Some history concerning the Socialist Workers Party, The Iran Hostage crisis, and Bernie Sanders

[ehrnst]

From the Daily Beast:

In 1977, [Bernie Sanders] left the tiny left-wing Liberty Union Party of Vermont that he’d co-founded, and in 1980 instead aligned himself with the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the self-proclaimed Trotskyist revolutionary party, became its presidential elector in Vermont, and campaigned for its candidates and platform that defended the Iranian hostage seizure.

..........................................................................

In fact, the SWP’s position on Iran is part of what distinguishes it from democratic socialist groups. When its presidential candidate, Andrew Pulley, came to speak at the University of Vermont in October 1980, Sanders chaired the meeting. Pulley attracted only 40 students to his rally, where he concentrated, according to the SWP’s newspaper The Militant, “on the Iran-Iraq war,” and condemned “anti-Iranian hysteria around the U.S. hostages.” Military action against Iran was not at that point theoretical—Pulley’s speech came six months after the attempt to free the hostages in Operation Eagle Claw had failed.

.........................................

Asked about the SWP in 1988, Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington and a congressional candidate, talked down the connection, saying that: “I was asked to put my name on the ballot and I did, that’s true." Today, no mention of Sanders’ association with the SWP appears in any campaign biography he has issued. But Sanders remained tied to the party after 1980. He was a featured speaker at a Boston rally for the SWP’s Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate and the party’s slate for Congress in 1982, the year after he was narrowly elected mayor of Burlington. In 1984, he again spoke on behalf of the SWP’s presidential candidate, this time former Black Panther Mel Mason, telling The Militant that “at a time when the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and spiritually bankrupt, it is imperative for radical voices to be heard which offer fundamental alternatives to capitalist ideology." It remains unclear when Sanders’s affiliation with the SWP ended.

https://news.yahoo.com/iran-took-americans-hostage-bernie-100052053.html

[Gothmog]

1. Interesting article

I read this article a while back. trump would have fun using this article to make very effective attack ads if sanders was the nominee

[ehrnst]

14. Interestingly, HRC did not bring it up at all in 2016.

However, Trump and the GOP would not hesitate should he get the nomination.

[Gothmog]

33. sanders was mathematically eliminated after the super tueday constests

There was no need for Clinton to go negative on sanders in that no one thought that sanders had a chance of being the nominee

[TexasTowelie]

2. K&R! nt

[left-of-center2012]

3. WOW! --- That's 32 years ago

[ehrnst]

4. I know. Remind me how long ago the MLK March on Washington was again?

[comradebillyboy]

107. The one that Mitch McConnel and Charlton Heston also attended?

[ehrnst]

108. Yes, that very one that is apparently the one true measure of progressive activism

[NurseJackie]

115. Anyone can "attend" a march... that takes very little effort at all.

I'm more interested in hearing what a politician has done and what his (or her) successes and legislative accomplishments are. Waving a banner is nice and all, but I expect results from politicians, not bumper-sticker slogans.

[ehrnst]

116. Indeed. (nt)

[getagrip_already]

5. true - but what does he say about it today?

Does he repudiate those statements or does he still stand with them??

[ehrnst]

6. From the article:

The Sanders campaign did not respond to a request for comment. Asked about the SWP in 1988, Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington and a congressional candidate, talked down the connection, saying that: “I was asked to put my name on the ballot and I did, that’s true." Today, no mention of Sanders’ association with the SWP appears in any campaign biography he has issued.

[left-of-center2012]

7. "Today, no mention of Sanders' association with the SWP appears in any campaign biography ..."

In Sanders' defense,
he never was a Republican.

[ehrnst]

11. Whataboutism. He was a SWP far longer than his temporary affiliations with the Democratic Party.

He does not serve or vote as a Democrat in the Senate.

He is always "I-VT" and only runs on the Democratic ticket when he is in a primary.

So I don't think going with whataboutism in terms of party affiliation is much of a defense.

Just saying...

He has declined to comment, and he has left his involvement with the SWP, which was far longer than all his temporary runs on Democratic tickets in primaries combined, out of all of his bios. Why do you think that is?

He sure talks about his civil rights activism during college in the early 60's, though, before he left it all behind for rural Vermont. Especially the MLK March on Washington.

[thesquanderer]

17. re: "He does not serve or vote as a Democrat in the Senate"

But he caucuses with the Dems, gets Dem committee assignments, is accepted by the DNC as a qualified nominee to be their standard-bearer, and votes with the Dem majority most of the time. So yes, I'd say that, in practical terms, he serves as a Dem does (probably more than a blue dog Dem does), and votes as a Dem does. Looked at that way, he serves and votes as a Democrat, even if he often eschews the label. He has effectively served as a Dem in Congress for almost 30 years. Contrary to your point, that's longer than his SWP affiliation.

[George II]

21. He didn't vote with the Democratic Party once between Jun 28 last year and Jan 6...

And even in this new session, there have been 14 votes, he's voted against the Democratic position 6 times and did not vote 8 times, several of those not-voting were very close.

So that "votes with the the Dem majority most of the time" is a myth.

[thesquanderer]

30. Look at the bigger time frame. He's been in congress 30 years and you're talking about 6 months.

He's the 8th most progressive current member of the Senate according to this site:

http://www.progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?x=24&y=8&house=senate&party=&sort=crucial-lifetime&order=down

He's 3rd in how often Senators vote against Trump according to this site:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/

(For that one, sort by the Trump Score column, and you'll see he's voted with Trump's position 13% of the time, which is better than all the other Dems except for two.)

[George II]

32. Yes, behind four of his former and current rivals* for the nomination.....

...For the 2019-2020 session he drops to #26 behind five of his former and current rivals**.

* Harris (#2), Warren (#3), Gillibrand (#6), and Brown (#7)

** Gillibrand (#8), Klobuchar (#10), Brown (#13), Harris (#21), and Warren (#24)

The second one is deceiving because it rates how many times Senators voted with trump's position, not a % of each Senator's votes with trump.

Last year he skipped 189 of 428 votes, and already this year he's skipped 8 of 14 votes. Those "non-votes" are included as "not voting" WITH trump.

[karynnj]

37. Every one running for President misses votes

In 2008, HRC and Obama missed a lot of vote and so did Biden in the second half of 2008. When the Republicans control the Senate, even if a Senator tried to adjust his/her schedule - the ML would play games with it rescheduling after the Senator changed plans to be there.

[George II]

41. My point is that he's getting "credit" for not voting with trump when the reason he didn't is...

...because he didn't vote at all. We don't know if he would or wouldn't, so that's a poor criteria from which to judge.

[karynnj]

49. Unless he is telling Schumer what his vote would have been

Other candidates have done that - Kerry is one example I know. I don't know if any current candidates are doing that.

[George II]

50. I don't know, but still that wouldn't be factored into 538's "trump score". They use official votes.

[thesquanderer]

156. re: "Those 'non-votes' are included as 'not voting' WITH trump."

Okay. But are you seriously trying to put forth that, over the past 30 years, he has voted for the generally Republican supported position more often than the generally Democratic one?

[ehrnst]

34. You were the one who brought party affiliation into the discussion...

And now you're crying foul that someone pointed out the facts about Sanders's party affiliation? So you move the goalposts?



"Effectively" served as a Dem, is not serving as a Dem, especially someone who says these things about the Democratic party.

“I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat.” 1985
“The Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt. Their ideology is opportunism.” 1986
“I am not a Democrat, period.” 1988
“the old Democrat-Republican, tweedle-dee tweedle-dum, two-party system” 1989
“greed and vulgarity perpetuated by the Democrats and Republicans” 1989
“You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.” 1988
“My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.”
“Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?” 1990
“It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the Party.” 1990

In what 'practical terms" could this be described as "effectively serving as a Democrat?"

[thesquanderer]

45. re: "You were the one who brought party affiliation into the discussion..."

Where did I do that? I think you may have mixed me up with someone else. I replied to your comment which already was about party affiliation. ( "He does not serve or vote as a Democrat in the Senate." )

re:

In what 'practical terms" could this be described as "effectively serving as a Democrat?"

The policies he has supported, the votes he has cast.

[ehrnst]

55. My mistake - you were jumping to the defense of someone that brought Party affiliation into this

Democrats are a political party, replied to a post where I was conversing with them upthread.

Sanders has not only ecpressed disdain on many occasions for the party (see my last post for examples), he makes it very, very clear that he considers his political identity to be Independent, and definitely not Democratic.

Sanders: I don't consider myself a Democrat
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday night that he still does not consider himself a Democrat, despite taking part in a Democratic National Committee unity tour with the party's new chair Tom Perez.

"No, I'm an Independent," Sanders said when asked by MSNBC's Chris Hayes whether he now identifies as a Democrat.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=420249

I'll take his word for it, thanks.

If you have another definition for democrat that does not involve the Democratic Party, my point still stands. Words have meanings. I'll say you what I say to prolifer who insist that abortion is "murder," that murder is a legal definition, and that definition has never included abortion.

Sanders has never served as a Democrat in public office, and refuses to identify as one. There is no definition of Democrat that applies to Bernie Sanders long carreer as a politician.

John McCain voted to preserve the ACA, but that vote did not in any way indicate that he served at that moment even, as a Democrat.

[thesquanderer]

155. re: McCain vote to preserve ACA did not indicate that he served even at that moment as a Democrat.

True. But if McCain not only voted to preserve ACA, but also participated in the Dem caucus, ran for president as a Dem with the blessing of the Dem party, voted with the Dem position more often than not, got appointed as a Dem representative on committees, then he'd functionally be a Dem. Of course that's silly, no Republican could ever meet those criteria. But Sanders does meet all of them. He operates functionally as a Dem, arguably more than some of the red dogs do. A rose by any other name and all that. I don't care what he calls himself, and when. Labels don't matter as much as supported policies and actions.

[ehrnst]

157. Sanders: "I don't consider myself a Democrat"

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Tuesday night that he still does not consider himself a Democrat despite taking part in a Democratic National Committee (DNC) unity tour with the party's new chairman, Tom Perez.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329418-sanders-i-do-not-consider-myself-a-democrat

"No, I'm an Independent," Sanders said when asked by MSNBC's Chris Hayes whether he now identifies as a Democrat.

"Democratic Party politician" functional or non, has a specific definition. A politician who votes and serves as an "I" does not fit that definition.

See also: Joe Lieberman.

Especially I" with a history of calling the Democratic party "corrupt" and "no different than Republicans," can't really be called a Democrat of any type.

Practicing the Golden Rule, and loving one's neighbor as oneself does not one a "functional Christian," make, especially if one states that they do not believe that Christ was the son of God, and thinks Christianity is corrupt, even if they attend a Christmas eve service. Especially if they state publicly that "they don't consider themselves to be one of the Christian faith."

See also: "American is a Christian nation."

[thesquanderer]

159. Interesting analogy. Are Jews for Jesus Jewish? Christian? Can they be both?

In a way it's just semantics, as all the labels are artificial constructs anyway, and it is only human nature that forces us to try to neatly categorize everything, when in reality so many things (including belief paradigms) don't fall into such neat categories. So to my way of thinking, there is no need to create a binary situation where someone either "is or is not." People are free to create their own purity tests, but if the Democratic Party is willing to let Bernie Sanders campaign to become their standard-bearer, he's Dem enough for me.

[ehrnst]

160. So you don't believe Bernie? "It's just semantics"

That's how anti-choicers evade the issue when I correct them that abortion isn't actually "murder" because murder is a specific legal term with a specific defintion that has never included abortion.



If self-described atheist who gives money to help the poor and lives by the golden rule goes to a Roman Catholic church on Christmas eve in order to get on the spread of food served after the service, does that make the person a "functional Roman Catholic?"

Ask a Roman Catholic. Let us know what they say.

If a self-described straight person goes to LGBTQ bars for the happy hour and the music, and is an ally of LGBTQs, does that make that person a "functional LGBTQ?"

Ask someone who is LGBTQ. Let us know what they say.

Words have meanings. The Democratic party defines what a Democratic representative is, and that includes voting and serving as a Democrat.

You know, like "centrist" and "neo-liberal."

Bernie's own words: "I don't consider myself a Democrat." That would involve being to be part of a team that follows someone else's (currently Chuck Schumer) lead, and he will do no such thing.

Democrats generously allow him to caucus with us.

[thesquanderer]

161. The party can decide who is a Democrat.

It's their construct, and they can define it as they see fit. As you said, "The Democratic party defines what a Democratic representative is."

By allowing him to compete in Democratic primaries for the Democratic nomination to be the standard-bearer for the Democratic party, they show that he is sufficiently a Democrat for their purposes. Who are you or I to say differently? If Sanders only wants to be considered a Democrat "sometimes," that's his prerogative. And criticizing the Democratic party does not mean you can't be a Democrat.

re: "Democrats generously allow him to caucus with us."

I would say the party benefits from having him caucus with them.

[dware]

97. He's not a Dem either

he's a far left socialist who's using the Dem. Party to further his ambitions.

IOW's, he's a charlatan.

[getagrip_already]

8. no comment is very much a comment...

And not a very flattering one.

[ehrnst]

20. To admit that he has any regrets, any mistakes or changes of heart

is something that is very uncharacteristic of Senator Sanders.

I have heard his supporters say often:

"He is as constant as the North Star" and "Bernie doesn't 'evolve' because there is no reason for someone who is right to 'evolve.'

"No comment" is the only way to evade having to thread that very tricky needle.

A statement may be forthcoming that will state that he always had the best interests of the people at heart, and always did it in the very best way possible, and the way to get things done has changed, although he himself has never changed. He will not say that he had any regrets or changes of heart, nor will he comment on his activities concerning the SWP, and will say that we are GETTING DISTRACTED from FOCUSING ON THE IMPORTANT ISSUES: INCOME INEQUALITY AND MEDICARE FOR ALL!

And other's voting history on the Iraq war.

[NNadir]

61. Wow! We have Sanders people beating on Senator Warren because she was once a Republican.

What goes around comes around, I think.

If Senator Sanders has changed his mind in the last 32 years about anything, it surprises the hell out of me.

Someone here told a joke wherein he or she stated that Senator Sanders is running a great campaign against his opponent...

...the problem being that he's running against Richard Nixon.

In this case, the 32 years is meaningless, since Senator Sanders seems not to have had an original or new idea in 50 years.

[SidDithers]

71. But more recent than the time Sanders chained himself to a black woman...nt

Sid

[ehrnst]

73. Then I guess Bernie's "marching with MLK" is even more irrelevant....

You should let him know.

Tell us what he says.

[George II]

9. Some background about the author and the Daily Beast:

Ronald Radosh is an American writer, professor, historian and former Marxist. As described in his memoirs, Radosh was—like his parents—a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America until the Khrushchev thaw. Subsequently, he became a New Left and anti-Vietnam War activist

Daily Beast:

[brutus smith]

10. Just out of curiosity, what things of Warren do you support?

[ehrnst]

12. What does that have to do with the OP?

Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.

https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/

Try again.

[melman]

18. Great question

[ehrnst]

35. Still smarting?

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2020, 05:15 PM - Edit history (3)

Jumping on that red herring when one has no actual rebuttal... safety in numbers, I guess.

But perhaps you can explain what supporting Candidate Warren has to do with the OP?

[brutus smith]

64. So, no answer.

[ehrnst]

66. To your red herring?

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2020, 08:19 PM - Edit history (2)

I didn't take the bait, and that must be very frustrating.

Perhaps if you could answer the question "What does this have to do with the OP?" it wouldn't be a red herring, would it?



I await your response...

[brutus smith]

98. Nope, not frustrated. I didn't have to edit my post twice.

Btw, it was your response to the OP that drew my attention. But if you don't want to answer, that's fine.

[ehrnst]

102. Still got nothing but evasions and red herrings?

You should know by now I don't derail that easy. Fish aren't biting.

I edit for clarity. You should try it.

[stopdiggin]

13. Sanders was certainly a firebrand in that era

which I think is fairly common knowledge -- although I'll give points for posting solid facts and information at least. We could also maybe postulate that this is not quite where the candidate positions himself today?

[ehrnst]

15. I certainly would think that he'd be eager to state that.

Why do you think he declined to comment on this when asked?

He very seldom, if ever, admits to having made mistake or changing his mind on anything.

Part of his political brand is that "he does not change."

So I imagine threading that needle when something like this comes up is tricky.

[stopdiggin]

25. all of that is valid. and all is ALSO well known.

which make this appear a little bit like "gottcha"
Sanders is irascible, unapologetic, comes from a fairly divergent political background -- and is occasionally a scold. Got anything new for us?

[ehrnst]

27. Bernie touts his college civil rights activities, and participating in the March on Washington

more than 50 years ago as utterly relevant to his political identity and credentials as a progressive.

Bernie talks about the well known voting records of other candidates.

So why is anything that isn't "new" off-limits to talk about when it comes to Senator Sanders?

Why is talking about this part of Bernie's public political life a "gotcha?"

[stopdiggin]

36. perhaps because it ISN'T new. and therefore represents a rehash?

with an obvious intent not to inform -- but to tarnish?
Like I said -- we all have a fairly good idea of who Sanders is, and where he comes from.
So you're kinda beating a dead horse -- useful as far as venting goes, but there just isn't a lot of PURPOSE involved.

[ehrnst]

38. Again.... bringing up the MLK march, which isn't new

as well a his college civil rights activities is not a "re-hash" and is relevant? Because it's Bernie?

Bernie who rehashes the much, much more well known Iraq war votes of others? And the voting records of other candidates from the 1970's?

But this more recent public political identity that he clearly embraced is "beating a dead horse?"



Doesn't make sense.

And no, I didn't know about those details, so no, it wasn't an effort to 'tarnish' any more than repeating Bernie's college activism is an "evasion" of discussing of what he's done in the civil rights activism arena since then.

Why do you call it "venting?"

I would describe your responses to me as more 'venting' than the OP, which is a listing of historical facts.

[NurseJackie]

118. Not everyone knows this. In a national election, his past is a liability.

we all have a fairly good idea of who Sanders is, and where he comes from.

That's not entirely true. Not everyone knows this. In a national election, his past is a liability.

There are many things about BS's past that turn-off many voters. I know that's certainly true for me, and I can't be the only one.

So you're kinda beating a dead horse

Also not true. These things would not be ignored by the GOP in the General Election, so it's very helpful to bring them up and closely examine them now. Accusations that we're "beating a dead horse" suggests to me a position of weakness and one that is based on fear. If BS is the strong candidate that people claim him to be, then why do so many try to discourage an truthful and thoughtful examination of him?

[tiredtoo]

16. Please stop posting these divisive posts. EOM

[ehrnst]

24. What is 'divisive' about stating the facts?

All the Democratic candidates are being vetted for past statements and associations.

Why is this particular vetting "divisive?"

What other posts are you referring to when you say "please stop posting these divisive posts?"

[tiredtoo]

65. Any post that is negative about a current candidate is divisive. how about something positive about

your candidate?

[ehrnst]

67. They're facts. Do you think that facts that don't flatter a candidate should be

banned from DU?

Because it sounds like it.

Trump supporters have that attitude about Trump, and I think that our candidates can tolerate it.

You are free not to read these posts, or put me on ignore.

[tiredtoo]

68. As a matter of fact I do

All we are doing is providing fodder for the republicans. Also, if you check you will find we are currently both supporting the same candidate.

[ehrnst]

69. Republicans are going to use my posts as "fodder?" And you want to ban such posts on DU?

Goodness, I had no idea that my posts, or any posts on DU had such power, or were being tracked by the GOP.



Do you really think that the GOP can't google? That they would never ever have known this but for my post?

If I can find it on google, you know they have already found it.



If you google some keywords, you will see this part of Sanders career on conservative sources. So, no, I didn't start this.

[tiredtoo]

70. yes i know that

Has nothing to do with my original statement. We should stop bringing up bad historical data about Democratic candidates. We can win this if, we all stick together.

[ehrnst]

72. "Bad" historical data?

I similar from RWs that get upset when racism and the history of white supremacy is mentioned. Like if we just 'don't TALK about those things" that cause discomfort will make them go away. Like when people used to shush someone who said "cancer" out loud.

You really think that discussion any historical data - also known as 'vetting' - being suppressed is going to help our candidates's chances?

Is this a new opinion of yours?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=430750

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=410512

I guess this offense at "negative" posts applies only to certain candidates?



I guess you are also opposed to polling for the same reason? After all, it might look 'negative' for candidates that aren't gaining.

[tiredtoo]

79. I don't feel i said anything bad about a candidate

Unless you consider posting a fact that republicans like one of our candidates speaks ill of that candidate, that would be for you to decide. As far as polling goes, it means little to me. Wonder why people here are always posting polls that show their candidate leading?

[ehrnst]

80. You were joining in, and not scolding them for being negative..

So there's that.

If you want to try getting talking about polls banned on DU, good luck with that.

[tiredtoo]

82. oh man

i just said something to the affect of republicans liking one of our candidates. Some here would consider that good, some bad.
as far as banning polls. I have absolutely no interest in doing that. You are stretching things here a bit.

[ehrnst]

85. You complained about polls much like you complained about sharing facts

that aren't flattering to a candidate.

To many, a Republican liking our candidate would be "evidence" that the candidate was "Republican lite."

So, no, I'm not stretching.

Why do you continue to stay on DU if you don't want to hear anything but flattering comments about a Democratic candidate?

You'll be doing a lot more scolding if you do.

[tiredtoo]

89. Sorry I do not remember complaining about polls.

I just think they are useless in this venue.

[ehrnst]

90. ....

Wonder why people here are always posting polls that show their candidate leading?

[tiredtoo]

92. Thats not a complaint. I still wonder why.

[ehrnst]

103. "I wonder why someone would (do this)?" is a passive complaint or criticism.

Similar to "You're wearing that?" is a passive complaint or criticism of someone's clothes.

[tiredtoo]

105. You are really stretching it here.

Get over it.

[ehrnst]

106. No, I'm not stretching anything. I'm explaining why your post appears to be a complaint.

"I didn't know that it sounded like a complaint, thanks for letting me know, so I'm more aware of that in the future," would be a good response.

[TwilightZone]

77. The GOP already has all of this.

We should probably contemplate why they've chosen not to use any of it at this time.

[ehrnst]

78. Good point. (nt)

[Zolorp]

104. They don't want to push this now because they want to push it in a General Election

It has been a Republican wet dream to run against a Democratic candidate with actual documented ties to Communists and Sanders would be one who was an actual MEMBER of a Communist Party. SWP split from the CWP as a more pure Communist Party following Trotsky rather than Stalin.

[squirecam]

83. Lol

No more divisive candidate currently exists in the race then Bernie. He has the worst advisors who love touting these lies. Don’t blame Warrens posters.

[tiredtoo]

86. for the record i am a warren supporter

My interjection is aimed at all who post negative or unflattering things about Democratic candidates. I am sure any one of us could do a simple google search and find something negative about all the candidates. I would prefer we don't do that.

[ehrnst]

109. Campaigns don't work that way. We need to know about the candidate, good and bad.

Would you have applied that metric to Donald Trump?

Many of his supporters feel the same way about anything 'negative' said or reported about him.

[tiredtoo]

112. ok fine

you should really take a break. You're getting all wound up.

[ehrnst]

114. Ah, the "calm down" evasion.

When one has nothing else to reply with, and is perhaps getting hot under the collar themselves...

[tiredtoo]

120. Cool

You are now using the trump technique of psychological projection. I will pray for you.

[ehrnst]

122. "I will pray for you" "You are like Trump."

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2020, 03:49 PM - Edit history (2)

Pray for yourself. I'm fine.

You need something to give you peace and calm.

Namaste.

(BTW - I grew up in the South. I happen to know that "I will pray for you" has pretty much the same intent behind it as "bless your heart." )

[tiredtoo]

123. Well then

Bless your heart.

[ehrnst]

137. Bless yours, too.

So, yeah, I was right all along. Mamma didn't raise no fool.



I think you'll be a lot less outraged and angry if you put me on ignore.

You're welcome!

[tiredtoo]

147. Sorry

I am not enraged or angry. Again with the psychological projection. I may have to really pray for you. I have never put anyone on Ignore and have no intention of doing so.

[ehrnst]

148. Well, I think it will help calm you down.

High blood pressure is a higher risk in individuals who place themselves in situations where they get stressed out and upset.

I'll pray for you.

[tiredtoo]

150. Look in the mirror. EOM

[ehrnst]

152. Sigh...

[Scotch-Irish]

26. Thank you!!

I'm getting so sick of the Bernie bashing and smearing going on that I'm about to change my preference from Elizabeth Warren to Bernie Sanders.

If he's getting these Biden people so stirred up, he's doing something right.

Trump wants to run against Joe, so the russians are trying to push him to the front. That becomes more obvious every time I login to DU.

[ehrnst]

39. You're going to change your candidate preference because someone posted some historical

facts about another candidate on DU?

That's one way to pick a candidate that I haven't heard of...

I had no idea that my posts on DU held that much power!



Should I be flattered?

[Cha]

43. You said you were going to do that awhile ago.

[ehrnst]

62. You mean.... he's said this to other Warren supporters???

What a cad!

He told me that I was his inspiration for dropping support for Senator Warren!

[Cha]

63. You're Absolutely Wrong..

trump got himself Impeached trying to get Dirt Manufactured on Joe Biden.

Too bad if you don't like BS being Vetted.

[mountain grammy]

59. Thank you!

[Cha]

74. Do you get on Joe Biden Threads and

say the same?

[tiredtoo]

84. I would if i saw one. eom

[Cha]

87. uh huh

[tiredtoo]

91. Thanks for the confirmation.

[ehrnst]

141. They exist - here's a link to a negative Biden thread, so you can start scolding people for

"being divisive" there, too. Go get 'em!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=433056

You're welcome!!

[tiredtoo]

145. Oh man

You take criticism like trump. Bless your heart.

[ehrnst]

146. Calm down, now... I gave you a chance to show that you indeed are

unhappy about all "divisive" posts, not just those that don't flatter Senator Sanders...

One would think that you'd be grateful and thankful for the opportunity to put your money where your mouth is, instead of responding in a manner similar to Trump supporters who have been told that he said something that they got mad at Obama for saying.

I'll pray for you.

[ehrnst]

151. Again.... high blood pressure is more of a risk when one continues to

place oneself in situations that cause them to lose their temper. Like when you continue to reply to my posts, attacking me personally while saying that I should not be posting.

Chronic Psychosocial Stress and Hypertension

I'll pray for you.

[Cha]

158. What "confirmation"? Can you elaborate?

[nini]

100. It's called vetting.

It’s part of the process.

[melman]

19. Ronald Radosh

adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute (right-wing think tank)






note that the book they try to pass off as "a History of the Democratic Party" is actually called...


Divided They Fell: The Demise of the Democratic Party 1964-1996





Nice source.

[ehrnst]

22. Shoot the messenger when the message is uncomfortable...

You can't refute anything in the OP.....clearly.

That's gotta sting.

The Daily Beast can't be trusted to publish an accurate story?

Since when?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210545514




Nice source....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Poulsen

[melman]

28. Straw man

Nowhere did I say the Daily Beast can't be trusted.



Nor did I shoot the messenger. I just pointed out who the messenger actually is as the OP attempts to obscure that.

[ehrnst]

29. Because you say so?

Avoiding the uncomfortable fact that you yourself find the Daily Beast to be a reliable source..

And that you can't refute what's in the OP? A very public part of Senator Sanders public political life that lasted far longer than all of the periods of time that he has registered and run on a Democratic ticket combined?

You must find discussing this part of his career to be very negative and damaging to Senator Sanders to be reacting so strongly to try to quash it.

Is this a case being upset to find that a shoe fits?

[melman]

40. No

Not because I say so. Because the OP links to this media bias fact check page


This is clearly meant to give the impression the story is coming from a reliably left source.


When the the source is actually right-winger Ronald Radosh of the Hudson Institute.

[ehrnst]

42. Perhaps you missed that the Daily Beast published the piece.

It is reliably left, as the link shows.



You seem to be upset that it got that rating, even though you have found it to be a reliable source, as I pointed out.

Are you upset that I provided evidence of your own confidence in after you tried to disparage it? Why else would you be continuing to complain about it being a reliable lefty source of information?

[George II]

48. Ronald Radosh is not a "right winger". Read about his entire history of who he worked with, for....

...and wrote about.

If anything he could be considered a "centrist" since he's written for left, right, and center publications, including The New Republic.

Also, read the article itself, he is clearly on the side of Democrats and worried that if Sanders gets the nomination it will damage the Democratic Party for a long time. Does this look like the writing of a "right winger"?

But Democratic voters today concerned above all with defeating Donald Trump and the electability of their prospective presidential candidate need to know the whole of Sanders’ history. He has not always been the democratic socialist he claims to be. Sanders could have supported the Socialist Party, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, or Social-Democrats U.S.A., the three leading democratic socialist organizations existing in 1980. He rejected them. Instead he embraced a Marxist-Leninist communist sect that proclaimed its solidarity with Iran.

The preeminent democratic socialist of the time, Michael Harrington, wrote that the hostage taking was “terribly wrong,” and that “the original evil was compounded by the psychological and physical brutalization to which at least some of the hostages were subjected. The moral stance of those who denounce such acts is clear and compelling.”

Far from denouncing the acts, Sanders stood with those who applauded the hostage taking.

If Sanders were to become the Democratic presidential nominee, all this will come pouring out in Trump ads on television and social media. Voters will see TV clips of the American hostages, blindfolded and abused, alongside Sanders as the Trotskyist elector supporting the Iranian kidnappers. Rest assured, Trump will make absolutely sure that it is Sanders’ own past that will bury him and perhaps the Democratic Party.

[melman]

51. Yes he is

From Jonathan Chait:


"Our readers may not grasp just what it takes to be called a right-wing kook in Front Page Magazine by Ron Radosh. The bar is high. Radosh himself is quite conservative (he’s called President Obama a socialist). FrontPageMag is … well, suffice to say, its official motto is “Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming to Get Out” — which is surely more evocative, if less credibility-rendering, than “All the news that’s fit to print.” It currently features stories with such headlines as “Islamic Group in America: We’ll Impose Sharia on Christians” and “Seven More Reasons to Impeach Eric Holder".

Radosh’s review displays an entertaining clash of different gradations of right-wing paranoia. Faithful readers of the conservative news have been conditioned to believe that modern history is shaped by dark liberal plots, all covered up by the mainstream news. Radosh and FrontPageMag are among the sources conditioning them to think this way. (Radosh, for instance, thinks it’s perfectly plausible that Barack Obama’s autobiography was secretly ghostwritten by Bill Ayers.) West is simply applying the same analytic method backward in time."

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/08/conservative-historian-has-interesting-ideas.html

Many many instances of Radosh writing these things and things like it can be found online. So why post this old article from New York magazine you may ask? Because all the original articles are from sources too right wing to post here

If you wish to see more it's only google away.

[George II]

52. The article he wrote for the Daily Beast is even closer than "google away"!

[ehrnst]

53. Good luck with that.

[melman]

56. Good luck with what?

It's been established beyond a shadow of a doubt who Ronald Radosh actually is.


No luck required. This one's in the books.


Have a great evening.

[ehrnst]

58. Like I said, good luck with that.

It's not working thus far.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287430964



Have a great evening! Take comfort that you gave it your all.

[Cha]

76. lol

[George II]

23. Ronald Radosh:

Ronald Radosh (born 1937) is an American writer, professor, historian and former Marxist. As described in his memoirs, Radosh was—like his parents—a member of the Communist Party of the United States of America until the Khrushchev thaw. Subsequently, he became a New Left and anti-Vietnam War activist.

[Zolorp]

31. From a man who joined the Army as a 17 year old kid in Oct., '80, this is incredibly relevant.

I joined up over the Iran hostage crisis. This affects me to the very core of what it means to me to be an American.

[ehrnst]

44. indeed. (nt)

[Cha]

46. Thank you for your service, Zolorp.

[sheshe2]

54. Thank you for your service.

May I extend a very sincere welcome to DU. You will be a good fit here, Zolorp.

[The Valley Below]

47. The Socialist Workers Party is a communist party. Now Sander tries to hide or minimize

his affiliations with the SWP.

Same with the very hard-core Marx-Leninist kibbutz he stayed on in Israel. The only pro-Soviet kibbutz in all of Israel. Way out of the mainstream of socialist kibbutzim at the time.

He tried to hide the name of this kibbutz, Shaar Haamakim, for decades. He was finally outed by Haaretz.

Troubling.

[ehrnst]

57. It's not good optics. I imagine that's why he excludes it from his bio, even as he

touts earlier activities in his life as being evidence of his progressive bona fides.

[Zolorp]

60. It's disqualifying and demoralizing.

We're set for record turnout in 2020. This could kill that.

[The Valley Below]

75. Fortunately Sanders won't be our nominee.

[ehrnst]

81. .....

Doubleplusthoughtcrime!!!!

[The Valley Below]

88. LOL.

I'm off to Room 101.

[Wawannabe]

93. Make up your mind Bernie

Which party are you now?
Had a hard time deciding over the years, eh?

Seems to be a pattern of switching parties that requires analysis to determine motive.

Why are you running as a Democrat and Independent concurrently? Who does that?

I don’t trust him. Period.

[NYMinute]

94. This is so infuriating

Taking the side of our enemy in the middle of a crisis.

[myohmy2]

95. yep...

...Bernie's the best Progressive candidate we have with a strong Socialist history...Bernie's not some flash-in the-pan, some Johnny-come-lately...he's been there, done that, and knows what it takes...

...Bernie embraces the Democratic Socialist label, he wears it like a badge of honor, which it is...Bernie doesn't tremble or run when a name is called...

...he knows the country wants and needs strong Leftist policies and that he's the man who can best sell and deliver on those policies...some want us to challenge trump with one arm tied behind our backs...some even want us to give up before we begin...it's almost as though some want us to lose...

...not us, not Bernie, we're here to win...

...Bernie and his supporters are here to win, and win we shall, for win we must...our winning may not be pretty but we're going to take that winning fight to trump and do whatever it takes to kick his fat ass...if trump's as bad as everyone thinks and claims he is then we need the best possible ass-kicker we have, and that's Bernie...

...you know it and I know it...

...thee best ass-kicker, bar none...

[The Valley Below]

124. One person's "badge of honor," is another person's "badge of shame."

I know where I stand on this. Not with America's enemies, that's for sure.

[Gothmog]

96. trump has a large oppo file on sanders

Trump had a two foot thick book of oppo research on Sanders http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach....

So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers....

The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.

[myohmy2]

101. the republican...

...'opposition book' on Bernie doesn't matter...whoever our candidate may be the same will be said about them as with Bernie...

...it doesn't matter...facts won't matter...

...FACTS?

...what 'FACTS'?...when the time comes, trump and the pukes will simply

...MAKE UP SHIT AND LIE...

[ehrnst]

113. ....facts matter...

...at least when it comes to all the other candidates...

...but in reality, no one gets a pass....

...just accusing anyone that presents a fact that makes one unhappy of "MAKING SHIT UP AND LYING" is not an effective way to promote a candidate...

...and no, the GOP won't be able to use that specific oppo on any other candidate...

...so tell us...

...if a candidate's 'baggage' doesn't really matter, because the GOP will just "MAKE SHIT UP AND LIE" anyway....

...why are you so focused on, nauseous even, about 'baggage' of the other candidates on the Democratic ticket?....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287427793#post69

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=429569

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=417894

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=414032

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287392671#post49

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=424508

...something to think about....

[myohmy2]

125. excellent read...

"...why are you so focused on, nauseous even, about 'baggage' of the other candidates on the Democratic ticket?...."

...it's called opinion, it's called truth, it's called Bernie must be our nominee...

...keep up the good work...

...I must be making progress...

[ehrnst]

138. ...one standard for Bernie, another for the rest....

...it's almost as if one doesn't think that facts are a good thing for Sanders...

...or that insisting that simply, factually, pointing out his own record is "unfair"...

...I would think one would have enough faith in one's candidate that one would not feel a need to quash vetting of them, while supporting going at with barrels at "the record" of Biden...even when those accusations about Biden's record turn out to be, as you repeatedly so reasonably and calmly put it, "MAKING SHIT UP AND LIES."

....according to Politifact, anyway...

... ...

...desperation dressed up as outrage is rather sad...

...

[myohmy2]

140. I'm just...

...trying to be positive and tout the many advantages of having Bernie as our nominee...

...I think most Dems will agree, that of all our candidates, Bernie is by far the strongest and most aggressive we have to take on and beat trump in the fall...

...it's not going to be easy, but if we stick together and join forces with Bernie, it can be done...

...Bernie can do it...

...BERNIE WILL DO IT...

[ehrnst]

142. ...trying to be positive....

...like calling any fact revealed about him that's not flattering as LIES AND SHIT?...

...I one thinks if using blinders is neccessary to support one's candidate....

...or joining in to cheer when one's candidate promotes debunked smears against other candidates...

...then one might want to reconsider one's reasons for one's choice of candidate...

....or one's real feelings about the "strength" of one's candidate...

... magical thinking doesn't really work....

...in fact it can appear to be a desperate attempt to create 'an aura of inevitability' around a candidate, yes?...

....you'll be OK when Bernie doesn't get the nomination...

...just like Ralph Naders' supporters were....

...

[MrsCoffee]

117. He hasn't been scared enough to bribe a whole country to make up lies about Bernie.

Just sayin....

It matters who the candidate is.

[myohmy2]

127. "It matters who the candidate is."

...yes, from our point of view...

...do you really believe trump and the pukes won't 'MAKE UP SHIT AND LIE' whoever our candidate may be?

...look at the 'MADE UP SHIT AND LIES' trump spews whenever he mentions Democrats in general...

...no, Bernie being a strong Progressive is no liability...

...in fact, it's our main advantage...

[TexasTowelie]

129. There are plenty of Congressman that don't believe it is an advantage.

Campaign staffers for moderate Democrats who defeated Republicans to win House seats in 2018 privately expressed concerns that Sanders being on the top of the ticket in 2020 could complicate their races. It would force them to spend time and money differentiating their policy stances from the Democratic nominee rather than focusing all-out on Trump.

“I think [Sanders winning the nomination] absolutely makes winning the most important states — five or six that will make the difference in 2020 — more challenging,” said Representative Dean Phillips of Minnesota, who won a seat in 2018 that Republicans had held since 1961. “Those are the states that matter. I wish people would turn a little bit more attention to that, and that’s why electability should matter more than ever.”

www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/18/nation/is-bernie-sanders-democrats-best-hope-or-their-worst-fear/

[ehrnst]

134. ...some believe that anyone who attempts to vet Senator Sanders...

...in the same way as any other candiate is vetted...

....is by definition MAKING UP SHIT AND LIES....

....more silence on his long record of votes against the Democratic Party positions here?....

....and I have yet to hear how ushering through the legislation establishing, and then personally financially profiting from, the Sierra Blanca nuclear waste for 16 years was "progressive" especially since Paul Wellstone called it "environmental racism."

...

[myohmy2]

139. 'we've all come short of the glory'...

...nobody's perfect but in my opinion,

...Bernie's the best we've got right now to take on trump and win...

...and we have to beat trump...

[ehrnst]

143. ....no one requires candidates to be perfect...

...such a straw man...

...Bernie is a career politician with some serious baggage...

...to deny that is to have blinders....

...beware any leader who requires absolute fealty, and sets perfection as the standard for everyone but himself...

...Bernie is the clear GOP choice for the Democratic candidate to run against Trump....

....and the Mueller report revealed that he was a favored candidate of Russia, along with Trump....

...Can you explain why that is, if Bernie is 'the strongest' candidate on the Democratic ticket?...

... ...

[Gothmog]

121. The Clinton campaign had an amazing oppo file on sanders but did not need it

sanders is a very weak candidate who would be destroyed. The Clinton campaign had a 101 page memo with 1000 pages of back up of oppo on sanders but never had to use because sanders was never a serious candidate.

Link to tweet

sanders had been mathematically eliminate by the results of the super Tuesday contests and so there was no need to use this oppo

[myohmy2]

128. okay...

...if that's what you want to believe about Bernie...

...but I don't see it that way...

[Gothmog]

131. Facts are good things

sanders is a very weak candidate

BTW, the NYT nails sanders

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

136. Apparently not for Bernie, in the opinions of some...

The pushback against inconvenient truths is strong.

[ehrnst]

135. ....how does one see the Sierra Blanca nuclear dump as "progressive?"..

...much less benefitting from it financially for 16 years...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=433872

...or voting against the Brady Bill five times....

....can you explain?....

....neither is 'MADE UP SHIT AND LIES"...

...those who deny his full participation and votes in both are indeed MAKING UP SHIT AND LIES....

...but if that's what one "wants to believe about Bernie..."

...

[ehrnst]

144. ....still no explanation for Sierra Blanca as 'progressive?'....

...or voting against the Brady Bill five times?....

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=433880

....not surprised....

...evading that conversation is easier...

...but futile in preventing it from happening...

...

[ehrnst]

111. We ignore that at our peril. Baggage matters.

At least for all the other candidates.

[highplainsdem]

110. K&R

[highplainsdem]

119. I suggest DUers do some research on Andrew Pulley to see just how extremist he was.

[RandySF]

126. Holy shit.

[RandySF]

132. K&R

[betsuni]

130. K&R

[RandySF]

133. K&R

[Historic NY]

153. Again when you hear it bandied about

from the Trumpsters and those not wanting to vote for socialists....this is what they associate the word socialism with. If you want to go down that path then the asshole will have another 4 yr term. Don't try to educate them to the difference.

[NurseJackie]

154. Yep... DURING the general election, it will be MUCH TOO LATE to try and redefine "socialism"...

Yep... DURING the general election, it will be MUCH TOO LATE to try and redefine "socialism" or "socialist" in the minds of voters.

Too bad for any candidate who refuses to embrace the Democratic party, and commit to the Democratic party in a lifelong, sincere and meaningful way. He's only "running as" a Democrat. BS and everyone keeps using those two words: "running as". Here's the thing... those two words mean that he's NOT actually a Democrat. It means that he's playing a role and that he refuses to pledge and dedicate to the Democratic party.

I know that I speak for millions of loyal, lifelong, stalwart, and dedicated Democrats who will never vote for a Socialist who has such open contempt and hostility for Democrats and the Democratic party. This is why a Socialist will never be our party's nominee.