As you’ve probably seen in a few news outlets, Bernie Sanders and Tom Perez held a rally for Omaha Mayoral candidate Heath Mello this week. Mello is a Democrat and has held elective office in Nebraska before and he has a fairly retrograde position on abortion. A claimed 100% rating from Nebraska Planned Parenthood was wrong. NARAL has seen fit to make sure that the DNC and Bernie Sanders get that whatever populism the is being embraced needs to include women too.
I am stunned that a so-called progressive finds common cause with someone who can’t support the economic freedom of women, progressive or not. And I am stunned that Tom Perez is so desperate for progressive credibility that he would let DNC resources get used to endorse this guy. (although Perez did eventually get a Sanders endorsement for Ossoff out of the deal.) But mostly this points out the real progressive failure with Bernie Sanders here. While his crew are busily pointing to him as a real progressive, and judge Democrats by this so-called standard of purity, they are quick to ignore holding Sanders to any standard whatsoever.
I’m OK with anti-abortion Democrats, as long as they are not working at undermining the rights of women to determine their own futures. But I am not OK with endorsements of a so-called populist who would leave women behind. Or at least leave you behind if you find yourself pregnant. It’s like endorsing a white supremacist candidate who has a strong populist message. The DNC wouldn’t do this, so why endorse someone who would leave women behind too? Or perhaps this is what progressives want us to know — they get to decide what the purity standards are and if you are outside of their group, you are on your own.
Which isn’t exactly a Democratic message, right? So why are we relying on someone who clearly isn’t interested in raising all of our boats to define what progressivism is? I’m not interested in a progressive politics that leaves some of us behind. So is this is how Bernie is defining being a progressive, then he can go fuck himself.
Bernie has made it as clear as day that his progressivism only extends to economic issues. Equal rights, Civil rights, Reproductive rights all take a back seat. Thus, he is not a true progressive. And he is not a Democrat. It is long past time liberals and progressives stop following this Curmudgeon Charlatan.
I remember it like yesterday how everyone at the bernie rally cheered when he said that he hates all women and poc and he only wants to give free healthcare to white male bernie bros
Are you even a real person?
Opinions like these are why Donald Trump is President. The arrogance of centerists not seeing the problem
If defending abortion rights makes you a centrist, then I am in. The problem with your opinion is that it is willing to give up on 50 % of the people willing to support you in order to basically support Bernie. you are entitled to your cult, but you need to STFU about other people’s progressivism — other people who won’t give up the core rights of others to get to their goals. It is nothing but annoying to listen to people who will apply their purity tests to you, but give Sanders a wide berth on even basic Democratic principles.
If you were progressive you would have been talking up the true progressive presidential candidate, Jill Stein.
The same Jill Stein who had dinner with Putin and Michael Flynn? The same Jill Stein who gave comfort to the anti-vaxxers? Sheesh, give me a break.
Being a dinner guest of the head of state of Russia, a nation with whom we are formally at peace, that’s just awwwwful !!!
And I don’t recall any of you ever objecting to Hillary or Barack, ever being in the presence of military people.
And when did Jill Stein ever say vaccines caused autism ?
When will you Clintonites get over yourselves and realize lip service liberals like her are why Trump is POTUS.
Weak. We may be at peace with Russia, but the Russians are not our ally like the Brits are. If it is suspect for Flynn to be at that table, it is just as suspect that Stein is at that table. The objection isn’t about military people, if you’d be so kind as to read. And I never made the claim you made on Stein.
The thing that needs to happen is to stop justifying behavior for your “progressive” friends that you wouldn’t tolerate from Republicans.
What is “suspect” about anyone being a dinner guest of President Putin ? If it was Hillary or Barack at the table, you’d say it was nothing out of the ordinary.
If Hillary or Barack were at a table with Putin, it would have been because their jobs required it. This is now just silliness.
me: a liberal who is literally always ready to compromise on any of my values for any member of my party and will defend my decision to the left by screaming about purity tests
also me: bernie is 100% not and will never be a democrat but also him joining the DNC as they stump for a DNC-endorsed candidate is literally violence because the candidate doesn’t pass my strict definition of “progressive”
There is no economic justice for women without reproductive rights. It’s that simple.
In order to defeat the fascism we currently face, we Democrats are going to have to unite those whose priority are social justice policies (liberals) and those whose priority are economic justice policies (progressives), support one another and vanquish the public evil we face. This has to include addressing the current fragmentation of the myriad of groups outside the party addressing many left of center policies. Banding together, including their funds to vanquish this assault on what is left of our democracy is a practical necessity if we are to be successful.
Frankly I don’t think that there is as much fragmentation as is reported. My only point here is that compromising the civil rights of one group of us is not furthering the economic justice concerns of all of us. Period. And if Bernie thinks this is an OK negotiating posture, then he needs to Sit Down.
Obviously you’re right and this Mello guy is a total piece of shit. But I have two questions for you:
One, why is it okay to demand all Democratic candidates are pro-choice but it isn’t okay to demand that they are in favor of (for example) single-payer, when 28 million people are uninsured, and universal health care would have a noticeable and immediate impact ESPECIALLY on women and people of color. Is it only okay to have a “purity test” on reproductive health issues?
Two, why were you not trashing Hillary for picking Tim Kaine as her running mate when the man ran as a “conservative on social issues,” including abortion, in Virginia, and backed a mandatory transvaginal ultrasound bill in 2008? For that matter, why is the brunt of your anger directed at Bernie, when Mello is endorsed by the entire Democratic party establishment?
If you want to convince me this is about your principles and not just because you’ve decided you don’t like Bernie, then it would be nice to have at least a little consistency.
It’s about consistency in principles. Bernie set the bar, and the debate between who was a “true progressive” began. That’s fine. I get it. What I don’t get is giving Bernie a pass – never given to any other politician – for breaking his own standards.
That’s the point here.
One of the main criticisms I received last year was that I supported a candidate I didn’t 100% agree with on every policy. That got me labeled as a pragmatist (among other things!). Again, fine. I get it.
Guess we’re all pragmatists now.
Would it were so as I’m a big fan of doing what works, working as a manager always seems to lead you to this conclusion.
The pragmaDems lost all 3 branches of the Federal government plus most of the state legislatures and governorships.
Now, how is that pragmatic ???
“It’s about consistency in principles. Bernie set the bar,…” – Pandora
…and Clinton did not. Voters took note of that in November.
I agree. Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, who was also at this rally, should resign for endorsing this candidate.
Standards should apply to everyone – especially if you’re the one setting them.
I get that a Massachusetts progressive won’t fly in Nebraska (just like a $15 minimum wage, gun laws, etc. wouldn’t fly everywhere). I get we have to compromise and be pragmatic. I just didn’t realize how many new members would join that way of thinking. 🙂
Tom Perez is the head of the DNC. It is his job to support Democratic candidates that get past a primary.
Bernie has been railing against the establishment for compromising their principles and apparently he is as establishment as the rest of us.
Hilarious. The head of the dem party stumps for an anti-choice candidate, but you lot blame a person passed over for leadership.
This is why GOP will expand it’s hold in 2018.
I would point out that the Carney-wing of the Dem party has ALWAYS characterized Sanders as anti-woman. This is just him being consistently anti-choice like he has always been. It is Perez who has compromised the values of the DNC. Get a new line.
When you go out of your way to endorse the anti-choice candidate — when you don’t have to — you are antiwoman. What’s really hilarious are all of the so-called “principled” people giving up other people’s rights just because Bernie told them that was OK.
Which is exactly why Perez should step down. It’s beyond hilarious how clear your hypocrisy is. Keep hating Sanders. No one cares. But the fact you completely ignore the rest of the DNC (something Sanders barely is) in this is Foxian level of analysis.
I’m not invested in the DNC or Tom Perez, and I’m not sure why this has become the “progressive” hill to die on. Then again, I thought focusing on the D platform during the convention was silly and a complete waste of time and energy. So, I’m fine with Perez going. Now, can we discuss the matter at hand.
Cory Booker became the enemy due to his stance on pharmaceuticals. His other positions didn’t matter. That became a deal breaker. Fine. I guess I’m wondering why this anti-choice issue isn’t addressed the same way? If one or two issues render Booker unacceptable then why doesn’t this standard apply to all politicians? Is it that some issues matter more than others? I’m really trying to understand the bar set. Notice: I did not attack any one. I’m trying to figure out where the line is drawn – because I understand compromise and not getting the perfect candidate/elected official.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/
That article is very interesting. While it does point out Mello’s anti-choice votes, It also highlights a more recent and more progressive voting record. It shows someone who has come around. The attack piece on Mello… and of course, by extension Sanders, is cherry picked.
Cherry picking also applies to how you’ve addressed this topic. Please tell me why some politicians get a pass on issues while others don’t. Hillary got slammed for the super-predator comment while Bernie voted for the actual bill. For the life of me I don’t understand why both weren’t held accountable.
Where exactly is the line drawn between progressive issues and non-progressive issues? Is it disqualifying to endorse a candidate for supporting pharmaceutical companies but not for reproductive rights? Help me out here. What issues are okay and what issues are not?
I don’t know. I personally wasn’t too upset about the super predator comment, other than the fact it was an unfortunate gaffe that was made 20 years ago in a different time. Same with the “we’re going to put a lot of coal miners out of business”…. that comment was for people on the east coast in safe blue states… I knew what she meant, but it was unfairly used against her.
For me, who speaks for no one but myself, the only thing that matters is rescuing this dying beast we call our nation from republicans. I happen to think we can only do it by doing away with the democratic party that lost the election… seemingly on purpose, if you read Shattered. I’m not just going after Clinton here. She was only the candidate. It was political malpractice on the part of the entire ruling class of the party. If the take away is “ok fine, lets be racist” you’re not listening. You can make midwestern white people feel talked-to without being racist. Obama did it, Sanders did it. Clinton and the DNC did not. If Mello was still voting as an anti-choicer, id agree with much of this assessment, but he seems more like a Biden Dem to me.
Nobody, including Cory Booker himself, would ever describe Cory Booker as a “progressive.” He is one of the most aggressively pro-school choice and charter schools members of either house of Congress, and that goes as far as supporting a voucher system. I know this part isn’t important to people like you but he is also incredibly close with donors from large corporations (including pharma) and wall street, and that actually does matter to some voters.
I think the premise of the question you are asking is disingenuous. Lots of Bernie supporters were unhappy that he endorsed Mello (and as Ben pointed out, the attacks on him being anti-choice were largely false). But it is:
Probably okay to hold a mayoral candidate from Nebraska to a different standard than someone in Congress or running from the presidency. For example, I don’t give a shit if a county council member in Montana supports single payer because it is completely irrelevant. Once again, EVEN THOUGH MELLO ISN’T REALLY THE ANTI-CHOICE DEMON HE HAS BEEN MADE OUT TO BE, the mayor job he is running for has no effect on reproductive health law
Perfectly fair to look at someone’s entire career and the statements they’ve made and bills they’ve supported and determine whether or not they are worthy of your support from your ideological corner.
Democrats like you need to get over this idea that progressive economic measures are somehow meaningless aesthetic changes that don’t actually affect anyone’s lives. You were angry about the GOP trying to take health care away from 24 million people, so why aren’t you angry that Obamacare leaves 28 million people uninsured? Isn’t that an equally reactionary position to have? None of those people can afford an abortion even if they wanted one. Lots of Democrats with 100% ratings from Planned Parenthood are bootlickers for “innovative” companies like Uber, that get away with paying their employees pennies and not offering benefits (like reproductive health coverage!) by taking advantage of the fact that Democrats have allowed unions to wither and die and wages have stagnated for 30 years.
No, a $15/hr minimum wage will not solve racism and sexism. But it will have a disproportionately large effect on women and people of color, many of whom are making half of that right now. All of these policies will. Not only that, but they poll well enough with the American people that if Democrats ran on them they might actually WIN SOMETHING FOR ONCE. And no, by “run on them” I do not mean not also run on policies of inclusion including fighting racism and sexism, reforming the criminal justice system, ending the drug war and protecting reproductive health and women’s economic rights. You can do both, and in fact you have to.
You might think that your pragmatism and love of compromise is principled and smart. But really it’s helped lead the Democratic party into the biggest hole it’s ever been in. And beyond that, it means that even if Democrats fight to make abortion safe and legal, they still support a whole host of policies that make it a moot point because people can’t afford to have one if they need to, or they don’t have time because they work 3 jobs, or they never got comprehensive sex education because they went to a corporate-funded charter school that didn’t offer it (or just because their neighborhood school was under-funded and they grew up in destitute poverty). Or a combination of any number of those factors or more.
No, I think pragmatism/compromise moves the ball down the field. I would love a $15 minimum wage, single payer, etc.. My question is how do we get there?
You say, “You were angry about the GOP trying to take health care away from 24 million people, so why aren’t you angry that Obamacare leaves 28 million people uninsured? Isn’t that an equally reactionary position to have?”
No, it’s not reactionary. The reason people are protesting in the streets/showing up at town halls to save the ACA is because we moved the ball down the field. If we had not passed the ACA more people would be uninsured today and all the things people now take for granted (preexisting conditions covered, etc.) wouldn’t even be open to debate – because they wouldn’t exist. The main accomplishment of the ACA was it changed the American people’s mindset about what health insurance is and what it should cover.
It sounds like you’re saying that if we don’t get a $15 minimum wage then we’re better off with no increase; if we don’t get single payer then we should have stuck with the old system. I disagree with that. The people left uninsured under the ACA have a far greater chance of getting insurance because the ACA exists.
Of course I don’t think progress is bad. But there hasn’t been even one serious major-party mainstream advocate for actual social democratic policies (besides Bernie) in the last 30 years. If there was an actual push for Medicare For All that resulted in a compromise that was the ACA I might feel differently, but nobody started negotiating from that point. What we have are a lot of Democratic party elected officials and “strategists” that like to tell everyone social democratic policies are unsubstantive and unrealistic, when really they’d be a whole lot closer to actually happening if anyone would advocate for them even a little bit. I mean Hillary even had to negotiate the $15 minimum wage to a $12 minimum wage in her platform. What the fuck is that?
Incremental progress is meaningless unless you’re starting from a position with a clearly defined policy goal, but for most of our elected officials, incremental progress IS the goal. That’s the problem.
“But there hasn’t been even one serious major-party mainstream advocate for actual social democratic policies (besides Bernie) in the last 30 years.”
I’d counter that claim with John Edwards. (And yeah, that kills me, but it’s true.)
Interesting no one has admitted that the claims of Mello being anti-choice were outdated at best. He either realized his personal beliefs on abortion had no place in public policy… like Joe Biden…. or changed his mind. Either way, those out dated facts were seized upon to target Bernie Sanders (in this post at least)…. with the same false line of attack that he is a sexist and possibly anti-choice. ….and establishment-loving dems wonder why Berniecrats will never roll over. I suspect the people who don’t understand that economic equality IS social equality are affluent upper middle-class… probably older gen-Xers and Boomers. They don’t understand how corporicrat policies have harmed women and POC just as much as bible-thumper policies by preventing almost 2 entire generations from gaining a foot hold. You continue to let the battle be about what the Right wing wants it to be about. They WANT the fight to be about abortion and “social issues”.
He has a voting record.
And this post is about why it is OK for Sanders to be for incremental progress — especially when other people’s rights are at stake — but everyone else making the same calculation is a sellout.
but you don’t seem to care about the recent voting record. Please figure out what you’re upset about.
Or at least have the guts to flat out say Sanders is a sexist. None of this cowardly hinting.
I think the calculation that attacking the most popular politician in the country baselessly and out of spite (because the candidate you backed lost the election on purpose) is a GREAT way to win back the house next year.
I think it’s motivation, one of Booker’s largest donors is Big Pharm and one of Bernie’s is not in fact a pro-lifer. Money motivates corporate politicians. If you have a view thats not motivated by profit and legitimate than it is your actual stance. And Bernie has 100% rating from PP so he is obviously not anti womens’ rights. There has obviously been a war going on over in this blog over Bernie for a long time hence Blue DE right?
This is my only question here:
Not sure why you need to ignore such a plain question. Most of the people here know you well enough to know that when you go on an extended, off-topic wank you’ve pretty much lost the thread.
The question in the blockquotes is still there for you to answer. Or say that you can’t. That’s all that’s available for discussion.
The premise of your question is flawed. First of all, Mello’s position on abortion was misrepresented, so it is at least as inaccurate to say that Bernie backed an anti-choice candidate as it is to say that Hillary picked an anti-choice running mate. Second of all, many Bernie supporters and other people on the left were unhappy to hear that he had gone along with a DNC endorsement of this candidate (at least when they thought that the candidate was anti-choice), so there aren’t exactly voices out there saying it was okay. Third of all, to say that people’s rights are at stake when discussing reproductive health but not when we’re discussing other issues, including economic policies, is fundamentally wrong because it ignores the way that all of these policies have an effect on people’s freedom and ability to exercise their rights.
The controversy on the left side of this argument is that liberals have been berating Bernie for not compromising his values enough, and also for not backing enough local candidates. He is literally doing what liberals want him to do, but as soon as he did it there was an enormous backlash from the same small, vocal group of people. I have a hard time believing that it’s really about the substance of what he does rather than a small segment of the Democratic party that dislikes him for no other reason than his willingness to back policies that the useless “wonk” class considers taboo. Maybe it is fair to say that some Democrats have been unfairly criticized for some of their decisions by the left, but for the most part politicians earn criticism for not being “progressive” by making a series of decisions, votes, and public statements throughout their career. What is it about Bernie’s entire career that makes you think he’s remotely anti-choice when he has consistently refused to even allow leeway on reproductive health issues, even as more moderate Democrats have entertained the idea of putting some limits on abortion?
I have read you throughout this thread saying that Bernie has determined what progressive means, and it’s clear that you disagree with his definition. What would your definition of progressive include and what would it not include? It has to mean something.
That’s my question. Since when is incremental progress okay?
This is an act of hypocrisy by the DNC. Also by Sanders…. (who once said women fantasize about rape and suggested shipping nuclear waste to poor Latino communities). He isn’t the messiah. Incremental change means making deals. I, personally, speaking for myself and no one else…. am for incremental change. As long as you don’t start off the negotiating with a compromise.
Mello has clearly put aside his anti-woman feelings (he has said he wont use the mayorship to restrict rights) in a deal to get DNC support to win a race in a deep red state.
And as a final answer to this question, I will repeat what I said above. Incremental progress is only meaningful if it is measured progress towards a stated policy goal. Bernie (and to move beyond individual personalities, the left as a whole) has aspirational stated policy goals in all areas, including civil rights and social justice. Any policy move he makes is one that is directly in pursuit of those goals. The people that get called “sellouts” do not share these goals. Rather, their goal is only to make incremental progress, and sometimes that progress is actually a detriment towards reaching more comprehensive policy solutions. I do not have a problem with compromise as long as I know that the result of the compromise is actually getting me closer towards what I ultimately want. Compromise for the sake of compromise, on the other hand, is bad.
And this ^^^^^ is a complete load of bull. It’s OK because I agree with Bernie, but no OK for others because I don’t agree with them. Sheesh.
I literally said that many people on the left were not happy about his decision to endorse this candidate. And I never said I was a guy.
Is anyone noticing how many words these guys are using to avoid a pretty simple question? Noticing how hard they are working from deflecting from the basic issue at hand? It’s like talking to a Fox News viewer — they can’t manage any thinking outside of the talking points they are fed.
And Mello’s position on abortion is not misrepresented. He has a voting record. Which I linked a partial record. And Planned Parenthood of NE has a definite position, which I linked to. He has never been endorsed by PP, but has been endorsed by Nebraska Right to Life.
So you can take the hint that you are not going to derail this conversation. Answer my question or get gone.
Im pointing out the basic lie at the beginning of this post. Your entire argument is based on an alt-fact. you can talk about the “guys ignoring your point” all you want, but it is a pathetic tactic. We can have all the discussions you want about incremental progress, but only after you start being honest.
Pandora… who, exactly, are you asking if incremental progress is ok? Surely you dont lump entire groups of people together hoping for a monolithic position…….
I’ll answer for myself.. In the hopes that issues I have with this post can be discussed in a respectful way snort
.. It depends.
If Mello was actually taking an anti-choice stance as a part of his current platform… then no, That isnt something that should be yielded on. It is disqualifying.
That is what I think you want to hear AND what I happen to honestly believe.
But. That. Isnt. The. Case. Here.
Im not derailing anything, BTW, cassandra. Other people get to ask questions too, if you cant or wont answer them, no need to lash out.
You can’t ask questions as a way of avoiding the one I asked. The one that so threatens you that you have to spin up all of this shucking and jiving to avoid.
And Mello’s anti-abortion stance isn’t the topic here. The topic is why endorsing this guy with the anti-abortion stance doesn’t count as being a “sellout” — with all of the usual rending of garments and outrage that you guys do?
you and your questions are the least threatening things on Earth. get over yourself.
For the same reason nobody cared about Kane’s not only stance but actions against reproductive rights. Only he was actually going to be the VP not a mayor from NE???? I’m just guessing thats all (sarcasm yes). He wasn’t stumping for someone else but himself. I remembered than when pointing that out being told to “sit down” as well hmmm. i think we all just want it our own way.
Because Tim Kaine has a voting record. And his voting record while in the Senate is 100% pro choice so far. And his voting record in VA certainly evolved.
It won’t do to pretend that we can’t read the record. right?
Are you reading the words though cause if you were you might notice that we’re telling your that your “simple” question is actually way more complicated and nuanced than you’re making it out to be
Are you reading my question? I do have the Queens English and it is that simple.
Unless, of course, you are a Bernie supporter who badly needs a way to justify not looking like a hypocrite here.
Your question is why can Bernie Sanders do something that isn’t ostensibly progressive and not get criticized for it. The answer is he did get criticized. What else do you want?
I’ve noticed you haven’t given any examples of the left taking something like an endorsement of a minor mayoral candidate in a red state to vilify a member of Congress with an almost flawlessly progressive legislative record. Is that because that hasn’t actually happened and your entire conception of the left is a group of straw men in your dense lib brain?
Well at last you can engage on something here. Although in every conversation I have seen and been a part of, it is Bernie’s supporters who are –well–supporting him. Like you have here. He got criticized by people like me which is why we are having this conversation.
And your second part is insensible — probably because you are reaching for a “both sides do it” when that isn’t applicable here. Bernie supporters want us to know that he is the most pure of all progressives. Yet, this ur-progressive endorsed — for a primary where there was one other Dem candidate–an anti-choice candidate. He can make whatever endorsements he wants, certainly. But if he is not making the perfect progressive choice, then y’all need to get used to hearing words like sellout thrown around. Because there is NOTHING flawless in endorsing an anti-choice primary candidate. Nothing.
Your biggest mistake here is your belief in the dynamic that everyone to the left of you identifies as a “Bernie supporter.” Yeah, Bernie is great for a lot of reasons but the left exists independently of him. I’m a socialist. There are social democrats. There are Marxist-Leninists. There are anarchists. There are people who just identify as progressives. Many of these people are also Democrats, myself included.
Bernie is important because he was the first mainstream politician in a long time to break through voicing the policies and priorities of the left, and that includes economic, civil, and social justice. I stand by my statement that he has an almost flawlessly progressive legislative record based on votes, sponsors and co-sponsors compared to most Democrats. And, you’re STILL ignoring the fact that you were very much not angry about your presidential ticket, both of whom are demonstrably more anti-choice than Bernie (and ESPECIALLY Tim Kaine). And, if you look at polling data from the primaries you’ll see that the average person who voted for Bernie was significantly to the left of the average Hillary voter on economic issues yes, but also on issues of race and gender, including reproductive rights.
Bernie was the first real candidate of his kind in this era of American politics. He was successful in shifting the conversation on a lot of issues, which is why there is currently a single-payer bill in the House with 100 co-sponsors, why Governor Cuomo passed an (admittedly very flawed) free college tuition law in New York, and why Hillary’s campaign agreed to stop fundraising from private prison companies, among other things. People energized by Bernie in the primary have been a huge part of activism since then, and they have been VERY visible in Delaware Democratic politics. Speaking from experience, the Bernie folk volunteer a lot more than the Hillary folk do. But when all is said and done, the left is going to move beyond being identified with “Bernie,” but we are all going to have the same critiques of the political “establishment” that make people like you so irrationally angry. Get used to it.
Your biggest mistake here is your belief in the dynamic that everyone to the left of you identifies as a “Bernie supporter.”
I’ve made no such claim. So stop trying to make stuff up in order to get your Bernie cheerleader on. If you can answer the question, then answer it. Everything else is just you trying to rationalize the hypocrisy.
Everyone here posting from the left has answered your asinine question multiple times. We don’t support anti-choice candidates. Bernie isn’t a saint, nobody thinks he’s perfect and nobody is saying that he is the best example of a progressive that could possibly exist. Nobody’s fucking saying that. No one. He’s a generally good progressive politician that says stuff a lot of people agree with a lot of the time. That’s it. He doesn’t speak for the left as a unit, and you are 100% saying that everyone on the left is a Bernie supporter, full-stop. Just because Bernie does something you or an actual leftist doesn’t like doesn’t mean the whole left is doing it. Stop making up facts to fit your deranged lib narrative.
I still don’t even understand what the hypocrisy here is on the left??? How is it even remotely possible that you can explain away Tim Kaine voting for the same kind of ultrasound bill that Mello was falsely accused of supporting and then turn around and accuse someone else of hypocrisy?
It’s ridiculous that someone whose entire ideology has been so completely rejected and stomped on by the American people could be so fucking smug
You don’t even know what my ideology is. It is a thing you’ve made up just so you can continue to lecture me about how popular Bernie is. And there’s no point in being mad at me for pointing out the hypocrisy. If you weren’t so busy cheerleading, you might have had a chance to address the idea of Bernie selling out half of us on this bullshit race.
You know what, I’ve come to my senses and you’re right. It doesn’t matter that most of the stuff about Mello being anti-choice is actually wrong, he’s anti-choice anyway because that’s how I feel. It also doesn’t matter that I didn’t care when other Democrats were actually anti-choice, cause they’re allowed to be terrible because I said so. I can see now that there isn’t an ideological left that cares about actual policy, they all just love Bernie and hate women. In fact, there isn’t a position to the left of or even critical of Bernie’s positions, because he is the ultimate progressive that everyone should be judged by (literally everyone is saying this, and it isn’t a completely made up straw-man anti-fact that I’m using to try demonstrate my moral superiority). Yeah and when people say literally anything I disagree with? They’re just cheerleading Bernie. Check-mate bernie bros.
Does your teacher know you aren’t paying attention in class? Because if you can’t read a basic voting record, you aren’t even in this game.
Yes I also read voting records and choose to ignore anything anti-choice by anyone that isn’t Bernie Sanders, which is why I agree with you and think you are right
Mello’s “anti-abortion stance” is the same as Tim Kaine’s, and to the left of Bob Casey’s. And y’all went bonkers in anger at Kaine joining the ticket. Or am I recalling that incorrectly?
Except… I was on record saying that I didn’t need to support everything about a candidate. That’s the point here. The 2016 primary turned into a battle of who was really a progressive. Those who could support a candidate who they agreed with 80% of the time were labeled as not really progressive. That 20% was a clear dividing line.
That’s not the issue. The issue is that Bernie is being held to a different standard than Kaine was.
The fight isn’t over social issues. It’s over the fact that a lot of Democratic politicians are progressive on social issues but like to gloss over economic equality issues. The list of examples overlaps pretty extensively with the list of Democratic office-holders in Delaware.
The fight isn’t with you. It’s with your defense of people who don’t deserve defending. The John Carneys of the world (and the Joe Bidens, the Clintons, etc. ad infinitum) have a very nice gig going — they fight for social issues and cave on economic ones, thereby perpetuating an economic system in which most of the benefits go to a very small — and very white and very male — group of people.
You will never achieve social equality as long as those in power retain control of the money, because that’s the source of their power.
Winning on social justice issues has NOT brought about economic justice. I have no way of knowing if winning on economic issues would further social justice, but if women made just as much money as men — and you’ll notice the continued fight against that by otherwise socially-conscious corporations — they’d eventually have as much power.
THAT is why they want to keep you chained to your reproductive system. IT’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!
“The issue is that Bernie is being held to a different standard than Kaine was.”
That is not the issue here. The issue is holding Bernie to the standards he set. That’s it. I support abortion, but you can bet I’ll call out a “family values” Republican for paying for his mistress’ abortion. That’s hypocrisy – and that’s what we’re talking about.
Bernie and some (not all, by far) of his supporters were quick to pull people’s progressive card. So how does his new found pragmatism differ from those he called out for the last year or more?
This isn’t about economic vs social issues. You’ll find that we agree that both are important.
The issue is that Bernie is being held to a different standard than Kaine was.
Not true.
Bernie endorsed an anti-abortion candidate in a race that doesn’t matter much. And Mello’s anti-abortion stance is found in his NE House voting record.
Tim Kaine isn’t endorsing anybody. He was an actual candidate. Kaine’s voting record is also pretty clear. He started as Governor by authorizing ultrasounds and has move to having a voting record in the Senate that is fully supportive of the right to choose so far.
The standard being questioned here (which you know, which is why you’ve decided to play the deflection game too) is why Bernie gets a purity pass on his support of Mello but if Tim Kaine had shown up to make the same endorsement he would have been labeled by the purity police as a SELLOUT, FAKE DEM, THIRD WAY, WOMAN HATER or whatever else the less than perfect Dems get labeled. Mello’s abortion voting record is only material in that it establishes the line of purity hypocrisy that I just want to be really clear about.
“The issue is that Bernie is being held to a different standard than Kaine was.” – Alby
No.
The realissue is that women Democrats thought it was high time to have one of their own in the oval office and any woman, whatever her baggage, would do, so long as she was a Democrat.
Clinton was their best shot at the Oval, but Sanders didn’t get with their program so he’s gotta pay, and pay and pay.
There. I said it.
You seem to think your saying this comes as a surprise. It doesn’t.
Your mind-reading skills are slipping. First of all, it’s not Bernie supporters who are upset, so I hadn’t even considered the “deflection game” you accuse me of playing. Constant claims to know the motivations of other individuals is your core weakness, BTW.
Tim Kaine was running for vice-president. His abortion positions were the same as Mello’s, only he would have held a much higher office. No calls for purity were made about Kaine because he represents the Money Democrats. This serves to illustrate the split in the party — it’s all about the money.
Establishment Democrats are fine with taking payments from the masters of the economy (see Obama, Barrack, speaking fee accepted by). Bernie supporters, whatever they are, are not.
Is this really that hard to understand?
This is not about where YOU stand on these issues. It’s about politicians who are happy to be progressive on social issues but not economic ones, because they do not represent the working class but rather people like us — the professional progressives with enough money to be in the top decile or quintile.
They are dividing and conquering us just as they did the conservatives, and the same way — by politicizing basic rights.
I read this after posting the comment, but it outlines the issues for the Bernie crowd pretty well, I think.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-wall-street-speech-400k_us_5900bf16e4b0af6d718ab7b9?72&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
Also, in case it wasn’t clear from my comments, we should look at Hillary and Bernie as mere avatars for political positions. That’s why I think it’s silly to compare their purity. It’s not about them, it’s about us. And “we” (meaning we little people who donate to Democrats) have since November contributed to all Democrats, whatever their leanings on issues. So I’m concluding that we the people don’t care all that much what someone’s positions are so long as the candidate is liberal/progressive to some extent and, more importantly, not a Republican.
I don’t agree with Ossoff about everything, but we’ve donated. I won’t donate to the mayoral candidate only because I don’t care enough about the race. That fish fry is too far from home for me.
His abortion positions were the same as Mello’s, only he would have held a much higher office.
No. You keep trying to reset the goal posts because that is the only way you can have this conversation.
Mello has anti-abortion positions. He votes in alignment with those positions.
Kaine has anti-abortion positions. He hasn’t voted or governed on those positions in years. Even so, his voting record shows a very clear movement away from voting on his beliefs to voting for choice.
The voting record and governing positions for the two are quite different, although they may both personally be anti-abortion. I don’t care what your personal beliefs are as long as you aren’t trying to make those beliefs the law of the land.