I am not a Bernie Sanders supporter, but....

[louis c]

Last edited Sat Apr 13, 2019, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

...I find it sickening that the MSM thinks that Bernie Sanders can't speak to the issue of income inequality because he has made a couple of million dollars on book royalties over the past 3 years.

Bernie was always the poorest US Senator and ran his campaigns on next to nothing in winning re-election in Vermont. I am not a supporter of Bernie's for a number of reasons, including that he has never been a Democrat except when he runs for President. But, be that as it may, I admire Bernie for his authentic and consistent positions in advocating for those of us who work hard for a living and deserve our fair share of the pie. Bernie earned every cent he has and came upon it honestly. I'm sure that his tax returns will show that he and his wife paid their fair share to the treasury.

If this election is going to be about a double standard, allowing a corrupt, lifetime crook, like Trump, who stiffs his workers and venders, cheats people and banks, as well as the government, to run for president unscathed. But criticize a Democratic candidate for receiving a rightful commission on a best selling book, while paying his taxes, we're fucked.

Just as my chosen candidate is criticized for patting a woman on the back, or a harmless kiss on the head, and is asked to withdraw, while a piece of shit sits in the white house as a confessed sexual assaulter and proven predator.

As I said during the bullshit about Joe Biden last week, when non-sexual encounters were elevated to a me too accusation, this criticism of Bernie and trying to place him as now part of the 1% is just the same amount of bullshit. Bernie has every right to earn money off book sales. It's an honest dollar that does not influence any of his votes.

I'm for Joe Biden because I'm thoroughly convinced, at this time, that he has the best chance of holding all the states won by Hillary in 2016, and adding Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin to the Democratic column in 2020. But, I am also fully aware that things could change. No Democrat should be leveling any criticism of any Democratic candidate that we can't walk back after the nomination. In the end, let's keep our eye on the ball and that's beating that no good fucking crooked asshole in the white house, Donald J. Trump.

[blue cat]

1. I bet he will start making even more

For paid speeches, from a corporation.

[louis c]

2. That's what I'm talking about...

...some predictive accusation against a Democratic candidate that has no basis in fact.

[bahrbearian]

3. 1st post , right off the bat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

52. I'm SHOCKED I tell you... SHOCKED!!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[bahrbearian]

55. The impulse was to much, they couldn't stop themself's.

Its conditioned response.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. How else to explain it?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[elleng]

4. Thanks

[DownriverDem]

39. Personally

I don't consider him a member of the Democratic Party.

[Sherman A1]

43. Yup

As predicted.

[Susan Calvin]

48. Thank you. nt

[George II]

16. If he does he'll be thrown out of office, they're illegal.

[KPN]

21. WTF?

[leftofcool]

51. He sure didn't like it when Hillary made money as a private citizen

But of course, it's okay if he does.

[ProfessorPlum]

60. by raking in money from cush gigs, talking to Wall Street

that's a sight different than selling books

[betsuni]

63. It is illegal for a sitting senator to give paid speeches and "gigs" (whatever that means).

Bernie can't do that. These people talk to Wall Street (Talks at Goldman Sachs): Joseph Altuzarra, fashion designer; Dr. Aya Abe, director of Japan's National Institute of Population and Social Security Research; Dan Abrams, ABC News; Andre Aeiman, author; David Adjage, architect.

I think they all get paid.

[stuffmatters]

5. "No Dem should level criticism @any Dem candidate that can't be walked back post nomination."

I agree with you 1000%.

[kag]

17. Yes.

That is my number one rule right now. Not always easy, but so far I think I've stuck to it.

[stuffmatters]

27. I'm trying hard too.We're no longer running just against the Repugs,but foreign powers & propaganda

aimed to divide and discourage our Big Tent from voting mightily together. We all know their strategy delivered them the EC win in 2016; seems just nutty to me to contribute in any way to that now so evident strategy.

[femmedem]

6. Thank you. We need to stand united against false or unfair attacks on any of our candidates.

Debating policy or electability is one thing; allowing unfounded, out-of-context or irrelevant smears to go unanswered is something else entirely, regardless of who we support in the primary.

[SWBTATTReg]

7. Each and everyone of us has our own story that could sell too. More power to each of us, if ...

we hit that magic button that brings in money for something we earned and did on our own. Don't we each deserve it? I wouldn't even know what to do if I ever were blessed to write a best seller...these don't pop up everyday. A best seller is a gem, and no one in truth can really predict a best seller. I bet out of every 100 new titles (or maybe even 1 or 2 in a 1000 new titles), only 1 or 2 of these new titles will become a 'best seller'.

I don't write books for a living, but I'm like a lot of us, who wish we could write something, but don't. We talk about it (and I even started, but that's about it, just started. I even have a minor outline of the book (first one believe it or not, haven't gone any further)).

[Mc Mike]

8. Amazing to watch the media find 'dis qualifiers', for ANY of our primary candidates,

while that overstuffed sack of orange cuck sits stinking up the White House.

[pnwmom]

9. Both Biden and Sanders have most of their wealth invested in their personal real estate.

Multiple homes that they don't rent out.

The Senate disclosure forms don't ask about personal homes -- not even second or third homes. It only asks for information about income producing properties. Therefore, those rankings of Congresspeople's wealth only show liquid wealth -- things like stock funds and bank accounts.

Some people choose to put more assets in liquid assets; some choose to put more in personal real estate. But the people who put most in real estate are going to appear to be "poorer" than they are.

Unlike some people on DU, I don't think it's shocking that two men in their late seventies who, along with their wives, have worked in professional jobs for decades, without any long periods of unemployment or bankruptcies, have managed to accumulate significant assets. If they can't manage their own assets, why should we trust them with the country's?

But I don't think either of them has been "poor" for a long, long time. Maybe they feel poor, compared to some of the much wealthier people in the Senate. But they aren't. Not in real life.

[louis c]

10. I nevber said Sanders was poor...

...I said he was the poorest Senator. There's a difference.

[pnwmom]

11. I would be more comfortable calling him one of the less wealthy Senators.

We STILL don't know what his ranking would be, because the Senate Disclosure forms leave out his substantial real estate holdings, and certain other retirement investments that a Senator might have.

[BlueFlorida]

15. Exactly this nt

[KPN]

22. That's fair.

Reasonableness is kinda rare around here when it comes to a Bernie. Nice to see it once in a while.

[Kentonio]

71. That's perfectly fair

No-one in the senate should be described as poor. That would be a disservice to the genuinely poor.

[pnwmom]

72. Thank you. And I expect Bernie would agree. n/t

[DRoseDARs]

12. Don't be naive, rational and reasonable thinking doesn't fly here...

Snark aside, he's the 12th poorest member of the Senate (423rd of the 115th session of Congress) (I looked up RollCall's 2018 research into reported wealth, obviously there are missing data since not everything is required to be reported, and they're working on their 2019 report on the 116th session slated for early 2020) and I absolutely agree that attacking him for having wealth somehow makes him a hypocrite is just silly and obnoxious at best. Of course his message is getting drowned out by this... from *our* side... to say nothing of the media or the right. And I'm in Camp Uncle Joe too, rather than Camp Creepy Uncle Joe. That noise can go too.

[UniteTheLeft]

19. you'd think we were all on the same side agaisnt some obvious fascist or somehting.....

hmmmm

[mountain grammy]

13. Well said, thank you.

[BlueFlorida]

14. I don't think he is authentic at all

and all his rhetoric is designed to usurp people's anger and frustration to get their support while offering freebies that he knows or should know can never be delivered.

He also has exposed his double standards now that he is raking in the money. It was not okay for Hillary to do it but now that he is doing it, it is perfectly fine.

He is divisive and egotistical - not a good listener. I read an article somewhere that says he is the left's Trump.

Remember that Vatican junket with a private plane where he took his whole extended family and laid in wait to ambush the pope in the morning when he was expressly told that the pope didn't wish to meet him?

[JI7]

23. and the Sanders Institute

[ProfessorPlum]

62. I read an article somewhere that says he is the left's Trump

well, then it must be true!

[BlueFlorida]

64. Here you go

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanders-has-emerged-as-the-donald-trump-of-the-left/2019/04/02/66a516f4-5576-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e18cdbfb997f

[artislife]

66. pffft. nt

[ProfessorPlum]

73. you missed the sarcasm

I read that same dumb article by the reprehensible Dana Milbank and thought it was a pile of complete garbage. For example, Sanders actually wants to help people and balance out the wealth gap, whereas Trump wants to hurt people and further increase the wealth gap.

Shame on you for suggesting they are in any way comparable. and shame on Milbank too.

[BlueFlorida]

75. What is your preferred cheese? nt

[lapucelle]

77. It wasn't a private plane. BS chartered a Delta 767 for the 24 hour whirlwind publicity tour.

https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.com/2016/04/17/bernie-sanders-served-dinner-charted-delta-767-meet-pope/

[ucrdem]

20. So basically he profits from bashing Democrats.

Which might explain why he kept that last campaign going for months after he'd been eliminated. No tears for this one. He won't be our candidate come hell or high water and he hasn't earned any special protection.

JMHO, YMMV!

[KPN]

25. How do? What did he say in his book that

constitutes bashing?

[ucrdem]

30. "I am proud of my campaign . . . taking on virtually the entire party establishment"

And all this time we thought he was taking on the GOP, not the Democratic party.



Elsewhere on the same page he claims that

In fact, my campaign received more votes from young people than Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s combined.

Anyone cheering for this is cheering for the damage he did to Clinton, because that's the only person he ran against in his glorious campaign.
............................
From: Bernie Sanders Guide To Political Revolution, Preface.

https://www.scribd.com/read/393389862/Bernie-Sanders-Guide-to-Political-Revolution

[LiberalLovinLug]

37. And Sanders is a 'bad machine' because of this?

He DID take on the party establishment. Did you read the leaked DNC emails? It was pretty clear who they wanted to win, and were prepared to get dirty if he ever got close.

And if he did get more votes from young people than either Trump or Clinton's campaign combined.....that should be seen as a challenge. Whining about it does no good. It should even be a point of embarrassment to the party establishment. Odd that you'd be bragging about it as if the mere mentioning of this amazing fact made your point.

And how dare any candidate ever suggest that the Democrats could do better. They've only been losing everywhere for over a decade, other than this last House win.

[billpolonsky]

42. Bill Maher had a great segment last night

He talked about how Democrats beat up their own candidates so when the primaries are over you have a "wounded" candidate running for president.

BTW I see Sanders comments as being critical not bashing.

There is a difference...

[Apple Fritter]

61. Pre-2016 this wasn't to the extreme "bashing" as we do now

Literally, I think this isn't about the candidate themselves (although it can devolve into that often) but how flawless their conviction and "change". I think there's a split in ideology in the democratic party. Of course the last candidate standing may be crippled or come out with just a few scrapes we have nooo idea. It has never been more imperative than now because of the Trumpisms that we choose someone who will actually win.I mean I wish they gave attention to the people who are running for senate- NOW THAT'S AWESOME!

[BlueFlorida]

76. No

Sanders was a sore loser.

After bashing Hillary as being a "corporate Democrat", "corrupt Democrat", "establishment Democrat", attacking TPP, making the Clinton foundation appear to be a vehicle for pay to play, after the Vatican stunt and ambushing Pope before his morning prayers, Sanders energized his supporters to have a "contested convention" and riled up their anger, making it appear that he lost unfairly.

They booed Democratic heroes like John Lewis. They bullied and booed Dolores Huerta. Sanders said nothing and was complicit by his inaction.

Then Sanders pretended to campaign for Hillary but promoted OR instead at Hillary's expense, demanding private jets everywhere.

I have heard from many Sanders supporters that their goal was to make Hillary lose so that Sanders will have one more shot. Thus the Sanders' campaign leadership went into high gear, saying nice things about Trump, denigrating Hillary and promoting staying home or voting for Jill Stein.

How do I know Sanders was complicit? He hired the same three back to his campaign leadership: Sirota, Gray and Turner. QED.

[KPN]

24. Thank you for your thoughtful and principled post.Sa

Sadly, some seem to have jammed their fingers in their ears as soon as they heard the first reasonable and objective thing you said.

[Duppers]

41. Truth! ☝

[JudyM]

69. +1.

[Evolve Dammit]

26. Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I agree with virtually all of it. We are to the point

of ridiculousness in tribal assaults (possibly bot-driven for all I know). When LGBT community says Mayor Pete isn't gay enough? Bernie has too much money? Will anything pass your "purity" test? Have Trump for another 4 years if you can't agree that whoever the Dems nominate is our candidate.

[wasupaloopa]

28. He is a multimillionaire, he won't produce his tax returns. If it were anyone but Bernie

he’d be roasted at the spit.

Is there anything wrong he can do?

[femmedem]

34. Non sequitar: the OP didn't say anything about his tax returns.

Nor did the OP say that Bernie is beyond criticism. The OP said that criticizing Bernie for doing well financially is of no merit.

I think we should not only avoid amplifying ridiculous criticisms like this--would we bash any other candidate for having earned several million dollars?--but also check ourselves to make sure we aren't developing such hardened dislike for any of our candidates that we would find ourselves reluctant to support them in the general election.

[Sherman A1]

45. Precisely

The OP was very easy to read and understand. One wonders why it was so difficult?

[wasupaloopa]

58. I said tax returns! Where the hell are they? Non sequitar?

Like I said can he do anything wrong? You want everyone elses tax returns. Why does he get a pass? That is an honest question!

[Power 2 the People]

29. Really well said Louis! You are a true blue Democrat!!

[jalan48]

31. It gives the anti-Bernie crowd something else to whine about.

[ucrdem]

33. Our official name is Democrats.

[jalan48]

36. I'm a Democrat and not part of that crowd.

[artislife]

68. Purity test.

I guess all those years of voting for the person with the D by their name means nothing because I chose the wrong candidate in the D primary last national election. Well, caucus actually. And boy, were they fun. That's gone, now that the WA party decided that they didn't want to fund them anymore. I considered myself to be a real party member because I would take the time--a few days, for long hours as we voted for our candidates and more importantly, for our state platform.

I feel sorry for you all who have never had the experience and will never have the experience. It was like this board. Lots of personal stakes, input and viewpoints ----but coming together in the end.

[pdsimdars]

32. They always find "ISSUES" about the ones they are afraid will take their money and power from them

[ucrdem]

35. I think it's fair to call the results of the last presidential election an issue.

YMMV.

[Miigwech]

38. E. Warren ... the smartest of em all

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

57. Perhaps, the smartest Democratic candidate ever!! Love Elizabeth!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Beartracks]

40. New rule: Do not criticize racism if you are white.

obviously.

Some would have us believe you can't criticize income inequality if you are a millionaire. Same kind of BS.

========

[UniteFightBack]

44. Who is saying that? I'm really tired of one or two people on cable news being portrayed as the MSM

please call out the individuals who are saying this.

[TheFarseer]

46. Agree

If folks were waiting for someone at the homeless shelter to start a run for the presidency on a platform of income inequality, it may not happen.

[Sherman A1]

47. The best thing to do with the MSM

and I am assuming you are discussing Cable is to turn them off and never look back.

Cable "News" is really just Infotainment. They brush up against journalism on occasion but mostly they are there to create enough drama to keep you watching filling airtime between ads for drugs we never knew we needed. Watch them for a half hour with the sound off and you will see what I mean.

It is really just 24/7 Breaking Noise. Turn them off and you will be much better informed.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

49. the MSM writ large is corporate and as far from Democratic Socialist as you can get.

The memory of Matt Lauer and his biased forum reverberates still throughout the media.

https://qz.com/1141065/matt-lauer-fired-from-nbc-news-lauers-unequal-treatment-of-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton-at-a-2016-presidential-forum/

[leftofcool]

50. Some of us thought it was sickening when he accused Hillary of making money

You know, all those book royalties and paid speeches as a private citizen?

[elder phd]

53. hm

well, a couple things here.

first, thx for making this obvious point, louis c.; thx. bernie did not write his book to make money, but to rally his supporters. it appears to have worked. if he were wanting to be a millionaire, he could have done that years ago, and his being so shy to make note of it is consistent with his very consistent history on so many other things.

second, i'm struck with the sports fan fervor displayed here, despite the claims to be on the same team. for those of you who want to diss bernie for not being dem enough for you, i'll just point out that his concerns with the party leadership have been well-documented beyond his observations, and - tho i love me some nancy in almost every single thing she does - the latest example of leadership failure, imho, is their shrieking silence on the omar threats. most candidates have been vocal and very supportive. (not biden, i'll note, sorry louis c.; also, imho, uncle joe risks a lot by missing the point that it matters only a bit that his intentions were "harmless," what matters is that they were not taken so. his joking about the topic after a weak apology video (words were good, video paltry) were not only unimpressive, they expose how stuck in his generation's mentality he is on these matters. and that is my own generation, i have several friends stuck in that same place. but being a woman, my perspective is very very different from theirs and joe's, clearly.)

third, back to bernie and the dem litmus test. i would submit that his concerns about the dem leadership over the years are well-taken, and we would be wise to heed them. tho no question the gap between dems and gop is huge, that does not alter the fact that the dems have been slip-sliding right since the DLC and bill clinton decided to get in bed with money. there was a logic to it, in that the gop was getting all the cash in an increasingly money-driven (read: media) campaign field, but it has tainted the party almost irreparably, and we really need to claw that back, from the inside out. bernie started that trend, among others (e.g., medicare for all, living wage, free college), and the public is polling in favor of all these things, soundly. whatever you might think of him, he deserves credit for pulling the party to its more people-centered roots.

there are several reasons bernie has refused to 'become' a dem since he entered the house in '91, not least among them is pretty simple: he sees no need to sit in the money phone cubicle for almost half his time in DC, begging for big cash. this is something that really sticks in my craw, that our tax dollars pay their salaries, and half their time they're begging for campaign bucks. which mostly ends up in the pockets of big media. think about that.

a bigger reason, tho, as he has expressed for many years, is he feels the dem party has lost its way, abandoning the FDR principles that are truly what made america great in the first place. on that count, i could not agree with him more profoundly. it will do us no good to try to stand up TO trump if we don't stand up FOR our most fundamental principles. the public at large is wise to all o' those lies, no matter whose mouth is spilling them.

remaining undecided myself until more data are in (trained scientist here), but sad to say, a lot of those data will include unnecessary and vicious bashing that is simply destructive, no matter what the source or where it's distributed. we all need to check ourselves; it's one thing to voice concerns and simple facts, and quite another to truck in snide slander and drive-by zingers. we owe it to our incredibly admirable and excitingly deep bench (wow; just wow, they're ALL awesome!! except schwartz to be mindful of every thought, opinion, and word. if we expect to remain unified through this, and if we expect our terrific candidates to be gracious and respectful toward one another in public - to show the trumpeters how it's done true american style - we damn well better start here in these private forums.

[louis c]

82. Let's discuss the Biden thing...

...the fact that the harmless touching (which each 'uncomfortable' complainer admitted) was not sexual in intent or taken as sexual by the complainers, is a very important point. and, second, the vice-president and office holder and or candidate since 1972, has about 6 complaints on the record after encountering tens of thousands of people. I have met people who don't won't to shake hands because of a fear of germs. I have met women who pull away from a harmless kiss on the cheek. I get it, some people are more protective of their immediate space. But not everyone. A vast majority of people in a political crowd enjoy the physical, harmless contact of the candidate they support. That's why the polling data demonstrates overwhelming acceptance of Biden's explanation on the subject.

A recent poll reported that 28% of Republicans wanted Biden to drop out of the Presidential race for these actions, yet 90% support Trump. If that doesn't demonstrate that this is localized to just folks, Republican or Democrat, who want to make something out of nothing, I don't know else does.

Take Lucy Flores. A Democratic candidate for Lt. Gov in Nevada. Photos showing her being touched by Sanders. She's running for a high public office, you think she's pulling away from a harmless kiss on the cheek from a union leader. You bet your ass she isn't. So, she kept this discomfort against Biden hidden for 5 years until she could spring it now. During that time she sat on the BOD of our Revolution. I was born at night, but not last night.


What my original post was about was real Democrats trying to not do Trump's dirty work for him during our primary. You, obviously, didn't get the message by giving credence to the half dozen non-sexual encounters of discomfort as a result of encountering Joe Biden out of the 10,000or so that he had. Luckily, the voting public, both in the Democratic primary and General election have put this bullshit in the trivial common, right where it belongs.

[LakeArenal]

54. Don't care what any politician has.

It’s all about what they can do for us.

Glad Bernie has $$$$. It will be nice to fall back on after Biden wins 2020

[Tom Rinaldo]

59. Well said louis. Thank you. I fully agree in both instances, and with your larger point n/t

[MadDAsHell]

65. "That we can't walk back after the nomination"

Uh, what? A criticism is a criticism. If it's not true it shouldn't be said. If it is true why would we be "walking it back after the nomination?"

[betsuni]

67. Criticisms of policy can be walked back, character attacks not really.

If it's not true it shouldn't be said, but sometimes campaigns go negative and sometimes candidates themselves believe things that aren't true.

Once you call someone corrupt, the lesser of two evils, responsible for the deindustrialization of the country and for high minority incarceration rates even though the person wasn't in office to vote on those issues, insinuating their charitable foundation might be money laundering, that they're unqualified for office when clearly they are, that they're only running because they're a woman or PoC and have no convictions, can't be trusted, isn't a real progressive, is immoral, racist or sexist, likes to grab women, etc., it's almost impossible to then say, never mind, please vote for that person.

[louis c]

74. Well said...

...you replied to a person who obviously doesn't know the difference between a disagreement on policy or a chance of winning, and a personal attack.

If we call an opposing candidate too old in 2019, we can't then say he's just right in 2020.

[Mike Niendorff]

70. AMEN!

K&R!


MDN

[Politicub]

78. Tax returns are a critical part of how candidates are perceived.

I am just learning this. I had the impression that Sanders had taken a vow of poverty or something based on his rhetoric and choice of cheap suits and questionable haircuts.

Now I know the carpet doesn’t match the drapes. And that’s okay. It makes more sense that he’s wealthy since he has a strong brand. He’s a successful author and celebrated speaker, and his brand multiplies his earnings potential.

I don’t begrudge him for that. If anything, I question myself and my belief that he wasn’t as well-off as he is. It has taken hard evidence, by way of his tax returns, to change my perspective.

Now I understand why releasing tax returns is so important. All artifacts of candidates are at least somewhat important. This is because we can compare what they say about themselves, what the media says about them, and the degree at which their opponents twist the truth about them.