'A Moment of Shame' ~ Bernie V Hillary on the DLC/Republican 'Welfare Reform Bill'

[sabrina 1]

In 1996 in what Marian Wright Edelman called a 'A Moment of Shame', Bill Clinton signed into law, what many predicted would plummet, mostly Minority Women and Children, into poverty.

It was the dream legislation of the right wing 'Pull Yourselves Up By Your Bootstraps' crowd, who for years were the proponents of the mythical, but without a doubt Racist, 'Welfare Queen' imagery of single minority women, pushed and promoted relentlessly, until finally, they got their way in one of those now sadly familiar Bi-Partisan efforts against the poor and minorities.

A Republican Bill Signed By A Democratic President.

Edelman's husband, Peter, then Clinton's Asst Secretary of Health & Human Svces, resigned from the Clinton Administration in protest after the bill was signed.

The DLC and Republican policies on Social Programs are so similar it's hard to tell the difference. And that is a huge issue that needs to be addressed as the results of these policies combined with DLC/Third Way economic policies, see Deregulation and the Economic Collapse, but that's for another OP, become the reality for the poor and especially for minorities, that was predicted by those who opposed them.

Fast forward to the 2016 Presidential Campaign where we have two candidates for the Democratic Nomination who were present when that Bill was passed.

Where did they stand then?

Bernie Sanders voted against it.

Of course he did because Bernie Sanders has always stood up for the poor and disenfranchised, for Civil Rights and for the most vulnerable members of this society.

But what of Hillary Clinton? She SAYS she is for the poor, for minorities, for children etc, but what does her record say?

Hillary Clinton, First Lady at the time FULLY SUPPORTED her husband's Welfare Reform Bill. (she uses her time as First Lady as part of her resume so we must look at that to see where she was on these issues)

We know the poverty statistics of children in this country SINCE the passage of that Bill. We know the economic situation of Single Mothers and their children, in particular Minority mothers and children.

But that was 20 years ago. And we know that Hillary's record shows her constantly having to reverse her position on some pretty major issues, issues that affected the lives of millions of people.

So, where does Bernie Sanders stand on that Welfare Reform Bill now?

Exactly where he stood when he voted against it, BECAUSE HE WAS RIGHT showing the amazing foresight and good judgement he displayed over and over again.

And where does Hillary Clinton stand on the bill she once supported so strongly?

Well, it's hard to say. But here is what she herself said in 2003:

Will Hillary Run Against Her Husband's Welfare Legacy?

In Hillary Clinton’s first memoir, “Living History,” published in 2003, she wrote at some length about the fight over welfare reform. Clinton had vetoed the first two bills that hit his desk, but when the third one passed, she wrote, “I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage—though he and the legislation were roundly criticized by some liberals, advocacy groups for immigrants and most people who worked with the welfare system … I was most concerned with the five-year lifetime limit, because it applied whether the economy was up or down, whether jobs were available or not, but I felt, on balance, that this was a historic opportunity to change a system oriented toward dependence to one that encouraged independence.”

Note the 'Pull Up Your Bootstraps, Poor People' lingo there!!

The latest we have on where she stands now is from 2008 when she ran for the WH.

When asked if she had any second thoughts about her husband's Welfare Reform Legislation, which she fully supported, she stressed that she did not:

Hillary Clinton Wants to Help Families at the Bottom. So Will She Change Her Mind About Welfare Reform?

she also voiced support for it during her 2008 campaign, expressing no misgivings about how it turned out and telling The New York Times that she thought it was necessary and enormously successful.

Bernie, RIGHT on the issues, fighting for the poor and minorities, using his position in Congress to VOTE AGAINST Legislation he had the foresight to see would be harmful to Minorities and to children.

Hillary, wrong on an issue that has greatly harmed untold numbers of minorities economically, still wrong in 2003, still wrong in 2008.

We'll have to wait and see if she no longer views those on the Left, as she more or less said at the time as 'naive' and 'purist' on issues like Welfare.

Or will she finally acknowledge, that maybe it was SHE who was wrong?

Bernie never worried about how things would look 'politically'. He voted for what was RIGHT.

Hillary, we know, due to her own words, makes and has made decisions for political purposes.

From the Bloomberg link above:

There were political considerations, of course: “The legislation was far from perfect,’’ she wrote, “which is where pragmatic politics entered in. It was preferable to sign the measure knowing that a Democratic administration was in place to implement it humanely. If he vetoed welfare reform a third time, Bill would be handing the Republicans a potential political windfall.”

She was nonetheless sorry, she wrote, that “Bill’s decision, and my endorsement of it, outraged some of our most loyal supporters,” including the Edelmans, and “n the painful aftermath, I realized that I had crossed the line from advocate to policy maker. I hadn’t altered my beliefs, but I respectfully disagreed with the convictions and passion of the Edelmans and others who objected to the legislation.”

And she was wrong.

And they were right.

When people are entrusted with great power by the people, they should do all in their power to do what is right for the people, regardless of politics. Politics should never enter into a decisions as important as that one was.

And this is yet another reason why I support Bernie Sanders. Because over and over again when decisions had to be made, Bernie Sanders consistently made the right decision.

Bernie, right on the issues ....

Hillary, not so much ....

The only way to judge a candidate who is asking for the highest office in the land, is to study their records on the issues.

All the rest is noise which will be gone once the election is over.

[Cleita]

1. Bernie is consistent on his policies. eom

[sabrina 1]

2. And he has consistently stoop up for minorities. Those who are the most vulnerable

members of our society, and as long as I have been aware of him has never done anything for political purposes, always he has done what is right.

Wish that was true of all of our politicians.

[lewebley3]

136. Bernie has consistenty done nothing for years about pollicies

He sat in s small state for 73 years doing nothing but talk

[Armstead]

162. Maybe you should look up his record

[lewebley3]

217. We all know his record: He is now just entering the fight against the GOP

He has been a talker to the people who already agree with him:
Obama, Hillary and the Dem's have been working to persuade
other people to join the party, and work against the GOP

[Armstead]

218. By his record I also mean his ability to...

attract and win over people who may not initially think they'd agree with him, including people who self-identify as conservative. He is excellent at framing the message that average working people can relate to, and at building coalitions across ideological lines.

He's got a pretty good record on that score.

[lewebley3]

224. Trump is attracts people: He should never become President! Sander is not a leader!

Last edited Sat Aug 1, 2015, 04:56 PM - Edit history (1)

[beam me up scottie]

227. No, you don't. That's why you claimed "sat in s small state for 73 years doing nothing but talk"

Why are you making false claims about his record?

[lewebley3]

229. He done nothing on the national stage! and He is pro gun!

[beam me up scottie]

231. Bernie is pro-gun control and was given an F rating by the NRA.

Do you actually know anything at all about him or are you just repeating talking points you read here?

[lewebley3]

237. Talking is his record!

[beam me up scottie]

173. "He sat in s small state for 73 years doing nothing but talk"

Wow.

Now that's an ignorant post.

How is it possible to be so cluelessly uninformed about a candidate and still feel qualified to criticize him?

[artislife]

176. Home schooling?

[beam me up scottie]

179. That or they get all of their information from HC supporters on DU.

The meme is strong with this one.

[bravenak]

191. Jesus christ!nt

[JaneyVee]

3. Hillary didn't cast a vote.

And while I won't defend any support she may have had for this bill, I find it disturbing that this myth of minorities being on welfare is constantly perpetuated, there are far more whites on welfare than any other group.

[PatrickforO]

6. That's true. The average welfare recipient in my county is a white single mom with two kids.

Plus, and I educated so-called conservatives about this all the time, the purpose of TANF, unemployment, SNAP and other safety net programs is not only to help people who are down on their luck survive until they get back on their feet, BUT they ALSO exist to keep demand for goods and services up so that businesses don't have to lay off even more people.

I always get sort of a 'deer in the lights' look, followed by budding comprehension. Then the blind falls back into place all too often.

[sabrina 1]

9. This was a Republican Bill, no self respecting Dem should have

voted for it, knowing how they got the support they got, the racism that caused the demands on the Republican side.

It really was a "moment of shame', especially for our party.

[JaneyVee]

11. It was vetoed twice, and the 3rd was veto-proof...

As it had plenty of Dem support and overwhelming Repub support.

[sabrina 1]

18. Bill wanted it and Hillary wanted it. They supported it, Bill only vetoed it

due to the pressure from Liberals and Advocacy groups, but it was going to pass regardless.

Hillary liked it, and has explained in various interviews and in her book, why she supported it.

Those poor people 'should not learn to be dependent'.

If THAT isn't are Right Wing Republican claim, I don't know what it is.

The point is, Sanders got it right, Hillary did not. Sanders didn't see the poor as wanting to be dependent, Hillary did, that is a fact, her own words are all I have to go on.

[corkhead]

42. don't hold your breath waiting for a response to your irrefutable truth

I am growing weary of the bomb-throwers on this site that argue against what are true democratic principles until they are countered with the facts and disappear to throw a bomb somewhere else.

Sometimes I feel like I am stomping on a flaming bag that someone set on my doorstep.

[JaneyVee]

56. How did Bernie get it right?

Unemployment plummeted afterward.

[Flatulo]

74. Perhaps due to the booming Internet startup craze?

Remember the market really surged in the mid to late '90s. Lots of startup companies.

[mntleo2]

113. Yeah with Mcjobs ~ Cmon!

I can tell you as a fact, Welfare DeFormed forced mostly single mothers in to permanent abject poverty. Do you know who wrote that bill? Robert Rector from the Heritage Foundation. Do you know why? Let me tell you a little story about Mr Rector and his ilk:

In the early 1990s Mr Rector attended a community meeting in DC where some African American women who were graduates of George Washington University kicked his ass in debate. So he ran home crying and wrote "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act" (the REAL name of Welfare DeFormed) ~ perhaps the most ironically named bill since it was written and signed into law by some of the most irresponsible white men ever.

After licking his wounds Rector decided the "outrage" was because these women, mostly single African American mothers, had been "using the System" by being on Welfare and attending college and getting a higher education. He had *no* such problem with his rich friends sitting around their pools collecting tax free dividends ~ but these uppity women? This had to be fixed!

Know who those women were? They were women who had fled the Southern countryside from communities where their only hope was to be maids and cooks in "The Big House" for the likes of Rector and his species ~ where Rector thought they belonged. Certainly not Doctors, lawyers and policy makers!

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunities Act forbids the poor and single moms from attending college. Under its mandates and while HRC was in the Senate, she applauded when Rudy Gulillani undermined good unions jobs by replacing them with "welfare to work" participants who worked for less than 50 cents an hour. This spread to other parts of the country and are in affect to this day. She stood by while her own constituents threw waffles at her NYC office because she "waffled" on the policies harming their families and refused to make a stand for these participants to get decent wages and access to college.

And now more than 20 years later and another generation that has grown up under these ghastly conditions, they are still in affect ~ and HRC nor any of her friends have done a thing about it. They do not have a clue about what happened to these people, the only thing they count is how the welfare rolls have dropped ~ they do not want to see where these people went. Well I know where they went ~ into the ghettos, into chronic homelessness, into dead end McJobs, into early deaths from horrid working conditions, their ghettos with polluted environments infesting their children. I know because I have been attending to these things and speaking about them for over 30 years ~ while it falls on deaf ears.

So sure, "Unemployment plummeted". Yeah right. To flood the market with McJobs that did not even pay the rent.

We tried to tell you people that this law was using the poor as canaries in the mine and that the middle class was next ~ were we heard then? Hell no! Now when the upper classes have been kicked in the ass they are whining, "B-b-b-ut I worked haaard!" Like the poor didn't work hard too? God damn bet they did!

Furthermore Rector did not even know what real "work" is nor will these elitists, including HRC ever get it until they humble themselves and realize the truth about what work is and isn't. Often I hear from people that well, "They shouldn't have to support other people's children..."

I ask them, "Then with your thinking, why should our kids support YOU with the Social Security and Medicare they will pay, with your wars they will fight and die in, with your infrastructure, and with YOU when you can no longer care for yourself? With that thinking then our kids should give all that money coming out of their paychecks to US and to hell with you, since we did all the work and sacrifice raising them without any support, right?" They always slink away with that response because they know it is true... whether or not they choose to have children of their own, these kids from the generations that come after them, WILL support them and they know it. Who the hell do they think is doing the hard work to raise these children for their comforts? Casper The Friendly Ghost?

Furthermore those few well paying "jooooobs" went away with a puff of smoke after all of them were exported overseas ~ and now thanks to "The Personal Responsibilities and Work Opportunist Act (Welfare DeFormed) those in poverty do not have a chance in hell to escape their plight ~ and these conditions are pulling the middle class down with them since now all those "McJooooobs" are the only thing there is.

Just ask HRC's Walmart CEO friends from the board she was on about how much they have profited with tax breaks and all the goodies they have enjoyed from the poverty and suffering they impose on their hard working employees whom they lock into their stores and force them to work for free.

Give. Me. A. Break.

Cat in Seattle long time activist of 30+ years for our Social Safety Net and
Board member of POWER, http://www.mamapower.org

[A Simple Game]

122. Well written and informative post, I know it's early but this post gets my vote for post of the day.

Thank you.

This just adds evidence to the fact that this Country needs a President the will put this Country and it's people before politics. Of all the candidates currently running Bernie is the only one that can meet that qualification.

[sabrina 1]

129. Omg, that is one of THE best and most truthful posts I've ever seen on DU. You are a gem

imo, for working all these years against these draconian policies which I know have so harmed the most vulnerable among us.

How disappointing it must have been to have to acknowledge that it was not just Republicans who were doing this, but those we thought of as allies.

Your post brought tears to my eyes, because I remember when Hillary was Senator, one of the biggest disappointments since I became politically aware, and she was my Senator. So much hope at first when Dems finally won the WH, only to have all those hopes dashed in the years that followed.

Thank you for your efforts, I hope we can finally get a government that does NOT work for Corporations, for the Elite who speak so condescendingly to the poor and to minorities but which will actually work for the people who elect them.

I wish you would post this as its own OP, it should not be hidden in this thread.

Thank you for stating the facts, we are being bombarded with lies and deceptions and pretexts of 'caring' when the reality is drowned out most of the time.

[d_legendary1]

138. Way to tell it like it is!

Bubba introduced us to the "serivce economy" while sending manufacturing jobs to countries that hate us (China, India) which skyrocketed their economies. Your explanation was thorough and concise. Thank you for that!

[bvar22]

145. DURec for the thread, but especially this post by mntleo2 !

Beautifully written!
I also agree that it should be posted as an OP.

Full of "just the facts" and the written History.
It would be difficult to pen a cogent rebuttal.


Thanks for your years of service in the front line!


Sincerely,
bvar22

[Armstead]

163. F'in brillian post

[artislife]

187. This needs to be its own OP

Fantastic.

[beam me up scottie]

188. Joining in the chorus:

That was beautiful.

[appalachiablue]

214. Monumental post. Thank you and I hope you consider making it an OP. Seattle truly rocks.

In 2014 Tory Welfare Minister Lord Freud commented on how to reduce wages of the disabled. He was overheard and made to apologize. And he might have resigned over it. This 30+ year assault by neoliberals on people who are poor, black, PoC, immigrant, disabled and elderly that has been spreading worldwide clearly has no bounds, and is driven by creatures absent any conscience or ethics. Entitled, savage, and often sociopathic, the perps proliferate and sickly attract others, for decades now. What it will take to stop them I don't know but learning of your efforts makes me grateful and hopeful during the scary times and enormous mess we face.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/15/welfare-reform-minister-disabled-not-worth-minimum-wage

[Cheese Sandwich]

241. ^ This right here

Thank you for speaking up

[artislife]

178. By treating the poor like humans?

[George II]

15. Do you feel that way ("This was a Republican Bill, no self respecting Dem should have....

....voted for it&quot about all Republican bills, e.g., "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act"?

[sabrina 1]

36. How do you feel about any Democrat voting for or supporting THIS Bill?

[George II]

40. I'll answer your question after you answer mine, fair enough?

[Scootaloo]

106. ...ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

C'mon George II, you can take on sabrina_1 without demanding a subject change, can't you?

[sabrina 1]

159. Lol, this illustrates the problem Hillary is going to have with her

record. It is so difficult to defend her record, it makes it very difficult to for her supporters. In a way I can understand that the only option IS to try to change the subject. Which is why it is so good to have a candidate whose record needs no defending.

Good desription of how they will have to respond to questions about the Issues. But having a candidate in the race who has no such problem only highlights the problem for those who do.

[mntleo2]

115. But the face of welfare is often hyped as black

...just look at any of their flyers and posters and you will not see many white faces there, they are predominantly black and other minority faces. The whole concept of "Welfare Reform" is supporting the Institution of Poverty, which in order to exist feeds upon on racism, sexism (including LGBTQ) and classism and those with disabilities ~ as a covert hatred of the poor. That whites have suffered because of it is because they are also caught in those conditions because of those "isms" if they are low income.

Just sayin' ...

Cat in Seattle

[sabrina 1]

8. Hillary advertises her term as 1st Lady as part of her political record. So, I went to that

record to find out where she stood on some of these terrible laws, this being one of them, that so adversely affected minorities and the poor in general.

Read the links, her own words, read how she told the poor in so many words that they 'needed to stop being dependent'. THAT is Reagan lingo for his mythical 'welfare queens' and that legislation was a Republican Bill.

Sorry, I did not support that awful legislation and the fact that she did, which I missed at the time not being as deeply into politics then, is just one more reason why I am supporting someone who KNEW it was wrong, said so and voted against it.

I intend to keep this on the issues, not interested in personalities or talking points. There is only way to decide what is best for this COUNTRY and that is to thoroughly vet those who are asking us to trust them with an enormous amount of power, with which they can either do good or bad.

Hillary was very involved in this issue, she says so herself, and up to the 2008 campaign she still supported it.

Now we'll have to wait and see is she is going to admit just how wrong she was.

[JaneyVee]

10. Didn't the unemployment rate drop dramatically afterward?

I was 14 yrs old at the time, but according to charts the unemployment rate dropped pretty quick. Is that the bill that let states decide on terms of conditions?

[jeff47]

21. :facepalm:

The unemployment rate dropped because the dot-com boom happened. Not because there were lazy moochers sitting around getting welfare checks.

People not in the workforce (aka lazy moochers sitting around getting welfare checks) are not in U3, the "headline" unemployment number.

[JaneyVee]

59. You're the only one calling them that.

[jeff47]

158. Nope, supporters of welfare reform called them that. (nt)

[corkhead]

26. So you are rationalizing it by saying unemployment went down? lol.

Just because two things happen concurrently doesn't mean they are cause and effect. The drop in unemployment more likely had something to do with the explosion of the Internet and the pending Y2K scare, both of which ballooned the tech industry and the stock markets.

[JaneyVee]

61. Yes, I am.

[sabrina 1]

41. Let me ask you, do you think that a Republican bill based on the dog whistling from

right, see Hillary's own words about not wanting 'people' the poor, to 'become used to being dependent', should ever have had ANY support from a Democrat?

The Dot.Com era raised employment TEMPORARILY, and had zero to do with that draconian bill the effects of which are now even worse than before, for single moms and children.

So let me ask you, should Dems be removing safety nets from the most vulnerable of Americans? We know the Republicans will do it, but how about Dems, should they join Repubs, as far too many did re this bill, to remove New Deal safety nets from the poor? Especially women and children?

[JaneyVee]

66. She didn't cast a vote for it no matter how much you want to think she did.

[sabrina 1]

69. She lobbied for it, she has stated that proudly, but that wasn't my question.

Should any Dem ever support the dismantling of the New Deal Safety Nets set up to protect the most vulnerable Americans, which is what happened with this? It's not a difficult question frankly, for any Dem. I'm not asking what SHE should have done. I'm asking as a Dem, what YOU think.

[Armstead]

165. UM, I think the answer is "Whatevr Hillary thinks"

[nikto]

87. I'm sure she strongly-opposed it ...

Deep in her heart (and kept it to herself at the time).

[Armstead]

164. Please read the OP -- And Her own words

[Scootaloo]

108. You could get a solid spike in employment numbers...

By abolishing child labor laws.

Doesn't make abolishing them a good or valid idea, but it WOULD spike the employment numbers.

[MADem]

53. Bernie wouldn't want to be put in a position of having to defend his wife's tenure as

President of Burlington College, either. That sort of approach is unfair.

This is just a bad way of making the case for a candidate--to get to them through their spouse(s). And your point about the racial breakdown is salient, particularly considering the NN15 debacle and the continued agita being displayed by some.

[JaneyVee]

54. What happened at Burlington College?

[MADem]

82. She left in a hurry, there was a bad loan and a ill-thought out expansion plan, the

place may go bankrupt. It's not good. There's lots on the internet about it; I don't believe the wingnut accusations that she "defrauded" anyone; I think she just made a stupid business decision.

The 'board' wanted her out; she quit before she was fired, in essence.

[tazkcmo]

88. Did he lobby for any of this?

Was he by his wife's side supporting her efforts in the same way First Lady Clinton was lobbying for this cut, writing about it in a book and then defending it as recently as 5 years ago? Being married to someone who makes a bad decision at work is not the same as going to spouse's work place and lobbying in support of the bad decision.

Of course, if their candidate was and still is for this bill, it stands to follow her supporters agree with her.

[MADem]

93. Who knows? She served as HIS political advisor and Chief of Staff.

She has a job on his campaign now. With a corner office. They like to describe each other as joined at the hip/soul mates/advisors, etc. You can read the color pieces as well as anyone else.

I should think they'd have a quid-pro-quo arrangement where they advise one another, especially given her high profile influence throughout his career.

Wouldn't you?

[Sancho]

118. Since it came up...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/exclusive-bernie-sanders-wife-may-have-defrauded-state-agency-bank/

EXCLUSIVE: Bernie Sanders’ Wife May Have Defrauded State Agency, Bank



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/exclusive-bernie-sanders-wife-may-have-defrauded-state-agency-bank/#ixzz3c6ccjprk

Documents obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation indicate that the wife of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders may have been able to use her clout to get away with loan fraud, nearly bankrupting the small college she was president of and collecting a sizable severance package in the process.

These revelations come amid growing speculation that Sen. Sanders, a self-described socialist who has blasted the U.S. government asan oligarchy run by billionaires and railed against the golden parachutes received by top corporate executives, will contend for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Jane Sanders was the president of tiny Burlington College in Burlington, Vermont for seven years, from 2004 until 2011. During her tenure, Sanders masterminded an ambitious expansion plan that would have more than doubled the size of the school. To do so, she had the college take on $10 million in debt to finance the purchase of a new, far more expansive campus. The move backfired massively, leading to Sanders’ departure from the college and the near-collapse of the institution.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/26/exclusive-bernie-sanders-wife-may-have-defrauded-state-agency-bank/#ixzz3c6ckMr8Q


http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/27/bernie-sanderss-wife-involved-real-estate-scam/

The story is banal. A woman who has her job because of her husband’s clout finagles a credulous state agency into accepting bogus financial documents. Real estate is purchased. The fraud is discovered. The wife of the powerful man is paid a lot of money to leave. Everyone else is ruined.

For driving the college into near bankruptcy with a fraudulent loan application, Sanders received a severance bonus of $200,000.

But all’s well that ends well. Jane Sanders is $200,000 richer. Bernie Sanders still rails on and on about income inequality and oligarchs and golden parachutes. That’s how socialism works.


HTTP://VTDIGGER.ORG/2011/09/27/JANE-SANDERS-RESIGNS-PRESIDENCY-OF-BURLINGTON-COLLEGE-REACHES-SETTLEMENT/
JANE SANDERS RESIGNS PRESIDENCY OF BURLINGTON COLLEGE, REACHES SETTLEMENT

After Sanders became college president in 2004, Burlington College initially experienced a decline in enrollment and, after a few years, faculty discontent. In an open letter to the trustees released on Sept. 21, former faculty member Genese Grill described the atmosphere in harsh terms. Staff, faculty and students “have been reduced to silence and fear of retribution by what can only be described as a pattern of intimidation, spying, and targeting of critical voices,” she wrote.

Grill described a closed and hostile environment, claiming that Sanders frequently yelled at staff and managed to eliminate anyone who voiced criticism. In the letter, Grill claims that “many concerned voices were forced out by continual abuse and by eventually being offered humiliating and unfair contracts in which they were demoted below people who were, in many cases, less qualified for their positions.”

In the last six years, about 40 people have left the school, Grill estimates, “most (if not all) deeply disillusioned with the institution and its processes, most harboring bitterness and deep regret.”

[Oilwellian]

141. No surprise...

to see Third Way Democrats quoting articles from Tucker Carlson and Eric Erickson's website. I thought that kind of crap was banned from this site.

[Sancho]

152. Just saying. Bernie has not faced a well-funded GOP attack.

The "bash and trash" is easy against Hillary on DU. All you have to do is dig up the repub memes and link to an army of investigators who do the work for you. Post away!

I don't hate Bernie, but he has plenty of weaknesses. In a general election you would see lots of ads like this one. I don't have to believe it or not. Who would see this ad and recognize Tucker Carlson, or anyone else?

The question is whether a bunch of naive independents or unaware voters would be bombarded in their mailboxes, on TV, on the radio, and on the internet. We certainly see it in Florida. Rick Scott spend 70 million of his own money in the last run for governor. Mail every day, ads on every channel. Bernie doesn't have a budget, and you can't reach the populace when facing that onslaught.

[MADem]

157. Excuse me--I specifically said I did NOT believe the fraud reports. And I hate to tell you this,

because it may ruin your day, but VT Digger's coverage of Sanders' campaign has been by and large laudatory. That--and that alone--was my go-to source. I never QUOTED either article, and I never have clicked on either site like you're accusing me of doing --the first time I read ANY of it was just now, upthread. So you can take that "Waaah, right wing site" crap and stuff it. The college is in trouble, she did quit before she was fired, and she left the place in a horrible mess. And that's what the publication that LIKES Bernie is saying.

So--whatever. Accusations are cheaper and easier than conversation with you, apparently.

Let me quote YOU .... "No surprise..."

Beats actually having an exchange, a conversation, I suppose. And it makes you feel like you won something, too, I guess...

[sabrina 1]

183. Right wing attacks on the Clintons are just as fraudulent. THIS OP is based on POLICY

on FACTS, on ISSUES. You deliberately attempted to distract from the facts by dropping that garbage into the thread, then claiming it is 'only to show what the Right will do'.

You can be SURE they right will not be talking about the Welfare Reform Bill which was THEIR legislation.

However since you raised it, you can bet the Right WILL be attacking Hillary NOT on the policies she supported and helped get passed, but they will drag up far worse than what you are talking about here re Sanders.

So what is your point? That the Right won't bother Clinton, but they WILL go after Bernie with the kind of garbage you just helped them spread?

Or that there is anything remotely comparable to that garbage and the garbage they will trump up about Hillary, and ANYTHING that is documented in this OP?

You have not addressed anything in the OP. You have falsely claimed that this is unfairly attributing policies of a husband to a wife who had nothing to do with them.

Despite all the evidence in the OP and there is plenty more because Hillary is PROUD of her role in getting this awful legislation passed Hillary herself has presented AND Those who were close to her.

Is Hillary not being honest when she states she 'crossed the line from advocacy to policy making'??

Argue with Hillary, not me. Is she telling the truth? I believe she is, considering how often she has publicly stated how much of a role she played over so many years.

And the question now is, DOES she still support this legislation?

[MADem]

186. Give it up. You just want to fight.

I'm not going to "argue with Hillary." She's very likely to be the nominee, so I intend to support her.

If you don't want people to bring up Jane, stop bringing up Bill. That's how it works.

[sabrina 1]

190. Is Jane for running for the WH and is Tucker Carlson, who I'm sure will have lots to say

about the Clintons, an acceptable source here on DU because normally I would not drag any garbage from that moron here, but if you say so, I am certain he will have some great 'scoops' on Hillary and I guess people can now do what you just did, bring it here and 'wonder' about it.

You have now set a standard, don't complain when Tucker's attacks on the Clinton are posted here. A very low standard to be sure, I would have expected more of you.

And no, Hillary MIGHT be the nominee, she has as much chance of that as Sanders does and his chances are improving the more people get to him.

[beam me up scottie]

192. Hear hear!

Kudos for calling him out on the right wing bullshit attacks posted under the guise of "just wondering".

He does that shit all the time but screams bloody murder when anyone post anything remotely critical of Hillary.

[sabrina 1]

197. I'm so proud that Bernie will not sink to this level and neither will I. But as I pointed out

by doing this in a thread that was about ISSUES, a standard has been set and if right wing morons are now quoted when the inevitable attacks on Hillary come, I won't have much sympathy when they start crying over it. I will point to this thread.

I wish Democrats at least could avoid joining the smear machine and simply talk about issues, but I guess I was naive to think we were better than that.

[beam me up scottie]

199. Proof I'm right there with you, posted at the same exact time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=486036

I won't forget this either, every time they complain about Salon, HuffPo, Mother Jones or any other source that's critical of Hillary on DU I hope someone will remind them of what they did.

[MADem]

193. Is Bill? No? Well, take your own medicine, there, dear.

And I didn't "set the standard." You've been the "standard bearer" in that department.

[sabrina 1]

195. I would not, and never have stooped so low as to drag right wing garbage

attacks on the Clintons into a discussion about ISSUES or any other discussion, to make a point, never and you can count on it, I never will.

I will do as I did in this OP, I will talk about ISSUES and I will not engage in any attempt and never have, to help the rabid right wing smear the Clintons or anyone else.

I have defended them more fiercely than anyone I know against the likes of Tucker Carlson and would still do so because I cannot tolerate LIES.

Point out one LIE, one right wing source in this OP.

I will promote the candidate I believe is best for this country and will do so ON THE ISSUES.

And if I could not do that, I would not be supporting him.

He was right on this issue. You still have not addressed the ISSUE.

Why don't you promote your own candidate instead of trying to smear other candidates?

[MADem]

196. Sure, sure, whatever you say....that's why you're constantly fighting with people here.

I do promote my candidate--and I defend her from bullshit smears, too.

Go fight with someone else, Sabrina. Your schtick isn't working tonight.

[sabrina 1]

198. Fight? You drag a rabid right wing smear monger into a thread about ISSUES

and you are called on it and you now you are crying that people are FIGHTING? You can bet you will be called on using right wing sources to try smear candidates for the Democratic Nomination on a Democratic Forum. What did you expect? I know if I did that I would expect to be called on it.

If you don't want to be corrected, then just address the Issues, that is all that is going to matter in this campaign.

Bernie was right on this issue, Hillary was wrong.

If you disagree with that, that's ALL you needed to say.

[beam me up scottie]

201. It's what he does, I posted facts about HC's record on lgbt rights and this is how he responded:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=469860

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=469920

This is who you're dealing with, a person who freaks out and attacks others when presented with facts.

[sabrina 1]

202. You know I guess it's hard to try to talk about issues when your candidate has been so wrong

so often on so many critically important issues. But if that's what you find yourself doing, unable to talk about issues, unable to defend the FACTS, then shouldn't you decide that maybe you are supporting the wrong candidate?

This is exactly why I stopped supporting Hillary after she voted for the Iraq War. There simply was no excuse for that, it was hard to admit to myself that someone I had so much admiration for was so terribly wrong, that I could not defend it, but this country comes first and when a candidate makes wrong decisions for this country, I could not continue to support them.

I can only assume that is why they rarely talk about Hillary's record and instantly go into distraction mode.

[beam me up scottie]

205. That's why they overreact when someone brings up her record.

They start out calling it "bashing", "rw hit pieces", "smears", etc and then go on to bring up other issues or link back to old debunked memes.

I mean have you ever seen anything like this before?

It's bizarre and frankly more than a little unhinged.

[sabrina 1]

209. I have not seen anything like it.

But this campaign is going to be about issues so it would be best to stop the distraction tactics, the attempts at smears etc, because people don't care about these things anymore, and see them for what they are more than ever before.

And Bernie's volunteer army of hundreds of thousands, are going to respond quickly all over Social Media as they have already to attempts like this, to make sure they are exposed and their tactics neutralized.

I guess this is what all that money buys. Our system so badly needs reform.

[beam me up scottie]

210. Yep. We need to keep challenging the lies with facts about Bernie's record.

Like the "gun nut" meme, and the disgusting claim that he fantasizes about rape.

And let's not forget "Not Good Enough Bernie", they started swift boating him months ago.

The other night a HC supporter claimed that Bernie had already dismissed women's and lgbt's rights, when pressed they linked to a blog post.

No facts, no evidence for the claim, just repeating a lie. They count on the lie sticking before it can be refuted. The person who posted the Not Good Enough thread even laughed at those of us who protested and bragged that people don't read the responses in the threads.

They're promoting ignorance and hate and I refuse to play their game.

[MADem]

203. I brought facts to a discussion that you don't happen to like. Get over it.

The Marquess of Queensberry isn't going to be supervising this contest. If your favored candidate can't take the heat, he'd better get out of the kitchen. You think it's hot now, the joint is going to be burning up once we're in the general.

Thin skins don't last long--toughen up.

[sabrina 1]

204. Where does Hillary stand on the Welfare Reform Bill and WHY did she work so hard to get it passed?

It's going to be a very big issue in this campaign. Single moms and their children are suffering still from the effects of this bill, so all candidates are going to have to state why they support it, or why have changed their minds, if that is the case.

I HOPE she has changed her mind, because many people's lives and wellbeing are at stake.

[MADem]

206. Not interested in fighting with you. Darn the bad luck for you!!

I'm in a good mood and you have never had a civil discussion with me. You've always got to be aggressive and rude, and I'm just not in the mood for that shit tonight.

[sabrina 1]

207. The thread is about issues, itsn't about fighting. If you don't want to discuss the issues

raised in the OP, then you should have avoided the thread, that is what I do if I'm not interested in discussion.

[MADem]

208. Great advice! See ya! nt

[MADem]

216. Is BILL? Read the first sentence of this OP and then bask in your hypocrisy. nt

[artislife]

180. Wait...I thought none of us were supposed to quote them...oh

Only us....
got it.

[beam me up scottie]

194. Since it came up: "Top Feminist: Hillary Clinton Has 'Accomplished Nothing' In Life"

Here are some of the articles about your candidate from your source :

Top Feminist: Hillary Clinton Has 'Accomplished Nothing' In Life

For An Older Lady, Hillary Clinton Sure Can Dodge

The Kick-Off: Hillary Clinton The Bogus Women's Advocate

I won't link to them because I have to live with myself after the primaries are over and I refuse to stoop to your level.

Those hit pieces didn't "come up", you just used a question about Bernie's wife as an excuse to link to right wing sites that are banned as sources on DU.

It is so fucking obvious what you did, and pathetic.

[sabrina 1]

200. Excellent teaching moment. Thank you. Good for you for not linking to that vile site.

Yes, it is pathetic and they better be prepared for some vicious attacks against their candidate for the very source.

Had this not happened in this thread, I would have joined them in condemning anything that comes from that source. At this point I most likely will leave them to fend for themselves, because it looks like we Bernie supporters will have our hands full defending him from THEM.

Shameful thing to do, no matter how much I want to support my candidate, to even think of giving any attention to those despicable right wingers in order to do it? It's unthinkable.

[sabrina 1]

55. Are you saying that there is anything in the OP that is incorrect? You know that Hillary

fully supported and worked FOR getting this legislation passed. And that she reiterated that support when she ran for office in 2008?

While many of Clinton's cabinet members TRIED to dissuade him from participating in it, Hillary boasted that she 'worked to get votes' to help it pass.

Hillary touts here terms as First Lady as reasons to vote for her. Had she not done that, I would not have checked to see where she stood on some of the legislation her husband passed. I will be looking at all of it, good and bad and so will many others.

It is not only FAIR, it is REQUIRED that we know what a candidate supported and what they did not.

[MADem]

83. You enjoy the gift of literacy. I said what I said. Shall I repeat?

Bernie wouldn't want to be put in a position of having to defend his wife's tenure as
President of Burlington College, either. That sort of approach is unfair.

This is just a bad way of making the case for a candidate--to get to them through their spouse(s). And your point about the racial breakdown is salient, particularly considering the NN15 debacle and the continued agita being displayed by some.


That is what I said. That is what I meant. And you should research how closely Jane Sanders has been involved in her husband's career before you erroneously assume she was just tending the arugula and running a college into the ground.

[Vattel]

114. Of course it's fair.

No one is really fooled by silly attempts (like MADEM's) to suggest that her SUPPORT for bad legislation is irrelevant to evaluating the merits of her candidacy. It's patently obvious that there is a huge difference between criticizing a candidate for what she SUPPORTED and criticizing them for something they didn't support.

[MADem]

155. You could have addressed me directly, rather than getting in an oblique dig like that.

All I can say is I invite your attention to post 154. What's good for the goose IS good for the gander, and if we're going to go back decades to beat up one candidate, we can do that for all of 'em.

Personally, I think we should rely on what candidates are saying NOW--not what they said when they were, say, 31 years old and writing bad literature....

[artislife]

181. But it was policy that still effects the poor today.

And she and Bill were a political team.. isn't that the whole foundation of her experience in being a "fighter"?

[Popcorn 51]

62. Good one.

Hope he doesn't promote his wife as an education expert or reformer or fund raiser. That would get ugly.

[sabrina 1]

125. I don't mind if he does, so long as she isn't responsible for getting any Republican

policies into place that will adversely affect minority and poor people. If she is promoting and influencing Progressive Policies that are helping poor, single mothers and children and if he was instrumental in help get those policies implemented, then he should promote her work.

Hillary stated that she had 'crossed a line from advocate to policy maker'. So she is proud, or WAS, of pushing that Republican disaster AND 'getting votes' for it.

[cascadiance]

68. There's a difference though. Bernie wasn't that involved in his wife's career...

... like Hillary was a first lady during Bill's terms as president. If Bernie's wife were president earlier, then you bet it would have some bearing on his career and should bear some scrutiny, and how he was involved with what his wife did then.

Note that if Bill Clinton hadn't been president, Hillary Clinton would likely not have been Senator, Secretary of State, or running for president twice herself now. Bernie wasn't dependent on his wife's career for his rise in different politican positions that he did on his own for the most part.

[MADem]

79. How do you know? Did you sleep between them?

She sure was involved in HIS--I recall reading that she did his paperwork and a lot of his staff work (EDIT--she was his CHIEF OF STAFF which is an enormouosly important position--the most important on a staff, in fact, it's the advisor/gatekeeper job) when he was in the House. She is part of his campaign staff and is important enough, title notwithstanding, to rate a corner office.

Why wouldn't it be a two-way street? Fifteen years ago she was described as "a key advisor in his political career."

A KEY ADVISER. Hmmmm. If I were guessing, I'd say she's HEAVILY involved in every decision he makes.

Amazing how little people know about the candidates.....

Here is another link that illustrates how much up in HIS business she has been down the years:

Jane has been active in all her husband's campaigns. When he was elected to Congress in 1990, she became his policy adviser an unpaid position because she is his spouse.

"This was extrememly hard. I stepped into a completely different world in Washington, where people wear Chanel suits. I fit in better with the congressmen than their spouses."

Still, she was a congressional spouse. As such, in July, The Hill (a Capitol newspaper) quoted her as saying, "There are two choices: Live in your home state and have a weekend marriage or move to D.C. and possibly give up your job and uproot your children. When your spouse becomes a congressperson, you have to adjust your entire life if you want to stay married."

She eventually became her husband's chief of staff, also at no salary.

http://quadrant4.org/goddard/960831x.html
Sounds like a "two fer" marriage to me....

[artislife]

182. So true. I doubt she would have half the career in politics

And I think I am being more than generous.


Bill was always very likable.


Until he wasn't.

[Indepatriot]

100. Is Mrs. Sanders running for office? If not this is irrelevant.

[MADem]

101. Is MR. Clinton? Hmmmmm? If not this is irrelevant! nt

[Ed Suspicious]

103. I think a former president is fair game in a discussion of presidential politics. Do you disagree?

[MADem]

150. I think a Chief of Staff and Political Advisor are fair game in a discussion of presidential

politics. Do you disagree?

If you read this thread, I'm not talking about the Clintons at all. I'm simply flipping the premise, and getting a bit of But-but-but for my trouble.

Jane Sanders has been INTIMATELY involved -- in an official, titled capacity (none of that First Lady-ish stuff) --with her husband's career from the git-go. From JUMP. And she has a corner office managing his campaign--which suggests, despite the wifeverythingish title she gave herself, that she's upper level management, if not the hub of the wheel.

Rahm Emmanuel was Obama's chief of staff. Would you dismiss his influence on his boss as inconsequential while he was working for him?

[TiberiusB]

105. Hey, nice try!

Hillary Clinton's advocacy for her husband's horrendous welfare reform bill is the point. This isn't guilt by association. These are Hillary's words coming back to bite her. Arguing that Hillary should be held accountable for everything Bill did because she was First Lady would be ridiculous. If, however, Hillary crows about her experience as First Lady as being politically relevant to her campaign, and is on the record as crediting herself with supporting and even directly working to pass certain legislation, then that is fair game.

Now, if you have something concrete that Bernie Sanders' wife did that was clearly destructive to an entire class of people and which Bernie supports to this very day, then let's have it.

[beam me up scottie]

107. +1

Well done.

[druidity33]

116. I'd love to hear a response to this. nt.

[SusanCalvin]

117. Thank you. nt

[sabrina 1]

126. Excellent response, thank you. I really wasn't getting the point of that comment.

If Bernie's wife was responsible for some Republican policies being implemented where she works, I would hope Bernie would NOT have 'crossed the line from 'mere' advocacy to policy making' to help her get them put in place, but rather publicly state if he was looking for the same job, that he would try to reverse those policies.

[The Green Manalishi]

144. Hillary Clinton's advocacy for her husband's horrendous welfare reform bill is the point.

I just wanted to say it again.

|Despite the attempts of several people to change the subject (for shame) *THIS* is the point that not ONE of them can refute.

Not only did she support it, she is on the record, in her own words as having supported it.

She owns it. Period.

[MADem]

151. The bottom line is this--if you want to bring a spouse's policies into the mix, you'd best make

sauce for the goose as well as the gander.

If Mrs. Clinton involved herself in Mr. Clinton's affairs as anything more than a loyal and helpful spouse, who's to say that Mr. Sanders didn't involve himself in his wife's affairs? And -- putting the BEST possible face on it -- she screwed up collossally. She overspent massively, she laid out an unsustainable plan to pay a massive mortage on property that was unusable, and when she left (cough-ahead of being fired-cough), she dumped a huge, unworkable mess on her successor. Who couldn't make it work, either. Her pie-in-the-sky solution was to increase enrollment at a school that--let's be blunt--is not to everyone's taste, particularly in terms of the utility of the degree.

She serves as his chief of staff, his political advisor, and has a corner office in his campaign HQ. She's not licking envelopes. Her judgment--and she could be the singular reason that an institution of higher learning goes bankrupt if they can't find a way to pull a miracle out of their behinds -- is part of the package. And, if they're as close as they aver, than his judgment could have entered into the decision making she did in her leadership role at that school.

They're a "twofer" couple, too. And you have nothing "concrete" on HRC unless the First Lady wears a crown and is able to issue decrees. See how that works? It's not a "nice try." It's simple fact.

You want to blame one for the other's actions, that's a two way street. Jane Sanders, political advisor and chief of staff and campaign strategist to Senator Sanders, sucks when it comes to money management.

[RichVRichV]

153. If we're going to compare apples to apples

I assume you have direct quotes from Bernie on the subject or proof that he was advocating or pushing for anything involving what his wife did at her job.


The topic wasn't about Bill passing welfare reform. It was about Hillary's support and advocating for welfare reform (backed up by quotes from Hillary). The topic was directed at Hillary, not Bill. Your reply came back directed at Jane Sanders, not Bernie.


There's guilt by association and there's guilt by admittance. They're not equal or the same thing. On one hand you've got direct quotes from a candidate, on the other hand you have insinuations. Jane has been involved in Bernie's job. You have not shown proof that he was involved in her job. That makes this attack on him baseless and meant to obfuscate the OP by making an unequal comparison.

[MADem]

154. And I'm sure you have transcripts of heart-to-heart conversations between HRC and her husband.

Look, we can play this stupid game all day. A First Lady does what she can to support her husband in his policy goals. If you think some staffer didn't write the shit she said, then you go on ahead and believe that. There's no amount of arguing with you that will relieve you of what you perceive is an AH HA moment.

What, did you expect her to get out there and protest against her husband's efforts? Come on--this is just foolishness.

The point I'm making is that what's good for the Vermont goose is good for the New York gander, and vice versa. I am telling you that if you keep cherry picking shit you don't like that went on BILL's report card, and you keep trying to diss HRC for it, then it is completely appropriate to take failing grades that went on JANE's report card (and that poor woman is a financial disaster--she failed in her charge at that school, massively, and may have ruined them forever), and blame The Bern for them.

If you have to go back over twenty years, too, for a "gotcha" -- then you're whistling in the dark. We could go back to Bernie's 31st year, and be assholes, and drag up some of his more stupid rapey-literary efforts....but see, that's a cheap shot, to go back decades like that, and play an "Ewwwwww, lookie lookie" game. So the thing to do is JUST DON'T DO THAT. It's petty and meaningless. If you don't like what the politician has done LATELY, and if you don't like the strategies, point and position papers they've put out, fine. But going back decades to snark is lame as hell. It suggests a bankruptcy of argument.

It actually suggests that the candidate is pretty bullet proof, if you have to dig that deep.

[TiberiusB]

160. Man, I do love the mental gymnastics around DU sometimes...

"A First Lady does what she can to support her husband in his policy goals."

"If you think some staffer didn't write the shit she said, then you go on ahead and believe that."

How do these two sentences exist in the same post and not explode?

Pointing out Hillary's repeated support of bad policy means you are insisting she protest it? How about just not repeatedly endorsing it?

Hillary defended welfare reform many times over the years, in the last century and now this one, both in print and in Congress:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/christophermassie/hillary-clinton-used-to-talk-about-how-the-people-on-welfare#.ik9VyRWg9

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-26/will-hillary-clinton-run-against-her-husband-s-welfare-legacy-

No transcripts needed, she put it in print herself.

[beam me up scottie]

167. ^^^THIS^^^

Expect a nuclear meltdown for pointing out the irony, though.

MADem never disappoints.

I can't wait to see what he throws out there about Bernie this time.

Maybe he'll bring up Bernie's "rapey stories" again.

[MADem]

175. Because only a clueless idiot thinks that FLOTUS doesn't have a speechwriter.

Good grief--that's BASIC.

Here--let me help you, you seem confused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/hillary-clinton-and-lissa-muscatine-from-first-lady-and-speechwriter-to-author-and-bookseller/2014/06/15/c820ec18-f3ed-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html

As speechwriter to the first lady, Muscatine gave voice to Clinton’s hopes and dreams, especially for women and girls. As a senior campaign adviser, she traveled around the country making the case why Clinton should be America’s first female president. As chief speechwriter to the secretary of state, she helped Clinton articulate her vision of a smarter, safer world.

[artislife]

189. She still reads and says the words

At the very least. (If I were to entertain the very thought you may be correct)

Or doesn't she worry her head about what she is reading off the prompter?

[TiberiusB]

212. One last time...

Let me help you, since you are clearly struggling.

You contend that Hillary can't be held accountable for what Bill did while in office, which is fine, since no one is arguing that...except you.

You also contend that any support she might give to Bill's policies is to be expected since she was First Lady.

To be fair, though, you make it clear that her words aren't her own and that anything she says can't be attributed to her because she only reads stuff someone else wrote and doesn't really believe the stuff she reads.

So Hillary is a strong willed independent thinker who would make a tremendous POTUS but can't be expected to be held responsible for anything she says because they aren't her words or actual opinions because someone else wrote her speeches...and books...and editorials...and tv interviews.

Got it.

It's like a political game of Clue. "The speech writer in the Oval Office with a laptop."

But for clarity's sake, I'll quote your quote:

"Muscatine gave voice to Clinton’s hopes and dreams"

So welfare reform was a hope or a dream? Both? How about crushing reality for millions?

[MADem]

215. Oh, please--you're the one struggling with the fact that your candidate

has an "appeal" problem and rather than help him with that, you think attacking his opponent is a smart strategy.

Your "crew" works so hard to associate her work as FLOTUS with her husband's policies as POTUS. Now, since Jane is her husband's Rahm Emmanuel equivalent (his chief of staff and political advisor, as well as having a leadership role on his campaign) what's good for that goose is good for that gander. Deal with that--or don't, matters not to me.

Get over yourself, deal with current events and attitudes, and if you want to keep talking history, we CAN do that--we'll go back to the "young author's" salad days, and re-visit his little essay where he says inappropriate things about women ad infinitum. Because apparently digging up ancient history IS the name of the game with your set....!

You:

So welfare reform was a hope or a dream? Both? How about crushing reality for millions?

Dished out, but you can't take it:

So women fantisize that they'd like to be raped by multiple individuals? How about crushing reality for millions of women and young girls, never mind men, who don't agree with that at all...?


One last time, indeed. smh.

[beam me up scottie]

230. ZOMGWTFBBQ? Rape fantasies! Wargh garble bargle SCREECH!

Your meltdowns are Hillarious.

[MADem]

232. No, I'm not. Are you asking for the link, or just trying to denigrate?

You want the link, I'll provide it. If you don't want it, or don't really need it because you KNOW what I'm talking about, then that tells me you're just fronting, little ROFL-guy and all!

"Wargh garble bargle" is lame as hell, too--someone who couldn't take the heat used to drag that out as a substitute for conversation, too! Got noticeable after awhile....

[beam me up scottie]

233. As lame as posting "RAPE FANTASIES!!1!" in a thread about welfare reform?

Get some new material dude.

[MADem]

235. Ah--since you didn't answer the question, I'll assume "Just trying to denigrate" is your response.

Who needs new material when the old material--like bullshit about Bill Clinton from 1996 touted in the OP--is serving you so well? One bad turn surely deserves another. IOW, pot call kettle. Dude.

[TiberiusB]

239. I know you are but what am I

Just trying to match the tone of this thread.

But hey, let's take a quick detour down irrelevant road and talk about the manufactured controversy about Bernie Sander's essay about sexuality from 1972.

First, let's point out that these are words from the mouth of a 30 year old Sanders and not his speech writer, which he didn't have. That's an important point...apparently.

Next, let's pretend that an entire essay about established societal gender roles and the problems they create for both sexes, but especially women, is really just about a ham fisted example of one possible female sexual fantasy.

What does Bernie think of his aging, dust covered prose from the Age of Aquarius?

"It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then."

Nice dodge. Stop avoiding the issue, Bernie and take responsibility for...eh, what? Huh, so he thinks he tried to make a larger point and kind of blew it with sloppy prose. Well, if he thinks being open and honest are going to win him any points around here, well,...that's just... he...I think...you know what, everybody get off me.

Enough about Mr. "Owning Up to Some Ancient Bad Writing" Sanders. Hillary, what do you think about the much reviled welfare reform bill?

"Now that we’ve said these people are no longer deadbeats—they’re actually out there being productive—how do we keep them there?"

That was from 2002, straight from the Senator's mouth, but, you know how it goes with those speechwriters.

Wait, isn't there something slightly more recent? Something tangible and available wherever fine books are sold? Why yes, there is! Just look into Clinton’s first memoir, “Living History,” published in 2003.

“I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage.”

"I realized that I had crossed the line from advocate to policy maker. I hadn’t altered my beliefs, but I respectfully disagreed with the convictions and passion of the Edelmans and others who objected to the legislation.”

This can only mean one thing!

Hillary has a ghost writer.

Just to bring things back to Bernie, here's a fun quote from, of all people, National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke:

"Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm. Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically."

Some nice, easily Googled sources:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-26/will-hillary-clinton-run-against-her-husband-s-welfare-legacy-

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/05/29/410606045/the-bernie-sanders-rape-fantasy-essay-explained

[Thinkingabout]

170. Plus Sander's wife took a $200,000 parachute to leave, compares to executives on Wall Street getting

Golden parachutes to leave.

[TiberiusB]

171. I'm not sure that word means what you think it means

$200k!!!?!??!! Why, that's nearly 3.5 times the average annual salary in Vermont! They'll live like royalty...until 2014...a year ago...since the 200k payout was in 2011.

Look up "golden parachute and WallStreet" on Google. The payouts range from a few million to well over a hundred million (135 million for a departing Aetna CEO, for example). So, 200k "compares" to something like 1% or .1% of a Wall Street style executive golden parachute.

Wait...does that make Bernie a member of the 1%? That sneaky bastard.

[beam me up scottie]

172. But Sanders is a thousandaire!

Sounds more like an aluminum foil parachute to me but hey, words mean whatever we want them to mean on DU.

[Thinkingabout]

174. Shocking the Sanders would be in on taking a parachute when she left the university, I am surprised

this wasn't donated back to the university, it would make sense to me especially since when it is a problem when executives takes the parachutes while going out the door. This amounts even compares to the amount Hillary was getting for speeches, strange huh.

[MADem]

234. She was lucky to get that amount because she ruined the place and left just ahead of being fired.

If the school does not survive, it will be on her head. She put them in a precarious financial position using absurdly optimistic enrollment projections that couldn't be achieved. All that land she bought? They had to sell it. Total mess.

It's a "limited appeal" school on a good day, there's no real way to tell if you're getting a solid performer or someone who is a perpetual square peg out of that place--there's no real way of telling because it is so adamantly non-conformist. It's also very expensive, and the "bang for buck" ratio is on a preciptous glide path since so many favored instructors were fired or left.

[Thinkingabout]

238. But, but, but, it was a golden parachute.

[artislife]

184. +1 nt

[Armstead]

166. Did you read the OP and Hillry's quotes?

including "I realized that I had crossed the line from advocate to policy maker."

She supported it. Proactively.

[John Poet]

84. Glad to know that Bill hurt more poor whites than poor minorities

with welfare reform...

Well, no, actually it makes no difference. It just hurt.

[JDPriestly]

112. Yes. But the myth excuses and at the same time results in a lot of racism on all kinds of

issues.

It is this myth that People of Color are poor and dependent on welfare that makes Bernie's message on economics so important in our society. We need a society in which far, far fewer and may no people earn less than the poverty level. That will help people of all races and ethnicities.

That's why Bernie's economic message is so important.

I asked a White mother whose son had sold a controlled substance to undercover policeman and thus risked and experienced an arrest for very, very little money, "Why did he do that?" It seemed so irrational to me. She said: "Because he had no money." He had already served a sentence for a minor offense, and had no job. "Because he had no money." A young man who cannot work cannot support a family or even take a girlfriend to the movies. He will do what he thinks he can to get money.

We need more jobs for young people. We need less incarceration of young people, espeically of people of color.

That is one of the things I like about Bernie's message. I worked on poverty issues for some years of my life writing grants for a homeless project that served mostly homeless Black men. I will never forget the man who walked from downtown LA to Orange County for a job interview. He could not afford a bus or a train. So he walked. Work is so important. Economic justice is often the key to racial justice. Not always.. But often.

[artislife]

177. You packed a lot in there.....well done.

[PatrickforO]

4. This isn't the only thing, either. Clinton lost me in 1992 when she was assigned to develop

a national health care plan. An advisor said that most Americans wanted a single payer system.

Her reply: "Tell me something real."

Well, it's STILL real, as is PRWORA, which is an odious, punitive law that does nothing but create a revolving door at best, and a permanent underclass no longer eligible for basic safety nets at worst.

Instead of forcing TANF recipients to work as slave labor in 'work related activities' to earn those welfare checks, by golly! we need to:
1. provide job training
2. more heavily subsidize child care
3. implement a single payer healthcare system

This would do more than PRWORA EVER did to help Americans have better lives. This is a profoundly misogynist law, too, because it adversely affects single mothers - the very people we cannot afford to waste as more baby boomers leave the workforce. Did you know it's actually in the text of PRWORA and its final rule that the purpose of the law is to reduce the welfare rolls and to encourage marriage? HOW is that not misogynist???

And more importantly in 2015, HOW is it that Hillary could ever have supported this piece of crap law if she's so 'for' women's causes? I'd think helping single mothers lift themselves out of poverty would be a pretty big women's cause.

[sabrina 1]

44. Good post, and you are exactly right. It forced single moms into the workplace

as slave labor. A Corporate bill if ever there was one. And Hillary wants us to believe she cares about women and children, sorry not buying that at all.

[2banon]

80. Hear! Here! Bravo! This point needs it's own OP!!!

Did you know it's actually in the text of PRWORA and its final rule that the purpose of the law is to reduce the welfare rolls and to encourage marriage? HOW is that not misogynist???

And more importantly in 2015, HOW is it that Hillary could ever have supported this piece of crap law if she's so 'for' women's causes? I'd think helping single mothers lift themselves out of poverty would be a pretty big women's cause.

[Sancho]

119. I've been a firm advocate for gun control...Bernie lost me because he's a gun nut...

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/run-2016/2015/07/10/bernies-big-break-with-the-left-on-guns

Bernie's Big Break With the Left on Guns

Gun control is one issue where the Vermont senator is out of step with the progressive movement.

ARLINGTON, Va. -- As a lifelong Bernie Sanders fan, Honora Laszlo was hoping for the best when she came to a forum here Thursday night to challenge the Vermont senator and presidential candidate on his gun control position.

The avowed socialist Sanders voted in 2005 to prohibit lawsuits against gun manufacturers when crimes are committed with their weapons. In the wake of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, he told a home-state media outlet that stronger gun control legislation wouldn't have prevented the shootings.

[READ: Sanders Trying to Make the Most of His Booming 2016 Crowds]

This bothered Laszlo, a member of the local chapter for Gun Sense In America, who agrees with Sanders on virtually every other issue. So she stood up to pointedly pin him down on the matter, seeking a conversion or at least a concession. Instead, she got a confrontation – which illuminated Sanders' weakest spot with liberals in his long-shot quest for the Democratic Party nomination.

Laszlo first wanted to know how Sanders could claim that further gun control measures wouldn't prevent future mass casualty tragedies. She then pressed for an explanation on his 2005 vote.

A defender of the Second Amendment from a rural state, Sanders explained he knows tens of thousands of his constituents who hunt and target practice safely and lawfully. He stressed he has voted for a ban on assault weapons, in favor of instant background checks and to close the gun-show loophole covering private sales.


Bernie on Guns:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/05/bernie_sanders_on_guns_vermont_independent_voted_against_gun_control_for.html
Bernie Sanders, Gun Nut

He supported the most reprehensible pro-gun legislation in recent memory.


The consequences:

http://reverbpress.com/news/phillips-lucky-gunner-aurora-shooting/
Grieving Parents Forced To Pay Legal Fees To Gun Companies That Sold Arms To Aurora Shooter

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/

Bernie Sanders, Second Amendment Socialist?


Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent who has announced he will run to the left of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries, was first elected to Congress with the help of the National Rifle Association.

In 1990, Sanders — then the mayor of Burlington — challenged Vermont Republican Rep. Peter Smith. It was a rematch of the 1988 congressional race, which Smith won. Despite previously promising to oppose gun control, Smith came out for a so-called assault weapons ban.



"What the NRA was buying with their support for Bernie Sanders was a closed mind,” the defeated Republican Smith later told the Vermont Times. “What they want is people who won’t think carefully about a problem.”

“Bernie’s response,” a Sanders spokesman said in response to critics of his boss’ reluctance to support gun control, “is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to represent all Vermonters.”

The title of the Vermont Times article was “Who’s Afraid of the NRA? Vermont’s Congressmen, That’s Who.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/01/bernie-sanders-second-amendment-socialist/#ixzz3c673QCfm


Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: "Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.
Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Reference: Wicker Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.798 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S145 on Apr 2, 2009
Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.
No opponents spoke against the bill.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/19/why-isnt-the-media-discussing-the-unprecedented/191910
Why Isn't The Media Discussing The Unprecedented Law Giving Gun Makers And Dealers Immunity?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2015/07/10/bernie-sanders-misleading-characterization-of-a-controversial-gun-law/
Bernie Sanders’s misleading characterization of a controversial gun law

http://ideas.time.com/2012/12/24/why-is-congress-protecting-the-gun-industry/
Why Is Congress Protecting the Gun Industry?
Gun manufacturers and dealers enjoy broad legal immunity, even though lawsuits against them would help improve safety

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/01/1183784/-2005-Law-Gives-Gun-Manufacturers-and-Dealers-Protection-From-Lawsuits-Not-Given-to-Other-Industries#
2005 Law Gives Gun Manufacturers and Dealers Protection From Lawsuits Not Given to Other Industries

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/21/politics/congress-passes-new-legal-shield-for-gun-industry.html?_r=0
Congress Passes New Legal Shield for Gun Industry

[Dawgs]

128. And...

Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record.

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

[PatrickforO]

131. Nice links

Sanders has said he supports more gun control in cities and less in rural areas. While gun control is important, it's not the only issue, and Sanders leaves everyone else in the dust when it comes to economic and social policy. He still has my vote.

[Armstead]

168. And if his somewhat divrgent position on gun control is so important to you....

then by all means donlt support him. Actively oppose him.

But I must admit, I'm a little confused what that has to do with Welfare Deform

[beam me up scottie]

185. It has absolutely nothing to do with Welfare reform.

This is another common tactic: deflect, derail, disrupt any and all threads critical of Hillary.

Ignore the issue and keep referring to Bernie as a "gun nut" and bringing up his pro-orgasm stance, essay on gender stereotypes (aka Bernie's "rape fantasies" by HC supporters), his "race problem" and other memes promoted by her fans.

Lather, rinse, repeat...

[Zorra]

5. Rich person arrogance: “I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for

its passage—though he and the legislation were roundly criticized by some liberals, advocacy groups for immigrants and most people who worked with the welfare system … I was most concerned with the five-year lifetime limit, because it applied whether the economy was up or down, whether jobs were available or not, but I felt, on balance, that this was a historic opportunity to change a system oriented toward dependence to one that encouraged independence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spoken like a true republican.

[sabrina 1]

46. 'Spoken like a true Republican' Exactly, that's what I thought when I read that. It made me

cringe frankly. 'They should be allowed to become dependent on handouts'. Dog whistles by the dozen regarding that awful legislation, and we know why Republicans pushed it. But Dems? Shame indeed.

[Zorra]

140. Thanks for this OP, sabrina1. We need to get these facts out to communities

of our most economically disadvantaged, who will be severely negatively affected by a Third Way welfare reformer in the White House.

Let's look at her actions and beliefs in contrast to Bernie Sanders' actions and beliefs:

Senator Bernie Sanders, 1985:

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

Honestly, I can't understand why people would even consider voting for Clinton over Bernie; except for the fact that the 1% owned MSM is great at controlling the minds of the masses, particularly in convincing them to consistently vote against their own best interests.

[frylock]

96. The ever-popular 'welfare keeps people dependant' meme..

lovely.

[Enthusiast]

110. Reminds one of what they said during the Irish potato famine.

[Triana]

7. Sanders is consistent. It's just one thing I like about him.

And that indicates honesty. And that's a rare, rare thing in a politician.

Two rules when examining who you want to vote for:

1. Look at their RECORD (nevermind what they SAY)
2. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Bernie Sanders wins hands down on both counts with me. I'll vote Hillary if she's the nominee - or O'Malley. But Sanders is my #1 pick right now.

[zeemike]

75. Well things have been turned around now.

1. Look at what they SAY (nevermind ) their RECORD
2. FOLLOW THE TWEETS.

[Sancho]

120. Look at their record? Bernie support the military complex when the pork comes home!

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion

Bernie Sanders Doubles Down on F-35 Support Days After Runway Explosion

By Carl Gibson, Reader Supported News

03 June 14



Me: “You mentioned wasteful military spending. The other day ... I’m sure you’ve heard about the F-35 catching fire on the runway. The estimated lifetime expense of the F-35 is $1.2 trillion. When you talk about cutting wasteful military spending, does that include the F-35 program?”

Bernie Sanders: “No, and I’ll tell you why – it is essentially built. It is the airplane of the United States Air Force, Navy, and of NATO. It was a very controversial issue in Vermont. And my view was that given the fact that the F-35, which, by the way, has been incredibly wasteful, that’s a good question. But for better or worse, that is the plane of record right now, and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.”

hat was the exchange I had with US senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at a town hall in Warner, New Hampshire, this past weekend (skip to the 45:30 mark of this video to hear my question). Sanders came to New Hampshire to gauge the local response to his economic justice-powered platform for a presumed 2016 presidential campaign. While his rabid defense of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and takedown of big money running politics was well-received, he contradicted his position of eliminating wasteful military spending while defending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/

The Myth of Bernie Sanders
Although Sanders may have once been a socialist back in the 80s when he was Mayor of Burlington, today, a socialist he is not. Rather he behaves more like a technofascist disguised as a liberal, who backs all of President Obama’s nasty little wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Since he always “supports the troops,” Sanders never opposes any defense spending bill. He stands behind all military contractors who bring much-needed jobs to Vermont.

Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Bernie Sanders, and Congressman Peter Welch could hardlycontain their enthusiasm over the news that Burlington International Airport had been named as a possible site to house the Air Force’s new F-35 fighter jet scheduled to replace the Vermont Air National Guard’s aging fleet of F-16s. The new high-tech instruments of death will cost $115 million a pop in sharp contrast to the F-16s which cost a mere $20 million each.

From whom might these F-35s protect Vermont? Possibly, Canada, separatist-minded Quebec, upstate New York, the New Hampshire Free State, or the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? Why on earth would anyone want to invade Vermont? Vermont has no military bases, no large cities, no important government installations, and no strategic resources unless you count an aging nuclear power plant. What if Canada, China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or even the U.S. Marines were to invade the Green Mountain state? Just what would they do with it? Would all of the black-and-white Holsteins be confiscated, or perhaps the entire sugar maple crop be burned? Imagine trying to enslave freedom-loving Vermonters. Good luck!

——snip————

Sanders is the darling of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and the right-wing Likud government of Israel. He has done everything within his power to keep the myth of Islamic terrorism alive. He never questions the U.S. government’s unconditional support of Israeli acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians. It is as though these are nonevents.

Last, but by no means least, is the U.S. government-owned Sandia National Laboratories. For over two years Sanders and former University of Vermont President Daniel Fogel have been encouraging Sandia to open a satellite laboratory in Vermont. Sandia, whose historical origins can be traced back to the Manhattan Project in World War II, designs, builds, and tests weapons of mass destruction. The Vermont laboratory envisaged by Sanders would not be involved with nuclear weapons but rather would be engaged in projects related to energy efficiency, renewable energy, and electric grids. Sandia, interestingly enough, is operated under contract by Lockheed Martin, the largest defense contractor in the world. Lockheed Martin produces F-35s and drones. General Dubie, who has close ties to Lockheed Martin, recently received an honorary doctorate from UVM. No one at UVM seems to care whether or not the University gets in bed with a manufacturer of atomic bombs.



————————

http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/09/vermont-says-no-to-the-f35



HUNDREDS OF northern Vermont residents are campaigning against U.S. Air Force plans to base the new F-35 bomber at the Burlington, Vt., airport--and they're getting fierce opposition for their activism from the primary backers of the plan, Sens. Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy and the rest of Vermont's Democratic Party establishment.

The F-35 is designed for stealth, first-strike capability and its capacity to carry 19,000 pounds of materiel, including nuclear bombs. As an attack aircraft, the F-35 is promoted as "unparalleled" and capable of reducing its human targets to "nothing but hair, teeth and eyeballs.”

THESE ISSUES have brought hundreds of people to organizing meetings, rallies and public hearings. Two local school boards passed resolutions against the F-35 basing, and the South Burlington City Council has also condemned the plan. However, to date, Vermont's senators and its Democratic congressman, Rep. Peter Welch, have continued to promote the basing and have yet to take seriously any of the community concerns. All members of the congressional delegation have refused to even meet with F-35 opponents.



What's more, Democratic Party support for the F-35 basing raises a more glaring contradiction. Vermont Democrats campaign on their "antiwar" credentials, but now they are cheerleading a first-strike weapon of mass destruction. Sen. Sanders even deflected questions about his support for the F-35 bomber during a Vermont Public Radio interview by turning to glowing praise for the Vermont Guard's contribution to the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, presumably including the use of Vermont Air Guard F-16s to bomb Iraq as part of the illegal occupation.

But this shouldn't come as a shock. Sanders initially ran for Congress in 1990 while supporting the first Gulf War. Sanders has since aligned himself with several U.S. wars, including the 1990s blockade and bombing of Iraq that killed more than 1 million Iraqis, the war in Yugoslavia and the "war on terror." His views on war and interventions closely mirror those of President Obama.

————————

http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/02/hypocrisy-alert-bernie-sanders-wanting.html



Hypocrisy alert: Bernie Sanders, wanting to suck on the military teat

No wonder Bernie Sanders wants to run as a Democrat, not a Green; he's too willing to suck at the military teat (near end of story):
Whatever its technical challenges, the F-35 is a triumph of political engineering, and on a global scale. For a piquant illustration of the difference that political engineering can make, consider the case of Bernie Sanders—former Socialist mayor of Burlington, current Independent senator from Vermont, possible candidate from the left in the next presidential race. In principle, he thinks the F-35 is a bad choice. After one of the planes caught fire last summer on a runway in Florida, Sanders told a reporter that the program had been “incredibly wasteful.” Yet Sanders, with the rest of Vermont’s mainly left-leaning political establishment, has fought hard to get an F-35 unit assigned to the Vermont Air National Guard in Burlington, and to dissuade neighborhood groups there who think the planes will be too noisy and dangerous. “For better or worse, [the F-35] is the plane of record right now,” Sanders told a local reporter after the runway fire last year, “and it is not gonna be discarded. That’s the reality.” It’s going to be somewhere, so why not here? As Vermont goes, so goes the nation.
So, Bernie, really? Ohh, it's bad, but I"m not going to oppose out-of-control military spending that makes Ike's "military-industrial complex" that much, because I want Vermont on the gravy train, even if it's a war weapon, even if it's a bloated one.

What else, Bernie? Want to invite the federal prison system to Vermont. You are a border state, and people could be sneaking through from Canada. Why not ask Immigration and Customs to build one, since they're already being nutbar on one town straddling the border with Quebec?

———————————
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-lockheed-and-sandia-came-to-vermont.html

How Lockheed and Sandia Came to Vermont

On October 2, 2009 Senator Bernie Sanders made one of his classic fiery speeches on the floor of the US Senate. This time Vermont's independent socialist was taking on Lockheed Martin and other top military contractors for what he called “systemic, illegal, and fraudulent behavior, while receiving hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.”
Among other crimes, Sanders mentioned how Lockheed had defrauded the government by fraudulently inflating the cost of several Air Force contracts, lied about the costs when negotiating contracts for the repairs on US warships, and submitted false invoices for payment on a multi-billion dollar contract connected to the Titan IV space launch vehicle program.
A month later, however, he was in a different mood when he hosted a delegation from Sandia National Laboratories. Sandia is managed for the Department of Energy by Sandia Inc., a wholly-owned Lockheed subsidiary. At Sanders’ invitation, the Sandia delegation was in Vermont to talk partnership and scout locations for a satellite lab. He had been working on the idea since 2008 when he visited Sandia headquarters in New Mexico.
—snip———
Despite – or, maybe because of – its scope and size, however, Lockheed executives sometimes feel the need to violate rules. As a result, as Bernie Sanders often mentioned in speeches until a Sandia lab for Vermont took shape, it is also number one in contractor misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it engaged in at least 50 instances of misconduct and paid $577 million in fines and settlements.
In the mid-1990s then-Rep. Sanders objected to $91 million in bonuses for Lockheed-Martin executives after the defense contractor laid off 17,000 workers. Calling it “payoffs for layoffs” he succeeded in getting some of that money back.
—snip———
Despite – or, maybe because of – its scope and size, however, Lockheed executives sometimes feel the need to violate rules. As a result, as Bernie Sanders often mentioned in speeches until a Sandia lab for Vermont took shape, it is also number one in contractor misconduct. Between 1995 and 2010 it engaged in at least 50 instances of misconduct and paid $577 million in fines and settlements.
In the mid-1990s then-Rep. Sanders objected to $91 million in bonuses for Lockheed-Martin executives after the defense contractor laid off 17,000 workers. Calling it “payoffs for layoffs” he succeeded in getting some of that money back.
———snip---------
Sanders added that “working with Sandia and their wide areas of knowledge – some of the best scientists in the country – we hope to take a state that is already a leader in some of these areas even further.” Lockheed’s past offenses didn't come up.

——————
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363
Bernie the Bomber’s Bad Week

Bernie the Bomber’s Bad Week
1999

by Will Miller

In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders’ Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO
bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves
the “Instant Antiwar Action Group,” we decided to bring our outrage at
Bernie’s escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted
in 15 of us being arrested for trespass.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Another Truth Grenade!

Thank you!

[Ed Suspicious]

104. Better a truth Grenade than an -H>Bomb.

[sabrina 1]

135. And there are so many more truth bombs that will wipe the floor with all the

bought and paid for talking points they can buy. Because this time we have a candidate who needs NO DEFENDING. Which is why there is such a desperate effort to paint a false picture as quickly as possible before everyone gets to KNOW him, because as soon as they DO, well, we are watching what happens, across the political spectrum.

Issues, that is what people want to know about, and that is what they are going to be very much on the defensive about.

Btw, have you seen this post in this thread? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=467933

From someone who KNOWS the devastating effects of this horrible, elitist, legislation on poor, minority women and children.

It was beneficial to Corporations though, it created a whole new cheap labor force for McDonalds and Walmart.

[MannyGoldstein]

156. When people are in pain, they listen, think and act

And a thinking electorate will help Bernie!

Thanks!

[frylock]

13. But haven't Hill and Bill apologized for this?

Because that's what's important.

[sabrina 1]

48. No, they haven't. Bill still thinks it was a great thing. I believe he views it as one of

his 'signature pieces of legislation'. Well, I can't say what he say now, that is the last response he gave re the Bill that I could find. Haven't found anything to say he was wrong.

As for Hillary, well we don't know yet. But up to the 2008 election, she was still supporting it.

[jalan48]

14. For the working poor...

According to Mother Jones 65% of fast food workers are women.Why doesn't Hillary support raising the minimum wage to $15/Hr. for these folks?

[George II]

22. She does....see:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/07/news/economy/hillary-clinton-minimum-wage/

Hillary Clinton champions minimum wage hike

Speaking by telephone, Clinton told the more than 1,300 fast food workers gathered at a convention in Detroit that every worker deserves a fair wage and the right to unionize.

"I want to be your champion. I want to fight with you every day," said Clinton, who kicked off her presidential campaign in April saying she wants to be the champion for "everyday Americans."

The call was another step to the left for Clinton, as she vies for the Democratic nod with progressive candidates Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley. She told the assembled crowd that they should continue building the Fight for 15 movement, which is pressing employers to raise workers' pay.

And:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/07/hillary-clinton-sounds-populist-note-at-fast-food-workers-convention/

Hillary Clinton endorses fight for a $15 minimum wage

By Lydia DePillis June 7

DETROIT, Mich. -- In one of the most explicitly union-friendly speeches of her young presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton called in to a convention of low-wage workers Sunday morning to deliver a message of support and solidarity.

"All of you should not have to march in the streets to get a living wage, but thank you for marching in the streets to get that living wage," she said. "We need you out there leading the fight against those who would rip away Americans’ right to organize, to collective bargaining, to fair pay."

Clinton's new campaign has carried a populist tone throughout, but this speech -- before a ballroom full of mostly young, African American workers from across the country -- virtually echoed the language that the Service Employees International Union has used in its campaign for a $15 minimum wage. Along with the fast food workers who have been at the core of scattered protests over the past couple of years, Clinton's short speech called out home care workers and adjunct professors, who make up a substantial part of the SEIU's membership base and have joined in the call for higher wages.

[jeff47]

25. Yeah, if you actually look at her statements, you'll note she never mentions a specific wage.

For example, your highlighted sentence only says to build the movement. Not to actually get $15/hr. The article paraphrases to make it sound like she did, but that wasn't actually what she said.

Somehow, she never manages to actually state a specific wage in any of these statements. Kinda odd since the group has one in mind. You'd think she could say it in place of "living wage". At least once.

[George II]

29. I updated my post seconds after I hit "post my reply"...she did endorse a $15 an hour wage...

...the writer of the first article was sloppy, the writer of the second more precise.

[jeff47]

32. Nope. Your second quote still doesn't have her actually saying $15/hr.

It's yet another paraphrase, where she virtually echoed the language. One of the differences that causes that "virtually" qualifier is she did not mention a specific wage.

She never has given a specific number for what the minimum wage should be.

[snagglepuss]

97. No she hasn't endorsed a national min of $15. She has stated she wants the

wage determined locally.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251453009

[jalan48]

30. I haven't seen where she specically supports $15/hr. Do you know if she has?

[George II]

34. Once again:

this speech -- before a ballroom full of mostly young, African American workers from across the country -- virtually echoed the language that the Service Employees International Union has used in its campaign for a $15 minimum wage. Along with the fast food workers who have been at the core of scattered protests over the past couple of years, Clinton's short speech called out home care workers and adjunct professors, who make up a substantial part of the SEIU's membership base and have joined in the call for higher wages.

[jalan48]

47. Virtually echoed? Why can't she just say it?

[George II]

49. She did - those are the author's words, not Hillary Clinton's

[jalan48]

51. Interesting-this from the Guardian 4 days ago.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/17/hillary-clinton-minimum-wage-cities-states-small-businesses

[sabrina 1]

73. She has not supported the $15 min wage, she has stated she supports a 'hike'. Unless it

happened very recently, she has been asked to support it but I have not seen it yet. If you have a link to her support for the $15 min wage, I will retract that.

[jeff47]

35. I'm not George, but she never has.

She uses phrases like "living wage", and says that it should be raised. She has never given a specific number.

[sabrina 1]

50. Does she still support THIS awful piece of Republican legislation which she did from

her last public statements about it?

You know what this did don't you? It forced poor and minority single moms out to work as CHEAP LABOR for Corps leaving them with little way to care for their children. Another New Deal safety net destroyed by a Republican bill, signed by a Dem president, and supported completely by a current Dem candidate.

We are waiting to see if she finally admits what a horrible mistake this was. So far, nothing.

Btw, she doesn't support the $15 minimum wage. She supports a vague 'hike'.

[beam me up scottie]

78. "Hillary Clinton Declines To Support A National $15 Minimum Wage "

Hillary Clinton Declines To Support A National $15 Minimum Wage

Hillary Clinton on Thursday wouldn’t commit to supporting a $15 national minimum wage but said she is working with Democrats in Congress who are determining how high it can be set.

“I support the local efforts that are going on that are making it possible for people working in certain localities to actually earn 15,” Clinton said in a response to a question from BuzzFeed News during a press availability in New Hampshire on Thursday.

“I think part of the reason that the Congress and very strong Democratic supporters of increasing the minimum wage are trying to debate and determine what’s the national floor is because there are different economic environments. And what you can do in L.A. or in New York may not work in other places.”

http://www.buzzfeed.com/kyleblaine/hillary-clinton-declines-to-support-a-national-15-minimum-wa#.hhrVO0VjD

[George II]

85. Well, let me give this one more try....

Hillary Clinton Tells Minimum Wage Fast Food Workers: 'I Want To Be Your Champion'

Hillary Clinton surprised more than 1,200 low-wage fast food workers from around the nation on Sunday morning to tell them she backs their push for a $15 minimum wage.

“I want to be your champion," Clinton said in a phone call to those gathered in Detroit for a fast food worker's convention this weekend. "I want to fight with you every day. I’m well aware that the folks on top already have plenty of friends in Washington, but we together will change the direction of this great country.”

Clinton also voiced support for unions and collective bargaining while urging workers who built the "Fight For 15" movement to keep their "important" work going.

1. A convention of fast food workers FROM AROUND THE NATION
2. She backs their push for a $15 minimum wage.

What else do you need??????

[jalan48]

86. Did you read the link to the Guardian article? It was 4 days ago.

I think you are falling for misleading statements.

[George II]

89. Sorry, but no, unfortunately some here are just not willing to accept (or admit) that she supports..

...the $15 minimum wage for fast food workers.

[jalan48]

92. Check it out-it's pretty straight forward.

[concreteblue]

123. Are you that easily misled?

She said no such thing. You are falling for the rhetoric, not listening to her words.

[sabrina 1]

134. Where does she say 'I am signing on to the $15 minimum wage' that has now become

movement across the country? It's just more vague, 'I want to be your champion' rhetoric. She does NOT say it. She has not signed on to the petition that is everywhere, asking Dems to get on board and make this happen. NOT JUST TALK ABOUT IT.

She's a bit late in her career to take on that role, considering her political positions for her entire career, including her membership of Walmart's Board, has DEMONSTRATED that her ACTIONS have done the exact opposite.

Keep trying to change the facts if you wish, I wish you would support Democratic legislation to overturn that awful bill instead, which are so available on Hillary's awful record on the poor and minorities, but it isn't going to work, because her own words, not just on this draconian destructive legislation, are available on so many other issues where she had the opportunity to be their Champion, and chose to Champion Corporate interests.

[George II]

16. "Hillary Clinton, First Lady at the time FULLY SUPPORTED her husband's Welfare Reform Bill"

That isn't true at all. The bill that was passed and signed by Clinton wasn't HIS Welfare Reform Bill, it was Newt Gingrich's.

As a matter of fact, it was Gingrich's THIRD Welfare Reform Bill - the first two were vetoed by Bill Clinton.

[jeff47]

23. So Newt signed it? Or did Bill?

You put your name on something, it's yours. Even if you claim you had no other option.

[George II]

27. Certainly not true, but I'm not going to change your opinion.

[jeff47]

28. Yeah, what's a hurting a few million people compared to overriding a veto.

I mean, think of the damage! The Republicans might have started some sort of witch-hunt against Bill Clinton if he had been so weakened by having a veto overridden.

[George II]

31. You just don't understand this stuff.

[jeff47]

33. No, I do. You just think the suffering is worth it. (nt)

[George II]

38. Nope. You're just trying to take one piece of legislation and isolating it from.....

....the rest of a Presidency, not understanding that a President, after a veto override (which was certain) have that more difficult a time working with Congress. You forget how Congress was treating Clinton at the time.

Besides, the OP (and that subjective anti-Clinton article) is blaming Hillary Clinton for all of this, not Bill Clinton. Guess what? Hillary Clinton didn't write the legislation OR sign it.

Good evening.

[jeff47]

43. So, what law did Bill get in return for gutting the safety net?

Besides, the OP (and that subjective anti-Clinton article) is blaming Hillary Clinton for all of this, not Bill Clinton. Guess what? Hillary Clinton didn't write the legislation OR sign it.

Psst....there's quotes from 2003 and 2008 too. If she hated it, how come she kept saying it was great after Bill was no longer president? And she was running herself?

[sabrina 1]

76. This OP is about one piece of legislation, one that has hurt Minority Women, single mothers

and their children for two decades. Are you defending that? I thought you all supported Minorities? I do, always have, and I support the Democratic Parties New Deal Legislation on Safety Nets for the most vulnerable Americans, which THIS Bill destroyed re Welfare.

I cannot imagine anyone who supports minorities, STILL trying to excuse this awful attack on minorities and the poor, on single moms and children.

[sabrina 1]

58. What's so hard to understand? Did Hillary support this or not? She told us to look

at her record in which she included her time as First Lady. So what are you having a problem with here, she was proud of this bill, and boasted about 'rounding up votes for it'.

[sabrina 1]

52. Bill Clinton signed it and Hillary supported it and admits she even 'rounded up votes

for it'. No way to triangulate these facts. Many in their administration at the time were horrified, including Robert Reich and as you see from the OP, Pete Edelman who quit in protest. Good for him, a true Dem.

[sabrina 1]

149. Did you read any of the links I provided in the OP? Hillary OWNED it, she has applauded it

as something that would get those 'dependent' single moms and their children to stop being dependent'. There is a comment in this thread from someone who has worked for 30 years with poor women and their children who, if you want to know what REALLY happened with the passage of that bill, she has told us from personal experience, and she and they know that it was Clinton's bill, he views it as part of his 'signature legislation'.

I don't know why YOU are denying it was their bill when they both are contradicting you. Seriously.

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. Hillary embraces DLC/3rd-Way economic barbarism

[Spitfire of ATJ]

19. Give Hill a chance!!!

She has to get info from her pollsters before she can reply to this!

[WillyT]

20. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[jtuck004]

24. "a system oriented toward dependence to one that encouraged independence" < ? He took one in

which people had access to a wide multitude of opportunities, and could work toward independence. It's just one of many regrets he has - almost as many as his victims.

Ms. Clinton's description is the exact opposite of what happened as a result, which is why we have near 50 million people on food stamps, 30% of who would be working and productive adults living at home with their parents - with little hope for millions of them to do better in this life, and 100 million people now either in poverty or nearer than they have been in their entire lives. And it is getting worse for many of them.

One can hardly get more dependent than that.

Bernie. Now.

[pnwmom]

37. When has a First Lady ever spoken out against a bill signed by her husband?

Hillary should be responsible for actions she took as Senator and Secretary of State, not for every bill her husband signed when he was President.

It's always been clear that she was more liberal than he.

[jeff47]

39. Like being responsible for the 2003 and 2008 quotes?

Or does the 'defer to the husband' thing carry on past her time as First Lady?

[sabrina 1]

63. How often do First Ladies boast about 'rounding up votes' for their husband's

legislation and how often are they this specific about WHY they so strongly support legislation their husband is considering?

Has Michelle Obama been that involved in Legislation?

[cascadiance]

70. Haven't had time to look but what about the Telecommunications Act...

... that Bill Clinton signed, that as some people note probably destroyed radio when it allowed Clear Channel to basically swallow terrestrial radio up and get rid of so many different variant formats that it didn't want to support...

http://windupwire.com/tag/telecommunications-act-of-1996/

I wonder if she early on or later supported or rejected this bill? Even McCain had the wisdom to vote against it.

Bill Clinton was lucky that we had some better court justices in our court then, or perhaps one of the more evil parts of that bill that he signed in to law might still be law today ( The "Communications Decency Act" ). A lot of problems with privacy and other online rights would have started that much earlier if that part had not been thrown out by the courts then.

[sabrina 1]

81. That and so many other pieces of legislation that need to be discussed in this campaign

period. There is a reason why some people do not want us to talk about ISSUES because IF we refuse to be distracted FROM the issues, by all the noise that is around these days, Bernie wins hands down. So like Bernie, I intend to that, when I am campaigning for Bernie and all over Social Media because in the end that is the ONLY way we can decide who supports what, who stood up when it counted, and who didn't.

Thanks for your post, that is definitely another issue that all Candidates need to address.

[Tommymac]

94. You are awesome.

[Enthusiast]

111. I agree.

[Doctor_J]

148. when has a first lady run for president?

God, some of your posts are goofy

[cantbeserious]

45. Settling For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils Is No Longer The Only Option - Go Bernie Go

eom

[zentrum]

57. Thanks so much

…for such an informative post.

[sabrina 1]

67. No problem when you stick to issues, when you compare the records of candidates,

Bernie wins, hands down. The rest is intended to distract because his opponents know this.

[zentrum]

95. Yup. n/t

[Babel_17]

60. His record is good (nt)

[SoapBox]

64. K & R

Thank you Sabrina.

[sabrina 1]

72. Bernie excels on the issues, especially on Civil Rights and no amount of distraction from that

is going to work. Thank you SB!

[azmom]

65. Kick

[historylovr]

71. K & R

[2banon]

77. Excellent Post, Sabrina

[udbcrzy2]

90. This thread rocks! n/t

[nikto]

91. Friends

Ooh, that salad looks tasty.

[99th_Monkey]

98. Splendid Spot-on OP Sabrina1. Follow the money. Look at their records.

"All the rest is noise which will be gone once the election is over. " <-- YEP

[senz]

99. Thanks for taking a closer look at the issues, Sabrina.

The election of a POTUS matters; we need one who will serve ALL the people, especially the millions who were hurt by the Bush recession. It's silly to talk about "dependence" when Reagan-Bush (and, yes, some of Clinton's) policies have sent entire industries abroad and thrown millions of Americans out of work.

We need someone who cares about the American people.

[fbc]

102. Excellent post!

[Enthusiast]

109. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

Apparently we have trillions to waste on unnecessary counterproductive wars but we don't have money for real people, American people.

[RiverLover]

121. "Note the 'Pull Up Your Bootstraps, Poor People' lingo there!!"

Noted!

One of MANY republican policies Clinton presided over with his republican buddies. Great post. History is truth.

[stupidicus]

124. what was his vote on the Telecommunications Act of 1996

imo that was one of if not the worst (in terms of long term ramifications measured in depth and breadth as was predictable and was at the time) bills BC signed.

Gee, do you suppose he'll apologize for turning the quasi-constitutional fourth estate into the aristocrats plantation, the watxchdog into a lapdog...

[cascadiance]

127. He voted no in the House on this bill...

https://votesmart.org/bill/2832/8594/27110/telecommunications-bill#.Va-fz2R3khJ

[sabrina 1]

132. Thanks, I was about to post that. His voting record on almost every, single issue of importance

is as perfect as it could be.

[cascadiance]

133. Yep, I think that's what you get when someone isn't as obligated to campaign donors...

... and "measuring" whether they vote their ideology (if they have their own ideology in some cases) or what their donors want, which is why many other politicians may seem to be voting well on many issues but still have some thorny issues to explain.

Feinstein is one of the worst as one of my earlier senators when I lived in California. I liked Boxer a lot on many of the things she voted for, but am still trying to figure out why she joined Feinstein in stopping Merkley's filibuster rule changes that would have prevented the obstruction of Feinstein's assault weapon's bill at the time. We saw theater that many wanted Feinstein's bill to pass then in the wake of Sandy Hook tragedy, but then the votes behind the scenes had you wonder who was pulling strings.

My current senator Wyden has been great on issues of rights of privacy, etc., but then gets us screwed over with TPP/TPA and earlier was working with Paul Ryan on Ryan's medicare reform bill mess. It coincidentally was right near the time when he was getting some health treatment for some cancer he had. Had you wondering what was being "traded" then too. I'm really hoping that Pete DeFazio runs for his seat, who I noticed when looking at the small number of nos voting against the Telecomm bill was one who voted no then too. He NEEDS to be our senator I think.

Bernie is so refreshing when I feel like he's so genuine with what he votes for and how he talks to people. He doesn't often or perhaps ever have to "explain himself", as others do.

[sabrina 1]

137. I love DeFazio, he has been consistently good on the issues, and on speaking out

against Bush/Cheney when so many remained silent. Widen has been a huge disappointment lately, it was he who WARNED us about the Secret Trade Deal in the first place, so it's stunning now to see the person who appeared to the canary in the goldmine over this, get on board with no explanation when we KNOW he was telling the truth back then, and he now HAS the support of the people, all the Unions, every Prog Org in the country which he badly needed in the beginning.

I didn't know he was dealing with cancer, I hope he has a complete recovery. And I hope he rethinks his support for this awful legislation.

[cascadiance]

143. Oh Wyden had some prostate surgery within a month or so of meeting with Paul Ryan..

... on the Medicare bill that got Wyden frowned upon a lot. The timing of those two events seemed curious to me at the time. As noted in this article he was expected to fully recover from it, and I haven't heard anything about recent problems for him since then.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/16/ron-wyden-prostate-cancer_n_797969.html

[MisterP]

142. it's a funny twist on Euthyphro--personality vs. policy: do we back someone only when they pass

good policies, or do we just assume the policies are good because their other ones are?

[raouldukelives]

130. K&R The facts speak for themselves.

Some try to purchase and fabricate authenticity and some already have more than any amount of money can buy.

[NealK]

139. K&R

Great post.

[turbinetree]

146. Great piece.............

it about ETHOS, PATHOS, LOGOS.
And once the population sees these three pillars of Sanders, he has not wavered in this conviction ------------

While the others have no mask to hide behind because they do not have these 3 pillars , they have compromised there position-----------they are corrupt in the lack of the three pillars

[AtomicKitten]

147. Well-reasoned post. Recommended. <nt>

[Armstead]

161. Well hell, you did it again.

Told the truth.

WORD

[Cheese Sandwich]

240. +1

[L0oniX]

169. K & R ...this will only piss off all the right people.

[azurnoir]

211. YES thank you K& effing R and all that stuff

[Thinkingabout]

213. What better way of concern for the welfare of children than providing them a way and means of

providing support to children by their parents. They are provided with training, child care and financial needs during the two years of education, or you could continue to give money without any just rewards for the parents.

[Armstead]

219. Um it doesn't work that way in the real world

There are a lot of people who go and do the things they are supposed to do, and still can find nothing but dad-end, minimum wage jobs because nothing else is available. Or they have constraints (family, physical issues, location) that limit the amount they can work or the type of jobs they can perform.

"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" may be a good goal, but welfare deform was not the way to address the obstacles and complexities that exist for actual people on the lower rungs of the ladder.

Especially not in the economic conditions created by deregulation and the other pressures that have been placed on people by free-market corporate conservatism, "free trade" and other "centrist" versions of GOP policies.

This was conservative Darwinism 101. Maybe some people believe that's a good thing. But don't pretend it is anything closely resembling a liberal safety net.

[Thinkingabout]

220. And for those there are still social nets. Do you think the parents are getting more money by

remaining on welfare? If this is the case then something is very wrong. BTW, I work on a minimum wage job, yes, it provides money to support me.

[Armstead]

221. Something IS very wrong

And that is an underlying point, but beyond the scope of this thread. We're slashing the safety net on one hand, while making it more difficult for people to earn a livable wage at the same time.

No I do not advocate encouraging what that Conservative Icon Reagan refereed to as "Welfare Queens" who choose to sit on their butts and scam the system.

But that is not what this is about. Christ i feel like I'm talking to one of my Conservative Republican friends..

In addition to the truly disadvantaged, it is about Working People, who are struggling and need assistance for them and their families to survive. And the fact that arbitrary cutoffs and other harsh measures squeeze them even more.

If you are able to live on the minimum wage, more power to you. You are an incredibly gifted personal financial manager, have extremely basic needs and wants, and no potential problems or disasters waiting around the corner to overturn your situation in a second.

Most people are not so gifted and/or lucky.

[Thinkingabout]

222. I am working, I do not understand an attempt to degrade me for being willing to work on a job which

Does not pay much, it is better than living on welfare and whenever I receive my check i am proud to take it to the bank. What liberal would want to stomp on top of me.

[Armstead]

223. No one is attempting to "degrade" you

I make scant money. (Self employed so minimum wage is not a factor.)

But I am criticizing the contention that Welfare Deform was a good thing, and the underlying assumption that "those people" will get off their butts and work if we slap on Draconian restrictions on welfare,

[Thinkingabout]

225. Since you refer to welfare deform, I feel degraded because I am working on a minmum wage job.

I would think a thank you would be more appropriate and encouraged to continue to provide for myself.

[Armstead]

228. If you want to interpet it that way, I can't stop you

But you're totally off base in your interpretation of my remarks...like 180 degrees off.

But you are free to interpret it as you choose.

[villager]

226. That was an appalling piece of legislation -- a cave-in to the right on the backs of children

The columnist Michael Ventura wrote a great piece at the time about being unable to support Clinton's re-election, if was so easily capable of doing this to a defenseless class -- like children.

[Teamster Jeff]

236. kick rec