You might not like Bernie Sanders, or you might even hate him
by the sounds of how he gets bashed relentlessly here. Some of the hatred expressed towards him on this forum is ridiculous, shameful, and sounds as if it's coming from the mouths of right-wing neocons, not Democrats.
The thing is, over all of his years of service to this country, Bernie Sanders has been as much or more of a Democrat in spirit as just about anyone else in Congress.
More that a few people think that if more Democrats running for office were just like Bernie, we wouldn't be in the pathetic situation we are in right now with Republicans controlling everything. Sometimes that harsh reality is a little hard to take.
= new reply since forum marked as read
It serves NO good purpose to say such things about the Democratic party. It only causes division and distrust. It WEAKENS the Democratic party, it doesn't strengthen it. He should be CALLED OUT on those lies. He should not be defended for it.
My ignoring him or ignoring his faithful followers won't prevent or undo the damage being caused. It's best that I (and other LOYAL and ACTUAL Democrats) stand ready to defend the Democratic party from the denigrating lies, smears and attacks.
Nobody is "bashing" Bernie. You know perfectly well that I'm not "bashing" Bernie. What I am doing is posting the truth about of the effects of the smears and attacks and lies in his backhanded insults of Democrats and the Democratic party.
Are you defending his comments that the Democratic party is not the party of the working class? Do you believe him when he says that the Democratic party is the party of the "one-percent"?
Both things are blatantly false. Both are divisive. Both harm the party. If he's going to make those false claims, he may has well have said something like: "there's no difference between the GOP and the Democratic party" (or some other nonsense like that).
Things like that DO cause damage. I'll stand by my statements that that type of rhetoric serves no good purpose and is a catalyst for distrust and resentment.
That's not "bashing" Bernie. I'm calling out what he said. I'm pointing out how damaging it is. I'm telling the TRUTH!
Most politicians have a "yay-me" page (even if subtle or modest) to humbly boast of their accomplishments... either on their campaign website, or their official dot-gov page. Is there a list somewhere?
Like he has an ego or something.
... what are HIS major legislative accomplishments? 
There's no telling the content or feasibility of "introduced" bills that go nowhere. Also, how many of those "introduced" were re-introductions of previously failed bills?
357 bills introduced by Sanders - 167 went nowhere (357-190)
190 were considered by committee - 178 never made it out of committee (190-12)
12 were considered by the floor - 9 total failed
1 failed one chamber
6 passed one chamber
3 passed both chambers, went to the President, and became law
S. 885 (113th): A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 35 Park Street in Danville, Vermont, as the “Thaddeus Stevens Post Office”.
H.R. 5245 (109th): To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1 Marble Street in Fair Haven, Vermont, as the “Matthew Lyon Post Office Building”.
The bottom line is that of the 357 introduced only 3 became law - success rate of only 0.8%
called Waffles at Noon.
Does that apply to everyone? 
I'm sure that you have some ideas for certain Democratic leaders who are seem to have their own "DU umbrage brigade" for 'failing' to do a job that's actually somene elses, but suddenly becomes theirs the minute they irritate the "brigade."
Did I call it, or what?
The sudden nonchalance is quite funny. But glad to see you tried to follow my advice.
All I'm saying is that it really serves no good purpose to take the boasting and bragging to such extreme levels when those things can be easily disproved. It's even more absurd when this type of cheerleading comes on the heels of the extremely divisive and completely false smears and attacks on Democrats and the Democratic party.
It's a complete lie for anyone to try and claim that the Democratic party is the party of the "one-percent". It's also a lie for anyone to claim that the Democratic party is no longer the party of the working class. How can I trust or respect anyone who'd say such things?
It's clear that this type of divisive rhetoric not only harms the Democratic party, but it also tarnishes the reputation of the ones who tell the lie and repeat the lie. That's all I'm saying.
In contrast (and in my opinion) BEING a co-sponsor to someone else's bill is just jumping on to endorse it after it has been crafted and developed by others.
All I'm saying here is that's no measure of actual legislative work or efficacy. It's a meaningless metric to bandy about as if it actually means something. Movie critics who sign-on, recommend and give their "thumbs-up" seal of approval to current releases aren't credited with any awards the ACTUAL writer, director, and producer receive.
They've signed-on to SO MANY OSCAR WINNING MOVIES!!!
Introducing a bill can only be considered an "accomplishment", if only the introduction is the goal.
Most would agree, however, that the goal of a legislator is getting legislation passed.
All I'm saying is that I think we ought to hold our legislators to higher standards. I think everyone can agree that's a good thing.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357/report-card/2016
What I'm saying is, the conflicts between the two are very interesting to me. Thanks for sharing it.
Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2018, 07:08 AM - Edit history (1)
you want to go back to 2013 when Bernie first put his Medicare for All proposal forward with no co-sponsors that was still after Ted had died.
for every thing there is a season.
As for Medicare for All it will pass or it won't but Bernie isn't misrepresenting anything about it, he's upfront with what the plan will do.
Sanders is a staunch supporter of a universal health care system, and has said, "If you are serious about real healthcare reform, the only way to go is single-payer." [280] He advocates lowering the cost of drugs that are expensive because they remain under patent for years; some drugs that cost thousands of dollars per year in the U.S. are available for hundreds, or less, in countries where they can be obtained as generics.[281] As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging, Sanders has introduced legislation to reauthorize and strengthen the Older Americans Act, which supports Meals on Wheels and other programs for seniors.[282] He supported the Affordable Care Act, though he felt it didn't go far enough.[283]
On May 4, 2017, in response to the House vote to repeal and replace The Affordable Care Act, Sanders predicted "thousands of Americans would die" from no longer having access to health care.[284] Politifact rated Sanders's statement "mostly true".[285]
In September 2017, Sanders and 15 Senate co-sponsors submitted the "Medicare for All" bill, a single-payer health care plan. The bill also covers vision and dental care, unlike Medicare. Some Republicans have called the bill "Berniecare" and "the latest Democratic push for socialized medicine and higher taxes." Sanders responded that the Republican party has no credibility on the issue of health care after voting for legislation that would take health insurance away from 32 million people under the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare".[286]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
As for Traficant after the Republicans came to power in 1995 he voted more often with that party than the Democrats so I imagine it would've been easier for him to accumulate a higher ratio of passed roll call amendments in a shorter period of time. When you go with the flow of power instead of standing up against it, that can be a snap.
After the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, Traficant tended to vote more often with the Republicans than with his own party. On the issue of abortion, Traficant voted with the position of the National Right to Life Committee 95% of the time in the 105th Congress, and 100% of the time in the 106th and 107th Congresses. However, he voted against all four articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. After he voted for Republican Dennis Hastert for Speaker of the House in 2001, the Democrats stripped him of his seniority and refused to give him any committee assignments. Because the Republicans did not assign him to any committees either, Traficant became the first member of the House of Representatives in over a century—outside the top leadership—to lack a single committee assignment.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Traficant
And I find it interesting that you think being an effective legislator is a "poor barometer" for consideration as the chief of the executive branch, who needs to work with all branches. That's what Trump supporters say is great about him - he's "not a politician."
You left out a few key words
The reader will need to determine whether they believe these issues and policies are on the right side of history.
My point is that "legislative effectiveness;" as you post in and of itself as to whether a candidate could be a good/great President is/is not on the right side of history being a poor barometer.
I never said Bernie wasn't a politician but nice try.
I don't put legislative accomplishment in and of itself as the main barometer of how one will do as president. I pointed that out in my support of Obama and HRC.
However, a poor legislative record should not be ignored - especially if they are campaigning on passing legislation, and especially if they are campaigning on legislation that they (and others) have failed to implement.
Is that clearer?
Paul Wellstone introduced Single Payer in 1993 (he knew better than to call it "Medicare for All"
- and Wellstone ended up supporting Hillary's plan. Why do you think that was? Perhaps it was the defeat of California's single payer ballot initiative by a margin of 73 to 27 percent? Perhaps he and Ted had the skill and insight to learn from and incorporate new data?
And yes, you need to qualify the "Roll Call Amendment King" as I pointed out. To me, that says more about Bernie not being able to work with legislators on the actual crafting of the legislation that he wants to amend.
Actually, by calling it "Medicare for All," it is being misrepresented, however good a marketing ploy it is. Here is that link again, in case you missed it:
https://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/05/voters-who-like-medicare-for-all-may-not-like-single-payer.html
How about this: When one responds to the criticism of a candidate's lack of legislative success that it's a positive, (or not to "go with the flow of power') one is presenting the same praise that Trump supporter use to support Trump.
See also: if you want a colonoscopy, you don't go to a plumber. (and before you go there, no, I'm not referring to anyone specifically. It's called a metaphor)
Is that clearer?
has done exceptionally well within the system such as it is where big money for decades has literally dominated government.
Apparently Democrats also believe he has done well as an overwhelming majority would prefer their Congressperson to be more like Bernie.
MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS WANT CANDIDATES TO BE MORE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS, POLL FINDS
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders might have lost his 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he certainly won a number of supporters along the way.
To wit: A new poll released Wednesday by YouGov showed that a majority of Democrats want candidates in 2018 to be more like the independent, democratic socialist candidate.
The polling firm asked: "Do you wish the candidates who run for Congress this year will be more or less like Bernie Sanders?"
A full 57 percent of Democratic respondents said "more like Bernie Sanders" in response. Sixteen percent said less while 27 percent responded "not sure." Not surprisingly, Sanders was less popular with conservatives. Only 13 percent of Republicans said they wanted candidates to be more like Sanders, while 74 percent said less. Independents were split. Twenty-seven percent said more like Sanders, while 35 percent said less, and 38 percent said "not sure."
https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democrats-want-candidates-more-bernie-sanders-poll-1019025
I don't care whether one calls it Medicare for All, single payer or a ham sandwich so long as every American has quality health care as a right, not a privilege.
But in fact it would be an improved form of Medicare.
Again, in case you missed it.
Bernie has done good works whether you wish to admit it or not.
Look a the definition you posted.
My statement was that Bernie Sanders has a poor record among sitting Senators for roll call votes, as per the source that you quoted. In what way did you discredit that? You simply tried to rebut and defend Sanders' record by saying that Senators who campaigned for POTUS and were no longer sitting Senators had "the same thing" happen to their records - having their roll call record fall to the worst in the Senate (which is whataboutism) - except for McCain, who, contrary to your initial claim, the stats show actually has a better record on roll call votes than Sanders despite two presidential runs - one as the nominee - and cancer. Looks like your original claim about him is what has been discredited here. * Reading a post thoroughly before firing off a snippy, self-congratulatory, yet not so accurate rebuttal is a good practice to adopt. Less embarassing.
Perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone elses? Maybe you were "discrediting" another member of the "DU umbrage brigade" which at this point you seem to be at least a Colonel...
Or attacking yet another strawman?
But hey, I thought this stuff and Bernie himself are suddenly "meh" to you, right? You sure seem to have some umbrage, tho.
*See previously cited links.
All I'm trying to say is that as far as this discussion is concerned, it's really irrelevant and it really doesn't help your case to cling so tightly to that disclaimer. That's all.
What did you ask?
You sure responded pretty quickly to a question from Jackie (not directed to you, BTW) about what Sanders' legislative acheivements were with the posts below -as a clear rebuttal to NJ that Sanders' legislative efficacy wasn't what many people seem to think, which indicates that you seem to think that it is indeed important:
LMGFTY
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10924029
Last Try:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10925129
Interesting you didn't whip out Conservative pundit Norm Ornstein's quote until after attempted defenses of his legislative record as great were shot down with fact checking. Are you a fan or Ornstein? And then I pointed out, more than once, that bills being passed isn't the only indicator of an effective legislator. Indeed I gave you a tool that took many things into account. Yet you keep on accusing anyone who critiques Bernie's actual activity as a legislator of "having that as the only goalpost," of being a legislator. You get defensive when I point out that he has the worst attendance record of roll call votes of any current Senator, and you try to pass that off (incorrectly stating that it happened with McCain..."
Now I await the rebuttal about actually being there to vote isn't an important or relevant metric for gauging the performance of a legislator, and accuse me of "making that the only goalpost.."
Yes, you wrote this, trying to equate a single earmark on a bill with crafting and passing full legislation, and expressing exasperation with anyone who doesn't as being unreasonable:
Not mine. as you have clearly been shown. Strawman much?
Look you like him, we get that. Just own it. His record as a legislator isn't what matters to you - so don't try to defend it, then when it's fact checked, switch course and say that it isn't really important.
28 years in Congress, total bills signed into law dismal by my count
"Amendment king" will pop up soon.
Just when the majority of it seems to be prior to what they have been doing for the past 25 years, that's not really a 'mixed bag."
It's more of a topheavy "long ago in another job" bag.
Calm down, Git.
"I know you are but what am I?"
What next, booger flicking?
... but I'll just leave it at that for obvious reasons.
All I'm saying is that DEFENDING the Democratic party against lies and smears is NOT "attacking Bernie".
But here's something that I positively DO understand: LOYAL DEMOCRATS DEFEND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Yet in doing so, we are accused of being divisive. Go figure.
If he should deliver, a substantial amount of "bashing" will disappear.
It is beyond irresponsible to avoid addressing this attack and instead revert to attacking Democrats like nothing has changed or been learned since 2016. He should be talking about the Mueller indictments. He should be explaining his votes on those two pieces of legislation.
Thanks for pointing those votes out. 
Shouted what the lefties want to hear....
Just like someone else shouted what the rightie tighties wanted to hear...
We cannot give everything to the poor just like we can’t give everything to the rich...
...they behaved in an ageist and misogynist manner to older female party stalwarts. We have film of that, you know.
But thank you for your correction of me, another old lady Democrat. I will take it to heart.
Bernie is a hot button and DUers have varying degrees of support/tolerance/resentment for him.
The enemy are the GOP traitors and fascists.
I know it well. An open and welcoming place.
So kind of you to say so.
Thanks~
of being anti-Semitic. IIRC, s/he also railed against "identity politics." 
Aaaand.... total silence. Figures.
All I'm saying is this, if someone is going to criticize others about something, they ought to make damn sure they're not actually guilty themselves. When someone does that, they open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy or of playing the "gaslighting" game.
Looks like George II's comments have hit a sensitive nerve. Good.
He's correct, you know. All the "whatabouts" in the world won't change the fact that he's right on target with his comments and observations..
I knew I'd get a LOL!
It's been so long, yet the petty bitterness and grudge-holding continues. How odd it is that LOYAL DEMOCRATS who defend and support the Democratic Party are the ones accused of "attacking" or being "bitter" or being unable to "let go".
All I'm saying is this, if someone is going to criticize others about something, they ought to make damn sure they're not actually guilty themselves. When someone does that, they open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy or of playing the "gaslighting" game.
?itemid=6233732
in 2018 is revenge. You know, the gospel according to JPR (they still call Democrats "Hillbots" ).
For saying something nice about the Sanders group. I really mean that. So much unnecessary and undeserved hatred here. It’s depressing. Good to see a kind word.
I agree with you 100%
Thanks, Josh. You are a good person. 
what protections there are on the jury rules that apply to Bernie.
Are you advocating closing your own group down?
I doubt it would ease vitriol to block it, would probably cause some people to get mad.
But it's unclear to me if easing vitriol is something you advocate or not.
So I don't know if you advocate shutting down your own group.
You do realize, what he's actually saying is the equivalent of "there's no difference between the Democrats or Republicans". That's what Nader said. That's what Sarandon said. That's what Stein said.
It's divisive. It's harmful. It weakens the party. It causes distrust and resentment. It benefits ONLY the GOP.
Why is that okay with you? Why are you defending it and pretending like these types of baseless smears are anything other than divisive and harmful?
... that's all. Nobody is falling for it anymore.
mind. Mind reader!
Beautiful Aloha Message I love it!.. you inspired me. I actually have this poster in my hale.
Perfect! 
*Crickets!*
Oh, never mind.
It works really well!
Ain't it so!
Is people complaining and whining about how other people don't like Bernie.
When he LIES about the Democratic Party like that, it causes division and distrust. That WEAKENS the party. Why would he want to weaken the Democratic Party?
Who benefits when the Democratic party is divided and distrustful of each other? Who benefits when the Democratic party is weakened?
Honest questions. What good purpose does it serve for him to denigrate and attack the party (and its leaders and its loyal members) like that?
love BS' message that "the Democratic Party is for the 1% and not working people".. they thought they were.. so why not have some people believing both sides do it.
BS needs to be held accountable for this.
if they're hypocritical or Not true.. he will continue to send them out no matter how much our Democratic Party needs to TAKE BACK the HOUSE!
I can imagine how our Democratic Leaders who are fighting the Fascism on the front lines feel about him and his *********** message.
Party for being only for the "1%".. We're NOT going to roll over and accept his disingenuously marginalizing our Party at this Crucial Time in History.
There are all kinds of Dems across the Country Fighting to TAKE the HOUSE BACK with what works in their District.. think Conor Lamb and incumbent Eliot Engel in NY District 16..
For Democrats Challenging Party Incumbents, Insurgency Has Its Limits
snip//
Nancy Pelosi, the minority leader of the House of Representatives, recently made an appearance with Mr. Engel in his district and praised him profusely. “We couldn’t be better served than by Eliot Engel,” she said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/21/nyregion/congress-primaries-democrats-midterm-ny.html
"it’s the establishment wing of the Democratic Party that is having a good 2018. And, more important, it’s having a good year in the places that matter most this November."
"What about those other 19 primaries, where the establishment Democrat won? There are a lot more congressional battlegrounds in that group, 11 in total, including 5 true tossups."
snip// from your link..
But the stories this week about the surprising power of the left side of the party may have overstated the case a bit.
Going by the numbers, it’s the establishment wing of the Democratic Party that is having a good 2018. And, more important, it’s having a good year in the places that matter most this November.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/bernie-sanders-backed-nominees-score-wins-longshot-races-n888071
MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS WANT CANDIDATES TO BE MORE LIKE BERNIE SANDERS, POLL FINDS
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders might have lost his 2016 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but he certainly won a number of supporters along the way.
To wit: A new poll released Wednesday by YouGov showed that a majority of Democrats want candidates in 2018 to be more like the independent, democratic socialist candidate.
The polling firm asked: "Do you wish the candidates who run for Congress this year will be more or less like Bernie Sanders?"
A full 57 percent of Democratic respondents said "more like Bernie Sanders" in response. Sixteen percent said less while 27 percent responded "not sure." Not surprisingly, Sanders was less popular with conservatives. Only 13 percent of Republicans said they wanted candidates to be more like Sanders, while 74 percent said less. Independents were split. Twenty-seven percent said more like Sanders, while 35 percent said less, and 38 percent said "not sure."
https://www.newsweek.com/majority-democrats-want-candidates-more-bernie-sanders-poll-1019025
Thanks for the thread mtnsnake
What doesn't surprise me, though, are the results of the poll that you posted. For more than a few years, more and more Democrats have been wishing that our candidates would get much tougher on Republicans than they have been instead of taking the high road. Sometimes you just have to get down and fight fire with fire and get real testy with them, kind of like what Bernie does. He was the first campaigner to use the L word when he pasted Trump by publicly calling him a pathological liar. Stuff like that commands respect among the voters.
Oh, and you're welcome.
Have a good night and peace to you mtnsnake.
likewise, Uncle Joe.
We gotta get together real quick. We've got the midterms of our lives coming.
107. I live in California. Sadly, since my state votes overwhelmingly for Democrats
but thanks to the electoral college, only a portion of the votes count, my vote is irrelevant and superfluous.
So your vote is irrelevant. Then go on to say...
California may have voted overwhelmingly for Hill, however you say "WE". Sorry, you have stated many times on this thread and others the you Did NOT Vote For Hillary! So, yes, California did, you did not. I am amazed you state that so freely here at Democratic Underground.
Yikes. You are registering new voters in a state where you say a Democrats vote does not count and is irrelevant and superfluous. Why are you even bothering? Do you tell them upfront that their vote does not matter? I am confused by your conflicting beliefs.
Thanks, Sophia.
Thank you.
Well for sure, continuing to to lecture us about how bad we are because we don't like Bernie peeing in our pool is BOUND ot make us change our minds!
only hardliners hate him.. & they are a small but loud contingent..
The rest of us, think things are moving along splendidly...
His sixties experiences are golden, political parties are for little people, loving Bernie means never having to say you're sorry, gives permission to move fast and break things, to be here now, etc etc. I suppose you could also say he's very American. Yes I have boomer relatives and they love Bernie from left and right. Anyway that's my take, YMMV
That's a thoughtful response and I'm going to think about it for the rest of the day!
Your post made me reflect on the Bernie-Hillary divide which has always exasperated me. How can people be so blind I always wonder? But the fact is that I felt the same way about Barack and Hillary ten years ago. I also have warm memories of the Clintons from the 90s and that's what clicked and turned me into a Hill supporter. I met Bill at a rally in 92 and tried to get my now-wife to shake his hand but she was too scared LOL! And then I finally got the chance myself when he was back here campaigning for Hillary. So I guess we're all on different paths but headed in the same direction. And this is very enlightening!
