Dagnabbit the editing time ran out. Fixed the link:
Depends on your definition of “juicy”. What I think he is trying to hide is that his charitable giving amounts to bupkis.
Everyone’s talking about how ‘nasty’ things are in the democratic race, but I just don’t see it yet. There have been some cutting remarks but most of the punches have been above the belt - certainly when you compare the ugliness of the republican races.
Hillary is naturally trying to exploit a potential weakness in Sanders, which is fair game. Sanders isn’t as smart as he thinks he is. In return, Sanders is naturally trying to fight her off and turn the tables. That, too, is fair.
As I’ve said previously, I think Clinton probably doesn’t have to worry about losing the race to Sanders. But she should worry about losing Sanders’ voters. That’s a tricky line to walk. She will definitely lose some of them no matter what, but I’d say a clear majority of Sanders’ supporters are rational and responsible voters who will can be convinced to hold their nose and follow through with a vote against the republican party, even while not really voting for Hillary.
He’s been trying to exploit her perceived weaknesses, which is “fair”; lying, making up quotes, declaring the highly likely standard bearer for what you claim is now your party, as not qualified for the job … no, none of those is “fair.”
Jeff Weaver is such a weasel. I just caught an interview of his with CNN and saw the most begrudging admission ever that a candidate (Hillary) is qualified.
Before someone comes back again with “The GOP will say much worse about her”, that is not how it is supposed to go in a nomination contest! Hillary doesn’t share the same voter pool with the GOP, doesn’t need the vast majority of GOP voters to unite behind her in November.
You guys sound like a couple of Fox News talking heads beating a gotcha! to death.
She’ll get enough of them as it is. No matter how many BernieBros clutter your Facebook feed with promises never to vote for her, in fact most of them will anyway in November, and the ones who don’t will be greatly outnumbered by the NeverTrumps on the Rep side who will.
It’s true, but I’m not sure we can count on gifts like Trump and Cruz every time. If we had a united GOP behind Romney and Ryan this time, it might be a different story. Whereas I’m concerned this dynamic may only be gaining momentum on our side, especially the next time we don’t have an incumbent Democrat running.
Possible, but I don’t think he cares especially about how his level of charitable giving will be perceived. I don’t think worrying about that is in character for him. He knows that a large percentage of his supporters will follow him just about anywhere he goes and will forgive him an awful lot more than being a skinflint. Indeed I kind of suspect that being a skinflint about charitable giving plays into the narrative–“he doesn’t have oodles of money to give away! he refuses to deduct his used socks and underwear! He’s a man of the people, he’s one of us!”
No, I think the real reason is that he thinks he shouldn’t *have *to release his taxes. In his world, it’s only the billionaires and the candidates funded by Wall Street who should have to release their taxes. They’re the only ones with something to hide. It fits into his narrative of running a different campaign, a shoestring campaign, what amounts to a kitchen-table campaign: “my wife does our taxes, we don’t have money for fancy Wall Street accountants, and asking me to release my taxes is just a distraction from the real issues.” The rules, he’s saying, SHOULD be different for him.
(Personally, I think he SHOULD follow the same rules as everyone else. But a number of things he’s been doing suggest otherwise. To me, this fits right in.)
Which doesn’t explain why he’s lying about it… I really don’t get that at all.
Some are seeing a video Paul Ryan just released as a stealth ‘I can be the savior of the Republican party’ campaign ad:
This Paul Ryan Video Sure Looks A Lot Like A 2016 Campaign Ad - TPM – Talking Points Memo
So, there’s that.
There’s no rule about releasing your tax returns. Personally I find the practice of demanding candidates release them quite distasteful. What rules are you thinking of?
If your point is that “this dynamic” might lead to a Sanders-like progressive getting the Dem presidential nomination at some time in the future, you’re right. If your point is that that would be a bad thing, you’re wrong. If your point is that such a candidate could not beat the Pub in a more normal year than this one, you’re wrong,.
Rule or no, it’s common practice, and the natural question for a candidate who doesn’t is Why?
I think this is ignoring that such decisions are likely made not by Bernie but by Tad Devine, who is almost certainly not so sanguine about the charity issue. And saying he doesn’t have enough money to be giving to charity will definitely not fly, since even his House salary was well above the average American’s income. Furthermore, studies show that low income people give a higher percentage of their income to charity than wealthy people do.
I take your point that we need to move left with the party in 2024 (did you see the Pew graphic I posted?) to avoid open revolt. But we need to look for someone who has consistently inhabited the “social-democratic” left wing, not someone who was over in Trotskyite land and then wandered back into the Democratic left after age 50.
Well Sanders did release his 2014 form 1040; what exactly has he failed to do?
Don’t see why. Whatever might be holding Sanders back from winning this, it ain’t his Trot past.
Character matters. Being in the habit of telling untruths, as Sanders has established himself to be in this, his first and likely only national level experience, and how you behave when called out on it, are issues of character. Do you take responsibility when you make a mistake or try to shift responsibility? When you are called out for divisive statements you and/or your management have made so you blame the media for gossip-mongering by asking you about it and insist that despite having said those things you really only want to "talk about the issues … [transition into standard campaign talking points, Make America Great Again or whthaveyou]
Meanwhile after his false quote and claim of Clinton not being qualified, and his repetition of the lie the next day, he has walked it back some today - on TODAY. Of note to the character issue - given a softball set up that assumed he had made an honest mistake about what she had said, he still does not admit to any error, even over-reaction, or take any responsibility for his lie. Nope, the problem was that the Clinton campaign has changed their tone and Washington Post ran a headline and “we responded” [blah blah] … but, when pressed “on her worst day she will be, she would be, [quick correction :)] an infinitely better president than either of the Republican candidates.” And finally when pressed “She’s qualified?” “Of course.”
Weak sauce but let’s move along until his next “untruth” anyway. Doubt we will need to wait long with his current tempo.
If so, what of it? He’s still the most honest candidate running, i.e., the skinniest guy at fat camp.
That statement is, of course, up for dispute.