Bernie's best . . . but

    Bernie Sanders is my favorite politician. Among U.S. Senators, it's likely my views align a little more closely with those of Elizabeth Warren and possibly Sherrod Brown (more on this in a moment). But Bernie's the one with the guts to take on the corrupt Clinton cabal and the neo-liberal Democratic establishment. For this, he deserves ever-lasting credit.

    As I write, the closely connected evils of rampant economic injustice and ongoing ecological collapse compete to be crowned gravest current threat to world-wide well-being. In such a time, Bernie's uncompromising stance for the 99% and against consolidated corporate power generally and the fossil fuel industry specifically make him easily the best candidate in the race for the Presidency.

    Sadly, our Samson has a Delilah, his Achilles heel has been exposed on multiple occasions, Super-Sanders' kryponite is guns. In the early-90s, he voted against the Brady bill on multiple occasions. Fortunately it passed and, along with much-improved police techniques and demographic shifts, has made our nation a much safer place.

    I could forgive this serious error since it occurred over twenty years ago and ultimately the Brady background check and waiting period requirements were enacted. But Sanders continues to oppose commonsense gun control laws that would further lower the murder rate here. These positions harm the poor, Blacks, and Latinos, all of whom suffer from gun crimes at a higher rate than other Americans, disproportionately.

    In the middle of the last decade, Sanders supported passage of a law exempting gun makers and dealers from product liability suits brought by victims of their dangerous wares. Although Sanders and others claimed such suits could have sounded the death knell for domestic gun manufacturing, the reality was that at least one manufacturer - Smith & Wesson - abandoned its pursuit of safer gun technology. This included a fingerprint scanner on each weapon that would have prevented anybody but a registered owner or user from discharging the gun and thereby would have all but ended unregistered transactions since the new purchaser would not be able to fire the weapon.

    Another possible technological fix that gun makers did not implement in the wake of the liability exemption would have prevented buyers from attaching high-volume rapid-reloading magazines and drums. The liability exemption also removed any incentive that gun makers had to police and perhaps stop distributing to so-called "bad apple" gun shops. Preventing lawsuits against gun makers for manufacturing dangerous products nipped in the bud an incipient race to the top where gun makers vied to make safer products. Instead, we now see a race to the bottom.

    One of my many criticisms of Secretary Hillary Clinton is her pattern of refusing to take responsibility for the damage many of her decisions have caused and to commit to a different course of action when it's clear that old ways don't work. Thus she has never come clean on the terrible damage the Bush/Cheney war on Iraq, which she supported, wreaked and she continues to champion neo-con foreign policy.

    With guns, Sanders is following in those same misguided footsteps. He has never acknowledged the great benefits of the Brady Act.  Perhaps even more problematically, despite murderous episodes like Sandy Hook. he continues to oppose holding gun manufacturers liable for selling products with design defects - such as easily modified guns or those without fingerprint scanners to prevent unauthorized users from discharging them.

    On April 1, Sanders told the editorial board of the New York Daily News he does not believe the victims of gun crimes should be able to sue the manufacturers absent evidence the maker knew or should have known the guns would fall into the wrong hands. Such a test would preclude a case being brought against Remington by parents and the next of kin of the 20 children and six adults massacred at the Sandy Hook school on December 4, 2012. During the carnage, the killer fired over 150 rounds in under five minutes from an AR-15.

    The murderers of 14 people late last year in San Bernardino, CA, modified an AR-15 illegally by attaching a 70-round drum to it. Sanders' liability test would almost certainly preclude any defective products lawsuit in that matter as well. Sanders defends his position by noting he would ban assault weapons altogether even though he opposes allowing lawsuits against those manufacturing them. He argues "it's a backdoor way" of getting guns off the street.  The obvious retort is if we need to use the backdoor to protect our children, then we should use it. Sanders is dangerously wrong on guns.

    Comments

    I 'll make a statement rather than structure a statement as a pretend question. I don't believe your objection to Hillary is due to her failure to take responsibility for her decisions.

     

     . 

    You take her vote and in effect imply that she caused the War. That if she had voted differently it wouldn't have happened. I wish she had voted differently. The only demonstration  I ever attended in 70 years of active political involvement was that cold February day when I did just that. 

    But a vote is a vote.   A decision to go to War is a decision to go to War.They're not the same.

    The votes were cast by hundreds of mistaken congress people. The decision was made by President Bush acting under the misguided guidance of Dick Cheney.

    I'm aware that it's not grammatically  incorrect  to write that she "decided " to go to War.. But it's  dishonest in this case.  And you will get away with it. A majority of readers will pass over the sentence. But you won't have convinced them, you'll have tricked them.

    What you have done is a form of grammatical bait and switch. You have changed the clear meaning- in a particular context - of two terms to reach a nonsensical conclusion.

    Hillary voted, that's what she did. Bush decided, that's what he did. Hillary didn't have resonsibility for starting the War. Bush/Cheney did.

    Why do I go on to this length.  You're too good a writer- and person- to indulge in this shell game. You're quite capable of making your points correctly. We benefit from that. When you make them by playing this sort of slight of hand  you let yourself down and you remove your  useful voice from a this important discussion.

     

     

      


    E.g. if Hillary had been president in 2003, woould she have decided to use AUMF authority to go to war? 99.99% assuredly not.


    Couldn't agree more, PP. But she voted the way she voted because she wanted to be president. You know it and I know it. We all know it. It's unforgivable.


    Did you vote in 2004? For who? Are you happy Bush won?


    I honestly don't remember. I might have voted for Kerry. Maybe Cobb or Harris. Kerry won Washington comfortably, but the gubernatorial race was as tight as a frog's ass. That's what I remember. It doesn't make any difference now, nor did it then. And no, I wasn't happy Bush was reelected. Stupid question.


    I'm just wondering exactly what you mean by unforgivable. Kerry voted for the war and defended that vote.  If you didn't forgive him you helped bush win.


    I didn't help Bush win. That's corny. Hell, I may have voted for that clown Kerry. Don't remember. Anyway, my vote here in Washington isn't the same as say a vote in Ohio or Florida. I don't know how I'd vote if I lived in either state.

    We have philosophical differences about the consequences and responsibilities of voting. What I find amusing, tho, is your attempt to saddle me with contributing to Bush's reelection without acknowledging Clinton's role in the war. In the simplest terms, Clinton helped Bush go to war. By voting.

    Unforgivable. As in inexcusable, unpardonable, unjustifiable and/or indefensible.  I'm sticking with the traditional meaning. And hey, a person can vote for someone s/he doesn't forgive. No law against it, FWIW.


    Actually I think the only thing that's been revealed in this little conversation is a difference in the interpretation of the word "unforgivable."


    Maybe so.

     


    Maybe so.

     


    Kerry voted the way Hillary did; so did Edwards. I dont recall the disgust towards them, and obviously Kerry was much more assured of running for prez when he voted than rookie senator Clinton. Biden voted that way, and I didnt recall people saying he was unfit to be VP and then people were trying to draft him last August/Sept as the shining knight of integrity.

    So I see it as just a concenient anchor weight for hillary - some on the left hate her morethan Bush.


    I agree with just about everything you've written here except the last phrase. I think it's a bit of embroidery. But so what? Edwards, Kerry and Biden aren't exactly cut from the profiles in courage cloth. Just because they didn't have any guts during the run up doesn't excuse anyone else.


    But you miss an important point - Hillary is realjty-driven. She's not re-running 2008. She was rejected even though I think she was shown to be more credible than Obama. That horse has left the stable. Now she's focused on extending Obama, not repudiating him, not blandly continuing him. But elections have consequences as does the last 8 years of political development. 8 years ago the folks who support Bernie now supported Obama. And then they have the chutzpah to claim Hillary would have been worse instead of recognizing the limitations of their choice. Demkcrats as a whole are supporting Hillary's approach more than Bernie's. That's democracy - she's giving Democratic voters largely what they want so she's winning. You can't please everyone, but a large majority is good. Obviously the Nader fringe is not the core of the party, even if that vibe has infected the caucus process. Hillary is still acknowledging many of the issues that make Sanders popular, and that type of co-option is good and a natural part of election. (It's more natural than Gore's tilt towards Bradley)


    I generally agree with most of this, tho "reality-driven" wanders a bit into eye of the beholder territory, and "saying" and "giving" aren't quite the same thing. As the wise like to say, we'll see. But yeah. 

     

     


    No, I dont know it. It was a 2002 vote, and it was the only proposal on the table to get inspections, the Democratts had no role in writing the AUMF and inspection plan. It was a vote between Hussein and Bush - which did I trust less, what were the downsides of each. At the time it looked like Hussein was the bigger threat with unknowns. We couldnt know in fall 2002 that Bush would roll over the Security Council that backed him, nor how disastrously Bush wiuld carry out the invasion. In early 2003, Colin Powell still had some respect.


    This is deja vu all over again. Where were then? In the streets I hope. People knew the whole thing was a charade. We were begging those cowards to vote no. The only chance of avoiding an invasion was if enough people in congress stood up against Bush/Cheney and their bunch. Not enough did.

    From an open letter to Congress in their October 14, 2002 edition.

     Soon, you will be asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the United States to overthrow the government of Iraq by military force. Its passage, we read on all sides, is a foregone conclusion, as if what the country now faces is not a decision but the disclosure of a fate. The nation marches as if in a trance to war. In the House, twenty of your number, led by Dennis Kucinich, have announced their opposition to the war. In the Senate, Robert Byrd has mounted a campaign against the version of the resolution already proposed by the Bush Administration. He has said that the resolution's unconstitutionality will prevent him from voting for it. "But I am finding," he adds, "that the Constitution is irrelevant to people of this Administration." The Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to the Washington Post, oppose the war. Telephone calls and the mail to your offices run strongly against it. Polls and news stories reveal a divided and uncertain public. Yet debate in your chambers is restricted to peripheral questions, such as the timing of the vote, or the resolution's precise scope. You are a deliberative body, but you do not deliberate. You are representatives, but you do not represent.

    The silence of those of you in the Democratic Party is especially troubling. You are the opposition party, but you do not oppose. Raising the subject of the war, your political advisers tell you, will distract from the domestic issues that favor the party's chances in the forthcoming Congressional election. In the face of the Administration's pre-emptive war, your leaders have resorted to pre-emptive surrender. For the sake of staying in power, you are told, you must not exercise the power you have in the matter of the war. What, then, is the purpose of your re-election? If you succeed, you will already have thrown away the power you supposedly have won. You will be members of Congress, but Congress will not be Congress. Even the fortunes of the domestic causes you favor will depend far more on the decision on the war than on the outcome of the election.
    That's how I remember it.

    You dont mention successful inspections, you dont mention cooperation with the UN, you ignore that Hans Blix thought until Jan 2003 Hussein had WMDs. Sure, everyone thought Bush was a bullshitter. But how much risk to take with Hussein in a post-9/11 world? A lot of crickets.


    I can't say now that I knew, or even thought then that SH didn't have WMD. I just didn't care. Tell me, so what if he did? He was a rotten mf for sure, but he was no threat to the U.S. Zero. And we knew that. Something like 40% of D's voted no. They were willing to take some "risk." I don't remember crickets. I remember loud, clear opposition. 


    On this issue as on so many others, Sanders was right and Clinton was wrong.


    Once Sanders got elected to Congress, he faced no significant opposition at election time. It really didn't matter how he voted because he was in a protected seat.He faced no political backlash. He now has to Bernie-splain his stance on guns, for example. Since he is protected politically, he can criticize other politicians who need to seek funding for campaigns, The Democratic Party is corrupt because it accepts corporate funds. He is pure from the standpoint of corporate funds, but has to plan on how other Democrats are supposed to pay for campaigns. He offers no funding to downstream Democrats, because Democrats are tainted. So we will have a morally pure guy with a protected seat, telling both Democrats and Republicans that they are a bunch of corrupt people. What could go wrong?


    Flavius -

    1) Thanks so much for the compliments.  I do the best I can.

    2) I do believe Clinton bears some responsibility for the Cheney/Bush war on Iraq.  We don't know what would have happened if she had spoken out against it early and often but as the former first lady, one of the most respected women in America, and a US Senator from the Empire State, she had a lot more gravitas than the junior Senator from Vermont.  Maybe, just maybe, her opposition would have made a difference.  I remember back in 2002 when this vote was transpiring how my hopes that Democrats would reject Bush's rush to war were dashed.

    3) Contrary to your assertion. I am very troubled by Clinton's failure to come clean about her vote for the war and to acknowledge error.  While I was disappointed that many Dems voted with Bush/Cheney, I understood at the time why.  I was conflicted myself.  Saddam really was a pretty bad guy and the claims that he had stockpiles of poison gas and a viable nuclear weapons program seemed credible - the New York Times was reporting this on its front page for chrissakes!  So, I was prepared to cut Clinton some slack for her obviously wrong (in hindsight) vote if she admitted her mistake.  She didn't.  This has proven especially problematic because she remains an unreconstructed hawk despite the disastrous results of American military adventures since 2003.

    4) To bolster my claim that Hillary's refusal to admit error is a significant reason that I so strongly support Bernie Sanders, I refer you to the first post I wrote concerning her use of a private email server.  I noted she clearly violated the governing federal regulations but I would have been more than willing to cut her slack if she just had admitted she was wrong in the first place.  But she just couldn't do it. 

    5) As Santayana said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."


     I'm pretty relaxed to put it mildly about her violation of security regulations. Among those of my friends, even the most right wing ones,who've been in the military  the charge of downloading classified information  was  ground for eye rolling. The security regulations at best ( which is seldom the case, the services to borrow a phrase "would classify a ham sandwich") are a tool not an end in themselves.

    If you think  the work load of  the Secretary of State is such that of course she should be able to use her time at home to work , if the regulations prevent that the solution's easy : change the regulations. 

    At the end of "Desert Storm". as he was about to board his flight home "Stormin Norman " bent over and picked up a handful of Iraqi soil. Someone said " regulations won't allow him to take that in to the US". . The reply was  " you tell him". . 

    Seemed about right to me.

     

     


    Fantasy football again, eh? 

    "We don't know what would have happened if she had spoken out against it early and often but as the former first lady, one of the most respected women in America, and a US Senator from the Empire State, she had a lot more gravitas than the junior Senator from Vermont.  Maybe, just maybe, her opposition would have made a difference. " - Hal

    They ignored former VP Gore. Colin Powell was more respected and he lied. They were hoping Dems up for re-election would refuse so the GOP could trounce them in the election 3 weeks later. Bernie wasnt jr senator, he was congressman with very little risk. Have a read.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=complete_timeline_of_the_...


    Sanders support of gun manufacturers is equaled by his support of weapons manufacturers, if they are located in Vermont. As Mayor Sanders called the police on protestors objecting to a Burlington GEVplant manufacturing Gating guns that would be shipped to kill Socialists in Central America.

    Sanders supported the building of the F-35 fighter jet, even though is was worse than the 40-year old F-16. Sanders got Lockheed to build a research center in Burlington, and made sure that 18 of the unnecessary jets were stationed in Vermont's Air National Guard base.

    Sanders has not been vetted, but his full record will begin to trickle out.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/09/bernie-sanders-loves-th...


    Latest Comments