Should Bernie use his "political revolution" to help get Obama's SCOTUS nominee through the Senate?

[Cali_Democrat]

13 votes, 4 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	11 (85%)
	No
	2 (15%)
	4 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[HooptieWagon]

1. Hillary is unemployed, may be a good job for her since she's running on Obamas record.

[Cheese Sandwich]

2. It's not "his" political revolution. It's ours. We have one president at a time.

ALL OF US should be uniting behind the president on this while he takes the lead.

First task of the political revolution ought to be to GOTV for Bernie Sanders.

[CajunBlazer]

40. Spoken like a "True Believer"

[think]

3. Bernie has said many times it is going to take time and lot of work. Spare us your demands for

Bernie to drop everything to do what are current leadership should be doing.

Obama needs to lead the charge. He's the one in power right now....

[treestar]

7. The Senate is in power also

And Bernie is a Senator.

[think]

23. Bernie will most likely fight for the nominee in what capacity he can. But this is Obama's nominee

And Obama is at the helm. He is the president right now. Not Bernie.

To act like this is Bernie's responsibility because he's working to build a coalition of the American people to help effect change is just is utter nonsense. Bernie has said it will take hard work to effect the big changes in government he is advocating.

Again this is not Bernie's nominee and he has his campaign to work on in addition to his Senate responsibilities. He will undoubtedly do what he can but to act like he should drop everything to make this his focus and put all his energy into the nomination shouldn't be his priority.

Perhaps he could do enough to help get the nominee through but his campaign would suffer because his focus and energy wouldn't be there.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Note that I said "help"

I didn't say he had to lead the charge.

[earthshine]

34. What makes you think he wouldn't help Obama?

That we wouldn't help Obama?

Your premise is absurd.

[AgingAmerican]

4. Meme of the day!1!!

Or course they just made it up out of thin air, but hey, they are desperate!!1!

[treestar]

8. Desperation is avoiding the question with no-substance snark posts

Why can't Bernie convince Republicans unless he is POTUS?

[AgingAmerican]

10. Watch me pull a rabbit out of a hat!

This 'question' has been asked ad nauseum today, all without supporting links. Obviously this order came from above.

[treestar]

12. what links? It's a question

and makes a salient point, yet people are desperate to avoid it and only can come up with snark. Shows they see the point and that the previous claims are bullshit.

[AgingAmerican]

14. It's a question being asked by 18 different people simultaneously!

Coincidence?

[treestar]

16. and being non-answered with snark by as many different posters

who obviously see the problem and so want the question to go away.

[AgingAmerican]

18. Because it's a load of crap

Keep asking the stupid question, it has been answered ad nauseum.

DOn't worry, tomorrows email from on high will have a different set of made up on the spot, non relevant questions to harp on!!1!!

[treestar]

39. It is not because it reflects what BS supporters have been claiming

and now they want to deny it!

They keep saying there is going to be a revolution and it is starting already.

They keep on about the status quo. Suddenly it's OK? The rigged game is fine now?

[AgingAmerican]

41. Demands made up out of thin air

Won't save her flagging campaign.

[jfern]

17. They should have made sure not to have all the operatives

post it in the same place.

1 OPs on each of 100 message boards is a lot more effective than 100 OPs on 1 message board.

[AgingAmerican]

20. None with supporting links, but...

It's just a coincidence they all thought of it simultaneously!!1!

[beam me up scottie]

24. I've never seen anything like it. Has anyone kept track of the number?

It has to be over 10, imagine what they could get done for their candidate if they spent this much time campaigning.

[JonLeibowitz]

31. And they talk about the Bernie "internet warrior" phenomenon.

[beam me up scottie]

32. It's hilarious, scrambling to post op after op in order to drown us out.

And still we rise above.

Maybe they'll figure it out eventually.

[Motown_Johnny]

5. As long as Clinton supporters can be trusted to not sabotage the effort,

which they can't.

[fried eggs]

6. No we can't! um..

[Downwinder]

9. If the sitting President asks for my assistance

I will do everything I can to assist. Otherwise it is his job and his call. I would not impose upon him.

He has my address.

[Empowerer]

13. As I noted in another thread, apparently talk is easy, but revolution is impossible...

We have been hearing for months about what a fighter for civil rights Bernie Sanders is and how he's going to launch a revolution to force Congress to pass legislation that seems to be impossible. And whenever anyone suggests that such a promise is unreasonable, we're told that we're the "No we can't" crowd and that Bernie will not be stymied just because something seems hard.

Yet in response to the suggestion that he fight for civil rights today by using his position as a Senator and major national political figure to call out his troops to force the Senate to confirm Obama's eventual nominee, the responses are nothing but excuses for why he can't do it - he's too busy, it's not his job, it's someone else's responsibility ... and what about HILLARY?!

Interesting . . .

[Cali_Democrat]

22. Beautifully stated. nt

[ecstatic]

15. He won't do it because of those pesky social issues that

he tries to distance himself from. Many of his fans are gun owners and also Trump supporters. He doesn't want to alienate them. The Supreme Court rules on issues like abortion and affirmative action--maybe even the second amendment at some point in the future.

[aspirant]

19. If Hills is "The Champion"

let's watch her Knock Out all the challengers to Obama's SCOTUS nomination.

We are waiting for her to lead, no more "rope-a-dope".

[Cali_Democrat]

21. Two things:

1) Hillary isn't calling for a political revolution.

2) Hillary is not a current member of the Senate.

[aspirant]

26. Three things

1) Hills is calling for a SCOTUS to be approved just like Bernie

2) Hills calls herself "The Champion" and it is now time to find out "The Champion" of what?

3) Hills calls herself "a progressive who gets things done" and here is an opportunity to get something done so let here show us the way.

[Indepatriot]

30. 3) Wall Street must give her permission 1st

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. He told us supporters that we weren't needed after his election.

In so many words, to shut up and stay out of it. That's when I knew he was going to be a major sell out and get very little done. And so it's been.

I'll bet he won't even ask for our help now. He's with the egomaniac wing of the party. On top of that he made it clear he doesn't think much of us progressives.

I see no reason this should be on Sanders in any way. Obama doesn't need Sanders to ask us.

[Empowerer]

27. So you won't do it unless Obama asks you nice

Got it

[Waiting For Everyman]

29. Why should that be so hard for a President to do?

[dragonfly301]

28. Bernie should focus on his campaign

and the POTUS should continue to play 8 dimensional chess with the republicans - don't worry he's got this.

[Peace Patriot]

33. Thank you! I agree!

I was thinking the same thing. And I gotta say (I'm a woman, 70 years old, a feminist and a Democratic Party member and activist for 56 years, and Democratic voter since I reached voting age): Abortion is NOT the only issue, and is not, by any means, the most important one.

CORPORATE RULE is the most important issue, because, by this means, the vast majority of the women in this country are being robbed, stricken into poverty, DENIED the choice of having a family because they can't afford to raise children and can't afford to BE WITH their children, work 60 hours a week at shit-pay jobs, can't buy a house, can't afford to go to college, can't afford to get a divorce if they have abusive husbands, can't afford Obamacare because of insurance profiteers' ever increasing deductibles and co-pays and premiums, and, after working all their lives, can't look forward to a decent retirement on the Social Security they've paid into all their lives, and can't pay the 20% part of Medicare that isn't paid for. Also, they can't afford pregnancy itself, can't afford birth control and can't afford an abortion if they need one.

Yes, control of our own bodies is a vital issue, and a right that is in peril for sure. But Corporate Rule is even more devastating to our right to a decent life, and virtually all of this devastation applies to men as well.

So-o-o-o-o, I want to know that Obama's nominee will overturn 'Citizens United' and remove personhood from corporations, and will furthermore declare billionaires buying elections to be unconstitutional. I would also like to see a nominee who would rule that vote counting using 'TRADE SECRET' code--private programming code owned and controlled by a handful of rightwing-connected corporations--is also unconstitutional. To such a nominee, it would be obvious that women have the right to control our own bodies. But I also see a grave disconnect happening between these two matters, by which women's rights or gay rights or other 'interest group' rights are flurried before us by so-called liberals, who support corporate looting 'rights' in the back room.

This is true of politicians (among whom I include Hillary Clinton) and true of supremely bad court justices. The current court are mostly scumbags. Are we going to get a 'centrist scumbag' that we are supposed to rally round, and use OUR revolution to support, who pays lip service to women's rights, for instance, but is in bed with the Corporate Rulers?

President Obama has to prove a couple of things to me, with his nomination, before I would agree to support it. He can't just nominate anybody and expect us to help him get that person appointed, no matter what. I would EXPECT President Sanders to know that. He has said so about 'Citizens United.' I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton to give a damn what I thought. She WILL appoint a Corporatist, for sure--under some guise like women's rights, and she won't need or ask for our help because, a) she doesn't believe in democracy--she's a Corporatist; and b) she will tailor the nominee to the prevailing power in Washington DC--mega-corporations and their lobbyists--and we may end up with a right only to have abortions, not to have children. Because we can't feed them!

[Hekate]

35. Absolutely. The very thought of it gives me HOPE. nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Judging from the list of corporations and dictatorships lining up to dump money into the CGI

It would seem Clinton has more sway with the GOP's bedfellows than Sen. Sanders could ever hope to enjoy.

[Gothmog]

37. If Sander's revolution is real, then this should be a simple task

If Sanders has some how mobilized millions and millions of voters who will be able to force the GOP to (1) adopt a $15 per hour minimum wage, (ii) a single payer health care system and (iii) increase taxes on the 1%, then it should be a simple matter for Sanders to get President Obama's nominee approved.

If the Sanders revolution is not up to this simple task, then how will the Sanders revolution accomplish anything if Sander is elected?

[Bluenorthwest]

38. Sanders'. Not Sander's. His name is Sanders, not Sander. Now, who is the nominee in question?

Voters will support that nominee if they support that nominee. Voters don't really do as they are told, they do as they wish.

Obama ran for office saying his healthcare plan would have no mandates and a strong public option. He was unable to complete that simple task. That's the paradigm you have built here. Our lack of public option, using your standards, means Barack Obama is a failure and his vaunted public support not sufficient to make his rhetoric become law. In my view, he did not push hard enough against a very obstructionist Congress. But according to you it was a simple task and he failed it along with his coalition. He said he'd do that, then he failed to get it done. I say that's politics, you say that's abject failure.

[KingFlorez]

43. Sanders would probably keep the vacancy open in case he becomes President

Considering that Obama isn't considered liberal by Sanders, I doubt he would really be in favor of Obama's nominee be approved. Sanders might say that he's for an Obama nominee just to keep up appearances, but I can't imagine that he doesn't want to fill the vacancy himself.

[jillan]

44. Did Obama nominate someone? I haven't heard!! Who did he nominate?