You Asked, Martin O’Malley Answered.

[elleng]

During a visit to the editorial board, the candidate took a moment to answer a question from a Times reader.

http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000004095400/you-asked-martin-omalley-answered.html?playlistId=1194811622299

[Ino]

1. Well, he lost me with the "socialism" crack. (nt)

[Armstead]

2. I agree with what he said, but he blew it with the "replace with socialism" crap

If he has no better sense than to insult a large block of potential supporters, he deserves to be a far distant third.

[bigtree]

3. offended the socialists here?

...Sanders has offered a tortured and convoluted definition of his invented handle. His 'socialism' is supposedly a play on some European model, but even that is something which should leave most Americans scratching their heads.

It's no wonder he ran as a Democrat and dropped the socialist label. Sure, it was a necessary function to take advantage of Democratic resources; resources from a party he kept at a distance for years and years. Still, there's nothing so appealing about 'socialism' which deserves top billing alongside our party's label.

If O'Malley wants to distance himself from all of the negative associations Americans make about socialism, it should be understood. There's absolutely no obligation for him to carry water for Sanders on that controversial label, and there's no obligation for him to define that label in a way which puts Sanders in some favorable light. Sanders chose the politically radioactive label, defends it, and deserves to be isolated with it, because he's been so cagey about what it really means.

I agree that the politics he's proposing aren't 'socialism' in the strictest of terms. Begs the question why Sanders chose the controversial label in the first place if there's to be so much distancing from it? Taking such offense when someone steps forward and rejects it is curious. Is he a socialist, or not? Are his policies socialistic, or not? He should be made to defend the term in this political contest.

At the very least, O'Malley is under no obligation to paint that association Sanders, himself, makes, in the best light. Our party isn't 'socialist' anything. It's time for a reality check on that label which was fun and edgy in the Senate, but very controversial when defining our party and its intentions in the WH.

Is Sanders going to bring the label back if he's elected? It's too cute, and it's a political obstacle of Sanders' own making. He's stuck with it. There's absolutely no need - should be no expectation, for O'Malley, a lifelong Democrat, to accept any part of it.

[MeNMyVolt]

4. +1

[elleng]

5. THANK YOU for putting it so well, bigtree.

[PragmaticLiberal]

6. Well said.

[Armstead]

7. N0 -- O'Malley is misrepresentuing that, which is bad because....

he adds to public misconception of liberalism ultimately by echoing the conservative lie that anyone who wants reform is a commie socialist who wants to overthrow capitalism.

I realize O'Mallery is also proposing reforms, but he should not not be parroting conservative lies while doing it. O'Malley should just stick with what HE is proposing.

If he wants to criticize Sanders and his proposals on their merits that's fine -- But he shouldn't lie about what they are, and misrepresent goals like universal health care as anti-capitalist Commie subversion.

Not to mention the fact that O'Malley is poking his finger in my eye and those of many many Sanders supporters who would otherwise be supportive of O'Malley as an alternate choice. That is politically self-destructive.

[bigtree]

8. Sanders supporters need to recognize that the Democratic party isn't 'socialist' anything

...and that many Democrats aren't willing to have the party associated with the label.

Sanders needs to be challenged to define what policies of his are or aren't socialism. He can't expect his opponents to do that for him.

What O'Malley said was that his own economic philosophy has nothing to do with socialism. To be blunt, Sanders obviously believes SOMETHING about his politics is associated with socialism or he wouldn't have labeled himself as such. Moreover, the majority of his efforts are spent on economic issues. let him spell out what policies of his are or aren't socialism.

Btw, it's you who conflated communism with socialism, not O'Malley. He's talking about an economic philosophy that he rejects, not a dictatorship or a police state.

While we're waiting for all that explaining (he hasn't addressed it nearly enough), let's just establish here and now that nothing in O'Malley's platform, policy, or belief has anything to do with socialism. I don't see a thing wrong with that. Sanders has to live with his invented, controversial label; not his opponents; unless, of course, they remain silent and allow their politics to be enveloped by Sanders made-up moniker.

The 'eye-poking' thing is ridiculous. Either you support O'Malley and his policies, or you don't. O'Malley shouldn't have to shy away from defining himself apart from that nonsense just to avoid upsetting Sanders supporters who know well how controversial a political issue their candidate's convoluted political label will be in this election.

[Armstead]

9. First the Democrats deliberatly marginalized liberalism...

Here's the problem -- and it is not just about Sanders.

The Third Way/DLC Democrats and the Corporate Political Elites have spent decades doing everything they could to eliminate the word "Liberal" from the language. And make everything to the left of Evan Bayah and Bill Clinton and their ilk redefined as "the fringe."

They joined with the Establishment GOP to make this amorphous thing called "centrism" and a distorted conservative version of the word "progressive" that has done more to make the two party system a one-party Establish Elite than anything else.

The problem with that is that it eliminates actual alternatives from the discussion. And unfortunately that includes basic liberalism. Anything not approved by the Corporate and Political Elites is dismissed and denigrated. Liberal has become "the fringe." And part of that demonization and marginalization process has been to also make "socialism" a dirty word associated with "liberalism."

And if you don't think that has happened you haven't been listening to Democratic politicians and their counterparts in the mainstream media since the 1980's.

When O'Malley uses the same tactics to denigrate Sanders -- AND his supporters -- he is merely perpetuating the same old crap. And it puts all of his "progressive" proposals into that centrist mold, as a Trojan Horse. Or it makes him look politically naive and ignorant of what is going on in the grassroots.

If he really were interested in more than his own political career, he would not have engaged in that. And not gone there. He could have just criticized Sanders on substance.

But instead he now looks like just another political weasel who will do and say anything that he thinks will get him ahead. And that includes demonizing anthing to the left of the Corporate Conservative Center.

[bigtree]

10. that's just nonsense

Last edited Thu Dec 17, 2015, 09:57 AM - Edit history (2)

...including the 'third way' crap which is tiresome and has zero to do with O'Malley who is a practicing and accomplished progressive.

Sanders adopted the socialist label, now he and his supporters want to be all touchy-feely about anyone who dares distance themselves from it. It's no secret that the label is politically charged, and as a Democrat, O'Malley is under no obligation to define, explain, or identify with socialism. It's that simple.

He and his supporters won't be able to explain it away by denigrating everyone who distances themselves from it. Face it, socialism has nothing to do with the Democratic party or Democratic politics. It's Sanders' albatross and the Democratic party and its members are correct identifying themselves apart from it. Sanders hasn't offered any clear definition of why he wanted his politics associated with the label, and it's something that he needs to step up to, and establish just what he feels is 'Democratic' and what he feels belongs under that controversial label.

Let's not pretend this is something which is accepted in the mainstream of the party. The shock expressed that one of his opponents would dare distance their own politics from the label is either naive or defensive. You know Sanders has his foot in this one. I suspect that's what the defensiveness over O'Malley's line is all about.

Btw, you're supposedly concerned with alienating voters and you call O'Malley a 'weasel'? I'm thinking that's a part of the arrogance of Sanders support speaking, assuming his lead in the polls gives you room to denigrate O'Malley, as if he has no right to challenge his opponents where he sees fit. It's interesting that you're suggesting that decades of progressive fights and accomplishments in my state were all some sort of ruse by my governor to position O'Malley for a centrist presidency.

You're floating way up in the atmosphere with that kind of illogic. It's not just one or two issues that define his public service, but a full deck of progressive positions, fights, and achievements. Good way, I suppose though, of dismissing the fact that O'Malley has done more than just talk about these issues, but has actually done something to make them a reality in my state. That's a clear contrast with the two D.C. pols who are part and parcel of an institution which is marked by inaction and compromise on our basic, progressive principles.

This is a legitimate position O'Malley is taking, despite the fact that it puts Sanders in a bad light. I understand you wanting to defend your candidate, but you should understand that O'Malley isn't Sanders' wingman.

Get used to the opposition if you expect to actually compete for this election. ALL of these candidates' positions and policy are fair game for criticism and contrast.

[Andy823]

11. Exactly! nt

[FSogol]

12. +1 Well said, Bigtree. n/t

[NCTraveler]

13. Really do love O'Malley.

And his message is excellent. His campaign has not been. I think he is very sharp and witty in his "attacks" on Clinton and Sanders. I'm not even sure I want to call them attacks, it's fair debate he is bringing to the table.