Tag Archives: Bernie Sanders

Bernie going for it again in 2020? Please, no!

Say this isn’t really happening.

Bernie Sanders, the Democrat in Name Only senator from Vermont, reportedly is hiring additional staff while he gears up for a possible/probable run for president in 2020. I will call him a DINO.

Good grief! Tell me it ain’t happening.

I am not feeling the Bern. I know he has his fans and a strong legion of supporters. I also know he came surprisingly close to capturing the Democratic nomination in 2016.

Here’s my problem with Bernie: He’s not a Democrat. He would be running as a Democrat, but he’s listed in the U.S. Senate roster as an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

I have another problem with Bernie. His 2020 campaign is going sound like the one-note samba his 2016 campaign sounded. He will tell us that too few people have acquired too much of our wealth; he wants to redistribute the wealth; he wants to provide free college to every student in America (how he pays for it is a mystery to me); and he wants “Medicare for All” Americans.

We have seen during the Donald Trump administration that we also need a coherent, strong and reasonable foreign policy. I do not see Bernie Sanders offering such a thing were he to become elected president.

He’s been to the well already. He doesn’t need to return. I do not want him to run for president. I want a fresher face from which we will hear a fresher voice.

Not going to ‘feel the Bern,’ Sen. Sanders

I am baffled as to why U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders even is in the conversation about whether he should run for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

I want to make two quick points: He ran for the 2016 party nomination and lost it to Hillary Rodham Clinton. His platform this time around seems to mirror the mantra he recited in 2016 — which is that too few people control too much wealth. This self-proclaimed “democratic socialist” wants to redistribute the wealth to more of us. I guess I’m too much of a capitalist to buy into that notion.

My second point? Sanders isn’t even a Democrat. He ran for the U.S. Senate from Vermont as an independent. He doesn’t belong to a political party, although he does caucus with the Senate Democrats. He votes with them almost without fail. Still, he isn’t a Democrat.

So why is this guy talking about running again for the Democratic Party presidential nomination?

Moreover, why aren’t the media calling him out more vigorously on the phony association he has with a political party to which he doesn’t even belong?

Don’t run, Bernie. Leave the political stage to other politicians who have more to say than you do.

Beto v. Bernie: Let the battle begin

A fascinating struggle is emerging within the Democratic Party between an old warhorse and a rising young political stallion.

It’s the Beto-Bernie brouhaha. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont — who’s actually an independent who caucuses with Senate Democrats — is trying to fend off the surge of support being shown for Beto O’Rourke, the West Texas congressman who came within a whisker of knocking off Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2018 midterm election.

Let me be candid: I am not feeling the “Bern.” Sen. Sanders fought hard for the 2016 Democratic nomination, but fell short. He preached a one-page sermon: too few people have too much wealth and he wants to take some of that wealth away from the rich folks; he calls it “income inequality.”

O’Rourke’s message is good bit more comprehensive. He speaks to an array of progressive issues: immigration reform, education reform, environmental protection, and yes, income inequality.

I’m not convinced either man should run for president in 2020, but if given a choice, I’m going to roll with Beto.

Sanders is trying to undercut Beto’s surge.

As NBC News reports: The main line of attack against O’Rourke is that he isn’t progressive enough — that he’s been too close to Republicans in Congress, too close to corporate donors and not willing enough to use his star power to help fellow Democrats — and it is being pushed almost exclusively by Sanders supporters online and in print.

That is precisely another point that frustrates me about Sanders. He is unwilling to reach across the aisle. O’Rourke, who has served three terms in the House from El Paso, has shown an occasional willingness to work with Republicans rather than fight them every step of the way. We need more, not less, of that kind of governance in Washington.

Nevertheless, the intraparty struggle is likely to be just one of many to occur among Democrats as they struggle for position to battle the Republican Party’s nominee in 2020.

I was going to assert that Donald Trump would be that person. However, given all that has happened in the past two weeks or so . . . I am not quite as certain that the president be the one to take the GOP fight forward.

Call it a day, Sen. Sanders

I am going to admit that I ain’t feelin’ the Bern.

There’s chatter churning out there that U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who aligns with the Democrats, is considering another presidential run in 2020.

Please! No! Not again!

Sanders sang a one-note aria while running for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2016: It centered on income inequality and how the “1 percent is holding the vast majority of wealth” in this country.

I supported Hillary Clinton’s candidacy over Bernie Sanders, mainly because I felt uncomfortable with Sanders’s lack of stated understanding of the whole range of foreign and domestic issues that any president confronts.

Now he’s considering another run at it. A Politico story tells how he is setting up a showdown with U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who’s also considering a presidential run in two years.

I’m not yet sure who should get the party’s nomination to challenge Donald Trump for the presidency, assuming he runs for re-election.

Sen. Sanders is nowhere to be found on my list of preferred candidates. It has nothing to do with his acknowledgment of being what he calls a “democratic socialist.” I do agree in part with his view that too few people in this country control too much wealth. I do not believe his notion of providing a free public college/university education for all Americans is even possible, let alone reasonable.

He’s had his run. He came up short in 2016. I still believe the Democratic Party’s best chance at winning the White House rests with someone fresh and new.

Sen. Sanders is neither of those things.

Don’t do it, Bernie.

How can Bernie speak for Democrats?

I am struck by the media’s continuing infatuation with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent from Vermont.

They keep asking him how Democrats can win elections, how Democrats can topple Republican opponents, how Democrats can do this or do that to benefit their party.

Hold on! Sanders isn’t a Democrat. He caucuses with Democrats in the U.S. Senate. However, he doesn’t belong to a political party.

Is this guy the right man to speak for a party of which he is not a member?

As long as we’re insisting on resignation …

Three U.S. senators — two Democrats and an independent who sides with Democrats — have broached a subject that’s on the minds of millions of Americans.

If we’re going to demand and accept the resignations of senators and House members over allegations of sexual abuse, assault and harassment … how about demanding it of the groper in chief, Donald John Trump Sr.?

My distaste for Donald Trump as president of the United States is documented quite thoroughly on this blog. He has behaved like a slug and a boor among women. Moreover, he has actually bragged about it!

Now we hear from Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Corey Booker, D-N.J., and Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., all of whom have said that the president should resign just as Democratic Sen. Al Franken, Republican Rep. Trent Franks and Democratic Rep. John Conyers have done.

I won’t climb aboard that hay wagon just yet. However, Trump and his acknowledged misbehavior — and the myriad complaints and allegations that have been leveled against him — do suggest one of the more profound ironies of the “Me Too” movement that is swallowing powerful men.

Trump’s recorded voice has him boasting to a TV host about his grabbing women by their genitals. He boasted about how his celebrity status enabled him to kiss women whenever he felt like it. He has talked about how he was able to walk in on half-dressed beauty pageant contestants because, by golly, he was the boss.

Trump’s “punishment”? He was elected president of the United States. The election does not absolve him of anything. Instead it brings it all into sharp relief when juxtaposed with the allegations that have forced other politicians to walk away from their public service jobs.

I’m not prescient enough to know where this “Me Too” movement is going from here. Perhaps it will gather even more steam. It well might explode inside the Oval Office. Or … it might fizzle and die.

If it does expand and if it does reach even more deeply into the president’s personal behavior, well … then I believe we need to take these resignation suggestions from Sens. Sanders, Booker and Merkley quite seriously.

So, too, should the president.

With a ‘friend’ like this, Hillary’s in trouble

You know already that I supported Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2016. So it is with more than a bit of chagrin that I am hearing some bad news about her failed bid for the White House.

The weirdest part of it is that it is coming from a fellow Democrat who I always presumed was on her side. Silly me. That’ll teach me for presuming too much.

Donna Brazile, a long time Democratic operative who served for a time as interim chairman of the Democratic Party, has come out with some stunning news about Clinton’s campaign.

One is that Clinton’s campaign “rigged” the party nominating process in her favor. It used underhanded tactics to torpedo the campaign of Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. Brazile alleges that Clinton didn’t consider Sanders to be a real Democrat; he represents Vermont as an independent in the U.S. Senate.

This rigging allegation, of course, adds fuel to the fire that continues to burn that Clinton is “crooked,” “ruthless” and will do whatever it takes to win, no matter who it harms.

I will concede that I do think less of Clinton than I did a year ago, or even a week ago.

What’s worse, though, is what the revelations from Brazile reveal about her, not Clinton.

We also have learned that Brazile has written that she contemplated replacing the Hillary Clinton-Tim Kaine ticket with one led by then-Vice President Joe Biden.

Think of the ham-handed nature of such a decision were it to come to pass. The Democratic Party had nominated a candidate nearly every political analyst in America believed was a lock for the presidency. Then she stumbles along the way. Her campaign went into a form of intellectual vapor lock. Brazile was so upset she was going to engineer an ouster of the party’s nominee?

I surely get that Clinton’s foes are going to seize on this as proof — as they see it — that she is Satan’s daughter. I won’t go there.

Yes, these are disturbing things to hear from an ostensible ally of the woman thought to be the next president of the United States.

Are they deal breakers? Do they make me rethink my support for her in 2016? Given the choice we faced nearly one year ago … not for a single second!

That’s not very ‘populist’ of you, Mr. President

Stock Market up 5 months in a row!

So said Donald J. Trump via Twitter today.

I share the president’s enthusiasm about the Dow Jones Industrial Average. It speaks to burgeoning investor confidence in the nation’s economy and, presumably, about the president’s vision for the future.

We actually have some skin in that game. Our retirement portfolio contains holdings in the stock market. So I happen to be as glad as the president about the Dow’s performance for much of 2017.

However …

Didn’t the president campaign as a “populist”? Didn’t he tell us while winning the 2016 presidential campaign that he was for “the little guy”? He tried at times to sound more populist than, say, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, the independent U.S. senator from Vermont and self-proclaimed “democratic socialist.”

A true-blue populist, by my definition of the term, should be skeptical, wary, even alarmed that the big ol’ rich guys are profiting so handsomely as their stock portfolios rocket skyward.

So, is the president a populist or is he a Populist in Name Only — a PINO?

My gut tells me I should go with the latter.

Sanders is right: Trump is a liar

Bernie Sanders is correct: The president of the United States is a liar. He might even be a pathological liar.

He has lied continually. He does it on purpose, which defines someone who lies.

Donald J. Trump needs to produce evidence to back up his latest lie, which is that “it is a fact” that Barack Obama ordered the wiretap of the president’s offices in Trump Tower.

He hasn’t done so. He didn’t produce any evidence of his previous lies. Not the Muslims cheering the Twin Towers collapsing on 9/11; or that Ted Cruz’s father might have been complicit in President Kennedy’s assassination; or the millions of illegal immigrants voting for Hillary Clinton.

He has lied every time he has said those things.

To “lie” is to willingly, knowingly tell a falsehood.

That’s what Sen. Sanders, I-Vt., has said. He stands by his statement. He is right. Trump is a liar.

And this is the guy who got elected president of the United States of America?

Spare me, please, the rejoinder that “all politicians lie.” Trump’s troops kept telling us that their guy “tells it like it is.” That’s different, presumably, from pure lies.

And also you may spare me the red herring that Bill Clinton “lied” about his affair with the intern, which got him impeached by the House of Representatives. I know that he lied under oath to the grand jury; I also know that was the ostensible reason for his impeachment. He paid his dues for lying.

Trump, though, hasn’t paid anything for these lies he has told. He got elected even as he lied his way all along the campaign trail.

He is lying now by suggesting that Barack Obama ordered the wiretaps.

And for that reason, Bernie Sanders should stand his ground.

Big crowds don’t necessarily equal big votes


I’m enjoying listening to and reading comments from Donald J. Trump’s fans — some of whom are friends of mine — boast about the size of the rallies he is attracting.

The Republican candidate for president’s rallies, they keep saying, are far bigger than those who listen to Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That’s proof, they say, that Trump is making a comeback. That he’ll win in the end and be elected the 45th president of the United States.

I feel the need to remind them all of this indisputable fact … which is that big crowds don’t necessarily translate into big vote totals.

* George McGovern drew big crowds in 1972. They were loud, boisterous, enthusiastic and dedicated to their man. I know. I was among them. He lost the election that year by 23 percentage points to President Nixon.

* Gary Hart drew big crowds, too, in 1984 as he campaigned for the Democratic nomination. His fans were zealous. He didn’t even get nominated. The Democrat who did, Walter Mondale, lost “bigly” to President Reagan.

* Twenty years earlier, Barry Goldwater had the fervent support of the GOP’s conservative movement. They packed auditoriums and stadiums to hear their guy. Goldwater lost the 1964 election to President Johnson; yep, that was a landslide, too.

* Bernie Sanders just this year was drawing huge crowds. The crowds loved him. Did he win the nomination? No. Clinton did.

This election will decided by which candidate has the better “ground game.” Who between them has an organization ready to mobilize voters? Who is better equipped to target voting blocs? Which of them is going to develop the better ad campaign?

Crowd size? Sure, it’s nice to speak to more than just family and friends. The size of the crowds or the decibel level of their cheers, though, do not guarantee a thing on Election Day.