Giving Sanders A Pass

"By the end," Ryan Lizza writes at Politico

it was clear that there was no Bernie slayer at the lecterns in Charleston, someone who alone had the time and skills to convince Democratic voters that the democratic socialist was a radical whose nomination would forfeit the party’s chance to defeat Trump.

  

Nor was there anyone with the desire to slay the front-runner.

Give the Democratic candidates their due. They probably figure Sanders is likely to be the nominee and viciously attacking him might help undo their chances of unseating President Trump in November and to hold onto the House of Representatives, the latter in doubt with the nomination of Sanders. And if one of them brings down Sanders, it might inure to the benefit of Michael Bloomberg- whose nomination would be dicey for another set of reasons.

Consider (times correlated with this transcript):

1) Pete Buttigieg, beginning at 3:37

We know what the President … what Russia wants, it’s chaos.

Once this campaign is over, Buttigieg will be found on the boardwalk either in Atlantic City, N.J. or at southern California beaches. Inasmuch as we don't know what the Kremlin is doing, how it is doing it, when it started, whether it is continuing or who the specific actor is, we don't know why Vladimir Putin prefers Bernard Sanders to all others as the Democratic nominee.  We do know, however, that Sanders has continually knocked USA foreign policy over the decades as one which excessively prefers regimes friendly to this country at the expense of other values. (See "Cuba, literacy.")  Therefore, assuming that Buttigieg really isn't a psychic, his remark may have reflected an unwillingness to confront Sanders here.

2) Elizabeth Warren beginning at 3:40

Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make a better president than Bernie. And the reason for that is that getting a progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard and it’s going to take someone who digs into the details to make it happen. Bernie and I both wanted to help reign in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance, but I dug in, I fought the big banks, I built the coalitions and I won. Bernie and I both want to see universal healthcare, but Bernie’s plan doesn’t explain how to get there, doesn’t show how we’re going to get enough allies into it and doesn’t show enough about how we’re going to pay for it.

There could be no clearer endorsement of the candidacy of the Vermont senator than "Bernie is winning right now because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say so."  Moreover, while Warren's pitch all along should have been that she is "someone who digs into the details to make it happen," once she invoked this argument Wednesday night, it was not heard again. Repetition works- ask Sanders, who returns repeatedly to the same theme(s), whatever the question asked.

3)  Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar, beginning at 23:23 responding to Sanders first stating

Let me just, the answer is, it’s something that we would take into consideration. But here is the point. I am very proud of being Jewish. I actually lived in Israel for some months, but what I happen to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country. And I happen to believe, I happen to believe, that what our foreign policy in the mid-east should be about is absolutely protecting the independence and security of Israel. But you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people. We have got to have a policy that reaches out to the Palestinians, and the Americans. And in answer to your question, that will come within the context of bringing nations together in the mid-east.

Michael Bloomberg:

Well, the battles been going on for a long time in the Middle East, whether it’s the Arabs versus the Persians, the Shias versus the Sunnis, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, it’s only gone on for 40 or 50 years. Number one, you can’t move the embassy back. We should not have done it without getting something from the Israeli government, but it was done, and you’re going to have to leave it there. Number two, only solution here is a two state solution. The Palestinians have to be accommodated. The real problem here is you have two groups of people, both of who think God them the same piece of land. And the answer is to obviously split it up, leave the Israeli borders where they are. Try to push them to pull back some of those extra, over on the other side of the wall where they’ve built these new communities, which they should not have done that. Pull it back-

Sanders has appeared at the convention of the largest Muslim political action committee in the nation and received its endorsement. He also has chatted on Fox News, allegedly because he believes a public official must communicate with those he disagrees with. Yet he has refused two years running to attend the convention of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and now has labeled as "racist" the leader of one of the two most steadfast allies..

No one cares what Michael Bloomberg's policy is toward the Mideast any more than voters care about Warren's 78 plans for every problem besetting the USA. The front-runner just claimed to be proud that he is Jewish- and called the leader of probably one of the two most steadfast allies of the USA a "racist." In any other context than a Democratic presidential campaign, that is called a "gaffe."

Klobuchar was no better- and should have been. According to this report, the Minnesota senator "has a solid relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in the country." The executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas has stated "she's ubiquitous in the Minnesota Jewish community." And last night, when Israel's Prime Minister was called a "racist," she was mum.

4) Joseph Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren, beginning at 26:29 with Tom Steyer:

Excuse me, Amy. This conversation shows a huge risk for the Democratic Party. We are looking at a party that has decided that we’re either going to support someone who is a Democratic Socialist or somebody who has a long history of being a Republican. And let me say that I got into this race because I wanted to fight for economic justice, for racial justice, and to make sure we had climate justice for the American people. And I am scared. If we cannot pull this party together, if we go to one of those extremes, we take a terrible risk of reelecting Donald Trump.

Here, Tom Steyer condemns Sanders as a Democratic Socialist and Bloomberg for having "a long history of being a Republican."   To the credit of Steyer- whom yesterday I wouldn't give any credit to- he opened the floor for what should have been an obvious point. 

Three days before the debate, the front-runner lumped the "Republican establishment" in with the typically unspecified, largely neutered "Democratic establishment." He plans to take on the Democratic establishment this autumn and reportedly still has not registered as a Democrat. This does not bode well for a party which  would like to take over the Senate and at least hold on to the House of Representatives, But it did provide an opening, which Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren ignored.

Those are four instances in which Bernard Sanders' rivals, whose chances decline every day, failed for whatever reason to challenge the prohibitive favorite as they should have, and needed to have. And don't get me started on Castro's Cuba.

Share |

No Answer

The argument that Bernard Sanders has helped move the Democratic Party leftward was reflected  in Tom Steyer's response pertaining to whether he'd support "direct cash payments to the descendants of slaves reparations" if recommended by a commission. The billionaire stated on Tuesday night at a CNN town hall meeting

... If you want to tell the truth about the African-American experience here, and you -- how did we get here? If we want to figure out how to repair the wrong together, we have to go back and tell the story of what's happened, so that we understand how we got here, so together we come up with the right solution, Chris.

It would be inappropriate for me to mandate the solution. This is something that we have to work through together, but there has -- that's why, when I was talking about the historically black colleges and universities, there's a narrative there about why those schools are so important. There's a narrative about how they've performed. There is a policy that comes out of those truths that is inescapable.

And I believe -- look, the -- I'm not kidding about this moral leadership. If you go back -- one of the things that's true. George W. Bush got war powers to fight the war on terror that were virtually unlimited. And it's turned out to be a big mistake. I think most people recognize that.

There are 435 congresspeople and 100 senators in the United States; 434 congresspeople and 100 senators voted for that. One person voted against it -- a black congresswoman from Oakland, Barbara Lee. It's not a fluke. There has been moral leadership from African- Americans before Dr. King, long before Dr. King, and after Dr. King's assassination....

There are parts of the African-American experience which haven't been told. There also are parts of the immigrant experience which haven't been told, as with the history of the American government supporting dictators throughout the world, especially in this hemisphere. There is also an untold story about how powerful corporate interests gained control of the American economy from forces representing the public interest. That has been particularly the case in the health care industry and has provided impetus for single-payer health care, which Tom Steyer opposes.

The story of the African-American experience has been inadequately told, as have so many other of our stories. However, at this point, the American people have a reasonably good knowledge of the oppression of black Americans. This pertains even to the number of whites who believe, albeit absurdly, that election of a black man to the presidency in 2008 purged the nation of the stain of discrimination and repression.  Their duty done, many voters believed, election of a white bigot in 2016 would be wholly acceptable.

If Steyer wants American history to be better told, perhaps he should be a student of early 21st century history.  President Bush was not given "war powers to fight the war on terror that were virtually unlimited." He took them. The Authorization for Use of Military Force of 2001 authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."

It permitted that specific President, and only to use force against those involved in the attacks of 9/11/01. It was abused numerous times by Presidents Bush and Obama and is a prime example of the dangerous expansion of Executive power in the last few decades- and which has been spiraling out of control in the Trump Administration.

Barbara Lee deserves credit for her vote. But she did not cast it because she is black, nor did did the 35 other members of Congress who are black who voted in favor of the resolution do it because of their race. Neither Steyer's reference to Representative Lee's wise and courageous vote nor the value of Historically Black Colleges and Universities constitutes a valid answer to a question about reparations.

Tom Steyer himself might be the answer- but to no question which ever has been posed or contemplated.

Share |