Bernie's Pro-Sandinista Past Is a Problem, and His Response Is Not Good

[Vidal]

By Jonathan Chait, New York Magazine.

A week ago, the New York Times reported on Bernie Sanders’s 1980s-vintage foreign-policy stands, which at times crossed over from mere opposition to American policy to outright support for communist governments. Sanders initially refused to speak with the reporters, but after the article appeared, he called one of them and gave an extremely crusty interview. Now he has a video framing the issue, which he says is about “my opposition to war” and refusal to apologize for his opinions.

Any politician is going to frame issues selectively, but Sanders is presenting a spin on the controversy so selective it completely fails to convey any of the points relevant to the controversy.

During the 1980s, the Reagan administration was giving military aid to the Contras, a right-wing guerrilla insurgency attacking the Nicaraguan government. Most Democrats opposed aiding the Contras while still deploring the communist Nicaraguan government.

The Times shows that Sanders went well beyond mere opposition to funding the war. He wrote to Sandinista leaders that American news media had not “reflected fairly the goals and accomplishments of your administration.” On a visit to the country, he attended a Sandinista celebration at which the crowd chanted, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die,” and complained that American reporters ignored “the truth” about Nicaragua’s government, telling a CBS reporter, “You are worms.”

This is all highly relevant to his presidential campaign. It not only sheds light on his foreign-policy thinking but also illustrates the sorts of attacks Sanders would face in a general election, if nominated. Given that he identifies as a democratic socialist and promises radical change, his defensive comments about a communist regime would help Republicans paint him in the most extreme light.

In his post-publication interview, Sanders largely refused to explain these comments. Instead, he berated the reporter, Sydney Ember, with insinuations that she lacks a basic factual understanding of the issues.

Read More: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/05/bernie-sanders-pro-sandinista-past-problem.html?

[Cha]

1. KR!

[aikoaiko]

2. Not a problem.

"You are worms"

[Tiggeroshii]

3. Absolutely a baseless smear, with no standing at all.

This does not belong on here.

[oldsoftie]

5. So everything in the article is a lie? He did & said none of it?

I doubt it.

[Cha]

11. Oh really?

[Still In Wisconsin]

4. Bernie is f*cking done, and he seems to be the only one in Congress who doesn't know it.

He needs to go home to Vermont and eat ice cream.

[Bradshaw3]

6. He was right, the American media did not report accurately on Nicaragua

I used to watch the BBC news back then and their coverage was completely different from American media, which often ignored what the U.S. was doing there.

[NurseJackie]

7. That's disqualifying.

[Scurrilous]

8. ...

[George II]

9. This is not good. It's only one of several incidents.

[TreasonousBastard]

12. I don't know just what Sanders said about the Sandinistas back then...

but I would assume he would be dead set against the Contras. Also dead set against Somoza, who they replaced.

That, to me, is not a problem, but whatever he said back then in the heat of the moment (and moments back then were pretty damned hot) will be spun all out of context.

[Hortensis]

13. Sanders has a lifelong emotional commitment to socialist revolution,

even failed ones long after they've degraded into corrupt, impoverished authoritarian states. It's understandable that he's unwilling to let the dream die. But!

The President of the United States should be passionately proud and protective of democracy itself, including in the wave of new democracies that sprang up around the planet in the 1990s, many of which are under attack now. As our own democracy is.

Anyone running to be our president should be incredibly more emotionally committed to and focused on protecting our democracy than to dreams of successful socialist states, here or in Nicaragua and Venezuela. And I don't feel he is.

Many of his more zealous supporters believed our loss to the Republicans in 2016 could lead to ascendance of their leader through disaster and were outspokenly glad. Many bizarrely believe our party is evil and must be defeated for the good of the nation, and they actually worked and voted to defeat us. Above all, these deluded and often spiteful Sanders zealots were willing to risk our democracy and the wellbeing of over 300 million people in hopes of maybe getting their own way, or far too blind and stupid to understand the enormity of what they were risking.

Either way, between Sanders' own long history and some of the elements he attracts,...no.

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Maya Angelou

And just who they are not will do also.

[Vidal]

16. This causes great concern about a Sanders presidency

Your comments are very concerning to me, especially:

"Anyone running to be our president should be incredibly more emotionally committed to and focused on protecting our democracy than to dreams of successful socialist states, here or in Nicaragua and Venezuela. And I don't feel he is."

I hope you are wrong, but you appear to be right.

[Hortensis]

22. Sanders has been open about his passionate commitment to

socialism (though he's backtracked substantially in recent decades on how much he says would be seized from private for public ownership), and about his decades of negative feelings about the Democratic Party.

Events of 2016, including the behaviors of his most ardent followers, the findings of investigations into Russia's interference, and his own behaviors, speak for themselves.

“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.” “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat.”

He's been believing and saying it for decades, and I do absolutely believe in his sincerity, deluded as his thinking may seem to me. But then I have at least one advantage over him: I know I'm not ideologically bankrupt. I am glad he at least denies being a liberal, but it probably explains the first quote. Conservatives don't know or respect what liberals and liberalism are either.

[Celerity]

14. deep-vetting Bernie..here is his entire 1985 presser after he got back from visiting the Sandinistas

Bernie Sanders Press Conference about His Nicaragua Trip 1985

The Sandinistas (or what they have morphed into) under Ortega have become just as murderous and corrupt as the Contras were

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/03/fake-news-and-unrest-in-nicaragua

[mcar]

15. Anyone who thinks the Rs won't be all over this in the general

hasn't been paying attention.

[Vidal]

17. Sanders may be very vulnerable here

You are right, the R's will be all over this and find many ways to attack Bernie for his background of socialism which many might consider un-American. So I do not believe he has a chance to ever be president.

[NurseJackie]

18. This is why vetting is important.

And you're correct... many haven't been paying attention. Some not close enough. Some not AT ALL.

[Politicub]

19. I hate fucking revisionist history

The Reagan administration was illegally supplying arms to the Contras, a right-wing rebel group. There were congressional hearings about this, and it was proven that this happened.

It would have been against Sanders' values to suddenly be pro-Contra then or today merely because of revisionist history-writing about the Reagan administration.

If we're going to go down this path of papering over the illegal actions of the GOP in the past, then let's at least be honest about it amongst ourselves. Sanders was on the right side of history then. But, according to this article, he should correct people if they say something that counters GOP mythology.

This article implies that Sanders agreed with a crowd's chants:

On a visit to the country, he attended a Sandinista celebration at which the crowd chanted, “Here, there, everywhere, the Yankee will die,” and complained that American reporters ignored “the truth” about Nicaragua’s government, telling a CBS reporter, “You are worms.”

As if he has control over a protesting crowd.

But for the second issue: should Sanders have handled the reporter's questions differently?

Yes. Absolutely. He's proving to be very poor at interviews, and he used to be quite good at it. This reminds me of his sloppy response to Chris Wallace's gotcha question about sex- or characteristic-based abortion. He had the chance then, as he did in this instance, to forcefully advocate for his commitment to pro-choice policies instead of falling into a right-wing trap.

[Vidal]

20. Sanders' weakness

You may be right but it still shows a political weakness.

[Politicub]

21. His weakness seems to be defending his positions in a way that's relatable

and being adapt at interviews.

And that is a major weakness for the general election. Primaries are a good way for seeing how candidates react to tough interviews and situations. So far for Sanders, it isn't great.

[Vidal]

24. Agree:"Primaries are a good way for seeing how candidates react to tough interviews and situations."

"Primaries are a good way for seeing how candidates react to tough interviews and situations. So far for Sanders, it isn't great."

[MineralMan]

23. Today's voters don't give a damn about what happened in the 80s.

However, the media and the Republicans will take Bernie Sanders' statements out of context and use them to attach the "Socialist" label to him. Nobody cares any longer about the Sandinistas and Contras. But, if Sanders is running for President, short clips of what he said and did will still be harmful to his chances of winning.

None of this stuff came out in 2016, because Senator Sanders wasn't the Democratic nominee. If, by some miraculous twist, he becomes the 2020 nominee, though, all of this and much, much more will be fodder for the Republicans.

[Vidal]

25. Good point

If he does become the nominee the R's will destroy him on this. Which is why so many more people are comfortable with Biden who is not open to these kinds of attacks.

[MineralMan]

26. Yup. Now, Biden has some stuff that the Republicans will use,

but not in the same way. The Trump campaign would go full speed on the "SOCIALIST" label for Sanders.

[Vidal]

27. R's have already started attacking the "Socialist Democrat Party"

I saw Kevin McCarthy use that phrase in a speech a few days ago. They are primed and ready to attack.

[MineralMan]

28. Well, they always throw the "socialist" word around.

Usually, though, the candidate has not proudly called him or herself a socialist.

[Vidal]

29. Yes, those who are bragging about being socialist . . .

will probably not win many general elections, except maybe in Vermont and in AOC's district.