Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Mike__M

(1,052 posts)
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 04:22 AM Jan 2016

Gosztola: "[Establishment] Liberals No Longer Amused by Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign"

https://shadowproof.com/2016/01/20/liberals-no-longer-amused-by-bernie-sanders-candidacy/

(The headline at ShadowProof seems to offer an attack on Sanders, which it is not: thus my addition of "Establishment".)

The objective of the week for liberals appears to be to make clear Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is some kind of pariah. Despite how his candidacy has transformed into a phenomenon over the past months, establishment liberals maintain the U.S. senator from Vermont should not be considered a “serious” candidate. They believe it would be a huge mistake if a Democrat with unapologetic socialist leanings won the nomination, especially over Hillary Clinton.

But these cases against Sanders are really arguments against citizens voting their conscience.


Gosztola's piece is primarily a response to Jonathan Chait's opinions. He concludes:

It is one thing to vote for Hillary Clinton and other Democrats, who are more than happy to serve the moneyed elite, if you actually believe in what she stands for as a presidential candidate. But it is quite another thing to delude people into voting for her simply because it is your view that Bernie Sanders’ vision is difficult to make a reality. That position accepts the status quo and embraces a politics of low expectations, where the best elected officials can do is triage the effect of wealth and power becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few.


22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Gosztola: "[Establishment] Liberals No Longer Amused by Bernie Sanders’ Presidential Campaign" (Original Post) Mike__M Jan 2016 OP
The Daily Howler PATRICK Jan 2016 #1
spot on! daybranch Jan 2016 #2
To some, being a liberal is something you do when you aren't on the clock. raouldukelives Jan 2016 #3
WTF is an establishment liberal? Politicub Jan 2016 #4
"Bought and Paid for" Proserpina Jan 2016 #6
Ah, like Sanders and the NRA at one time Politicub Jan 2016 #7
What? Proserpina Jan 2016 #8
How the National Rifle Association helped get Bernie Sanders elected Politicub Jan 2016 #9
The NRA sends no money to Sanders; and if they now repent of their earlier Proserpina Jan 2016 #10
He voted the way the NRA wanted him to Politicub Jan 2016 #12
Do their bidding? The NRA turned on Bernie because he didn't vote the way they wanted him to: beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #20
Uh huh, if you "lurve" guns Bernie's not your candidate: beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #13
Bernie Sanders' awkward history with guns in America Politicub Jan 2016 #14
I have no problem with his vote on the PLCAA. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #15
PACS support candidates in ways other than direct donations Politicub Jan 2016 #17
Still not answering my question. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #19
Maybe to paper over his sorry pro-gun voting history? Politicub Jan 2016 #21
Gotta agree with beam me on the PLCAA Mike__M Jan 2016 #22
No not like that since Bernie never received money from the NRA. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #11
Money doesn't have to change hands Politicub Jan 2016 #16
Wrong. His lifetime rating from the NRA of D minus and pro-gun control record prove otherwise. beam me up scottie Jan 2016 #18
Too bad. We aren't in this for the laughs, nor to amuse the Elite Proserpina Jan 2016 #5

PATRICK

(12,228 posts)
1. The Daily Howler
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 06:08 AM
Jan 2016

whose comments if any on this latest I haven't seen, I though was being very bitter toward the "liberal establishment" in the bully pulpits of journalism. Now he seems extremely vindicated by this latest chowder headed hypocrisy that buries liberalism by its supposed spokespersons. This is why we have had such poor progress since FDR and they seek to minus out all the progressive voices from the modern picture. Leaving what?

A vast moral void for the GOP to exploit.

daybranch

(1,309 posts)
2. spot on!
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 06:21 AM
Jan 2016

There are always those that lag behind, those that always worry most about things getting worse and in the end insure that result. Go Bernie!

raouldukelives

(5,178 posts)
3. To some, being a liberal is something you do when you aren't on the clock.
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 06:59 AM
Jan 2016

When you aren't doing all you can do to accumulate money for ones self, up to and including assisting those who smear liberals and liberal political positions. Once they are done making the world run better for Honeywell and Chevron, they wax eloquent about helping the least, bridging the gaps and taking climate extinction oh so seriously. Right up to the point they clock in, again.

We live in the most progress those who serve the moneyed elite and those who count themselves as partial owners of corporations cannot personally labor and fund the blocking of from the rest of the planet. The harder they work for them, the harder they work against us.

Politicub

(12,165 posts)
4. WTF is an establishment liberal?
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:03 AM
Jan 2016

Now are so-called progressives trying to tarnish the word liberal like conservatives successfully did 30 years ago?

Sick of this shit.

Politicub

(12,165 posts)
9. How the National Rifle Association helped get Bernie Sanders elected
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:31 AM
Jan 2016

Surely you know this:

Excerpt from the WAPO article:


A few days before Election Day in 1990, the National Rifle Association sent a letter to its 12,000 members in Vermont, with an urgent message about the race for the state’s single House seat.

Vote for the socialist, the gun rights group said. It’s important.

“Bernie Sanders is a more honorable choice for Vermont sportsmen than ­Peter Smith,” wrote Wayne LaPierre, who was — and still is — a top official at the national NRA, backing Sanders over the Republican incumbent.


It gets better (if you lurve guns)

As a candidate in 1990, Sanders won over gun rights groups by promising to oppose one bill they hated — a measure that would establish a waiting period for handgun sales. In Congress, he kept that promise. The dynamic served as an early demonstration that, despite his pure-leftist persona, Sanders was at his core a pragmatic politician, calculating that he couldn’t win in rural Vermont without doing something for gun owners.


Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-nra-helped-put-bernie-sanders-in-congress/2015/07/19/ed1be26c-2bfe-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
 

Proserpina

(2,352 posts)
10. The NRA sends no money to Sanders; and if they now repent of their earlier
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:37 AM
Jan 2016

support in a past election, live and learn.

Bernie did nothing for the NRA. He served his voters. I refuse to let you blend these two entirely different topics into one sticky mess.

Politicub

(12,165 posts)
12. He voted the way the NRA wanted him to
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:45 AM
Jan 2016

So, yes, objectively he did something - multiple things - for the NRA.

Here's one part of his sorry record on guns:


But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders, elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous times, virtually almost always in opposition:

• In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House.

• The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992.

• After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time).

• He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why.

• The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it.


Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jul/10/generation-forward-pac/did-bernie-sanders-vote-against-background-checks-/

I'm sure someone is going to show up with some spin about how his vote against the Brady bill was a vote for joy or some piece of tripe. But the fact is, he did the NRA's bidding to pay them back for their support.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
20. Do their bidding? The NRA turned on Bernie because he didn't vote the way they wanted him to:
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 08:11 AM
Jan 2016
I'm pro-hunting, but no one needs an AK-47 to hunt

During the 1994 campaign the NRA had played a very forceful role against me. They distributed widely a "Bye, Bye, Bernie" bumper sticker.

Vermont is a rural state in which tens of thousands of people enjoy hunting and own guns. VT is an "outdoor" state--and hunting is a key part of that way of life. I am pro-gun, and pro-hunting. But I don't believe that hunters need assault weapons and AK-47s to kill deer. I voted for the ban on assault weapons, which brought the wrath of the NRS down on me.

Source: Outsider in the House, by Bernie Sanders, p. 38-9 , Jun 17, 1997

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
13. Uh huh, if you "lurve" guns Bernie's not your candidate:
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:46 AM
Jan 2016
Sanders voted against the pro-gun-control Brady Bill, writing that he believes states, not the federal government, can handle waiting periods for handguns. In 1994, he voted yes on an assault weapons ban. He has voted to ban some lawsuits against gun manufacturers and for the Manchin-Toomey legislation expanding federal background checks.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Gun_Control.htm



Bernie Sanders’ critics misfire: The Vermont senator’s gun record is better than it looks

....However, the Nation and the other reports like it don’t shed real light on where Sanders is coming from. They don’t explain why he supports some gun controls but not others. Nor do they ask if there’s a consistency to Sanders’ positions and votes over the years? They simply suggest that Bernie’s position is muddled and makes a good target for Hillary.

Yet there is an explanation. It’s consistent and simpler than many pundits think. And it’s in Bernie’s own words dating back to the campaign where he was first elected to the U.S. House—in 1990—where he was endorsed by the NRA, even after Sanders told them that he would ban assault rifles. That year, Bernie faced Republican incumbent Peter Smith, who beat him by less than 4 percentage points in a three-way race two years before.

In that 1988 race, Bernie told Vermont sportsmen that he backed an assault weapons ban. Smith told the same sportsmen’s groups that he opposed it, but midway through his first term he changed his mind and co-sponsored an assault rifle ban—even bringing an AK-47 to his press conference. That about-face was seen as a betrayal and is the background to a June 1990 debate sponsored by the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs.

I was at that debate with Smith and three other candidates—as the Sanders’ campaign press secretary—and recorded it. Bernie spoke at length three times and much of what he said is relevant today, and anticipates his congressional record on gun control ever since. Look at how Bernie describes what being a sportsperson is in a rural state, where he is quick to draw the line with weapons that threaten police and have no legitimate use in hunting—he previously was mayor of Vermont’s biggest city, and his record of being very clear with the gun lobby and rural people about where he stands. His approach, despite the Nation’s characterization, isn’t “open-minded.”

As you can see, Bernie—who moved to rural northeastern Vermont in the late 1960s—has an appreciation and feeling for where hunting and fishing fit into the lives of lower income rural people. He’s not a hunter or a fisherman. When he grew up in Brooklyn, he was a nerdy jock—being captivated by ideas and a high school miler who hoped for a track scholarship for college. But like many people who settled in Vermont for generations, he was drawn to its freer and greener pastures and respected its local culture.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”

That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/10/what_bernies_gun_control_critics_get_wrong_partner/


Alternet: Bernie's Gun Control Critics Are Wrong—His Stance Has Been Consistent for Decades

Next, the 1990 debate turned to gun control. The moderator, who clearly was a Second Amendment absolutist, went after Bernie—to test his mettle after Smith’s about-face.

“Do you support additional restrictions on firearms? Do you support additional restrictive firearms legislation?” he asked. “Bernie Sanders, explain yourself, yes or no?”

“Yes,” he replied. “Two years ago, I went before the Vermont Sportsman’s Federation and was asked exactly the same question. It was a controversial question. I know how they felt on the issue. And that was before the DiConcini Bill. That was before a lot of discussion about the Brady Bill. That was before New Jersey and California passed bills limiting assault weapons.

“I went before the sportsmen of Vermont and said that I have concerns about certain types of assault weapons that have nothing to do with hunting. I believe in hunting. I will not support any legislation that limits the rights of Vermonters or any other hunters to practice what they have enjoyed for decades. I do have concerns about certain types of assault weapons.”


That was not the end of his remarks. But it is worth noting that his separating the rights of traditional hunters from the concerns of police chiefs has been a constant thread in many subsequent votes he would take in Congress. It’s also noteworthy that Bernie consistently has opposed assault weapons from the late 1980s—before he was in Congress—which he reiterated to the moderator.

“I said that before the election,” he continued. “The Vermont sportspeople, as is their right, made their endorsement. The endorsed Peter Smith. They endorsed Paul Poirier. I lost that election by about three-and-one-half percentage points, a very close election. Was my failure to get that endorsement pivotal? It might have been. We don’t know. Maybe it was. Maybe it wasn’t. All I can say is I told the sportspeople of Vermont what I believe before the election and I am going to say it again.

“I do believe we need to ban certain types of assault weapons. I have taked to police chiefs. I have talked to the police officers out on the street. I have read some of the literature all over this country. Police chiefs, police officers are concerned about the types of weapons which are ending up in the hands of drug dealers and other criminals and our police oficers are getting outgunned.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernies-gun-control-critics-are-wrong-his-stance-has-been-consistent-decades


Sanders Votes for Background Checks, Assault Weapons Ban

WASHINGTON, April 17 – Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) today voted for expanded background checks on gun buyers and for a ban on assault weapons but the Senate rejected those central planks of legislation inspired by the shootings of 20 first-grade students and six teachers in Newtown, Conn.

“Nobody believes that gun control by itself is going to end the horrors we have seen in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., Tucson, Ariz. and other American communities,” Sanders said. “There is a growing consensus, however, in Vermont and across America that we have got to do as much as we can to end the cold-blooded, mass murders of innocent people. I believe very strongly that we also have got to address the mental health crisis in our country and make certain that help is available for people who may be a danger to themselves and others,” Sanders added.

The amendment on expanded background checks needed 60 votes to pass but only 54 senators voted for it. “To my mind it makes common sense to keep these weapons out of the hands of people with criminal records or mental health histories,” Sanders said.

Under current federal law, background checks are not performed for tens of thousands of sales – up to 40 percent of all gun transfers – at gun shows or over the Internet. The amendment would have required background checks for all gun sales in commercial settings regardless of whether the seller is a licensed dealer. The compromise proposal would have exempted sales between “family, friends, and neighbors.”

In a separate roll call, the Senate rejected a proposal to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. That proposal was defeated by a vote of 60 to 40.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-for-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban


Bernie Sanders voted for the 1994 crime bill because it included the Violence against Women Act and assault weapons ban:

In 1994, however, Sanders voted in favor of the final version of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, a bill that expanded the federal death penalty. Sanders had voted for an amendment to the bill that would have replaced all federal death sentences with life in prison. Even though the amendment failed, Sanders still voted for the larger crime bill.

A spokesman for Sanders said he voted for the bill "because it included the Violence Against Women Act and the ban on certain assault weapons."

Sanders reiterated his opposition to capital punishment in 2015. "I just don’t think the state itself, whether it’s the state government or federal government, should be in the business of killing people," he said on a radio show.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/where-do-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders-stand-/


If he's a pro-NRA/pro-gun politician why did the NRA give him a lifetime D- rating?

Politicub

(12,165 posts)
14. Bernie Sanders' awkward history with guns in America
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:50 AM
Jan 2016

A more recent vote than his vote against the Brady bill is this sloppy wet kiss he planted on the cheek of the NRA in 2005:


The most distressing vote for gun-control advocates is his 2005 vote in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, an NRA-backed bill to disallow gun manufacturers from being sued for negligence when people commit crimes with their guns. A recent Slate article focusing on the vote called Sanders a “gun nut,” and activists say the bill provides a level of legal protection for the gun manufacturers unprecedented for any other industry.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/bernie-sanders-awkward-history-with-guns-in-america-119185#ixzz3xsXl3oB1

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
15. I have no problem with his vote on the PLCAA.
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:55 AM
Jan 2016

Manufacturers shouldn't be held liable when their legally manufactured products are used in crimes.

And you didn't answer my question, if he's a shill for the NRA why has he never received money from them and why did they give him a D minus rating?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
19. Still not answering my question.
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 08:00 AM
Jan 2016

If he's was "bought and paid for" by the NRA like you claimed why has he never received money from them and why did they give him a D minus rating?

Mike__M

(1,052 posts)
22. Gotta agree with beam me on the PLCAA
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 03:45 PM
Jan 2016

Otherwise, we need to blame Boeing for 9-11.

I'll be a bit disappointed if Bernie really turns around on it.

Politicub

(12,165 posts)
16. Money doesn't have to change hands
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:56 AM
Jan 2016

That's how a PAC often works. They use their funds to engage in tactics to support or disparage a candidate. In the case of Sanders, they threw their support his way. He has paid them back numerous times over his legislative career.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
18. Wrong. His lifetime rating from the NRA of D minus and pro-gun control record prove otherwise.
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:59 AM
Jan 2016

He publicly announced his support of an assault weapons ban on 1988 and 1990 and he followed through. In fact those votes created a backlash against Bernie from the NRA in 1994.

 

Proserpina

(2,352 posts)
5. Too bad. We aren't in this for the laughs, nor to amuse the Elite
Thu Jan 21, 2016, 07:14 AM
Jan 2016

These attack pieces cited are desperate measures, and so riddled with lies and irrelevancies as to be humorous. Laugh at them, if laugh you must!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Gosztola: "[Establishment...