Is this all because Bernie endorsed ONE LOCAL CANDIDATE IN A LOCAL RACE

[retrowire]

Is the entire party splitting at the fucking seams because of ONE FUCKING LOCAL RACE THAT BERNIE ENDORSED A PRO LIFE CANDIDATE IN?

This can't be true.

DID BERNIE TELL THE PARTY TO LITERALLY GIVE UP ON WOMENS RIGHTS?!

DID HE?

[stevenleser]

1. No. nt

[retrowire]

2. Go onnn....? Nt

[boston bean]

3. nope.

[retrowire]

4. Go onnn...? Nt

[tallahasseedem]

5. Nope.

[retrowire]

7. Go onnn....? Nt

[LanternWaste]

6. Go onnn....? Nt

Go onnn....? Nt

[retrowire]

9. Yes annnnd....? Nt

[LexVegas]

8. No. nt

[retrowire]

10. Go onnn...? Nt

[ProfessorPlum]

11. Yes it is

a lot of untrue things extrapolated from that one thing.

And it isn't even really true:

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/

[retrowire]

16. Thank you for actual information. Nt

[KittyWampus]

27. No, it isn't. It's been explained to you many times this is about Sanders' own rhetoric

that belittles and insults the Democratic party.

And also that Sanders preaches an ideological purity doctrine but is wiling to forgo that same way when it benefits himself in some way.

From recent actions, it appears that ideological purity about women's rights is not necessary for Sanders support but ideological purity about economic issues is necessary.

In other words, Sanders is ideological pure about some things and not others. He's pragmatic about some things an not others.

The conversation going on about Sanders is about a lot more than just one thing.

For anyone to say that shows a lamentable willingness to ignore what other people are saying.

[Fresh_Start]

77. +1 nt

nt

[uponit7771]

61. You know this is false on its face, party is ready to bash on Benedict Donald not selective purism

[ProfessorPlum]

69. I think we are agreeing with each other

[RelativelyJones]

12. Bernie endorsed a pro-life candidate. Speaks for itself, doesn't it?

[retrowire]

18. If I were simpler

And saw everything as black and white then yes.

But I know things are a lot more complicated than that.

[athena]

21. Please don't use the word "pro-life" to refer to people who don't realize

that a woman's life is also a life. Banning abortion would result in the deaths of women. There is nothing pro-life about the anti-choice position.

[RelativelyJones]

57. Agreed. I should have said anti-choice.

[Volstagg]

23. He supported the Dem

Should he have supported the Republican?

[Samantha]

13. No, there is a huge difference of opinion between the Third-Way Dems and the Sanders' message

Nancy Pelosi recently remarked Democrats like things the way they are. It was a subtle message that the Sanders' approach was one the Democratic party would not be embracing.

Sanders points out the number of losses the Democratic Party has experienced over the last few elections. The consequence of those losses gave the Country a Republican Senate, Congress and the White House. What Sanders offers is constructive criticism on what is wrong and how it can be corrected. He believes if the changes he discusses are implemented, Democrats will start winning again and thus start regaining power in this Country.

How? By convincing voters the party is working in their best interests and it needs their support to turn this Country around. And he is experiencing a lot of success in some arenas. Even some Republicans are starting to listen more carefully to his message, and the 42 percent of Independents are paying attention as well.

Sam

[JudyM]

34. Agreed. Constructive criticism. Not worth the sh*tstorm.

[alarimer]

76. They lost those races largely because they stopped trying at the local level.

Obama sort of dropped the ball there, in picking Wasserman-Schultz for the DNC. They had success with the 50 state strategy before (even though it means sometimes nominating anti-choice Democrats or conservative Democrats or what have you).

So now Sanders endorses the Democrat in a local race and, all of a sudden, there are purity tests when it comes to one single issue. Hmmm. No such purity test for Bob Casey, for instance. It is strategic pragmatism, which we are all urged to adopt when our favored candidate loses in the primary. Like in 2016, which plenty of us did. And those who didn't were rightfully lambasted for their choice.

Sanders' message will likely attract some young and not-so-young non-voters and some independents which will make a difference in some races. I mean I hate voting for people I can't stand, but I've done it plenty of times.

[HopeAgain]

78. I didn't use to use the word "establishment" Democrat before now

But I now define them as those who blow their tops at even a hint that maybe, just maybe, we need to look at some changes since we control practically nothing. There seems to be a lot of them on here and Bernie is just the touchstone to figure out who they are.

[Samantha]

84. Well, Nancy Pelosi said recently Democrats do not want changes; they like things the way they are

I could not help but wonder if she had observed the loss pattern of Congressional seats over the last few elections, as well as the Oval Office. If a party keeps slipping, sliding away, it seems to me changes are in order. I think that means examining the outstanding issues and what are positions are on them, as well as looking around to see what we might have let "drop."

Sam

[Demit]

14. No.

[WhiteTara]

15. And dissed a NATIONAL candidate in a NATIONAL race

over the same issue.

[KittyWampus]

17. No, there's the little matter of who he didn't endorse recently and why. Then there's his insults

about the Democratic party.

How can people be so obtuse, I sincerely don't understand.

[SaschaHM]

37. The rush to defend Bernie while painting detractors as part of some...

Clinton/Russian conspiracy is just disappointing and truly shows their color.

[cwydro]

44. Thank you. nt

[uponit7771]

62. +1, they're not being obtuse at this point ... the RECENT statements from Sanders doesn't need all

... that much explaining.

[JTFrog]

19. No. nt

[TCJ70]

20. There are many personally "pro-life" Democrats in various positions of power in the party...

...this guy isn't an outlier in any way or outside what those same Democrats (Kaine) believe personally. If you voted for Hillary, you voted for someone in the same vein as the guy Bernie endorsed.

[retrowire]

24. Exactly

And that's why all this hypocritical outrage is blowing my fucking mind.

[KittyWampus]

28. Which is irrelevant to the conversation about Sanders being pragmatic about women's rights

but ideologically pure about economic issues.

And his belittling remarks about the Democratic party.

[retrowire]

33. ...

Pragmatic for the bigger picture.

The economic issues are his own mindset. Clearly the Democratic Party isn't taking those at face value either.

And finally... Criticisms are criticisms.

[uponit7771]

63. +1, they get it ... selective purism is pious at best

[Demsrule86]

39. Mello voted to ban abortions at 20 weeks and to deny health care for abortions and to insist a

physician be present for all abortions including morning after pill use...Kaine never voted for anything like that. But the thing that angers me is the idea that economic rights trump social justice...that if a candidate agree with Sen. Sander's economic message that is all that matters in terms of an endorsement...just don't agree.

[Vesper]

59. He didn't just vote for them, he SPONSORED them.

[Demsrule86]

67. You are correct...thanks.

[Are_grits_groceries]

58. He actively worked to enact restrictive abortion laws.

He introduced legislation and other items.
If someone personally does not believe in abortion that's one thing. However, if someone woks to impose his or her views on all women, that's another.

[Omaha Steve]

60.  Heres the truth about Mellos record

https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/

 Instead, on April 19, The Wall Street Journal ran a story noting that Mello, a practicing Catholic, is pro-life. The story also falsely claimed that Mello had co-sponsored a bill “requiring women to look at an ultrasound image of their fetus before receiving an abortion.” A similar error was made by The Washington Post, which claimed that Mello had “previously backed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women considering abortions,” and then again the following day by David Nir, political director of Daily Kos, who announced the site was withdrawing its endorsement of Mello—a move applauded by Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, who’d launched a 12-part Twitter storm linking to the WSJ article and accusing Sanders and Perez of kicking off their tour with the message “shame women; we’ll support u anyway.”

 Back in 2009, he co-sponsored a bill requiring a physician performing an abortion to tell a woman that an ultrasound is available (as most already did). It neither mandated that the ultrasound be performed nor, if performed, that it actually be viewed by the woman—although it did require abortion providers to position the screen in such a way that the ultrasound was easily viewable. Daily Kos member Nova Land—a Tennessean who had never heard of Mello before the controversy—posted a comprehensive, well-sourced correction to this effect the same day. That didn’t lead Nir to reconsider. Nor did it stop Perez from issuing a statement announcing that he “fundamentally disagree[s] with Heath Mello’s personal beliefs about women’s reproductive health,” which was worded in a way that appeared to cast doubt on the sincerity of Mello’s pledge that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care.”

 What’s more interesting is what happened next—and what didn’t. In 2012, Mello voted with Planned Parenthood on two out of three bills tracked by the group—and was excused from voting on the third. After that, Mello, who had become the influential chair of the state legislature’s budget committee, voted with Planned Parenthood 100 percent of the time. By 2015, the group was celebrating a “fourth straight year…without enacting any new abortion restrictions in Nebraska, thanks largely to committed women’s health advocates engaged in the legislative process.”

 But in Omaha, the DNC’s response was greeted with dismay. “It was Heath’s credibility with pro-life legislators that enabled him to take mandatory ultrasounds off the table and substitute a bill that stated that women had a choice to have one and to see the image,” said Jane Kleeb, chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, of the ultrasound legislation. The competing bill not only required ultrasounds before an abortion; it also required clinics to position the screen so that women would be forced to view the fetus.

[Demsrule86]

68. You left out the part where he sponsored a ban on abortion at 20 weeks...unacceptable.

[Omaha Steve]

70. Joe Biden once voted for a late-term abortion ban and received low marks from NARAL in 1999 and 2003

I didn't realize you stayed home and didn't vote Obama-Biden as unacceptable!!!

https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/53279/joe-biden-jr#.WPqT4lPyve0

A lot of Democrats have made anti-choice votes at some point in their life. Joe Biden once voted for a late-term abortion ban and received low marks from NARAL in 1999 and 2003. In other years, he got high scores and his position likely became more progressive over time.

[Demsrule86]

71. Twenty weeks is not late term.

Joe Biden voted in a partial birth abortion ban...big difference. And as I have said I always vote Democratic when there is a Republican running. But, such candidates should not be normalized or endorsed. And if the anyone thinks that we will turn the Democratic party into a populist economic party and ignore social justice...it won't happen. The push back has been huge.

[Omaha Steve]

72. So you want the anti-choice R incumbent to win!

[Demsrule86]

73. I don't want the anti-choice Democratic candidate endorsed by party leaders.

His voting record is terrible. I hope he beats the GOP although there is not much difference...Mello also supported Keystone.

[NurseJackie]

74. Exactly! How much CLEARER could you be? Thank you!!

[Demsrule86]

82. That is my problem with this...

I always vote Dem...even if I have to hold my nose...and with this guy you need a gas mask. Luckily, I live in Ohio.

[Omaha Steve]

86. Bold Nebraska has been fighting Keystone XL since day one, guess who they endorsed for mayor

On the late term that passed 40-5. Ho co-sponsored it so he could and did amend it to being less invasive. You knew that right?

http://boldnebraska.org/election2017/

MAYORAL: OMAHA

We are proud to endorse Heath Mello as a Bold candidate for Mayor of Omaha.

Heath has a demonstrated record of supporting environmental and sustainability issues as a former state senator. He has earned the endorsement of the Nebraska League of Conservation Voters, after also being named the group’s 2016 Conservation Champion.

Heath worked on proposals to improve recycling, support local clean energy initiatives, address water conservation, and create new green jobs. He also worked with his colleagues in the Unicameral to establish the LR455 select committee that produced major policy recommendations to address climate change in Nebraska.

As Omaha’s next Mayor, Heath would continue this collaborative work, and have our city create its own Climate Action Plan to implement our environmental element of the city’s master plan.

In addition, Heath is committed to enhancing and implementing alternative transportation options that improve Omaha’s physical and economic environment, including expanding bike lanes, light rail, and ride sharing.

[Demsrule86]

81. No Kaine ever voted for the following ... this guy is anti-choice period.

a twenty week ban

requiring the presence of a physician...means to close down clinics

and not allowing insurance companies to offer insurance for abortion.

He should have not been endorsed.

[JTFrog]

22. You're gonna need a bigger boat.

[we can do it]

25. Enough already.

[retrowire]

26. Agreed. I think I've said my piece.

I've learned enough from the answers here.

[mythology]

29. No and obviously so

It's about the primary (as are the response threads) and about Sanders' historical and current attitude toward the party and about the election loss.

That said, it's not tearing the party apart. Certain people on DU, sure.

[retrowire]

30. I try to tell myself that's not the case.

But it just looks like grudgery to me.

[RedWedge]

31. Nope, it's been an ongoing split. Or didn't you see what happened in 2016, when a non-Democrat

joined the party, insisted on his way or the highway, trashed HRC as not pure enough, and then exited the party?

[retrowire]

38. He got me to join and stay with this party.

He got me to vote for Hillary.

I learned from him and his book that it's not all "my way or the highway"

People just paint him that way.

[frazzled]

32. No, it was because

He used a big, nationally advertised "Unity Tour" to expend the so-called "unity" on holding a giant rally to promote a minor municipal election with a candidate he extols as "progressive"—by his own calculation, not that of the vast base of the Democratic Party—and at the same time neglects to extend the same "unity" shtick to a very important big-time Congressional race that could help to turn the tide for control of Congress and send a real shot across the bow, claiming (after the shit hit the fan, of course) well, there are Democrats and Democrats and he doesn't know if the other guy is progressive enough.

This is not unity. Unity is not using some local election to get back on the stump and repeat your (losing) primary bromides once again. Unity is not getting in front of the cameras at every opportunity to castigate the party you are supposed to be unifying (to which you do not even belong) for being "weak" and wrong.

Is there something about this you don't get? Is the hypocrisy and self-serving, authoritarian nature of it not clear? Does the idea that social justice needs to go hand in hand with economic justice not a guiding principle of progressivism?

[retrowire]

40. LET ME HUG YOU

And let me slap every other snarky motherfucker in the face.

YOU ARE THE FIRST AND ONLY ONE TO EXPLAIN THIS SO CLEARLY.

NOW I FUCKING KNOW.

Now I know what has everyone angry at Bernie.

And I can agree, that was stupid and haphazard of him. I wish he hadn't done that.

I won't freak out and assume that he's anti women like so many are purporting but now I at least KNOW the deal on both sides.

THANK YOU.

[frazzled]

42. I'm humbled and pleased

that my post made you rethink. I usually post things that almost nobody even reads, and I've never thought they could have an effect. I was thinking of leaving and stopping posting altogether, but maybe I'll try for a bit longer.

Thanks!

[retrowire]

45. Well that's the thing!

Everyone's so fucking snarky and angry all the time that they've given up on explaining and communicating with each other because it feels like a waste.

That's all the trolls fault. Trolls really don't give a shit. They role people up and walk away, eventually people think everyone is a troll.

So thank you for your efforts to inform. I'm no troll I'm just fucking frustrated by all the snarkiness! Lol

[Blanks]

80. I agree with your earlier post too. eom

[Demsrule86]

50. Very good explanation...indeed.

[Phoenix61]

54. Exactly!

But you wrote it much better than I would have. If he had come out in support of Ossoff I don't think there would have been any problem at all. I don't live in Georgia but I'm pretty darn close. It would have been nice to see some enthusiasm for a dem running in this incredibly red area. If for no other reason than a little moral support.

[tallahasseedem]

56. I am begging you to post this as an op...

You absolutely hit the nail on the head in a way that is so clear and concise that it should be read by every person on this board.

THANK YOU!!!

[uponit7771]

64. +1, linking this as reply

[Adrahil]

65. So much this. SO much! NT

[betsuni]

66. Yes, please post this as an OP.

[NurseJackie]

75. Thank you so much for this! Clear. Concise. Organized. Factual...

... what more could anyone want. It was a PERFECT reply!

[Fresh_Start]

79. +1 nt

nt

[DanTex]

35. Of course not. His preference for Mello over Ossoff is just the latest example.

The larger picture is that Bernie wants to "fundamentally transform" the Democratic Party. The way he wants to transform it is by putting more emphasis on economic issues as opposed to social issues. He wants to hold a tight line on things like single payer, and allow flexibility on things like choice. He believes that if we allow flexibility on social issues in places like Kansas and Nebraska, then the Dems can be a populist economic party that is united against corporations and the 1%.

And, predictably, this is controversial. A lot of Dems think choice is more important than single payer. In fact, a lot of Democrats don't even think that single payer is the way to go in the first place. Also, even just from a political standpoint, it's not clear that his strategy is a good one, because a big shift to the left on economic issues risks alienating centrist voters.

But, no, Bernie isn't telling the party to give up on women's rights. He's just telling it give women's rights less emphasis.

[retrowire]

41. Less emphasis in deep red states you mean.

But good explanation.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

36. no, it's his hypocrisy around party purity and then his support for a non progressive

and the hypocrisy of some of his supporters

[randome]

48. Nailed it. If he wants to fantasize about being our fearless leader, he needs to do so privately.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Greybnk48]

43. The comrades want to divide and conquer.

Just the tactic little Scotty Walker boasted about before he trashed Wisconsin.

[LanternWaste]

46. "Is that what fainting looks like...?"

"Is that what fainting looks like...?"

[retrowire]

47. Huh? Nt

[pnwmom]

49. No, but he has repeatedly made economic populism his overarching priority

and he's wrong to think that will solve all our other problems.

[hrmjustin]

51. The party is not splitting.

Here is a hug!

[jrthin]

52. No. nt

[Eko]

53. No.

Its about endorsing someone who is a Democrat that some would call a Blue dog and then giving a "meh" to someone who is pretty well aligned with democratic principles. That is a little upsetting to some who recall his history of "bashing" democrats for not being progressive enough. I for one am glad he is going big tent, but to do that and then not give a better response for Jon Ossoff shows a failure of messaging. It happens though, hopefully we can move on and Sanders can do a bit better messaging for all Democrats.

[emulatorloo]

55. Let it sink.

No the party isn't splitting.

[kcdoug1]

83. Well...

Haters gotta hate

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. DOES WRITING IN ALL CAPS MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THIS POST IS SMARTER THAN IT ACTUALLY IS?

[cwydro]

87. Pri, you always say things so succinctly.

I love it.