Because he’s right? He said authoritarianism is bad, but socialism can be good. That’s it, and nearest I can tell he’s been incredibly consistent on that. Castro bad, literacy good. That’s, like, not even a nuanced position, but apparently even that pathetically obvious statement is too nuanced for American politics. Huzzah! I know, I know, it’s probably bad politics for Bernie to go around stating the obvious when it makes himself open for an attack that will sway low information voters, but Bernie is nothing if not consistent.
Bernie was challenged about Cuba in a post-debate interview on CBS. The interviewer specifically said “Let’s set aside the substance of the question and talk about the politics. Do you understand why this is a difficult stance to take, politically speaking?” (paraphrasing). Bernie’s response (not paraphrasing): “Truth is truth.” :smack: No, Bernie, in politics truth is NOT truth. (Of course, to his young idealistic faithful, this observation is appalling, “everything that’s wrong with politics” :rolleyes:)
“The Holocaust was wrong, obviously; but those autobahns were great, and he really amped up national pride!”
Andy has repeatedly said something to the effect of “okay, Bernie said some dumb things about dictators in the 1980s, old news”. Why would it make sense for him politically to make it NEW news? Why not just say “I won’t defend every comment I made in the Eighties, but let me be clear how I feel after three decades in the House and Senate: I denounce the totalitarian Castro regime and any country where people are not allowed to exercise their God-given liberty”? It would be disingenuous, sure–but it would be GOOD POLITICS, and how would it hurt progressive causes in any way?
Kellyanne Conway drives all of us nuts with her evasive spin; but doing that kind of thing in politics is a crucial skill. There’s a reason “Bulworth” is only a movie: that kind of thing doesn’t work! (And no, Trump is not a counterexample: he lied about all kinds of stuff in 2016 to get elected.)
Interesting to have that reaction with the debate. My feeling is that she was done *before *the debate, due to her poor performance in Nevada. But I thought this was a strong debate for her, if it mattered (which it doesn’t).
It’s ironic that she gasses on about eliminating the filibuster–she was filibustering like hell for a while there!
She’s trying to recapture the magic from her Las Vegas attacks, and it’s really cringey. You can’t attack him about the same stuff when he has now released the women from their DNDs! :smack:
Yeah, that would have required several million Columbines, Sandy Hooks, Virginia Techs, Orlando Pulses. Somebody grill Biden hard after this to ask what and why.
I wonder if it will come out that Bloomberg bought up tickets for supporters. Right now it’s just speculation but the audience reacted very strangely tonight.
It is not about whether bad people did some good (or vice versa). Frankly, no one in history is without sin. Ghandi had some baggage. So did Mother Theresa (actually she had loads).
The attack is to cast socialism in a bad light. Sanders is trying to note that there are some good aspects to it while repudiating the authoritarian assholes using it.
What about Sander’s agenda tells you that he will try to be a Castro? Or is it that you are trying to use a villain who had a few ideas in common with Sanders to paint Sanders as a villain also?
I was soooo lopsided. It was not even close. Plus, the crazy applause approving of something Bloomberg said was decidedly more like a laugh track than a genuine response. (E.G. Bloomberg would make some minor point and the audience would go nuts.)
It’s neither. I don’t know if Bernie would like to be like Castro if he could (I’m not convinced he wouldn’t, given how happy he was with him when he came back from Cuba, same deal in Nicaragua), but Congress wouldn’t let him so the point is moot. Nor am I concerned with “painting him as a villain also”. I feel like my point is really clear, but I’ll try to spell it out more carefully:
Bernie Sanders is really bad at general election presidential politics. There’s no upside to sticking up for Castro. None. Nor is there upside to calling himself a “democratic socialist”. He could advocate his entire absurd Christmas tree of progressive programs without doing either of those things. Doing those things does not help him win, it doesn’t help him achieve anything. And it’s incredibly reckless right when he’s on the verge of consolidating support and becoming unstoppable for the nomination. He may not be able to be stopped anyway, but why would he risk it? It shows that he won’t “play the game” at all in the fall, but will just try to be Bulworth. And if that works, we’ve never seen evidence for it in history.
I’m sure we’re all giving your well-informed (:rolleyes:) (<- to indicate sarcasm) opinion all the consideration it is due.
Sanders is nothing if not consistent.
Unlike most politicians who swing to a new position as the wind blows Sanders has been consistent his whole career.
You want Sanders to give up a position he once held. Sanders is standing behind his position because it was a considered position.
Put another way, Sanders doing as you suggest is literally not the Sanders’ brand which is standing behind what he has said even if you think it is not politically expedient.
I don’t get why we have to have a National Conversation about how bad Cuba is every six months when that’s where we keep our extralegal torture facility.
I actually know some super hardcore Bernie backers who grudgingly admit these Cuba comments are not helpful. Their explanation? “He’s just the kind of person who can’t be at all disingenuous, can’t even shade the truth through omission”. Okay, maybe that’s true. That could be a good character trait in a friend or family member. It’s a spectacularly *terrible *characteristic of a presidential candidate, unless that candidate just happens to sincerely hold nothing but middle-of-the-road views (which obviously isn’t the case here).
Just thought I’d throw this out there. I missed the debate, but here’sCNN’s take. Is this accurate?
WINNERS:
Buttigieg: “At his absolute best.” Did well at contrasting his health care plan with Sanders’.
**
Biden:**
" Hammered Steyers. Said Sanders was a dangerous risk whose election would affect down-ballot candidates. Stumbled a lot and claimed he wrote every bill the other candidates discussed, but more good than bad.
Klobuchar:
Made many solid policy proposals. Not as solid as she was in the debate before New Hampshire, but a bright spot on a chaotic stage.
Sanders:
But, ___ said, no one knocked him out, and given his surge in popularity, that’s a win.
Trump: Chaos and anger at the debate makes him look better.
LOSERS:
Bloomberg: Better in this debate, but that’s not saying much. Jokes fell flat, and he still hasn’t explained his misogynist jokes and comments about women.
Warren: She was OK, but that’s not good enough for a candidate who has yet to finish in the top two in any primaries. Best when she attacked Bloomberg re: women, but often faded from view.
Moderators: Refused to get involved when shouting erupted, yet interrupted when it was unnecessary.
Live Audience: Unrestrained clapping and booing may have influenced how the TV audience assessed the candidates’ performances. Get rid of live audiences.
I dug the audience! 
IMO, every moment spent on the Castro stuff is a de facto win for Bernie at this stage. It’s not ideal for the general election due to quirks of where hawkish Cuban migrants are located, but nobody is making that case directly, they’re just wailing and gnashing their teeth about how horrible Castro was. But most Americans, and especially most Democrats, don’t support hawkish jingoism on Cuba; Castro was last in the minds of the public twenty years ago during the Elián González fracas, and even then the majority of the public (and a huge majority of Democrats) opposed the right’s attempt to kidnap the kid.
I assume he meant 150 thousand victims of homicide since 2007 — the actual number is in that ballpark.
I write or say “million” when I mean “billion” quite often — it’s just a lapse, not innumeracy. My posts would look crazed if I only had 45 seconds to compose a long one.
Everybody on the stage has a very high IQ. It gets tiresome to hear minor slips or lapses treated as more serious than what they are. A President listens carefully and speaks as slowly as he needs to. Producing snappy soundbites on demand shouldn’t be a top criterion.
Guarantee! Ha! Love it - I love your magical powers!
This debate was notable for how uninteresting it was. Dullest. Debate. Evah.
But if anything can be taken away from it it’s this:
Bernie will never change; He’ll forever be the angry uncle who’s not wrong but hard to stomach for extended periods.
Biden has changed and not for the better; he’s gotten much angrier and less coherent. I worry about his health. Please quit and go lie down, Joe. You’ve done enough.
Pete is always sharp; He is consistent and smart but far too rational for an election that will be decided entirely on emotion.
Amy…<yawn>; take your receipts and go home. We’ll call you when we need to fill the position of Sec. HUD or Commerce.
Liz is an also ran when standing next to Bernie; She’ll be an excellent VP if Bernie wins. Or Sec of Treasury, or Labor, or Education, or Czar of Fuck The Corporations and Billionaires.
Thanks for coming out Mike and Tom; You don’t look like you need, want or deserve this job.
It has nothing to do with being young or idealistic. I’m almost 40 and I doubt there is anyone in this thread much more cynical about the political future of this country than me. But yes. Your observation is appalling.
If Pete Buttigieg said, as pure platitude, with no substance and out of context, “Truth is truth,” there would be Democrats with tears in their eyes talking about how presidential that young man is. My DC lanyard-class friends would want that shit tattooed on their hearts. And it is the kind of thing Buttigieg has probably focus-grouped, and has a whiteboard full of somewhere: little aphorisms to pepper in and make commercials out of, as long as they don’t in any way inform the very artificial way you present information. You want to take the presidency from Donald Trump, and you’re saying “Truth is truth.” Beautiful. Campaign slogan, even.
The guy who is actually leading the race says it, in the context of explaining why he’s not being a hypocrite and explaining the not actually wrong thing he’s being attacked for, and this is your response because he’s further to the left than you and thus must be insane. Not that his point was inaccurate, or shameful, or bad, or that he should apologize for it. Just that it’s politically difficult, and those things have to be dealt with in as manufactured and cosmetic a way as possible at all times.
Not being hypocritical about things when you have no good reason to be hypocritical about them: bad politics. The Democrats, 2020, ladies and gentlemen.
To be fair, it’s easier for him to win a debate where he’s not talking.
Obviously, the Bowling Green Massacre was even more horrific than previously (un)known.