Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- This Is Cardboard. Also Entirely Recycled, Water and Fireproof, and Dirt Cheap.
- Obamacare Architect Leaves White House for Pharmaceutical Industry Job
- A Time-Lapse Map of Every Nuclear Explosion Between 1945-1998
- The GOP's Big Budget Mumble
- Five Facts About America's Pathological Wealth Distribution
Popular content
Today's Top News
Sanders: GOPs 'Do Not Want Americans to Succeed'; Obama Should Steer Left
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Sunday that Republicans "do not want Americans to succeed" in laying out his case for energizing the liberal base to go to the polls in November.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on "Face the Nation," Sunday, Oct. 3, 2010. (Chris Usher/CBS) Sanders, a self-proclaimed
Democratic socialist who caucuses with Democrats, discussed President
Obama's disconnect with the liberal wing along with New Mexico Gov. Bill
Richardson (D) and Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) on CBS' "Face the
Nation" Sunday.
While Obama's accomplishment including healthcare reform have been "nothing to sneeze at," Sanders said, the middle class is shrinking while poverty increases and income gaps become wider.
"We have a very serious situation and I think there's a concern that the president hasn't seen that urgency," Sanders said, and "stood up for the American people the way we would like him to."
He said Obama needed to rally on a "progressive agenda to expand the middle class."
When pressed by host Bob Schieffer on his comments about Republicans, Sanders defended his words, saying that given the choice between political power and "initiatives to help the American people" that the GOP would choose power.
"The Republicans have said no, no, no," Sanders said. "They have been the party of no and obstructionism."
Richardson said it was more than just invigorating the liberal base, but about conservative and moderate Democrats as well, and he advised the various ideological wings to "stop complaining" and work together to win in November.
"All Democrats, we should stop firing at each other," Richardson said. "We've got enough people -- the Republicans -- firing at us."
Richardson said that while Obama "has tackled the major issues" and has "restored our standing internationally," he needed to "connect with voters emotionally."
"I think the president has done a much better job than people perceive, including the base," Rendell said.
"Ours is a complex message," Rendell added. "The Tea Party message is pretty simple and direct." Democrats should spend the next four weeks energizing the base and spreading the message that a Republican takeover would be "starkly bad for America."
"I think you're going to see more progressives coming out than you otherwise would have," Sanders said.
Rendell predicted that Democrats "definitely" will keep the Senate and have a chance at keeping the House.Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
72 Comments so far
Show AllWow.
I'm reminded why I jettisoned the Assimilated Press from my life in '01.
I thought AP stood for American Propaganda.
It does except it isn't "official". :)
Sanders is a rare spirited and bold speaker from the left. To be expected, then, when CBS does not show the video of him talking to Schieffer on its website, only a filtered interpretation of his visit, above.
I've listened to Senator Sanders, many times on Thom Hartmann's friday "brunch with Bernie", and in general like what he has to say. He has a good grasp on social, labor, and environmental issues.
However, (and this is a big however) Mr. Sanders, when it comes right down to it, plays nice with the current right of center, corporate sponsored, Democratic Leadership.
He has many times, defended the decision by Pelosi to take impeachment off of the table, and many times defended Obama's "looking forward, not backward", in relation to investigating the crimes of Bush. Of course, now that we've seen that Obama has indeed joined in, and heaped onto those crimes, Bernie's decision to constantly mirror the political tack of the current Democratic Leadership reveals his own capacity for hedging on Constitutional issues for the sake of playing the current political power game.
Boy would you make a great legislator? Ah, no. Knocking heads over every damn item, whether of major or minor importance, whether so divisive that obvious excuses for rank partisan hatred become real, well, for goodness sake, you do not understand anything about working in a legislative process. Now, if the democrats (and independent) did this we would have 2 parties of uber obstructionists. Just great.
Greg, you have heard of fighting for principles no? Just great.
I see, you're the consummate apologist for the current K-street owned and directed government.
I was simply pointing out in essence, that suckers like you, have been had.
Hue, thank you for bringing up the concept of fighting for principles. I had a conversation with another ignorant apologist who told me that she would have engaged in civil disobedience only if it didn't look extreme to her. That same lady told me that she had cordial talks with neoconservatives and made it look like they admitted to conceding without describing what it was they conceded to a "practical" thinker like her. Like Greg R, I think she has eaten too much GMO food to move out of "obedience" thinking.
Would that we had legislators of the caliber of ‘hue_sir’ and Jennifer Bedingfield.
The problem is that we DON'T have enough legislators willing to "knock heads" for the working and middle class in America. They spend so much time with well paid lobbyists and other corporate campaign contributors that the citizens in this country have become an afterthought. I also listened to Senator Sanders for years every Friday on the Thom Hartmann show and defended many of his positions which are usually good for "we the people". However, when he took the position that so-called health care reform which will be the biggest pay-off in history to the private health insurance industry AND which continues to allow a stranglehold on pharmaceutical costs by Big Pharma as somehow "good" for our country...that is when I stopped defending him. I'm still waiting to see if the day will come when Senator Sanders will fight for the "people" on principle and vote his principles first.
One thing that has become apparent is that our two party Congressional system doesn't work (for citizens) if one of the parties is a bully, the other rolls over and plays dead (especially when playing dead is an excuse to pass corporate friendly legislation), and neither party represents the interests of citizens first.
Actually, I also listen every Friday to Hartmann's 'brunch with Bernie,' and I'm not hearing the same 'play nice with right of center' Senator you are.
Sanders reluctantly, painfully has rationalized some of the democratic (corporate) initiatives, like health care reform. But he always, always qualifies this by saying that, for now, we might have to live with this but we can, and should, do better. He also has an extensive record of voting against many democratic initiatives.
Really, in any political environment Sanders would be a terrific senator, but considering this neo-liberal two-party system we have, I think he's a courageous hero. We should not be wasting our time bashing the man.
Sometimes we are forced to simply go with the best you can get and hope to improve it later. I am appalled at what happened in the health care fiasco, but in retrospect, maybe it was the best thing that was doable. It can be improved later as was the Canadian system. It was no where near what it is when first enacted, and it is a certainty that the rethugs will try to kill the pathetic outcome of this battle. It is a sure thing that the congress in it's next iteration and the presidency in two years will be either Democrap or Rethuglican. Which do you wish to live under? A Hobson's choice --- neither is good, but the idea of the Rethugs is nauseating and frightening. (Well maybe the Demos too, but probably a shade less so.)
"It can be improved later as was the Canadian system."
No it can't. It is unconstitutional to force people to buy from any corporation. The bill is worse than doing nothing and must be repealed.
The one thing that throws me off on Sanders is despite being a socialist minded pol, rare indeed, he never tires of supporting the Democrats on almost anything. His endorsement of Obama over Nader in 2008 despite the fact that Obama let his anti-socialist pro-disaster capitalist colors show contradicts Sanders as a socialist. Sanders's cave-in to mandatory-care where people are forced to buy shoddy insurance and government takes a completely hands off to approach to providing health care also contradicts Sanders as a socialist. I have a bad feeling that he may very well sink to "practical" level by the time he is up for reelection in 2012.
I don't know that he 'never tires' of supporting democrats, Jennifer. Perhaps I misread the man, but he's among the best we have and I do think that in another political environment, he'd be more flagrant about what he supports.
As to health care, I too was disappointed that he voted for the horrific bill, but believed his insistence that he will continue to fight for single-payer.
I guess I am reluctant to be too critical of Sanders because I believe he's an honest broker, caught up in the insanity of our system and trying to make the best of it, trying to be hopeful about it--something I could never do because I'm too cynical.
Diana, I hear you and like Sherrod Brown, Feingold, and Kucinich, he would be one of the very few pols worth keeping because I think that they will be left to think on principles when they legislate. Of course, society may have to bear some of the blame for not electing principled thinkers like them in the last 10 years of Congressional elections. I do apologize if I sounded a little too harsh on Sanders.
Don't apologize...I totally understand your skepticism. On a tangential note, I can hardly believe that Feingold--a true populist--is running second to a teapartier in the polls!
I continue to be stunned at how well-honed and effective the propaganda is. The most cynical part of me fears that clever distortion of reality, which succors in tens of millions, is essentially irreversible when the propagandists own all 3 branches of government along with the 4th Estate.
And it doesn't really matter what the people believe, or how many of them believe it. What frightened me most about the health care debate, for instance, was the flagrant, in-your-face defiance--by the democrats--of the peoples' desire for single-payer/expanded Medicare. And working hand-in-hand with the republicans, they were able to use the 'we had to compromise with the devil' defense to get a bill passed that satisfied the corporate masters. And a good deal of the public who had been demanding real reform, STILL buy into the excuse.
Jen ---- please take a deep breath and think for a minute ---- While I am an ardent admirer of Ralph Nader, his truth telling and and his principled stands, he is unelectable --- I wish it were not so, but it is. In a real and practical world, it is necessary to support the candidate who is electable who most nearly supports your position. Never mind our fantacies of what we would like. To do otherwise is to masturbate. Sad, but grounded in reality.
"Practical" is far more divorced from the real world than principled. Every "electable" pol is rarely close to the positions of what most Americans would support at heart. Speaking of fantasies, the only embarrassing fantasy thinking I have seen as far as elections are concerned is repeatedly electing pols on "practical" and "electable" criteria as far as electing Democrats is concerned while expecting a new result every time only to get that letdown feeling everytime and repeat ad nauseum. The more people concede like that, the worse our leadership gets and the more the Establishment can force Sanders to give up his principled thinking. The day the majority of the voters learn to vote on principle and courage over politics and cowardice will be the day our nation paves the way for an exit strategy out of SPECTACLE status.
It all depends somewhat on how one defines 'America' and 'succeed.'
Jesus, you are jaded, Rich. Sure, the politicians phrasing lays it on a little thick, but this is basically true. You can keep your one party conspiracy stuff. To me it's simplistic in the extreme.
Nah, Rich has got the fire, doesn't get distracted by bullshit and he knows what's right and what's wrong.
And seriously, how could any one in their right mind take what the government does calmly.
Their policies KILL, have KILLED and continue to KILL. Through war and social/economic policy.
And people want us to speak nicely.
Speaking nicely would be madness.
Btw, Sanders is not a democratic socialist ( whatever that is?) I doubt he's even a social democrat.
He is what he does and he toes the corporate line.
Good luck finding a majority of legislators who are better. Perhaps you suffer from lunacy, it's going around. It bothers me now and again.
"Good luck finding a majority of legislators who are better."
Why should that excuse the current legislators from getting worse?
"Perhaps you suffer from lunacy, it's going around. It bothers me now and again."
If you're gonna be insensitive like Obama but get bothered when election is nearer, I have bad news for you. Prepare for worse by 2012. You should be bothered by the fact that Democrats could have easily prevented voter dissatisfaction by moving to the left instead of center. It should also bother you that the same people you call irrelevant are suddenly so relevant when it's election time.
Geez, Rich, next you'll be reminding us that Sergeant Schultz from "Hogan's Heroes" was a feckless blithering idiot and a toady to boot. Or pointing out that Santa Claus isn't a real person!
Can't you see that you're making the little ones cry?
When watching, or reading reports of, sweet old geezers like Bob Schieffer and Bernie Sanders playing infotainwhore shuffleboard, the decent thing to do is smile and applaud-- golf claps, of course.
mr. sanders, don't waste your breath. the dem party has been a lost cause from the inception.
why don't you start a new progressive party?
THAT'S a question we could have been asking 35 years ago as the
Democratic Party began to be brought to a standstill by illegitimate
right wing power -- from the 1963 coup on JFK to the war in Vietnam.
From Watergate to the "October Surprise."
I'd include also what's looks like more than 40 years of election
steals by computer. The 2000 steal brought about by reversing the
new powers that the LARGE computers gave to the MSM beginning in 1965
to predict and call elections. Remember when MSM could only report
actual vote tallies?
Did we really expect that Sen. Bernie Sanders could or can do all of
this himself?
.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
"They have waged more filibusters than any time in the history of this country." Is this true? I think they may have THREATENED to filibuster, but not actually done so.
But what difference does that make? Sanders is totally full of shit on the rest of it, too.
"Sanders said that the President and the Democrats (with whom the Independent caucuses) have made "very significant accomplishments, which can't be dismissed: A health care reform, 30 million more people getting health insurance. The stimulus package which has changed national priorities, created and saved 2.3 to 3 million jobs. Financial reform. That's nothing to sneeze at." "
These are the disastrous "accomplishments" which show the true colors of every corporate-paid whore in Washington. I could go on, but like RichM I'm feeling a strong gag reflex.
It makes me want to puke to hear the status quo demons trying to run on “ the obstructionist repuks made us pass these lousy bills that do nothing for we the people”. The puppet masters are going to elect Obama in 2012 if they have to run Palen to do it. Progressives if there is such a thing better find a candidate and oust Obama in the 2012 primary. Elect a divider, make it whatever kind of war you want to call it. It is we against them if you want to win. You can not be the good guys if you do not define the bad guys.
Gov. Rendell actually stated, and apparently believes, that the Democrats "do not have it in our make-up, in our DNA to mislead the public." Rendell must have forgotten how so many Americans believed that Obama was, unlike Bush, going to be an antiwar president and had America's best interests in heart when he made sure that the Democrats' health care plan would provide relief and aid for the insurance companies instead of to the working class and poor in this country.
Despite Rendell's belief, the Democrats are indeed quite good in misleading the public. They just are not as obvious and overt about it as the Republicans are in lying to the American people.
Don't you just wish, just for ONCE a reporter would ask a guy like Sanders: "Well if Obama is such a decent guy, how did he kill so many people in his first two years over seas"?
The success of our staggering, enfeebled economy is being measured in both government and media by its ability to carry the morbidly obese, bloated corpse of high finance. In order for our economy to revive we must undertake three simple measures:
1. single payer health care
2. nationalize residential mortgage banking
3. nationalize retail banking
These measures would of themselves resurrect our production economy by driving away the beak wetters and their burdensome rentier charges.
when you don't represent people that are, rightfully, expecting you to do so, you have no choice but to blather incessantly in an attempt to obfuscate...
this is the current show, and it will run, just as is, until another takes over...
lie, lie, screw...repeat...
" I think in his heart the President is a very, very decent guy". Wow! That sure says it all Bernie. Looks like the consummate con man has you still conned. Maybe you meant to say that in his heart, he is a very, very deceitful guy!
sanders must be under some serious blackmail.
He's starting to seem like the nutty but loveable old uncle of the Senate. It's hard to believe he was once considered an actual socialist (not a "democratic socialist").
So tired of hearing about what a decent man Obama is in his heart of hearts. Decent is as decent does. If what Trumpka and Gerard and Sanders mean is that he feels somewhat conflicted about selling out the hourly working class workers of America, (and I think even that is doubtful,) how he behaves is what counts. Yes, he has provided bailout to save GM and protect auto workers, (perhaps a concession to the UAW) and yes he has put some tariffs on tires made in China (for the USW) so as Rahm has put it, those "f--king morons" should be grateful. Given how little and how calculatedly symbolic these gestures are it appears to me that Obama wants to look like he is sympathetic while not actually upsetting any corporate apple carts. If that is the case Obama is not a "decent man" and eventually those who are now defending him will be shown to have the same motivation as Obama. It's not the first time union leaders have sold out those they are supposed to represent. How often can Leo Gerard call Obama a decent man before his constituency throws him out? If I were Leo I would start to worry a little about that one.
The Democratic Party at large, including President Obama, has to openly and squarely face up to their culpability for the mess that we're presently in, having aligned themselves with the GOP for so long.
The GOP is, in fact, a domestic terrorist organization devoted to the destruction not only of our government, but of democracy itself.
...close, but overstated (close enough to the truth that I did enjoy the semi-outrageous spirit of your comment).
"I think gaining power is their major initiative. On the floor of the Senate, Bob, I've got to tell you, every single day it's 60 votes to pass legislation. That is unprecedented in American history."
That answer, from Senator Sanders, is why I don't take him all that serious.
He is one and the same with the current right of center Democratic Leadership's political posturing on this issue.
He knows full well, that the reason "every single day it's 60 votes to pass legislation", is because puppy dog Harry Reid chooses to afford the Republican party, and most importantly, the Conservative Democrats, the procedural filibuster, which effectively extends the power of the Republican minority, which aligns perfectly with the intent of the current Conservative Democratic Leadership in passing right of center legislation, while they can point the finger at those darn Republicans for keeping anything progressive from passing.
The duopoly at its most obvious.
If Oilbomber, really intended on progressive, non corporate centered legislation, then all of the political pressure would have been focused on the handful of Conservative Democrats in the Senate, as being the ones holding up more progressive legislation, while at the same time, forcing the Republicans and Democrats to actually be in the Senate Chamber while an actual filibuster proceeded. Then of course, the Republicans could actually be shown in real time, holding up things like the public option, etc. Once the filibuster had run its course, then 51 votes is all that is needed.
The reason why there have been a record number of "filibusters", is because that's exactly what the current right of center Democratic DLC Leadership wants, as service to their corporate sponsors.
The rest of the Democrats, play nice.
Bernie Sanders was also for the decision of the current Conservative Democratic Leadership, to take impeachment off of the table, and to "look forward, not backward" in regard to investigating the laundry list of crimes committed by the Bush Administration.
Bernie is right. Problem is that Obama and the DLC (D)s only want America to succeed if they get a cut of the action. Obama is not a lefty. When Bush/Cheney were in power the battle cry of the DLC (D)s was, 'Save some for us. You are not being fair. There will not be any left to steal when we are back in power'.
No one is representing "We the People" - remember, "taxation without representation." The two party system is broken. "We" voted for change and Obama/Reid have been using a 60-vote scam as cover for their corporate veiled wealth agenda. 60 votes needed vs. 50 votes is un-American and antidemocratic.
In 1215 AD the Magan Carta set the precedent that a simple majority ruled. Magna Carta item #49: "In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear. The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power."
Time to move on. I will not vote for a DLC/Corporate (D). I will vote (R).
At least you're a true idiot.
Yeah, why can't people like SJRyan just play along? Just keep voting for the Democrats man. Eventually they might do something progressive by accident. So the system is broken, so the game is rigged, so what if we live in a world that is undermining the biosystems that are necessary to sustain human life. As Ban Ki-moon, the UN Secretary General put it recently, "Too many people still fail to grasp the implications of this," he said. "We have all heard of the web of life. The way we live threatens to trap us in a web of death."
Don't worry, everything is going to work out just fine, if we can just elect more progressive Democrats. Those Republicans are mean, nasty guys who just continually obstruct the Democrat's efforts to solve all these dire problems we are facing.
Please. SJRyan has arrived at a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Continuing to vote for the lesser of two evils only facilitates the continuing shift toward greater and greater evil. Dysfunctional social systems are never abandoned until the destruction they create reaches a critical mass. We might be able to forestall the inevitable by a few years by continuing to elect Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and Democratic Presidents, but I find it far more persuasive to expect that a worsening situation under Dem control makes it that much more likely that Regressive Fascism will sweep into power to replace the "liberals". It's like that damn metaphor about the frog in the pot of heating water that keeps getting recycled by everyone from Al Gore to Glen Beck. SJRyan and others, like myself see a vote for the Republicans as perhaps the only hail mary play we've got left. Crank up the heat in a hurry by voting in more Republicans, just maybe the American people will begin to understand and they'll jump out of the damn pot. We are living the alternative. The Dems are busy undermining or ignoring every substantive issue they were elected to fight for, and even as they throw the fight, they alienate and disenchant the working class.
And it's not as though we are going to elect a whole slate of Green Party candidates this fall (would that voters in my state even had the option).
Give it up GregR, you sound just like the Jews who stayed in the Ghettos, followed the rules, always insisting that if they just did what the Nazis expected of them, things wouldn't get worse.
There is a parallel in Roman history. Polybius wrote about it in "Rise of the Roman Empire." When Rome was still a Republic, things were bad and the people were on the edge of revolt. The wealthy owned all the land and had all the money. Land was priced out of the reach of the people - these were agrarian times. The wealthy brought in foreign slaves to work their properties. Romans had no work, no future and no way to feed their families. To avoid a revolt the wealthy senators elected a pacifier to lead Rome who blew smoke up the peoples butts - two chickens in every pot. When tempers cooled down it was back to business as usual.
Obama is the modern version of that pacifier. Obama has taken the steam out of the progressive movement. All the momentum "We" gained electing Obama has been lost. Thanks Obama!
It might help if you read more Roman history. You might discover that a number of ego maniacs kept civil wars and conflicts fucking up the system so badly that things simply fell apart (not that I know all that much about it myself).
I just happen to be an expert on Roman history and you are not. To further my story, what brought things to a head in Rome was that the people no longer had a stake in the Republic. When it was again time to pick up swords and march off to foreign lands to defend the wealth of others the people said, 'Hell no "We" won't go.' Sound familiar?
Are you familiar with Adrian Goldsworthy's 'How Rome Fell?' His ideas are quite different than yours.
Rome fell twice. First the republic fell then hundreds of years later the empire fell.
Considering a good case could be made that the Republic's last gasp was arguably as late as November 1963, tho a case could be made that it happened when Lincoln violated the Constitution by introducing the concept of "Executive Orders".
(Please don't get me wrong here, but there is a LOT of validity to the predominately southern claim that the U.S. Civil war was about state's rights, not slavery.)
Sometimes a very bad precedent can be set with the noblest of intentions, or perhaps cover, depending on your historical perspective.
I wonder how much time we have left till the Empire falls. Empires always fall.
Will we be prepared enough to make sure that something even worse takes it's place?