Robert Reich: 4 Recurring Criticisms of Bernie Sanders and Why They're Wrong

[kenn3d]

Here are the 4 recurring criticisms of Bernie Sanders by the mainstream media, and why they're wrong:

1. He doesn't appeal to Latinos and blacks. Wrong. As his name recognition and message grow, Latinos and blacks are joining up because they recognize he's talking about the toxic interaction between racism and economic inequality. Last night's Sanders event in Los Angeles included large numbers of Latinos and blacks.

2. He's too far to the left to appeal to mainstream voters. Wrong again. Many who consider themselves conservatives are just as outraged by crony capitalism and abuses of power. Sanders is helping give life to an encompassing progressive movement to take economic and political power away from an elite that's rigged the system against the vast majority.

3. He's too old. Nonsense. He's only five years older than Hillary Clinton and two years older than Joe Biden, and anyone who's watched him zip around the country these past few months (usually by commercial aircraft) and give thunderous speeches know he's strong and vital.

4. He can't be elected. That's what they said about John F. Kennedy, referring to his Catholicism, and Barack Obama, referring to his race and his name. The "can't be elected" mantra is meaningless this early in the race anyway.
What do you think?

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/31789-4-recurring-criticisms-of-bernie-sanders-and-why-theyre-wrong

[truedelphi]

1. A big and hearty REC !! n/t

[dsc]

2. Kennedy barely got elected

and his Catholicism is why it was a barely got elected situation. I am not sure using Kennedy as your example here is a great idea.

[99th_Monkey]

3. Barely elected AKA actually elected, AKA elected a historically awesome POTUS at that

which makes Kennedy a perfect example, because no one's saying
Bernie's going to be a 'shoo-in' are they? That's what some peeps
do say about Hillary, but I haven't hear that about Bernie.

[dsc]

7. I think he is overrated as a President

but that is for another day. But what he is supposed to be an example of in this thread is electability. And he isn't a great example of that. He didn't get 50% of the vote for example. Nixon actually contested the election for awhile which shows just how close it was. Oh, and one of the ways he got elected. He cooked up a fake missle gap. Not entirely sure we should be using that example.

[zipplewrath]

15. Third Party candidate

Kennedy "barely won" because of a significant third party candidate known as Strom Thurmond, who ran on a "dixiecrat" ticket and took a significant number of electoral votes away from Kennedy in the otherwise "solid south".

I'm presuming Clinton won't be mounting a third party (Way?) campaign so I don't really think this would be an issue for Sanders.

[99th_Monkey]

16. +100 nt

[dsc]

17. unless Thurmond's candidacy actually helped Kennedy

and not Nixon. 1960 was the first race that our side actually went for, and got, the AA vote (Kennedy responded to while Nixon ignored the Letter from a Birmingham jail). I don't think those who voted for Thurmond would be likely to turn out for a Catholic who was appealing to the AA vote.

[zipplewrath]

71. Because we desegregated the party

The dems got the AA vote because they had spend the later part of the '50 desegregating the democratic party. They forced the southern states to allow AA delegates. There were huge floor fights over it with alternate slates of delegates. It is the reason the Thurmond candidacy existed at all. It was still the "solid south" and it wasn't going to be voting for a republican. They may not have turned out to vote for a Catholic, but they weren't gonna vote GOP. In then end, those Electoral votes would have gone for a democrat because the few that would have voted, would have voted for the democrat.

[SusanaMontana41]

66. Papa Joe had a lot to do with that. n/t

[99th_Monkey]

20. My point is that many (if not most) winners of elections, win closely --or 'barely' if you must.

.. as others are pointing out., there are many examples of close, so what's
the point of nit-pickingly singling out Kennedy ?

[dsc]

26. 1960 was the third or maybe 2nd closed presidential election post ww2

2000 was closer, 48 might have been (I would have to look up which of those was closer), and then 1960. By comparison Carter's close race was a landslide. There are lots of qualities one can extol about JFK in 1960, being a champion of electibility isn't one of them.

[99th_Monkey]

28. OK, we totally disagree, and that's OK.

No ones called JFK a 'champion of electability' but you, as a straw-man to
more easily knock down.

[rhett o rick]

55. I will accept Sen Sanders "close" victory. We can't afford another 8 Fracking years of

Goldman-Sachs and the Wall Street Banksters. Are you on the side of Wall Fracking Street? Don't bother with an answer, it's rhetorical.

[dsc]

61. and what if he loses instead

somehow I doubt you'll be divorcing your spouse or giving up your marital rights if the SCOTUS goes GOP. But I know my rights are way, way, way less important than your issues. I also doubt you'll be giving up your right to have health care, including reproductive health care, but again your issues are way, way more important. I doubt it will be your votes that won't be counted due to voter id laws, but again your issues are way, way, way more important.

[kenfrequed]

73. Some polls

Have Sanders actually performing better than Hillary in the battle ground states.

[dsc]

83. actually if by some, you mean none, then you are correct

In some polls his net favorable is higher than hers but in no poll, not a single, solitary poll has he been shown to perform better in a head to head against any GOP candidate in any state or any national poll. Not one.

[kenfrequed]

86. I should have been more specific

I was talking about favorability. Clinton has higher negative unfavorability in a few of the swing states.

This, by the way, is going to mean that battleground states are going to be harder to win should she be the candidate.

[TM99]

75. And what if Clinton barely loses.

A loss is a loss. A win is a win.

[Armstead]

88. That "what if s/he loses" can be applied to any candidate in any election

It all depends on the zeitgeist, the candidate and a whole host of unforeseen factors. It's all a gamble. Who could have foreseen Obama's success early in the primaries?

Hillary, Biden, et. al. are no more a shoo-in than Sanders. It is quite possible that in a centrist Clinton v. Bush race, it could result in enough voters wanting a "change" to go for Bush (ironically) simply because he's not a Democrat associated with President Obama. It's also possible that if a Sanders (or other true reform/change candidate) went up against Jeb, voters wanting a change would choose Sanders over a stale retread of the Bush dynasty.

Many different variables are possible. Sanders has already shown that he is capable of inspiring a whole lot of people. Whether he can reach out further to the "moderates" or "swing" voters or minorities can only be determined over time as the primaries get rolling.

Obviously we all can choose which candidate we prefer. But I think the process ought to be allowed to proceed before totally dismissing the "electability" of Sanders or O'Malley or assuming anything about the guaranteed electability of Clinton (or perhaps Biden).

PLUS: Disparaging those who support Sanders on the basis of "you don't care about minority rights" is just bogus.

[m-lekktor]

30. I think he is too. I think the whole family is heavily overrated.

and the whole Camelot thing was total bullshit.

[dsc]

32. I would hardly go that far

but JFK cut taxes, increased military spending, and got stalled on Civil Rights. On the plus side he is why we got the moon, laid the legal groundwork for Civil Rights, and kept us from nuclear war.

[pocoloco]

50. LOfuckingL

You must not have been present during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

[sabrina 1]

64. He got elected, despite the claims of 'not electable'. Bernie has been elected numerous times

and against odds that many though he could not overcome in his state. He's a fighter, he takes on challenges and seems to enjoy doing so.

To say someone who HAS been elected over and over again is 'un-electable' is laughable.

[napi21]

5. OK, then use

Reagan...he's an ACTOR for god sake!

"W" will Never be re-elected because nobody liked his first term!

Bill Clinton...his unacceptable behavior with LOTS of different women will bury him!

[dsc]

11. our side underestimated Reagan at our peril

you do have that right.

[frylock]

19. your side is underestimating Sanders

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

37. That will only make the schadenfreude better

[BeanMusical]

40. Lol, well said.

[rhett o rick]

56. Your side is ok with a growing poverty rate and infant mortality rate. There

are two sides in this class war and Wall Street won't love you in the morning.

[Aerows]

60. Love you in the morning?

They will get up in the middle of the night and steal enough money from you for cab fare!

[cali]

4. great stuff.

[restorefreedom]

6. reich nails it again

the "he can't win because..." myth is dying a quick and merciful death.

[daybranch]

79. Now if we could get these other myths out of our history books

1. Columbus was a great explorer and instead explain how he worked for the 2 percent to find gold and killed indians who could not deliver it fast enough
2. George Washington was a great General who loved his men when in fact he had officers paid at 7 times the rate, and only delivered food and clothing at Valley Forge only to prevent an insurrection. He cared little for the common soldier and always tore them down in private letters.
3.We had Jamestown and Pocahontas and things went smoothly until the period just before the revolution, when in actuality a brutal system supporting the king and the rich was established that so impoverished the Jamestown majority that man turned to cannibalism to avoid starvation while the rich did well.
4.The revolutionary war was fought for freedom and democracy , when in reality the soldiers were usually very poor conscripts and the revolutionary war mainly used the poor as cannon fodder to wrest control form one rich class to the rich class of the colonies.
5. The cry of no taxation without representation was over the stamp Act, and taxes on business and commerce, when in actuality, the most hated taxes were those imposed on everyone to fund the Church of England in the colonies , an affront to the Presbyterians who already hated that church.
6. Abraham Lincoln was a poor man from Kentucky who supported abolishing slavery\very when in fact Lincoln only felt the need to free slaves when he felt the need for new soldiers as those already fighting were dying and numbers dwindling with little chance to increase conscription of poor whites bearing the battle at that point. Lincoln was certainly no abolitionist and spoke against them publicly.
7. Confederate soldiers fought for states rights and died in that valiant cause, when in actuality, Lee lost the war when he could not muster enough men by conscripting poor whites because they were unwilling to die for slave owners' luxury.
8. Racism is a southern derived phenomena after the Civil war when it was greatly embraced all over the North and the rationales supporting it developed to a great extent at Columbia University as white industrialists and former slave owners joined together to create greater wage slavery during reconstruction. The methods used are still used today by the oligarchy.
9.Oh heck read , the Peoples History of the United States for yourself. It is a masterpiece by Howard Zinn.

[restorefreedom]

84. great summary

of the masterful revisionism of the right.

[LWolf]

8. K & R

[bvf]

9. K&R! n/t

[appalachiablue]

10. K & R. The 'S' word will soon be deployed, sigh

[Zorra]

12. Recommend! nt

[bvar22]

13. I think.....

that your OP merits a DURec!

[cyberswede]

14. K&R nt

[AtomicKitten]

18. Correct! Thank you Robert Reich.

thanks for posting this

[Dont call me Shirley]

21. Robert Reich, always on target. He needs a cabinet position in the Sanders WH!

[haikugal]

22. Yes he does...he's great!

K&R! For the OP!

[azmom]

27. Bernie already has mentioned his name as

One of the people he would have in his administration. Reich is great.

[Dont call me Shirley]

34. That's good news!

[840high]

36. Yep

[HFRN]

54. Robert Reich can tell the truth, when he wants to

I respect him enough to believe that he always knows the truth, but his history shows his thumb is not always dry

[WillyT]

23. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[dirtydickcheney]

24. "He's Too Far to the Left"

Love this -

He's SOOOO FAR Left that a Majority of Voters agree with every position he's taken.

Interesting what passes for "too far left" these days.

[azmom]

25. k&R

[PatrickforO]

29. I think I want to Kick and Recommend this post!

[love_katz]

31. kick and rec

[Rockyj]

33. Didn't they say...Barack Obama

was unelectable?
He's African American
He middle name is Hussein
He hasn't been a Senator long enough
He's really a Muslim
He grew up in Kenya
He's too young
He's African American

[lordsummerisle]

35. k&r n/t

[KansDem]

38. Ronald Reagan was age 69 years, 349 days when inaugurated.

Just a few days shy of 70. He's the oldest president thus far.

I don't recall a lot of whining and moaning about his age.

[JI7]

39. against a republican he would have no trouble getting the obama voters

I think south carolina will be the major test for him. Even if he doesn't win a decent 2nd place would help in later states.

[imthevicar]

41. Robert seems like a nice guy BUT!

He's a shill for HRC!

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. "He's a shill for HRC" ...

while writing an OP supporting Bernie?

[imthevicar]

87. Read between the lines will ya.

No matter how he sounds his support it's always a littler more support for HRC. I can see when someone is hedging their bets.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. Ahhh ...

"I know what he SAID; but, I know what he REALLY meant" thing.

[imthevicar]

90. Ha, Ha, Your so Witty!

[1StrongBlackMan]

91. Not trying to be "witty" ...

just want to point out how ... {no acceptable words, but not wise} ... your statement is.

[BeanMusical]

42. Kick and R

[valerief]

43. Damn straight, Mr. Reich! Thanks. nt

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

44. K & R. Reich always seems to make a lot of sense.

I know he gets criticism here, but I think it's usually from conservadems, whose opinions I most often reject.

[Indepatriot]

45. Reich' in the bag for Sanders.

Aftrall, he worked for Bill Clin....uh, NEVERMIND....

[kenn3d]

46. Robert Reich's documentary film: Inequality for All

...He details many of his frustrations being Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton in his documentary film: "Inequality for All".

Available on Netflix and elsewhere, including - http://inequalityforall.com/
Highly recommended for insight into the man and his fiscal philosophy.


I think he'd be a very good fit for Bernie's cabinet.

[Indepatriot]

48. Great film! Should be required viewing for

High School Civics classes!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

47. Its just not about him,

its about us, were a movement.that's growing and gathering strength.

[hifiguy]

57. That it is not about him

is a point he pounds on relentlessly. One of the many reasons I love Bernie.

[Enthusiast]

49. K&R! This post should have hundreds of recommendations!

Hear me, Bernie supporters? Blast this!

[Skwmom]

51. Excellent post!

[beam me up scottie]

52. Kick and highly recommended!

We'll continue to see these talking points posted here despite the fact that they're ineffectual.

[HFRN]

53. it's absurd to say that mitigating economic inequality does not mitigate racism

given that the number one goal of people seeking economic independence is so that they don't have to give a damn about what anyone else thinks, (assuming that they respect and do not harm others) and can live their life in peace

that's true, no matter what color you are

[hifiguy]

58. It's as plain as a pikestaff.

Always has been. And anyone who says its not a huge part of the solution is speaking out their anal sphincter. Including a lot of DUers.

[rhett o rick]

59. Where did you get that bullcrap? Ayn Rand? You are on the wrong side of this class war.

Trying to sell Wall Street dominance by claiming opposing it is racist is very, very strange.

[HFRN]

69. i'm not even going to address that absurd twisting of my words

but i will point out that i used the word *mitigate*, not *solve*. that said, whenever I have a problem, I am interested in having it mitigated as well as solved

[uponit7771]

62. Agree with 2, 3, 4... disagree with number one. I'm watching Kerry now and unlike Kerry Sanders

... has decided to start a conversation with communities of color early on in his campaign.

That doesn't mean PoC didn't know Bernie, Bernie is just now starting a conversation with PoC...

He's evolved on a couple of issues that make sure he's not a Kerry 2.0 (meaning losing PoC votes)

[Paka]

63. Big K&R.

[No Vested Interest]

65. Someone needs to tell Chris Matthews these rebuttals.

He seems to be stuck on the term "socialist".
He sort of spits out the word "Socialist".

[Uncle Joe]

67. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kenn3d.

[The Wizard]

68. He speaks in complete sentences in plain English

about the real concerns of the people. He's a danger to the status quo, and he hasn't been selected by the corporate media. It's about time the media stopped selecting our political leaders.

[cascadiance]

70. If the Republicans would nominate someone like Eisenhower, I think all Democrats should be worried..

... but that boat has left the station a LONG time ago, and today's clown car that the Republicans have that are just bought slaves by billionaires with Citizen's United and McCutcheon money are SO far apart from what Americans want, that it really is hard to compare what Republicans would bring to the table even to many recent elections.

I think this is why Corporate Amerika is paying so much to try and get Hillary the nomination. If Bernie gets nominated, they know they are screwed. And inherited Joseph Stalin empire money won't help the Koch Brothers "label" Sanders to lose in a two-way race with Republicans that are so much more horribly out of touch with what Americans want. Most people will be wise enough to see through the labeling attempts.

Let's also not forget that arguably even Bill Clinton benefited from Ross Perot helping split the vote with George Bush Sr. to give him the presidency then too which he won on a plurality, not a majority as well. Some would argue that he lost votes to Perot too, but 19% of the votes going to Perot arguably just for both parties embracement of NAFTA shows how much of the electorate even then, which hadn't had as much economic devastation from a housing crash like we had in 2008, and now is faced with similar BS from both beltway Democrats and Republicans on TPA, TPP and other future trade bill BULLSHIT is hungry for a candidate that will stand against that. Sanders, unlike Perot, can win that segment in addition to the traditional Democratic Party votes too. Sanders in a general election I think is way underestimated now.

[totodeinhere]

74. Reich is right. Bernie is not far left. He is a mainstream progressive.

He prefers to use the word "socialist" but by that he means democratic socialist of the Western European variety. Whatever label you want to apply to him he is not way out in left field on the political spectrum by any means. In fact by European standards he would probably be considered a centrist or even center right.

[Roland99]

76. Robert Reich for VP!

[kenfrequed]

78. Actually...

That is better than the labor department which is what I was suggesting...

[kenfrequed]

77. We need Reich back working for the labor department

He has made great arguments and animated videos about some of the progressive economic changes that need to occur!

I think he would fit well in a Sanders administration.

[lewebley3]

80. Bernie is not Presidential material: He looks weak: He is not a leader

[SoapBox]

81. Thank you T-Rump supporter!

Because that is EXACTLY what Rump said.

But I guess that will be the next anti-Bernie meme.

Go Bernie!

[lewebley3]

82. Trump get somethings right: When its easy

[kenn3d]

85. Progressives are calling for Robert Reich to back Bernie Sanders

The former secretary of labor has been a longtime advocate of the progressive economic reforms which form a large portion of Sanders’ campaign platform and his critically acclaimed books beyond outrage and why liberals will win the battle for America have helped mobilize the progressive movement upon which the Sanders campaign is capitalizing. So why have we not seen his official endorsement of Bernie on the front page of CNN?

--- the answer is found in the article---

Nonetheless, Reich made sure to sneak a de-facto endorsement of Sanders into his explanation of why he couldn’t give an official endorsement by saying “But let me say I think highly of Bernie, agree with just about everything he says and stands for, and am thrilled he’s in the race. His voice and conviction have already added immeasurably to the national conversation about America’s staggering inequality and what we must do about it. And I’m encouraged that apparently so many of you are backing him.”

Progressives would do well to acknowledge this statement of support and focus their attention on securing endorsements from figures like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who can do so freely.

https://www.the-newshub.com/us-politics/progressives-are-calling-for-robert-reich-to-back-bernie-sanders