After attacking, correctly IMHO the Democratic leadership for not doing more to support James Thompson in the special election for Congress in Kansas in Pompeo’s old district and ignoring the need for “a 50 state strategy”, Sanders now seems to have, at least for now decided that Jon Ossoff in Florida who’s poised to take back Tom Price’s old seat is insufficiently progressive enough for his tastes to support.
Mind you this is in the midst of doing Democratic unity tour where he’s supposed to be bringing the Party together.
Now, on top of that, at the same time he’s determined that Ossoff isn’t progressive enough for him, without giving any real reason for this, he’s decided to give full throated support for a guy in Nebraska named Heath Mello who sponsored a bill requiring all women wanting an abortion to first get an ultrasound.
Ok, this is really quite telling about Sanders and his own particular brand of “economic populism” whereby if you want to force rape victims to get ultrasounds before getting abortions that’s kosher so long as I guess you support him on banking issues, but if you’re not 100% behind him on “economic populism” well to hell with the idea of a 50 state strategy.
I really hope the progressives do not get mired into demanding purity tests. I was in a debate with someone before about Elizabeth Warren. I said it’d be great if all 50 states could elect senators like Warren, but MA is one of the most liberal states in the US (top 10 at minimum), you can’t elect someone like Warren in Mississippi or Alabama in the current climate. He said he didn’t care, he’d rather have nobody than someone who isn’t a progressive.
Sanders has gotten flack for voting with the gun lobby, so he fails progressive litmus tests too.
Anyway, it sucks. I hope the progressive movement doesn’t turn into the tea party, demanding 100% purity and rather having a member of the opposition party in charge than a candidate who you only agree with on 85% of the issues.
I’m not surprised by Sanders though, he seems to be 100% about economic populism. Minority rights, women’s rights, foreign policy, etc. generally aren’t high on his priority list. So someone who aligns with his economic populism but not with the other areas he may support.
To be fair to Sanders about gun issues, he does represent Vermont. Rural states tend to support gun rights. I would imagine that his support for gun rights in the Senate is representative of his constituents.
Actually it would be very easy for Bernie to endorse both Ossoff and Mello.
I agree with **Wesley Clark **that Dems have to recognize that not everywhere in the the US is going to be like Cambridge, MA.
I don’t like Mello being pro-life, but were I in Nebraska would support him because I know that most of the time he’ll support the Dems.
Wesley Clark
I agree, that’s a moronic strategy. I may not be the biggest fan of Joe Manchin, but he’s the most progressive candidate you’re going to get coming out of West Virginia and anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves.
Frankly, part of the reason the Dems lost was because too many of the White progressives felt Hillary wasn’t “pure enough” for them and stayed home.
I have family in Vermont. It is. Part of the reason he one his first race in the House was because his Republican opponent had voted in favor of a gun control bill and this was a lesson Bernie never forgot.
While I obviously am not a fan of him though, I also wouldn’t say it’s as simple as he voted against various gun control bills while in the House out of fear of getting voted out so much as deciding that for his constituents, and he really, really does love the people of Vermont, this is a huge cultural issue and he decided that he needed to have their back on it.
Sanders doesn’t give any one else that kind of leeway on their positions. Why should we let him off the hook when it comes to one of the most controversial issues of the day?
Ok, enlighten me then. What is your opinion of Bernie Sanders call for “a 50 states strategy” while saying he’d only support Democratic candidates who were “economic populists” even if that means essentially conceding certain districts to Republicans while deciding that he doesn’t find forcing rape victims to undergo ultrasound before getting an abortion as a deal breaker?
I suppose that to nominate a candidate that was entirely correct on every issue, we might consider that bright young fellow from Nazareth. Except for his policy on fig trees. Nowadays, anyone to the left of Calvin Coolidge qualifies for acceptance by by the Cat Herders Association, the stakes are too high for petty squabbles. Or any squabbles, for that matter.
We need a massive, utterly overwhelming popular front. Afterwards, once we are secure that we still have something to preserve and argue about, we can bicker. We of the progressive left may be required to make nice with Clintonista “liberals”. So be it.
There are many ways to serve one’s country, sometime it involves eating some shit. Here’s my grin, here’s my spoon.
Another point (or just a way of putting it) that occurred to me: It would be one thing if we were talking about a Progressive/“Socialist” declining to endorse a big-L Libertarian. A Hypothetical Libertarian Candidate might agree with our Progressive on reproductive freedom, and perhaps gay marriage, and might also be an ally on things like opposition to NSA surveillance or even opposition to foreign wars. But a hypothetical Libertarian candidate might also want to not only not raise the minimum wage, but to abolish the minimum wage entirely; to repeal not only Obamacare, but also Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security; to abolish the income tax; and to privatize public schools. I could see a Progressive not wanting to endorse that (even if he wound up sometimes working with Hypothetical Libertarian on specific bills or issues).
But Ossoff is presumably no worse than a “moderate” on the economic issues that are important to Sanders. Whereas I’m pretty sure that Karen Handel is solidly right-wing on all the issues. So, Ossoff gets you pretty close to the whole loaf on social issues that may be peripheral to Sanders, and (let’s say) a half a loaf on the economic stuff Sanders cares most about. Handel gets you no more than a few crumbs on either peripheral social issues or core economic issues. (And that’s without even getting into the legislative mechanics of organizing the House if and when the Democrats someday regain the majority there.)
This is NOT the way for the Democrats to go; not even for the Progressive wing of the party.
Let me see if I got this right. What you took away from what I said was me saying that Mr Ossoff is “insufficiently progressive”? That was what I was saying to you.
Thinking you might just as well skip reading stuff I post. Waste of time, you could be reading more of that Spandan Chakrabarti.
Now, perhaps you could explain why you of “the progressive left” think that voting for someone like Ossoff is comparable to “eating shit.”
Also, perhaps you could explain so many members of “the progressive left” like Bernie apparently are more willing to support someone who wants to force rape victims to receive ultra sounds before getting an abortion?
Thanks in advance for what I’m sure will be an extremely well-writen well thought-out post.