Bernie Sanders tells Democrats to back off primary attacks
Source: AP
WASHINGTON (AP) — Bernie Sanders is warning the Democratic Party not to attack its own candidates in primary battles, as happened in a Houston-area congressional race.
The Vermont senator said it's "appalling" that the party's congressional campaign arm targeted Laura Moser ahead of Tuesday's primary election. Moser, an activist, is endorsed by Sanders' Our Revolution group.
Sanders told The Associated Press on Wednesday that such attacks are "not acceptable."
Moser advanced to a runoff with Democratic front-runner Lizzie Pannill Fletcher, despite the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee publishing an opposition research memo calling her "a Washington insider who begrudgingly moved to Texas" to run for Congress.
Read more: https://www.mrt.com/news/texas/article/Bernie-Sanders-tells-Democrats-to-back-off-12736602.php
The linked source is the Midland Reporter-Telegram.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Skittles
(153,147 posts)
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)
brush
(53,764 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:49 AM - Edit history (1)
Response to TexasTowelie (Original post)
Post removed
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)The DCCC may have been a bit heavy handed but Sanders (who is not a Democrat) has no business commenting ...just makes me dislike him more.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)elected. why give the GOP something to latch on and destroy our candidate and keep the seat...Fletcher is a great candidate with no baggage.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)The Democratic leadership argument since they late-80's has been that they have to be fiscal conservatives to win, so they that they can be progressive on culture and race.
However, Bernie's candidacy and success in polling with swing voters and even Republicans show that calculus is dead wrong.
Democrats have been losing or winning narrowly because they don't offer enough that helps the middle and working class, and what they do offer clearly has to pass through a filter of not pissing off big donors too much, or more often, policies that help us have to profit the 1% even more.
People get that.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)Feingold didn't do well either now did he?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)have caused the situation where Democrats get more votes but Repubicans get elected.
Is that clearer?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)how in the world can it know who is or is not electable?
Who is the "our" in "our candidate"?
Are we never to have change?????
I think that professional campaigners, people paid to manage campaigns, should allow ALL Democratic voters to have a say in who will win a primary and run in the November election.
It is utterly fascistic for one or the other party to pick the candidates without the input from the primary voters.
This is the Russian model for picking the candidate.
No. I'm not for it. Primaries should be as open to Democratic voters as possible. It should be a testing ground for potential candidates and also, more importantly, for their ideas. It's also a practice session for the candidates.
I am not for the dictatorship of party leaders.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)The Democratic Party follows "the Russian model?" 
Outrageous, insulting sophistry. And the ignorance is enormous: fascism is an archconservative form. Democrats are the anti-fascists.
As for what parties do,
Democracy is the system that allows anyone who wants to run for office.
The main purpose of political parties within democracies is to get people who share their values and goals elected.
You're mistaking the two.
These days, the BEST candidates ares the strongest candidates we can field against the Republicans.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)parties. I have been understanding some of the posts of others to suggest that the Democratic Party leadership should pick candidates to run in the primary and the rest of us should just vote for that candidate.
I agree with you.
I consider that those arguing that we should always blindly follow the Party leadership in voting for their choice of candidate in primaries are fascistic. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the posts since I am not in Texas. But . . . .
You are right with regard to the purpose of primaries.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and never back them up with any facts.
You just go silent.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)to get a result democrats like you and myself are not seeking, electing Democrats.
I dont know why this shit is allowed here
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)step, all because of your bitterness that more people preferred Hillary. You keep implying no one voted for her, that every voter was denied a vote which all would have been for Sanders, of course. These kinds of contrived fantasies and misinformation campaigns serve no purpose. They keep getting more and more abstract.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)I just oppose super delegates. I would oppose them regardless who won the nomination. They facilitate corruption.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)because it is supposed to bolster the conspiracy that Bernie was cheated. It is just sour grapes. There is no excuse for continuing to smear Democrats just to prop up contrived scenarios. It is not corruption or conspiracy that more voters preferred Hillary.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)runoff...sounds like people voted...and you are simply tearing down the Democratic Party. Democrats are the only party that can stop Trump and the Republicans. And there is nothing wrong in considering electability as well as ideology...in fact if you don't, than you are setting up a loss. Moser has baggage...the 50,000 to her husband's consulting firm ( that is 1 in 6 campaign dollars) and the comments about Texas are problematic. I would vote for her in a general for sure but not a primary. It is the DCCC's job to elect Democrats. I think they were a bit heavy handed but they were right. We have a real shot at this seat and desperately need to take back the house in order to stop Trump's assault on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security as well as the environment and the economy...not to mention DACA. We are in a tough spot in the Senate...not only could we lose seats, the GOP could end up with a working majority. God help us then. We need the House to stop Trump and the Republicans. Now, I am very liberal...more so than Pres. Obama in fact, but I don't give a damn about ideology this particular election especially in red states. We have a gerrymander and must overperform in order to take the House. It is desperately important that we win the House in 18. All this angst about ideology in red states for heaven's sake is ridiculous because people the house is on fire. We are so screwed if we don't get the House in 18. I would like the Senate too...but failing that the house is everything. Honestly ideology is not worth a damn if you lose. There is no righteousness in losing when people are depending on you to stop Republicans and the fascist monster that is Trump. We need a big tent solution in order to get back in the majority...there is no other way to hold a majority in the Senate. And we need to support candidates who can win their states. Not where If I remember correctly where you live which is California.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You seem to have swallowed some agitprop... whole.
You think that the Democratic party used "the Russian model?" On what basis?
What party do you support, anyhow?
George II
(67,782 posts)...."ALL Democratic voters" ) don't have a say in who will win a primary and run in the November election? Did I miss something?
I honestly don't have any idea of what you're implying here:
"It is utterly fascistic for one or the other party to pick the candidates without the input from the primary voters."
Are you referring to the Democratic Party?
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)are suggesting that candidates should not compete in primaries but rather just vote for the candidate chosen by party leadership.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding?
But that is the way I am reading some of the posts.
I think that is a crazy idea, but . . . . that is what I understand some posts to say.
George II
(67,782 posts)As far as I know, all of our candidates are chosen by the Democratic voters in their jurisdiction.
Even in the case of conventions at the state or local level, they only endorse candidates, they don't choose candidates. Any candidates not endorsed are still free to challenge the endorsed candidate in a primary.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Why?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I know you won't provide any backup for your "observations" that always seem to damn the Democratic party and leadership.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)Surely you are not talking about our two party system where the party with
ONE
MORE
SEAT
than the other makes
E V E R Y decision about E V E R Y T H I N G
It is in fact, especially now, ONLY about putting D's in seats...How in the heck can people NOT understand that yet? 
JCanete
(5,272 posts)moderates. That is wild. Its because moderates have tanked our message, undercut our legislation, and voted over and over with republicans on pivotal issues. We've lost a 1000 seats in 30 years! We can't keep congress or the Senate when we win it because our own moderates back away from progressive legislation that does get passed so we look like we don't even like what we're bringing to the American people.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)Why we do that we dont need to discuss, I hope. We all understand how the 2 party system works. I hope.
And this has NOTHING to do with policy, agenda or anything, RIGHT NOW, it has to do with getting ACTUAL Nazi's who are working with our ENEMY out of office.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)the candidate they want they will be more likely to be energized to get out to the polls on election day.
It always has EVERYTHING to do with policy and agenda. There is no base of power that is protected from being infiltrated by cynical actors. If you dont' actually give a shit what they stand for then what the hell does the party label even mean? I'll help you out....0.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)I don't take off-the-shelf anything! I accept nothing less than bespoke. It would violate my ethics, not to mention my feels. There is no reason we can't have an Amazon.com model for our Democracy. RIGHT NOW.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)We need to understand that here but we are just not yet ready to accept there are KGB or as they are now called FSB agents posting on Democratic Underground
They arent high level agents, they are worker bees that work for Putin, there are thousands of them that post all over social media all over the world.
Bots are different. But also effective.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)proof. Please please, in the climate of Trumpism, tell me that that isn't a baseless claim that's simply good enough because you yourself believe it to be true.
ON the other hand, if it did happen, and somehow you were able to discern it to be the truth and it was somehow ferretted out, well damn. That's both disheartening but encouraging that it was spotted. I really hope this is the kind of thing you are referring to and not the former.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)if winning seats is the point. I'm all for taking the best we can get once we've actually had a real choice not massively pre-weighted by our party getting behind the candidates best able to demonstrate that industry likes them and will give them money.
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)investment and banking industries after the crash of 2008. Maybe some of the reforms should have been changed, but not the way they were changed.
Democrats have failed in elections because we do not give voters any hope for a better economy for them and their families if we win.
Granted, some of what elected Trump in the electoral college (in which small red states are overcounted and large blue states don't get counted fairly at all) was racism. But a lot of it was his strong, albeit insincere and possibly even crooked, economic message.
Democrats are afraid to focus on an economic message that will lift all boats. And that is why we lose in so many struggling states. That's my opinion.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)regressive beliefs so engrained...so intractable. People are already readily capable of believing that the source of whatever pain or suffering they might be experiencing is some other person that is not like them in some superficial way, but it doesn't hurt that while corporations and industries continue to inflict economic hardship on people, they continue to use their media mouthpieces to scapegoat immigrants and transgender people and Muslims and people of color, etc. because it works. Because it plays into those existing biases easily.
And barely any energy has been put into getting these people on the same side of an issue. the democratic party has been derelict in its responsibility to fight these divisions over the years, by not taking up our side of the class war in a meaninful enough way....by literally avoiding the designation of a class war. They've let us fight in the mud with each other rather than to channel our rage to where it rightfully belongs....rather than to foster love and community between people of all walks of life, because in that narrative, we actually need each other in our common cause. In that narrative , attempts to scapegoat immigrants are met with pointing out the agenda of the those at the levers of the machine.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)state and national elections is not a winning track record. I'm not saying the job of democrats isn't 1000 times harder than Republicans...republicans get way more corporate backing, but if this is the best we can hope for we may as well give the fuck up already. It's over. We're done.
I assure you that's not the fault of the far left. Its not the fault of democrats either, but it is the fault of money corrupting our form of government to the point hwere there may be no return, and there certainly will not be if we don't finally at long last, demand of our party that they be the ones to draw a hard line in the sand.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Refusing legal money to run campaigns? Unilaterally disarming is the way to win back those "1000 seats in state and national elections?"
Does the rampant GOP gerrymandering have any impact in your angry at Dems narrative?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)but yes of course, nor would I ever try to pretend that I'm certain disarming for the sake of trying to harness a populist weapon would work. I'm just fiarly damn certain that we're at a point where if we don't try that, we are going to continue to backslide. If, when dems do regain power(for 2, maybe 4 years), we do not unequivically put in unassailable protections to net neutrality and if we do nothing about the near monopolies on messaging that big corporations have as internet providers and social media giants slowly work out ways to filter out what kind of exposure people get to news and information, while the rich use their vastly expanded wealth to influence public opinion and buy every level of government to one degree or another...we will have absolutely hit a point of no return.
but back to the money, you think that's our weapon. Its not. Its their weapon. Its like saying, "yes please mail us those letters full of anthrax so that we can fight you with it..."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)and snacks for volunteers, and expert consultants on issues that are relevant, and message marketing consultants, and good salaried experienced field staff, and accountants, and bank services to process the donations - both one time and monthly, and lawyers, and transportation to meetings and rallies, and printed materials, and meals for staff, and lodging for staff, and media buyers, and strategists, and other campaign necessaries that are too numerous to mention here.
Yes, it is a vital tool, if not a "weapon" as you put it.
To fight someone you need not only weapons, but resources. And those resources cost more than all the $27 donations you can squeeze out of people, no matter how many times one person may make a $27 donation. It requires the cash that groups, advocates, and yes, even lobbyists and the wealthy have to give. We want the 1% to pay their share of taxes, and I think they should be paying their fair share of campaign costs for those who represent the people. And no, it doesn't mean that they get their particular wants met - for example Barney Frank took money from Wall Street to get elected, and turned around and wrote legislation that limited them. It's like assuming that someone automatically sleeps with the person who took them to dinner.
It's interesting - those of us on the left have no delusions on how much funding is required for decent public schools, maintaining our infrastructure and a secure public safety net. However when presented with the realities of what a modern campaign costs, many suddenly sound like tea partiers who are told that teachers need a living wage.
Of course, there are always going to be those campaign staffers who abuse funds, using them for personal purposes. Even the most progressive candidates have dealt with that as recently as 2016. So, no, that potential can't realistically be a dealbreaker when a candidate is seeking funding.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)than you make it sound.
the reason banks and other institutions give money to the more "friendly", less pugilistic democrats, is because those are perfectly acceptable alternates should their republican favorites lose. What they are doing is preventing a populist from winning the primary on the democratic side of the aisle, and then possibly winning in the GE. They are preventing somebody who is going to run on fire and fury against the banks, etc. from galvanizing the people around said cause, and potentially starting off a cascading event that continues to erode the choke-hold that money has on our politics. Then where would these institutions be?
However, if these moderate steps were enough, then shit, we'd be moving in the right direction, and you would be correct in justifying this approach and I would be wrong for demanding that we do something far more drastic and risky, but I think the evidence should suggest to you that this approach has been failing, and miserably.
I have no illusions about what a campaign costs either. That does not change the fact that if these corporations and rich individuals weren't winning, they'd quit gambling. They win every time, and they do it by hedging their bets. When we play with their money we still lose. You are 100 percent correct that a challenge to them without money to support our outreach, campaign, expenses, etc. is a essentially a goliath versus an ant story, but with it, it isn't a challenge to them at all. It is simply a cost of doing business.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You should become more informed on the topic, even if it does not support your current opinion.
However, it's convenient for the candidates that accuse their opponents of quid pro quo with no evidence whatsoever, that so many will just believe them.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)when Republicans, like Rubio refuse to say they will take no more donations from the NRA, but when it comes to democrats and donations, said industries are applying no influence whatsoever and ....oh, in fact its suddenly illegal. You know on whatever level that its illegal there are plenty of other legal avenues of financial support, say...uh, super pacs. For that matter, I'm pretty sure there is a certain direct contribution threshold that corporations are allowed to give to candidates (not to mention a higher one in total if they are going to contribute to a party), and it remains true that individuals, CEOs, other executives, etc. can themselves contribute at the highest money value.
Actually here is the details on whether or not corporations can contribute:
Corporation Contribution Limits
22 states completely prohibit corporations from contributing to political campaigns. Another six-Alabama, Missouri, Nebraska, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia-allow corporations to contribute an unlimited amount of money to state campaigns. Of the remaining 22 states, 19 impose the same restrictions on corporation contributions as they do for individual contributions. The other three set different limits.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 12, 2018, 09:11 AM - Edit history (3)
Who can’t contribute
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:
Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another
https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/who-can-and-cannot-contribute/
And are you talking about 501(c)(4) PACS who can take "dark money" like Crossroads GPA and Our Revolution?
As for the NRA's influence on candidates....
Of course if a favored non-GOP candidate has taken NRA money - and/or has been the beneficiary of NRA ads against their opponent, got an endorsement from Wayne LaPierre, voted no on gun control legislation, and gets praised publicly by the NRA for repeating their own talking point that passing liability laws on gun manufacturers is = to trying to "shut down gun manufacturing in this country," some people here are perfectly willing to dismiss that interesting confluence of actions because reasons!!
Sophia4
(3,515 posts)candidates for the actual election? A primary that includes candidates of all stripes and abilities helps us do that. And how do we excite and interest voters so that they will get out and vote? A primary does that.
The problem in the past has been that the candidate that wins the Democratic primary does not bother to unite the party and embrace and include the candidates that also ran in the primary and his/her supporters, expressing respect and above all, respect and inclusion.
So we need a candidate that not only is electable but that in order to really be electable has the humility to reach out and include the candidates who lost. It is this latter act that often decides which party wins in the November election especially in this time of the internet.
In 2016, the problem was that the Hillary faction did not reach out and include the Bernie faction. Hillary would have won in the swing states if she had really been gracious to Bernie supporters many of whom were young and inexperienced in politics.
Politicians have to be naturally very generous and forgiving. That takes a person of great spiritual capacity. A person who projects love.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)If I'm correct all of that money was spent on what it was supposed to be spent on and the receipts show it. Really depressing if true, because the DNC funded that oppo research and leaked it apparently...but I'll caveat all of that because I'm too lazy right now to dig into it. I don't want to actually spread false info as if its fact if it isn't. I'll go and take a look later today.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)business...and it is bad optics... many candidates do this, but the GOP will use it ... which is what concerns me. I hope Fletcher wins...she has a better shot. The idea is to win the seat not got to war with the DCCC and nominate someone with a particular ideology.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)whatever the agenda.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)the district or state. consider that we will never have the senate again without moderates. I would like to elect the most liberal candidates possible in every state. But in Texas, we have to consider electability. The GOP will destroy Moser.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)electable before even putting it to the people. OR, they are just deciding who they like best. Who rocks the boat less. Since they are scuttling opponents to their preferred candidate then how do we even get to know who is more electable? They aren't letting the fight play out fairly. They aren't letting us tell them who we want based upon ideology.
I refuse accept that we need to prop up moderates. It's unproven, as I posted to you elsewhere today. What the facts do say is that we have lost a 1000 seats or so in 30 years. You want the people who helped that happen to continue to make the decisions about who we elect?
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)have been more circumspect but you can bet the GOP will use the information to attack Moser and keep the seat. Our Revolution candidates are unlikely to get elected in Texas. Fletcher is a great Democrat and does not have the baggage that Moser has which will be used to attack her. We need to take the House. The point is to win. I hope like hell that Moser loses in the run off... I don't think she would be in the running if the DCCC had not done what they did...if Moser wins, mark my words, we lose the seat...a seat we have a good shot at with the right candidate. I am not getting all wrapped up in 16 style hatred for the Democratic Party...some (not saying you) still harbor resentment and it is just a waste of time.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)there is plenty of resentment shown on these boards about anything even tangentially Sanders related, so there's no way all of the people getting wrapped up on bitterness about the primary and making their decisions that way is just negative towards the DNC.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)they do shit like this all the time but we have to be 'above reproach'. Also, the comments about Texas are problematic. But I think the fear is she can't win the district. Now I don't know enough about Texas politics to know who is right...but we have a chance with the seat so we should take our best shot. I don't like to see the division this has caused...and the DCCC was heavy handed. I did some reading on both candidates. I like Fletcher. She has no baggage did not recently return to Texas to run and has a very impressive background and has fought for policy I support. I have nothing against Moser although I don't like Our Revolution and in general am less likely to support any of their candidates in a primary. But I just see red flags...moving back to run (carpetbagger in southern terminology), money to hubs firm and the anti-Texas comments while she and her husband were living in Washington. He worked for Sen. Sander's campaign so of course will be painted as too liberal for Texas... and I can see what the GOP can do with all of this...I just want to win the seat.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)It makes me want to give up, it really does.
If you dont understand yet how this system works, then we might as well pack it in now
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)You have no idea. She has no real history. including with Bernie Sanders and Our Revolution. I looked at the articles she'd written in the past. They spoke of neither.
Did she choose to call herself a Capital-P Progressive instead of a Democratic progressive because that label would get her a ready-made constituency? You don't know.
Why did she choose to turn into a Texan and run in Texas? You don't know.
WHAT would she do in congress? Based on her writings, I think she'd vote reliably with the Democratic caucus. So what makes Moser the best choice? You don't know.
People are rejecting a known candidate with a record they can depend on for a bumper sticker. Why? What's wrong with this?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 10, 2018, 12:26 AM - Edit history (1)
state. How does that excuse opposition research by the DCCC against a democratic candidate, and more to the point, putting forward information that is specious?
I got where I hate that God damn far left, I from Texas , what is fucking Sander doing commenting on a Texas race .Anybody he endorsed , I sure wouldn't vote for.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)like her. I wish I could vote for her but I am in Ohio.
Mike Nelson
(9,951 posts)...Moser very much, but Fletcher did get more votes and it seems like she has a better chance. Bernie Sanders and the establishment Democrats certainly made their preferences known - their "influence" maybe pointed out characteristics about these women, but I think the voters knew about them.
murielm99
(30,733 posts)when they come from BS and his BS Our Revolution group. They certainly don't like it when someone pushes back.
Join the party Bernie, then criticize.
George II
(67,782 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)
Turns out Kulkarni finished first, another candidate finished second, and Steve Brown was eliminated from the run-off.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The AP headline writer blurred a crucial distinction. Even allowing for the space constraints of a headline, I fault this one.
Bernie didn't say that candidates in a primary should never criticize one another. As the first sentence of the linked article states, he was actually "warning the Democratic Party not to attack its own candidates in primary battles...." [emphasis added]
Bernie is hardly alone in drawing this distinction. Many news articles about the Texas race commented on how unusual it was for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to release oppo research on a Democratic candidate.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)by Our Revolution. As for me, I want the DCCC to field electable candidates. I do donate.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)We also expect them to use it to get Democrats elected to office.
That said, just hope the mess this hopeful race turned into hasn't lost us a congressional seat.
We knew long ago that Our Revolution types are emotionally invested in replacing Democrats, not Republicans, and offering them up an excuse to swarm to the support of an obscure candidate was not smart. There's no indication she's really one of them, but the label is all that's needed to activate them.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)I donate too...and I think the DCCC should have been more circumspect about this. Fletcher is a good candidate and I hope we didn't blow it to...this echos the 16 primary issues. The DCCC wants to get this seat as do we all...and I agree that Moser will lose.
https://ourrevolution.com/press/our-revolution-endorses-laura-moser-us-house-representatives/
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)I'm afraid this will echo the 2016 issues. Quarrelsome minority factions who won't ally always attack inward to get attention, and a venal press always looking to increase viewers will always restyle squabbles as wars.
Fact is, for the media, compared to the GOP, Democrats are healthy, united, virtuous and boring as dirt. 
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)With the clarification that IT WASN'T STEVE BROWN it was the head a local chapter of "Our Revolution," you are right to call it out. Bringing up stuff just to smear someone, like an expunged guilty plea to possession of cocaine (I could care less if it was a felony or not) is total crap.
Now I don't know that not calling out someone who heads up like 20 people is the equivalent of not calling out the DCCC, BUT there is no excuse for sliming someone for something like using blow.
George II
(67,782 posts)No, it wasn't Steve Brown, it was Our Revolution, just as it wasn't Fletcher, it was DCCC (not sure if it came from DC or the local chapter)
From what I read the infraction didn't even result in a guilty plea. At the time because of his age and the fact that it was a first offense, after a two-year period with no subsequent infractions, the charge was dismissed outright.
What was even more chickenshit about it was that they accused him of using an "assumed name" because he goes by Sri instead of Srinivas. I don't see anyone from Our Revolution accusing Senator Sanders of using an assumed name because he goes by Bernie instead of Bernard.
Here's the article I read about this.
http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/texas-congressional-candidate-sri-kulkarni-acknowledges-teen-drug-arrest-youthful/article_54a39be6-1e55-11e8-8db1-6f520552146f.html
GaryCnf
(1,399 posts)I was selling dimes when I was 17, so you can imagine what I think about this. The name stuff was way over the top too, not to mention deaf as hell.
I am further left than even Sanders and I may not like where the party has headed recently but that is no f'ing excuse for that kind of stuff. This is a competitive race and one person being a child can make a negative difference.
No excuse at all.
Take care.
George II
(67,782 posts)
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a democratic primary, basically king-making, versus two candidates going at it? Any? Any?
potone
(1,701 posts)I don't understand why so many people have trouble understanding this.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Enough of that shit already. Seriously disrespectful if the will of the voters.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)really truly think leadership doesn't have a stakein who it pushes forth or tries to sideline. And a particular level of bullshit from you given that in this case the DCCC has obviously waded in to do this this time around. Maybe choose another thread where the evidence isn't so fresh.
Seriously though, pushing Russian propaganda as a reason that Trump won, based upon your own argument, really is disrespecting the will of the people, isn't it now? So....I don't believe that shit, but I'm really surprised to learn that, assuming you are consistent, you must.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Become Dems just to use their resources. Why shouldn’t they?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)If we dont' want a candidate, we don't vote for that candidate. I thought you were just going on about respecting the will of the voter? I guess that's no longer convenient.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I think there should be some evidence that the person actually supports Dems.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)hypothetical candidate going to get by democratic voters? Any? Will that person even get enough support to get on most ballots? It sounds a little wee bit hyperbolic, don't you think ?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Dems by association. And yeah, they could actually whip up a few percent of the votes. And worse- disrupt the media with crazy shit, hurting other candidates. It’s more likely than it ever was. Republicans made that mistake, we shouldn’t follow their example.
Response to bettyellen (Reply #167)
BoneyardDem This message was self-deleted by its author.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Fri Mar 9, 2018, 10:30 AM - Edit history (1)
even if not a highly principled one. Her husband worked in the Obama campaign and admin, and they stayed with their Obama circle when her husband moved into business. Her own explanation of her political change was in joining the Democratic resistance to Republicans with Trump's surprise election. Not with Sanders two years earlier.
I've browsed all her old articles for WSJ, Vogue, Slate and another that I could find, and I found plenty of evidence for liberal creds, but no evidence that she's an Our Revolution type. The tone and themes are entirely missing.
Given her years in the Democratic mainstream (she's 40) right up to, well, until she decided to run under the Cap-P Progressive label, it's reasonable to wonder why. Did she have a personality transplant? Or was it that the DCCC already had committed to some good local candidates with experience and records, and bases of local Democratic support? And that instead running as a Prog would create an automatic support structure and base for her?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Someone who registers as a Democrat (in a state with partisan voter registration) is, AFAIK, entitled to run in the Democratic primary and seek the Democratic nomination. There may be a requirement to achieve a certain percentage of the vote at a convention or to submit petitions with a certain number of signatures from registered Democrats. Never, however, have I ever heard that some Democratic Party committee at any level (local, state, or national) has the power to veto a candidate on the basis of ideology.
I don't pretend to expertise in the election laws of all the states. I'm just making an educated guess that there is no such law. If you learn of one, please provide a link.
The closest analogy I can think of is how, back in the Jim Crow era, Democratic committees in the South directed that only whites could run in the primary. That was held to be unconstitutional. Now, given the history of the Civil War Amendments, the Supreme Court has recognized that race-based distinctions are subject to particular scrutiny. The abolition of the white primary doesn't conclusively prove that the Court would overturn a state law empowering a party committee to bar candidates it didn't like. When and if there is such a state law, that issue might become relevant.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The DNC does not control ballot requirements.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)“Norms” or standards anymore, as several candidates have shown. A lot will need to be codified- also for the office of President.
bucolic_frolic
(43,126 posts)be nice, don't attack, but be in fighting form for November
BootinUp
(47,139 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...made against his opponent, Sri Kulkarni, in Texas' 22nd District? He dug up dirt from when Kulkarni was 18 years old and used it against him in the campaign. Thankfully Brown finished third and won't be in the May run-off.
Does Sanders consider THAT attack appalling and "not acceptable"? I didn't see anything about it in his statement.
shenmue
(38,506 posts) ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Maybe he should apply that word to his son Levi
JCanete
(5,272 posts)this is a democratic primary race that should be decided by democratic voters and not steered by the party leadership.
George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)just cut to the chase so that we don't have to go around when you could just point out what you think I actually got wrong.
George II
(67,782 posts)Your comment about "the party" putting it's thumb on the scale was incorrect.
The DCCC acted in the same manner in the 7th District as Our Revolution did in the 22nd District.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)has obvious sway on the DCCC, which is why you may get a very public statement from somebody like Howard Dean, saying that he will withhold support from the DCCC if they support pro-life candidates.
George II
(67,782 posts)Again, other than them both being comprised of Democrats, there's no connection between the DCCC and the DNC. The DCCC is not "the party".
You've also ignored the question about what Our Revolution did in the 22nd District, which some might actually consider being worse than what the DCCC did in the 7th District.
Comments?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The DCCC is a Democratic Party organ (see #138) and Our Revolution is not. Please stop with the false equivalence.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)
Cha
(297,136 posts)in the NH primary?
Good to know Steve Brown lost.
Cha
(297,136 posts)on Dems in primaries EVER!
Some enterprising reporter should ask him that.
yardwork
(61,588 posts)Fullduplexxx
(7,855 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,143 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)dlk
(11,548 posts)The optics are bad when someone who doesn't belong to the Democratic Party consistently gives them advice and criticizes. It makes him look condescending and arrogant, though he no doubt means well.
lark
(23,091 posts)He knew Russia was supporting him and said nothing, then took credit when a staff member took personal initiative to bring this to the FBI. Sos, he knew and was willing to go for the ride with russia when it suited him. I will never vote for him again in a primary.
facts like that get hidden all too often
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to the influences in the race, it probably didn't even look particularly significant to be honest. In all honesty, it was one of the least significant factors in the race in my opinion, compared to the huge money machine that owns corporate "American" media.
sprinkleeninow
(20,235 posts)Voted for HRC in primary and GE. However, I didn't 'mind' him.
Now I'm getting miffed by him.
When I see the term, 'Our Revolution'....🙄.
Cha
(297,136 posts)
BannonsLiver
(16,369 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)paying attention.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)He gets no voice in this one. Sorry. You can't speak for a party you don't belong to.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)I'm sure that, if Bernie announced he was a Democrat, you and everyone else raising this criticism would suddenly warm to him.
jrthin
(4,835 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Obviously, I disagree with you, but honest disagreement doesn't bother me the way hypocrisy does.
lapucelle
(18,245 posts)did to Sri Preston Kulkarni.
"A candidate's drug arrest when he was 18 has riled up a Democratic primary contest for the right to challenge five-term Republican incumbent Pete Olson in a potentially competitive congressional district in Houston's southern suburbs."snip============================================
"Kulkarni disclosed the arrest to the Chronicle on Tuesday after the case was raised by the Fort Bend County Chapter leader of Our Revolution, a group representing a progressive coalition of activists who supported the 2016 presidential campaign of Vermont senator Bernie Sanders.
Doug Beaton, the Fort Bend County chapter leader of Our Revolution, warned Fort Bend County Democratic officials of Kulkarni's previously undisclosed past in a letter posted Monday on social media. The letter suggested that Kulkarni, whose full first name is Srivinas, is running under an assumed name and that he had previously registered with the Federal Election Commission to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts."
snip=====================================================
Beaton, of the Texas chapter of Our Revolution stated in his letter that Sri Preston Kulkarni had a felony drug conviction. According to the Houston Chronicle:
"In fact, the case was dismissed without a conviction after Kulkarni completed probation and paid a $500 fine. He noted that he was able to obtain a top-secret security clearance from the State Department."
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Kulkarni-s-teen-drug-arrest-puts-Fort-Bend-12628608.php
Cha
(297,136 posts)lost.
Mahalo for that, lapucelle.
riversedge
(70,186 posts)Gothmog
(145,126 posts)The latest rumor is that this idiot may run for state Democratic Party Chair. That will be a trainwreck
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)One of my friends at the Susman firm was the lead litigator in the lawsuits back during these protests
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)And apparently he can do both. I like a guy with principles.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)be in leadership of the party.
Especially if they are going to run against members of that party for re-election.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)be embracing anyone who isn't a rethug imo, labels be damned. And I will admit right here, as an independent he speaks for me more than some of the people with that Dem label.
http://www.vermontbiz.com/news/2018/march/06/sanders-statement-banking-bill
Vermont Business Magazine Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) issued the following statement on legislation up for a vote in the Senate this week that would deregulate large financial institutions:
"At a time of concentration of ownership in the financial sector, now is not the time to deregulate banks that have more than $3.5 trillion in assets and lay the groundwork for another massive financial collapse. Now is the time to take on the greed and power of Wall Street and break up the largest financial institutions in the country."
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/03/06/17-democrats-decried-sending-clear-message-i-work-my-bank-donors-not-my-constituents
17 Democrats Decried for Sending This Clear Message: "I Work for My Bank Donors, Not My Constituents'
George II
(67,782 posts)Senate sends Russia sanctions bill to Trump's desk
Senators are sending legislation slapping new sanctions on Moscow to President Trump's desk, setting up a potential showdown with the White House over Russia.
Senators voted 98-2 on the bill, which would give Congress the ability to block Trump from lifting the Russia sanctions. It also includes new penalties against Iran and North Korea.
Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted against the bill
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)As has been pointed out on DU many times, Bernie said he supported the Russia sanctions and opposed the Iran sanctions. They were packaged into one bill so either a Yea or Nay vote would represent something he disagreed with. He weighed these competing factors and decided on Nay. If his view had prevailed, there could still have been a standalone bill for Russia sanctions, which he would have voted for.
Disagree with his weighing if you will, but to ignore his actual reason for his vote is deceptive.
Yes, Rand Paul also voted Nay. Does that prove the position was incorrect? His father, Ron Paul, voted Nay on the Iraq War Resolution. Even Hillary Clinton has since acknowledged that that was the correct vote.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)But Hillary!
Remember when Hlllary beat both male opponents by millions?? Awesome stuff.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You mean like so many on DU did for this?
......................................................................................................
“If we get the resolution the president seeks, and Saddam complies,” Clinton added, “disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. … If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.” This international support is “crucial,” she added, because, “after shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable.”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)It's like all the derision that gets heaped on Susan Collins when she explains some right-wing vote by saying it was based on her trust that Mitch McConnell would then do something or other to mitigate the ill effects. DUers don't ignore her reason. We repeat it, harp on it even, and laugh at her for being so gullible.
There is, however, a faction that believes nobody could be that gullible, and that therefore Collins is lying about her actual reason. On this view, she wants to vote so as to appease the right wing while stating an explanation that will shield her from the left's anger when, surprise surprise, the Republican she trusted didn't act the way she says she thought he would.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)not clear on what that means in concrete terms.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,324 posts)This is from the official page of The Senate Democratic Leadership.
Ahem...
Does that help clarify??
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)given what many considered a "token" position was very loud indeed.
I'm not sure what the Director of Outreach has to do with directing the DCCC.
Can you clarify?
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)Does Ralph Nader get to?
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)opinion. Is that still allowed?
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)He didn't say he thinks it is a bad approach, he said he is telling then NOT to do it. No, he doesn't have that right.
If Bernie wants to lead, join the Dems and lead.
MrsCoffee
(5,801 posts)He will try to use the Democratic Party again in 2020. I don’t think he realizes that ship has sailed and won’t be returning to his island.
Cha
(297,136 posts)doesn't have that right..
But, we can't talk about that shite here.
So I'll leave it at that.
Mahalo, Drahthaardogs.
George II
(67,782 posts)....if he's told Our Revolution the same thing? Apparently not.
He's concerned with what the DCCC did in the 7th District, but is he equally concerned with what Our Revolution did in the 22nd District?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)...doesn't make his voting in favor of some Dem policy, while flinging insults at Dem Party, sewing distrust, discord and division, any more palatable. I don't like these principles.
DemocracyMouse
(2,275 posts)All parties concerned – Democrats, Democratic Socialists – should follow MLK's lead and keep your eyes on freedom and empowerment for all. Stop sniping kids!
I LOVE Bernie's laser focus on the economy and the oligarch's taking over.
I LOVE former DNC's Howard Dean's 50 state plan.
I LOVE Hillary's gun control and women's rights work.
I LOVE Warren's general brilliance delivered in down-to-Earth spit balls.
FORWARD TOGETHER LADS and LASSES!
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)it is discovered that politicians have political opinions.
samnsara
(17,615 posts)Cold War Spook
(1,279 posts)It is the right thing.
harun
(11,348 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Curious as to what Democrats you consider "establishment" to vote against.
harun
(11,348 posts)I can't vote for anyone but my home state's Senate candidates. But I can send money against them. I can't put who in the post or it will get flagged.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)harun
(11,348 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)The defintion seems to be fluid, especially when used perjoratively.
What is your specific take?
harun
(11,348 posts)for increased war/defense spending, decreases in education, housing and healthcare spending.
These people are not the establishment and fight for Progressive causes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Progressive_Caucus
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Voting for:
Removing the santions on Russia
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
Protecting 'The Minuteman Project'
gutting oversight for agricultural marketing practices
1.5 trillion dollars worth of military spending on F-35 fighter jets, because it benefits their home state
military interventions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq twice along with voting repeatedly for budgets that included funding for the 2003 war, Somalia, and Libya
Voting against:
The Brady Bill
The Victims of Rape Health Protection Act
increased education funding
increased funding for poor students
legislation increasing financial aid
legislation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies
legislation banning imports from forced child labor
funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices
funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS
Those sorts of votes with conservatives? Because at least one of those founding members of that caucus, who is now in the Senate, has that voting record, and therefore fits your specific definition of "Democratic Establishment," as opposed to "Progressive."
harun
(11,348 posts)And you have no citations of any of the supposed facts your are listing.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)harun
(11,348 posts)for support in other areas.
Not defending the votes but they do have to play politics, they are politicians.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 01:10 PM - Edit history (1)
And "being political."
On what basis do you suspend your litmus test?
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)But I'm familiar with many of those votes and policy positions. They're all true.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)So harun has seen them.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Your link included the founders of the congressional caucus as your definition of those who didn't vote with conservatives.
But since you want to move that goal post - I have messaged you the citations.
Now, tell me - don't those votes this fit your definition of "Establishment Democrat?"
harun
(11,348 posts)afford Higher Education, Health Care and Housing.
Rest is all a distraction as far as I am concerned.
I know a lot of candidates who never discuss those three topics and will work against them. Any candidate who has good ideas for any of those three, I will keep an open mind.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)was someone who voted with the conservatives on higher Education, Health Care and Housing.
And that a "progressive" was defined by the list of those on the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
So what happens if a politician is on both of those lists?
Are they progressive or establishment Democrat?
harun
(11,348 posts)takes a lot of Corporate Donations for their campaign's and who doesn't speak about economic inequality.
The Establishment Democrats have a very well defined play book and anyone paying attention knows it.
Hence the whole reason for the creation of the Justice Democrat's and many other organizations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Democrats
This isn't rocket science...
Takes lot of Corporate Money, Votes for their donors requests, doesn't talk about economic inequality, peace, accessibility to health care, accessibility to safe affordable housing, accessibility to higher education = Crappy Establishment.
Those that do = Moving the right direction.
(Won't be responding anymore, don't think you are actually trying to learn with any of the questions you are asking)
George II
(67,782 posts)harun
(11,348 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)harun
(11,348 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Campaigns may not accept contributions from the treasury funds of corporations, labor organizations or national banks. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, including a nonstock corporation, a trade association, an incorporated membership organization and an incorporated cooperative.
harun
(11,348 posts)Corporations may make donations to Political Action Committees (PACs); PACs generally have strict limits on their ability to advocate on behalf of specific parties or candidates, or even to coordinate their activities with political campaigns. PACs are subject to disclosure requirements at the federal and state levels. The ability of corporations to engage in such independent expenditures has been subject to intense debate after the US Supreme Court struck down, on free-speech grounds, limits in Citizens United v. FEC, a case involving the creation of a film critical of Hillary Clinton by a nonprofit corporation.
Pardon me but why the fuck are you on here advocating a moronic point in favor of Corporations not directly funding campaigns?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)In what way are you saying this is "moronic?"
Not seeing your point.
lapucelle
(18,245 posts)Who can’t contribute
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:
Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible).
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/25/us/politics/bernie-sanders-our-revolution-group.html
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)since you have been shown that someone on your list of progressive politicians didn't pass the "doesn't vote with conservatives" litmus test, after you challenged me for citations on those votes, and I accepted.
BTW - Corporations and unions are banned from donating money directly to candidates ("hard money"
or national party committees.
You seem to be moving the goal posts yet again.
The reason why isn't rocket science...
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Russia's propaganda arm in the US.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/cenk-uygur-suggests-to-rt-anchor-that-her-networks-more-tolerant-than-msnbc/
murielm99
(30,733 posts)I was looking for those links.
George II
(67,782 posts)....amid a scandal?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)That couldn't POSSIBLY have had anything to do with their slamming of Obama, and who they supported politically from then on.
https://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/04/buddy-roemer-firm-invests-4-million-in-young-turks-network-186934
George II
(67,782 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)Justice Democrats.. Oh, and a 3rd.. David Koller..
Looks like Kyle Dulinski resigned because he didn't agree with the board pressuring Cenk to resign because of "past sexist writing"..
Progressive Group Ousts Cenk Uygur Over Past Sexist Writing
snip//
The left-leaning political organization, which Uygur and others established this year to support progressive primary challenges against Democratic incumbents in Congress, made the announcement Friday. The group also severed ties with David Koller, who co-founded The Young Turks with Uygur and served as Justice Democrats’ treasurer. A 2004 blogpost in which Koller used degrading language about women he and Uygur met on a road-trip surfaced this week as well.
“The words and conduct in Mr. Uygur and Mr. Koller’s posts degrade what it means to be a Justice Democrat,” Justice Democrats executive director Saikat Chakrabarti said in a Friday evening statement announcing the board’s decision to demand Uygur and Koller’s resignations. “We do not feel that Mr. Uygur is fit to lead or participate in an organization that truly believes women’s issues and the issues of black and brown people are all of our issues.”
The Justice Democrats board reached its decision to call for their departures after hearing Uygur’s “side of the story” and consulting with the political candidates the group has endorsed, Chakrabarti said.
snippet from Cenk's writing..
"“Obviously, the genes of women are flawed,” Uygur wrote in a 1999 post lamenting the inadequate amount of sex he was having while living in Miami, Florida. “They are poorly designed creatures who do not want to have sex nearly as often as needed for the human race to get along peaceably and fruitfully.”
More...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/justice-democrats-ousts-cenk-uygur_us_5a3eb4d1e4b025f99e178181
There was always something very distasteful about Cenk.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)rzemanfl
(29,556 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)is just an insult buzzword that has nothing to do with reality.
Second.. The Whole World is NOT that way right now.
harun
(11,348 posts)Trump was not an anti-republican establishment vote anti-washington establishment vote then we have nothing to talk about.
I am really having a hard time believing this needs to be explained to anyone right now. Can you really look at the planet and say > 50% of humanity is rooting hard for exactly the same shit on a different day? Because that is what the "establishment" gives them. It isn't a buzzword, it means the status quo. Rich getting more and poor fighting harder for less.
Cha
(297,136 posts)BannonsLiver
(16,369 posts)It's meaningless. You just haven't figured that out yet.
mcar
(42,300 posts)to organizations like Planned Parenthood as "establishment."
Cha
(297,136 posts)They went overboard and overkill.
Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)yardwork
(61,588 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)
betsuni
(25,457 posts) Cha
(297,136 posts)a straight face?
QC
(26,371 posts)
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)especially about Our Revolution and who they align themselves with.
R B Garr
(16,950 posts)Truly epic. 
radliberal
(51 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 12:23 PM - Edit history (1)
It isn't about a generally Democratically aligned organization like Move On, Our Revolution, or the old DLC attacking a Democrat in a primary. It is about a formal part of the Democratic Party, in this case the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, attacking a Democratic candidate in a Democratic primary.
Whatever one's feelings are about Bernie Sanders as an individual, or about his choosing to be an Independent caucusing with Democrats rather than a Democrat himself, this is not about divisive mudslinging between candidates, or even about how an individual politician could be undermining the Democratic message, it is about how the Democratic Party apparatus functions during Democratic primaries. And it is much more controversial than the DCCC openly expressing a preference for one candidate over another. It is about an organ of the Democratic Party running attack ads against a Democrat running in a Democratic primary. Is that acceptable in principle?
I almost never say never, so I won't say never here. If David Duke was running as a Democrat and had a chance of winning, I would want the party to oppose him. But, in my opinion, it has to rise to circumstances that extreme for me to back that action. Giving funding to a preferred candidate over another can be controversial in itself in some circumstances - but that's not where I tend to draw the line. This instance however, for me, is where that line tends to run.
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)This thread became about Bernie, but the actions of the DCCC should be examined.
potone
(1,701 posts)Thank you.
murielm99
(30,733 posts)His name is the first two words in the title of the thread. The thread is about words he spoke. How can it not be about Bernie from the start?
Became about?
babylonsister
(171,056 posts)
Hardly any mention about the DCCC. Yea, that's quite funny, too. As long as this board is in Bernie attack mode, most everyone is happy, nevermind perhaps delving into the reasons the DCCC wants to sabotage certain progressives.
Demsrule86
(68,543 posts)Moser has baggage. I don't think she can win the seat. She is backed by Our revolution as well. I won't vote for any candidate they back in a primary;they do not support Democrats in general and have publicly stated this. I had have heard many here complain about candidates and how the DCCC does a bad job fielding them...can't have it both ways. Ask yourself this...what do you think the GOP will do with the information on Moser which anyone can find? Fletcher is a better candidate with a real shot.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and please at least admit that that creates a potential conflict of interest for party members who are actually in power by virtue of the status quo. You want them then to do their best to influence a race in favor of what has and will continue to work for them?
And what do you mean, you can't have it both ways. Fielding candidates and promoting them is not the same as promoting one and undermining another.
Also, you cannot tell me with a straight face that the democratic party has not been horribly disappointing on certain issues in the last thirty years. While far better than Republicans, that is no excuse for allowing party members to stack the deck in favor of business as usual.
And to repeat(mostly trust my source so while I haven't vetted I'm pretty confident of this), I don't think that info that was dug up is even legitimate as it was sold. Of course The RNC can make shit up too. You think it wont about Fletcher?
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)I used to live in this district and my law firm is located in this district. One of my friends from the Temple got me to go to a town hall where the candidates spoke. Moser was not impressive at all. The Houston paper had endorsed the cancer doctor and Lizzie P. Fleitcher. Alex T. had raised almost $1 million and got dinged by the Houston paper for not living in the district. Moser was fourth or fifth at this town hall.
Moser, Alex T. Jim Cargas (the nominee on 2014 and 2016), and Lizzie have all spoken to the county Democratic Lawyers Association. Moser is less impressive than Cargas which is sad.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)posters? Can truthiness be put to bed in our camp already?
BoneyardDem
(1,202 posts)Dem Unification doesn't appear to be to goal anyway.
Laser focus on defeating the Right is the only thing that matters right now, IMHO
QC
(26,371 posts)if everyone has that attitude!
George II
(67,782 posts)In a sense, they have basically the same status as at least one of the other organizations you mention.
Our Revolution IS Bernie Sanders' organization, and he should be more concerned with the actions of an organization he founded and is closely aligned than one he is not a member of.
From their website:
"The next step for Bernie Sanders' movement is Our Revolution, which will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda that we believe in."
From wikipedia:
Our Revolution is an American progressive and social democratic political action organization spun out of Senator Bernie Sanders's 2016 presidential campaign to continue its work.
and....
Predecessor Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016
President Nina Turner
Key people:
Bernie Sanders, Jane Sanders, Jeff Weaver, Bill McKibben, Nina Turner
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)I accept the distinction you make. I recall now that Tom Perez at the DNC who formally represents the Democratic Party was not supportive of the move that the DCCC made. But i still think it fair to say, at the least, that the DCCC has strong ties to the national Democratic Party. Most people identify the Democratic Party with the elected members of the Democratic Party. I accept that the DCCC has a stake in what happens in individual Congressional districts, but in my own CD right now there are 6 Democrats running in the primary, all with a good degree of local support. There would be a lot of pissed off activist Democrats around here if the DCCC started running attack ads against one of them locally in our district.
George II
(67,782 posts)...like that again.
On the other hand, two comments:
1. The DCCC represents only a small fraction of all the elected members of the Democratic Party, specifically only House Democrats. They don't represent Senate Democrats or any state or locally elected Democrats and they don't represent the party as a whole.
2. The point of this OP and this discussion has been Senator Sanders lecturing the Democratic Party (as a whole) for what one organization, the DCCC, did in Texas' 7th District.
My point in even getting involved in this discussion is that his very own organization, Our Revolution, did almost exactly the same thing or maybe even worse, to a Democratic candidate in the 22nd District.
Specifically, Our Revolution claimed that the leading Democratic candidate, Sri Kulkarni (who ultimately finished first, their endorsed candidate finished third), had a "criminal record" because he was arrested as an 18-year old (21 years earlier) for possession of less than a gram of cocaine. That charge was ultimately dismissed without a conviction.
They also claimed that he was running under an assumed name (!), since his full name is Srinivas Kulkarni, and that he also registered to run for a congressional seat in Massachusetts.
To me and many others, what they did was despicable and might even have been worse than what the DCCC did.
One should get their own house in order before they tell others how to run their house.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)Last edited Thu Mar 8, 2018, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)
We agree on that I think. You have looked at that CD primary race closer than have I. I have no basis to dispute your characterization of what happened there, nor any inclination to doubt you on it. As I know you realize, I did not try to make my post into a defense of either Bernie Sanders or My Revolution in this or any other matter. I have issues with stances that some My Revolution chapters have taken before, and no doubt will have again in the future.
To help keep our dialogue here focused, my understanding of My Revolution is that is not particularly tightly controlled in a top down manner by Sanders himself. In an earlier cycle, Democracy for America developed it's own identity after Howard Dean launched it, which is consistent with organizations that profess a strong belief in and a dependency on grass roots activism, both for better and for worse.
Though the DCCC only represents a small percentage of elected Democrats as you noted, it's a pretty important segment of them and it is an organization which all of us have every reason to expect to be run highly professionally. The perception that it is a formal organ of the Democratic Party is wide spread even if it is factually inaccurate. That said, everyone is capable of misjudgements. I am more than willing to believe that the DCCC can draw the proper lessons from this particular incident. That was the aspect of this OP that I was drawn to comment on above.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)See my posts in this thread, #138 and #168, for clarification about the status of the DCCC.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Organizations like Our Revolution or the New Democrat Network are groups of private citizens who come together to influence public policy.
The DCCC, by contrast, is not a group that any concerned citizen can join. From its Wikipedia article:
The Chairperson of the DCCC is the fourth ranking position among House Democrats, after the Minority Leader, the Minority Whip and the Democratic Caucus Chairperson.
Its official status is further confirmed by its inclusion in the "Party Organization" page on the DNC website.
You and others are keen to deflect any criticism by indulging in "whataboutism" concerning Our Revolution. When the DNC changes its website to include a link to Our Revolution's website, get back to me.
George II
(67,782 posts)...a "false equivalency" as you said in another post to me. One could actually say that Our Revolution doing something similar isn't the same as the DCCC did might be a "false unequivalency". Regardless of whether the DCCC is made up of elected officials and Our Revolution is made up of private citizens, remember that Our Revolution was founded by the Senator (and his wife) who is now admonishing Democrats to not do something that his very own organization is doing.
PS - don't worry, the DNC won't include a link to Our Revolution on their website, and the DCCC's inclusion doesn't confirm that they're part of the DNC.
I would note that on that same page of the DNC website you mention, there is a link to the Democratic Governors' Association (above both the DSCC and DCCC and several other organizations). The description is:
"Founded in 1983, the Democratic Governors Association, or DGA, is an independent voluntary political organization organized to support Democratic governors and candidates across the nation."
None of the descriptions for any of the organizations state that any of them are part of the DNC, even if they have similar and close objectives.
So, the fact that an organization appears on the DNC website doesn't implicitly mean that they're "part" of the DNC. In fact none of them are.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)You write:
I didn't say it was "part" of the DNC. I said that the DCCC (like the DNC) is a "party organ." All these different party organs -- the DNC, the DCCC, the quadrennial convention, etc. -- are parts of the Democratic Party.
Our Revolution is not a part of the Democratic Party.
You can join Our Revolution. You can't join the DCCC. Its membership consists of all and only the members of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives.
The difference between the DCCC, on the one hand, and groups like Our Revolution, on the other hand, is that the DCCC is one of the two Hill committees of the Democratic Party. From the Wikipedia article:
You charge that Bernie "is now admonishing Democrats to not do something that his very own organization is doing." That's simply false. It's based on the headline, which, as I pointed out, doesn't correctly reflect the actual text of the article. Bernie isn't saying that Democrats (in general) should never attack other Democrats. He's saying that the DCCC shouldn't.
Bernie -- like many journalists who've commented on the DCCC's attack on Laura Moser -- sees a significant difference between, on the one hand, disagreements in a primary in which one Democratic candidate is criticized by another Democratic candidate or by other individuals or by groups like Our Revolution, and, on the other hand, criticisms by a party organ like the DCCC. If you follow your own advice and do some research, you'll see that the drawing of this distinction is hardly unique to Bernie. It's been a fairly widespread reaction to the Moser situation. Even some of the people who think the DCCC did the right thing have acknowledged that it's unusual.
Gothmog
(145,126 posts)I live in Texas CD 22 and saw first had the slimy attack by Our Revolution on a candidate name Sri Preston Kulkarni. The Our Revolution idiots were assholes and offended people with this attack. I know that one group of African American clergy ended up not endorsing Steve Brown and endorse Sri due to the Our Revolution idiots.
Luckily, the Our Revolution candidate did not make the run off.
Tom Rinaldo
(22,912 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)the Our Revolution candidate failed The hypocrisy and nastiness is doing them in.
ChiTownDenny
(747 posts)EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)NOW you want to start with the unity thing.
Thanks for nothing, Bernie.
njhoneybadger
(3,910 posts)But didn't you.................Remember.............that time.............oh fuck it
Cha
(297,136 posts)
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)"Attacking candidates in a primary is my well-known specialty. This is a clear case of theft of intellectual property!," said Sanders....
RandySF
(58,755 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)Cha
(297,136 posts)"Sanders repeatedly refused to say why he didn’t call out Russian involvement during the campaign. Clinton's campaign regularly raised suspicions of Kremlin-backed activity during the home stretch of the race."
https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100210272890
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)
Cha
(297,136 posts)a problem. Not how I'd really address, anyway
Eko
(7,281 posts)
crim son
(27,464 posts)But when Bernie says it...
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I was there and heard him do it:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/12512046962
janx
(24,128 posts)Hundreds of replies will ensue, but my practice is to trash them.
