton rakes in money from fossil fuel interests

Here’s just a partial list of the fossil fuel–friendly bundlers who raised money for Clinton from April through June:

http://grist.org/climate-energy/hillary-clinton-rakes-in-money-from-fossil-fuel-interests/

Heather Podesta and Tony Podesta have raised $31,150 and $74,575, respectively. The power ex-couple are big-shot Democratic lobbyists. Tony’s brother John is Clinton’s campaign chair and former White House chief of staff to Bill Clinton. Even though John Podesta is considered a climate hawk, Tony and his ex-wife Heather represent fossil fuel companies. Heather’s recent past clients include Marathon Oil and Bill Koch’s Oxbow Carbon, a coal giant, and from 2004 to 2006 she lobbied for Koch Industries. Tony lobbied for BP in the wake of its disastrous Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, and through last year he represented Golden Pass, a company co-owned by ExxonMobil and Qatar Petroleum that wants to export liquefied natural gas. To be fair, they also work on behalf of renewable fuel companies — Tony represents SolarReserve, a solar power company, and Heather lobbies for the ethanol industry. You might call the Podestas the very embodiment of the Obama/Clinton “all of the above” energy policy.

But the contrast between her and her opponents is clear, and it’s indicative of real policy differences. O’Malley has laid out a set of strong, detailed proposals to combat climate change. These include not just measures Obama has begun taking, like regulating carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act, but ones he hasn’t, like adopting zero-tolerance regulation for methane leaks from oil and gas wells and denying new offshore oil leasing permits. Clinton has not endorsed any stances beyond Obama’s except for charging more for coal leases.

“Hillary Clinton’s position is stuck in the past,” says Jamie Henn, a spokesperson for 350 Action. “We have the tools to transition away from fossil fuels. What about all the jobs lost because of climate impacts? We need a president who is willing to make tough decisions about how to transition our economy in the face of climate risk.”

.

[beam me up scottie]

2. Are you referring to the bill the Southern Poverty Law Center likened to slavery?

Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States

This report, updated in February 2013, details the systematic exploitation of foreign workers who come to this country for temporary jobs under the nation's H-2 guestworker program. Based on dozens of legal cases and interviews with thousands of guestworkers, it documents how guestworkers are routinely cheated out of wages, forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs, and held virtually captive by employers.

In the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, various policymakers and business groups have suggested that Congress create a new or expanded guestworker program to ensure a steady supply of foreign workers for industries that rely on an abundance of cheap labor.

Congress should look before it leaps. The current H-2 program, which provides temporary farmworkers and non-farm laborers for a variety of U.S. industries, is rife with labor and human rights violations committed by employers who prey on a highly vulnerable workforce. It harms the interests of U.S. workers, as well, by undercutting wages and working conditions for those who labor at the lowest rungs of the economic ladder. This program should not be expanded or used as a model for immigration reform.

https://www.splcenter.org/20130218/close-slavery-guestworker-programs-united-states

Why on earth would you support a bill like that?

[cascadiance]

30. I guess she likes us mistreating these people and keeping Americans out of work at the same time...

http://www.thenation.com/article/these-workers-came-overseas-help-rebuild-after-hurricane-katrina-and-were-treated-prison/

[hobbit709]

3. Judging from the number of OPs on this today, it must be the outrage dujour.

the memo must have gone out to the Hillshills.

[HERVEPA]

4. Sale Of Blue Nation Review Gives Hillary Clinton Camp Its Very Own Media Outlet

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

[Jarqui]

19. What? More deception from Hillary?

Who would have guessed?

(I heard it before)

I do not understand why Hillary screws around with such stupid things that damage her when folks find out.

When you see folks flaming Hillary articles, stuff like this is why.

[Armstead]

5. "Bring out my fainting couch!"

That horrid little man is at it again

[Autumn]

27. I read that and the voice I heard in my mind just cracked me up

[Nanjeanne]

6. Oh yes a firestorm from Clinton surrogages who need something to flame

and pundits who think Politics is a wrestling match.

So much noise signifying nothing.

[cali]

7. Bwahaha. Freshly extruded from the Hilly Smear Sausage Machine

Proudly presided over by Chief Smear Sausage Maker David Brock. Smear Sausage, 100% pure smear.

[Dems2002]

8. Lol - hard negative?

This dog doesn't hunt. Clinton is a proud moderate as she recently declared.

Like numerous commentators said during the town hall, she's been running a general election campaign since she declared and was basically annointed. Bernie challenging her from the left has caused her to recognize that she has to at least recognize that she's running to be the nominee for a bunch of dirty fucking hippies and now #berniebros and gals so she pays her lip service, lies about being against the TPP for political expediency and figures that's all she needs to do.

Most likely it'll work. But I hope Bernie supporters don't use these types of attacks and get weak kneed.

Bernie's strength is his integrity and his claim that he doesn't do negative, personal attacks. This is true. And it's caused his opponents to stumble more than once when they've attacked him.

The Clinton's live on personal attacks. The only way they can open the door to avoid blowback is to get their smelling salts every time Bernie says anything.

It's all a cynical game to them and the main stream media.

Bernie supporters need to prepare themselves to hold the fort or we're doomed.

[Thinkingabout]

9. He will lose on the point of guns, he has been with the RW on his votes

Concerning gun issues. He can't have it both ways, he can carry on with Hillary's vote on IWR, he still has the Brady Bill and others around his neck. We have too much gun violence in the US, he voted with the GOP on finding research on gun violence, he owns his votes. How can he be progressive with his gun issue voting?

[benEzra]

26. It wasn't until relatively recently

that going after noncriminal gun ownership was considered "progressive" at all. Sarah Brady was proudly a Reagan Republican, and JFK enjoyed shooting an AR-15. The original Federal "assault weapon" ban (later codified into 18 USC 922(r)) was the brainchild of right-winger William J. Bennett, drug "czar" under Bush the Elder. And most of the U.S. gun control lobby now is funded by Wall Street money from a certain former-Repub billionaire.

The Democratic Leadership Council and the Third Way picked up the gun issue during the Clinton administration as a way to look tough-on-crime to law-and-order types, and ran hard on it, particularly on miscellany like legislating rifle handgrip shape and magazine capacity, which backfired. More recently, the Third Way has tried to steer it in a "War on Terrah" direction. But historically it's been primarily an urban-rural thing, with some lesser facets related to race and especially class.

Sanders is from a very liberal but very pro-gun state, one of the very few states in which you don't even need a license to carry a concealed handgun. Vermont's murder rate is lower than Europe's. So it's hardly a surprise that Sanders did not jump onto the Third Way bandwagon on that issue, IMO.

[Thinkingabout]

33. Reagan was shot, Jim Brady was shot, Gabby Giffords has been shot

Twenty elementary kids,was shot along with six adults, the shootings in Chicago and other cities is out of hand, nine people in a church was shot at a prayer service, when does it stop. Five times he voted against the Brady Bill which provided some background checks, it does not make any sense. I live in a state where there is much more rural area than Vermont has in total. If the NRA or any other group could come up with a decent and sensible regulations then they need to produce it.

[benEzra]

34. Background checks for purchase were a good idea,

and were instituted after Reagan was shot by a mental patient with a .22 caliber revolver. I'll point out that we did *not* ban .22 caliber revolvers, we just looked at ways to keep them out of the hands of mental patients. The original Brady law was a mandatory waiting period and optional background check, on handguns only; this was replaced a few years later by an NRA-backed bill that did away with the waiting period but made the background check mandatory and extended it to all guns. I expect that Sanders may have objected to the punitive and ineffective drafts of the Brady Bill that were aimed more at harassing the law-abiding than at blocking buyers with records. Didn't he end up supporting the National Instant Check System that we have today?

Regarding the PLCAA, remember that at the time, the gun control lobby was deliberately attempting to put small gun manufacturers out of business, by filing knowingly frivolous lawsuits that they knew they could never win, but that would bankrupt most gun companies via the legal fees and force the larger ones to stop selling the most popular guns to lawful citizens. Sanders wasn't a fan of that type of subterfuge, and helped pass a law to stop that type of thing, which I'll point out explicitly allows gun companies to be sued for defective products or for negligence/unlawful conduct, just not for selling lawful products to lawful citizens. I think that's reasonable, and I think Sanders was right to support it.

What is not reasonable is threatening to put people in cages for years if the handgrip on their rifle sticks out too much, or if they have a magazine that exceeds two-thirds the capacity you could buy in 1861, or fighting tooth and nail to outlaw the most popular rifles in U.S. homes when rifles kill fewer people annually than bicycles. So much of the gun control agenda is based on fearmongering, fundraising, and "othering" rather than violence prevention, and that does the gun control movement as a whole a disservice, IMO.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Let me ask you this, if you was a parent of a child killed at Sandy Hook, would you want to

be without your child for the rest of your life? There can be a common ground here, sensible gun rules, lots of people are able to get guns which should not have them. I am talking about responsible people, some one like Zimmerman is not reasonable. I own guns, have been taught safety since I was a young child. I get the feeling too much attention is given to gun shops owners and not enough to the victims of gun violence.

[benEzra]

39. I have two children (17 and 15, now).

But if a drunk driver killed one of my children, I hope I wouldn't come to hate all social drinkers or try to bring back Prohibition. If a Muslim killed my child, I hope I would not lash out at all Muslims, as some did after 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo. Yet I see many people on the pro-bans side using Sandy Hook as an excuse to lash out at rifle owners, carry license holders, or what have you.

Yes, there is common ground to be found. No one---NO ONE---wants to see kids murdered, or anyone else. But "If you do not support proposal X, you do not care about kids being murdered" seems to me to be more of an attempt to silence thoughtful dissent, rather than a rational argument for proposal X. And all too often, that argument is marshaled in support of proposals that are aimed squarely at harassing the lawful and nonviolent, rather than at protecting people.

As I recall, the Sandy Hook murderer (I won't name him; he wanted fame so badly as to kill for it, so let's not give him that) owned a .22 rimfire squirrel rifle, and used it to murder his mother, who was a competitive shooter, and steal her guns from her gun safe. He made off with a small-caliber centerfire rifle (an AR-15 variant, the most popular competition and target rifle in the United States), a shotgun, and a pistol; I believe he left the shotgun in the car, used the rifle to murder those children, and then shot himself with the pistol.

Outlawing rifle handgrips that stick out, or even all rifles, would not have changed the Sandy Hook tragedy one bit; any one of the guns he stole would have led to the same tragic outcome. Outlawing post-1860 magazine capacities would not have changed anything, either. I can think of a few things that might have made a difference in hindsight, but none of the proposals aimed at gun minutiae, rather than the perpetrator (or perhaps response thereto) would have made a difference; remember that the worst mass shooting in U.S. history was carried out with a pair of pistols and a backpack full of lowish capacity magazines.

One can thoughtfully look for common ground, or one can emulate Bloomberg et al and threaten ordinary gun owners with prison over miscellany like having the wrong handgrip shape or standard magazines, or go after carry licensure, and accomplish nothing but selling more guns. Gun control advocates talk a lot about wanting a discussion, but any rational discussion has to acknowledge that out of over 12,000+ murders annually in this country, less than ~270 involve any kind of rifle and probably far fewer than that involve holders of carry licenses. The vast majority of murders are carried out by criminals who can't legally touch a gun, or by the severely disturbed, so it seems to me that rational responses would focus hard on those groups, rather than harassing or threatening those of us who are lawful and nonviolent?

[Thinkingabout]

41. Sensible like thorough back ground checks, this kids mother did not a large capacity magazine, there

are choices. Just as you bring up drunk drivers, we don't need to make life easier for those who choose to drink and drive, right now there are more gun violence deaths than drunk driver deaths, why, rules are different, a driver should be licensed, vehicles checked, law enforcement can arrest a driver suspected of driving under the influence, there should be insurance for the vehicle which is driven. Quiet a difference in gun owners. I would agree to gun owners providing a liability policy in order to possess a gun. See, it starts with simple.

[benEzra]

42. According to the FBI, there were only 248 reported rifle murders in 2014.

That includes all styles (including "assault weapons&quot and all capacities. Two states didn't report, so the total number is probably around 270 (out of 12,000 murders). That's less than half as many as were killed by bicycles that year (722), many of whom were children, and a small fraction of the number who died in swimming pools. That's not to minimize the tragedy of each death, just to point out that 20+ round rifles are among the least likely of all guns to be misused, precisely because they are less portable and concealable than smaller guns.

Because of the rarity of rifle misuse, I think that threatening tens of millions of people with felonies in order to legislate rifle handgrip shape or turn the clock back 150 years on magazine capacity (civilian rifles have held 15+ rounds since the early 1860s) has absolutely no bearing on violence; as I have mentioned elsewhere, the Virginia Tech murderer killed 32 innocent people with a pistol and a bag of low-capacity magazines, more than at Sandy Hook. Handgrip and magazine bans are aimed squarely at harassment of lawful owners (especially working-class), not fighting violence, IMO, and always have been.

BTW, we don't need insurance (or registration, or a license, or plates) to buy/keep a car at home, drive it on private property, or transport it on a trailer anywhere in the country; we only need those things to operate a car on public roads. Just like we don't have to have insurance or a license to own a gun at home in most places or to transport it to a range, but usually have to have a license to carry a gun concealed in public.

My main problem with mandatory liability insurance is that the intended outcome of that is usually to limit gun ownership to people with lots of disposable income, without affecting criminal violence at all. Case in point, I have held an NC carry license for many years, and to get it I had to pass an FBI fingerprint check, a Federal background check, an NC background check, a mental health records check, take a class on self-defense law, demonstrate competent shooting on a shooting range, and pay a lot of money to the state in fees (not always easy since my 17-year-old is medically complex, and finances are often tight). Your proposal would add yet more money to that process, pricing a lot of working-class people out of the process entirely, but wouldn't affect the people actually committing most murders since they don't bother with either licensure or insurance.

To me, a better approach would be tax credits for purchase of UL listed gun safes (to discourage theft when the owner isn't home), but I think the gun control lobby would probably oppose that.

[Thinkingabout]

43. I still remember 20 little kids and 6 teachers, this should never be forgotten, sensible, doesn't

some one who loves guns have a sensible plan?

[cascadiance]

31. So, are you saying Obama was lying when he was calling Hillary "Annie Oakley"?...

Or is it Hillary Clinton that is the candidate that wants to "have it both ways"!!!!

Why does she like to flip flop so much! Many of us don't see that we can really determine what she really stands for.

She can call herself "progressive" as much as she wants... As much as the "Progressive" Policy Institute tries to sound progressive with its name, or the "Progressive" Coalition for American Jobs that is pushing TPP tries to sound progressive too.

Calling oneself "progressive" without backing it up with consistent stances for the average American out there simply isn't going to fly this time around!

[beam me up scottie]

10. Do "everyday progressives" oppose a ban on cluster bombs?

Hillary Clinton Voted to Continue Cluster Bombing Civilians

The main point: Hillary Clinton voted to let our military continue to use cluster bombs in areas with concentrated civilian populations, despite the thousands of innocent children who have died or been handicapped due to picking up unexploded cluster bomblets.

This vote was cast in September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein.

***

I believe we need to take a look at our policies and adjust them. Specifically, our amendment would prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.

And we've been using these cluster munitions in every war since Vietnam.

Why are they such a danger to children? Senator Feinstein explains:

Cluster munitions are large bombs, rockets, or artillery shells that contain up to hundreds of small submunitions or individual bomblets. They are intended for attacking enemy troop formations and armor, covering approximately a .6-mile radius. In other words, their swath is over one-half mile. Yet in practice they pose a real threat to the safety of civilians when used in populated areas because they leave hundreds of unexploded bombs over a very large area and they are often inaccurate. They end up in streets and cities where men and women go to work and do their shopping. They end up in groves of trees and fields where children play. They end up in homes where families live. And in some cases, up to 40 percent of cluster bombs fail to explode, posing a particular danger to civilians long after the conflict has ended.

This is particularly and sadly true of children because bomblets are no bigger than a D battery and in some cases resemble a tennis ball. Children outside with their friends and relatives come across these cluster bombs. They pick them up out of curiosity because they look like balls and they start playing with them and a terrible result follows.

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425303/-Hillary-Clinton-Voted-to-Continue-Cluster-Bombing-Civilians

[TCJ70]

11. How dare he...

...quote her...

[whatchamacallit]

12. Did you mean Friars Storm? Cuz this is a joke

[Broward]

13. Drivel, nt.

[NurseJackie]

14. Well ... it's his mistake to make. (Who are we to interfere?)

Please proceed, Senator.

[H2O Man]

15. I respectfully disagree.

The only people upset by this are already in the Clinton campaign. No one in the Sanders camp disagrees with Bernie.

[DefenseLawyer]

16. Guest worker programs are a horrible idea

They suppress wages and exploit immigrants.

[RBInMaine]

17. Bernie voted for amnesty for bad gun sellers and for the ACA. Were those moderate votes?

[beam me up scottie]

21. Wrong, "bad gun sellers" can be sued if they break the law.

[earthside]

18. Ha! Blue Nation Review ...

Owned by the David Brock bunch.

In other words, there isn't any firestorm ... there is just some Hillary fanatics getting worried over the exposure of her moderate-conservative approach to governance.

Oh, and the video ... Sen. Sanders fighting against the Bush-Chamber of Commerce attempt to destroy wages of working Americans with an avalanche of cheap labor. Thank goodness for Sen. Sanders!

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007

Liberals criticized the points-based system and provisions limiting family reunification visas available to only nuclear family members of US citizens as unfair. Labor unions, human rights, and some Hispanic organizations attacked the guest workers program, claiming that it would create a group of underclass workers with no benefits.[15] Another criticism of the guest workers program was that because each guest worker is required to return home for a year before renewing his or her visa, these workers would instead overstay their visa, becoming illegal immigrants.

High-tech industry criticized the point-based green card system for scrapping employer sponsorship of green card applications and eliminating priority processing for the highly skilled workers specifically selected by the U.S. employers.[16] Many immigration practitioners, while supporting aspects of the proposal, criticized the bill as "unworkable" and called for fundamentally revising it.[17]

Sanders sided with the AFL-CIO on the 2007 Bush immigration reform legislation.

NBC News - June 21, 2007

The AFL-CIO formally came out against the bill Wednesday, reflecting the distaste among manufacturing unions and others whose members have been displaced by overseas competition and would have to compete with an influx of cheaper workers who don't have labor rights.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Clinton Campaign Desperately Searching for Game Changer Before NH!

There, I fixed your headline.

[AZ Progressive]

22. Hillary the Nixonian Neocon hijacker of the Democratic Party...

Is no progressive.

[AtomicKitten]

23. Camp Weathervane stumbles on her own inconsistencies and throws up a smokescreen.

If you don't like the blowback, best tell your candidate to shut her piehole because she brought this on herself with her every-changing declarations of political ideology.

[RoccoR5955]

24. Don't question the Queen's values.

She is progressive, and you best believe it. Now shut up and eat your damn cake.

[NCTraveler]

25. I believe the first article shows on of Clinton supporters oversights.

A true error in thought process.

"Problem is Bernie doesn’t do negative well. It’s not his brand and it’s not his message."

I don't intend for this to be a knock on anyone. Sanders has a history of going negative in a much different way than many politicians. It is overall mild and more passive-aggressive. He also has a history of staying pretty damn positive in his long history of campaigning.

He doesn't do negative well and that can be seen in his body language when he has. I find that to be an admirable trait in two ways in politics. First, he is a descent human being and you can tell. Second, he is willing to go past what he morally feels comfortable doing in order to promote what he feels will be a better outcome for the country. Him winning. For him, it's pushing the line. That's pretty solid.

Why does the article miss the mark yet hit the nail on the head of the thought process of many Clinton supporters? Campaigning is about votes and Sanders base of support is ready for him to let loose. It doesn't matter if he is good at it. If he came out tomorrow and said "I'm going to take the garbage out. Clean out this party. Throw Hillary and the rest of her establishment buddies to the curb", enthusiasm among his core support woul be off the charts. It wouldn't matter if he was good or not at it.

Votes matter and he has tapped into some really pissed people. Really are lots of reasons to be pissed. The whole concept that it isn't Sanders strong point looks pretty good on him, doesn't matter to his base of support, and is simply a distraction.

That being said, I prefer politician willing to roll in a little more mud.

[Fawke Em]

28. Doesn't David Brock own Blue Nation Review?

Why, yes, he does!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-brock-blue-nation-review_us_564f0f3de4b0879a5b0a7bc5

Bernie is not facing fire for this, really. Brock just wishes he was.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. Oh yes, antoher "firestorm"

that exists only on badly concealed Clinton campaign blogs.

Let me guess, the "dailynewsbin" is all over it, too.

[pinebox]

32. Do progressives run around bragging about how they voted for a border fence?

[frylock]

35. Brock Nation Review

[retrowire]

36. News flash....

Gun Control is not a make or break issue for the majority of Americans.

[Matariki]

40. "firestorm"

"you guys!"